*****************************************************************
02/25/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.46
*****************************************************************
   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 AU ABC: Rice warns Congress not to interfere in Iraq war. 
2 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Defends Iraq War, Attacks Critics 
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran declares nuclear programme irreversible 
4 AFP: Top Iranian nuclear negotiator in South Africa to meet Mbeki -
5 AFP: Most US intelligence on Iran inaccurate - 
6 AFP: World powers struggle to bridge gulf on Iran nuclear issue - 
7 Guardian Unlimited: US accused of drawing up plan to bomb Iran 
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Envoy Blasts U.S., U.K., Israel 
9 The Observer: Iran calls for talks before new sanctions 
10 YN: Opposition's presidential aspirants demand re-negotiation of war
11 BBC NEWS: Cheney renews US warning on Iran
12 AFP: US aircraft carrier has no plans to 'intimidate Iran' - 
13 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan PM Urges Diplomacy With Iran
14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI makes document available to IAEA
15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Vows Talks if Iran Halts Nuke Plans 
16 Reuters: U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran - report 
17 UPI: Israel denies reported Iran attack plan
18 UPI: Iranian rocket test 'wake up' call
19 UPI: IAEA distrusts U.S. information on Iran
20 UPI: Cheney hints at possible strike on Iran
21 UPI: Report: Generals might quit over Iran
22 AFP: Iran ready for both 'talks and war' with US 
23 AFP: Iran says fires first rocket into space 
24 AFP: Israel denies seeking US go-ahead for Iran strike 
25 AFP: Israel seeks US green light for Iran attack - report - 
26 YONHAP NEWS: Foreigners consider N.K. nuke biggest obstacle to impro
27 IAEA: Dr. ElBaradei Accepts Invitation to Visit North Korea
28 UPI: El Baradei to visit North Korea
29 Korea Times: Korea to Reclaim Wartime Military Control in April 2012
30 US: TCPalm: Florida can take action now to chart a new energy path
31 US: Economic Times: No warmth, energy comes first 
32 HindustanTimes.com: 'March crucial for Indo-US N-deal'
33 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush breathes new life into Reagan's dream
34 US: Spectrum: Divine Strake bites the dust
35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Columnist unfairly criticized Divine Strake
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: A lot of people gave their all to nuke Divine
37 Scotsman.com News: Rally hears calls for 'son of Trident' to be axed
38 Guardian Unlimited: The compelling case that confrontation is still 
39 Guardian Unlimited: Government denies nuclear hypocrisy 
40 Guardian Unlimited: Why can't MPs see the folly of Trident? 
41 Guardian Unlimited: Can we join the Star Wars club? Blair lobbies 
42 Guardian Unlimited: Thousands take part in anti-war rallies 
43 Times of India: NPT was discriminatory - Kalam-
44 The State: Pontificating Putin pushes Graham toward energy platform
45 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Unlikely allies united on Trident
46 BBC NEWS: Call for 1bn defence budget cut
47 Hindustan Times.com: Pakistan inks safeguard pact with IAEA
48 London Times: Diplomats seek to halt nuclear train ;with no brakes
49 Daily Times: Pakistan decries nuclear proliferation on false pretenc
50 Antiwar Radio: Fear Stupid Acts - by Charley Reese
51 Antiwar.com: Yet Another Famous Victory - 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
52 The Hindu: Pak. inks pact with IAEA for Chashma nuke plant
53 US: MyWestTexas.com: UTPB nuclear reactor project moving ahead
54 US: KIPLINGER'S: Exelon: Nuclear Powerhouse 
55 US: MHNN: Ulster lawmakers go on record on Indian Point
56 US: ContraCostaTimes.com: Nuclear power only solution
57 US: Arizona Republic : Nuclear station's challenges laid out
58 US: FresnoBee.com: Bill McEwen: No nuclear plant in my backyard, tha
59 Earth Times: Government says no to entrepreneur's nuclear technology
60 Green Left: Inconvenient truths about the environmental crisis
61 US: Tucson Citizen: Nuke operator became complacent 
62 US: Santa Fe New Mexican: House temporarily tables power-plant bill
63 US: CAl Legis: Devore introduced bill to bypass 1976 block on new re
64 US: Gainesville Sun: Could Levy reactor repeat Crystal River's succe
65 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point acted fast to keep aberrant engineer 
66 Rutland Herald: Countries phasing out nuclear energy
67 US: APP.COM: Top nuclear engineer favors closing of Oyster Creek pla
68 US: APP.COM: DEP yanks staffer who monitors Oyster Creek 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
69 US: Desert Greens: Green Party of Utah Celebrate Cancellation of Div
70 US: Guardian Unlimited: 1,000 join Bin the Bomb protest 
71 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Divine victory: Downwinders 1, Federal Govern
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
72 American Centrifuge Piketon, Ohio
73 US: PE: Hearing set to find perchlorate blame | Riverside 
74 US: StockInterview.com: Record Number of Bidders Attend US$85/Pound 
75 US: AU ABC: Gillard backs uranium mining. 
76 US: ABC4.com: Protestors take anti-nuke message to Governor's house 
77 US: Gallup Independent: Foes debate risks of uranium mining
78 US: The State: Nuclear waste landfill tour opened to public
79 US: The Sun News: Visit to nuclear facility fought
80 US: The State: Barnwell dump defines what kind of state we are
81 US: The State: Earlier acts from Chem-Nuclear play
82 US: Courier News: Morris eyed for nuclear recycling
83 BBC NEWS: Bosses slammed over nuclear leak
84 US: thewest.com.au: Gillard backs expanding uranium mining
85 US: WA: Time to back off uranium sales: Greens
86 US: Sunday Times: Uranium goes nuclear-
87 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Retain oversight
88 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Oversight remains
89 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: With GNEP, it's deja vu all over again
90 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Leaders want big turnout at GNEP meeting
91 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Opponents call for governor to veto EnergySol
92 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Public input sought on new nuke facility in
93 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Southern Ohio Neighbors Group opposes nuke 
94 US: Reporter online.com: How temporary will storage be?
 
                           PEACE
 
95 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Protesters make Bin the Bomb plea
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
96 lamonitor.com: Hearings this week on DOE reactor plan
97 NB: Energy Secretary to Tour Savannah River Site Tritium Extraction 
98 Seattle Times: Latest Hanford retirement means both top jobs are ope
99 Aiken Today: Energy Secretary coming to SRS
100 Epoch Times: Manhattan Project II: the Path Forward
101 KnoxNews: REACTS key in nuclear threat
102 Tri-City Herald: DOE's Hanford managers plan retirement
103 Tri-City Herald: Radiation warning sign gets makeover
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AU ABC: Rice warns Congress not to interfere in Iraq war. 

26/02/2007. ABC News Online


United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is warning the
Democrat-controlled Congress not to interfere in how the Iraq war is
being conducted.

Senate Democrats are trying to limit the role of US troops in Iraq
by revoking the 2002 vote that authorised the President to use force.

Dr Rice is warning against the move.

"The commander-in-chief has to be able to rely on the best military
advice," she said.

"If you ever disrupt that chain then you're going to have the worst
of micro-management of military affairs."

Democrats acknowledge the plan does not yet have enough votes to
overcome procedural obstacles from Republicans.

But they are hoping their efforts will help keep the pressure on
President George W Bush to change course in Iraq.

Plan 'doomed'

Meanwhile, Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr says the new US
security plan for the capital Baghdad is doomed to fail.

His comments came shortly after more than 40 people were killed by a
suicide bomber at a college in eastern Baghdad.

Sheikh al-Sadr issued a statement in which he said he did not think
any security plan would work unless the Iraqi Government itself took
complete control of protecting its citizens.

He once again called on the Americans to withdraw from Iraq.

Sheikh al-Sadr, who has been keeping a very low profile in recent
weeks, also demanded that Iraqis not harm themselves because the
reputation of the country was at stake.

His armed militia, the Mehdi army, has been accused by many of
fermenting violence, predominantly against Sunni Muslims.

- ABC/BBC

*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Cheney Defends Iraq War, Attacks Critics 

From the Associated Press

Saturday February 24, 2007 6:01 PM

By ROHAN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer

 SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney, in a series 
of blunt and sometimes biting statements during a visit to Asia, 
defended the Iraq war, attacked administration critics at home 
and warned that the U.S. would confront potential adversaries 
abroad.

  His visit was meant to thank Australia and Japan for their 
support in Iraq. But a series of public appearances and media 
interviews, Cheney's tone was typically feisty.

  Answering growing criticism in the U.S. and Australia, he 
defended the Iraq war as a ``remarkable achievement'' in one 
speech, and dismissed suggestions his influence in Washington is 
waning.

  At a news conference Saturday, Cheney warned that ``all 
options'' are on the table if Iran continues to defy U.N.-led 
efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions, leaving the door open 
to military action.

 Cheney's support for the Iraq war - he is considered one of the 
key proponents of the 2003 invasion - drew protesters into 
Sydney's streets for two days.

 But the crowds were small and the clashes brief, and Cheney 
enjoyed a generally warm welcome, including lunch at Australian 
Prime Minister John Howard's harborside mansion and a cruise past 
the Sydney Opera House.

    On Saturday, he held talks with Howard - who at one point 
felt compelled to defend his friendly relations with the White 
House.

     In Japan, Cheney asserted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's 
opposition to President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq would 
``validate the al-Qaida strategy.''

    A furious Pelosi complained to the White House that Cheney 
was impugning the patriotism of critics of the war. Cheney 
refused to back down: ``I said it and I meant it,'' he told ABC 
News. ``I didn't question her patriotism, I questioned her 
judgment.''

  He took a similarly uncompromising stand on Iran, criticizing 
its defiance of a U.N. deadline for freezing its uranium 
enrichment programs. While the White House seeks a peaceful 
resolution to the problem, he said, he did not rule out military 
action.

  Cheney was more diplomatic, but no less direct, on Friday when 
he discussed North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and China's 
rapid modernization of its 2.3 million-strong military forces.

  Noting that China - an emerging economic power - had hit a 
defunct weather satellite with a missile last month, Cheney said 
that some of the country's actions were at odds with its pledge 
to develop peacefully.

     In the same speech, though, he praised China for its help in 
persuading North Korea to seal its main nuclear reactor in 
exchange for oil. But Cheney added North Korea had ``much to 
prove,'' namely that it would honor the deal.

    Michael McKinley, an expert in Australia-U.S. relations at 
the Australian National University, said Cheney's association 
with an Iraq policy that many see as a failure has made him 
unpopular, but it is too soon to write off his influence.

 Cheney is still a force in the White House, McKinley said, and 
``in the area of foreign and defense policy, he is the power.''

    During Cheney's visit to Australia - one of the United 
States' staunchest allies in Iraq - he said history would 
ultimately judge the war a success, pointing to the end of Saddam 
Hussein's dictatorship and Iraq's democratic elections. The U.S., 
he said, has put Iraq ``well on the road to establishing a viable 
democracy.''

     Cheney told ABC News that media speculation that he had lost 
influence within the Bush administration was inaccurate, just as 
earlier speculation that he was the all-powerful was wrong.

 ``I think people fall into the trap of focusing on that and 
talking about it and reporters writing about it, but it rarely 
reflects reality,'' he said. ``So I don't worry about those 
stories.''

      Howard, who faces increasing pressure to begin withdrawing 
Australian troops and did not attend Cheney's speech on Friday, 
rejected suggestions the government was keeping a polite distance 
from the vice president during the visit. National elections are 
due later this year.

 ``It's never a political liability, ever, for the prime minister 
of Australia to have a good relationship with the president and 
the vice president of the United States,'' Howard said.

 Cheney seemed comfortable knowing that not all Australians like 
him, telling The Australian that not all the gestures directed as 
he cruises around in his motorcade are friendly waves.

   ``Driving through Sydney is a lot like driving through New 
York City,'' Cheney said. ``You get some waves, and then you get 
some other waves. And that goes with living in a democracy. ... 
That's as it should be.''

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran declares nuclear programme irreversible 

Ian Black, Middle East editor

Monday February 26, 2007
The Guardian

Iran declared yesterday that it was ready "even for war" and that 
its nuclear programme was irreversible, as it launched a rocket 
believed to have reached the edge of orbit.

Reaction to the launch of what was described initially by state 
media as a space rocket, but later only as an experimental 
sub-orbital device, reflected nervousness about the stand-off. 
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, insisted his 
country's nuclear fuel programme had "no reverse gear". In 
response, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said: 
"They don't need a reverse gear. They need a stop button."

The exchange followed last week's finding that Iran had failed to
meet a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Tehran insists its
nuclear programme is to generate electricity, not build weapons.

Representatives of the five permanent UN security council members
and Germany are due to meet in London today to examine new sanctions
that could include freezing European export credits and restrictions
on arms exports to Iran.

Tehran appeared to step up its rhetoric over the weekend. "Iran has
obtained the technology to produce nuclear fuel and Iran's move is
like a train ... which has no brake and no reverse gear," the ISNA
news agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying. Referring to gas
centrifuges used to enrich uranium, he said: "The westerners are not
concerned about the existence and activity of ... centrifuges in
Iran. They are concerned about the collapse of their hegemony and
hollow power."

Manouchehr Mohammadi, a deputy foreign minister, went further,
saying: "We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even for
war." Iranian military commanders have said that recent war games,
the latest of which involved testing several missiles, show the
country's readiness to defend itself.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, was more measured,
talking of reacting "proportionately" to any further pressure. "Iran
is ready to resolve existing differences over its nuclear programme
through fruitful and careful negotiations," he said in South Africa,
urging security council members not to continue their "hostile
behaviour".

UN sanctions were imposed on Iran in December barring the transfer
of technology and know-how to the country's nuclear and missile
programme. Further measures were threatened if enrichment did not
end by last week, a deadline the International Atomic Energy Agency
certified had not been met.

Ms Rice said there was evidence the sanctions were working. "People
in Iran are concerned about the fact that financial institutions are
moving out ... and refusing to deal with Iran," she told Fox News.
"They're concerned that their oil and gas fields need investment
that they're probably not going to be able to get." If Iran were to
stop enrichment and reprocessing activities, she said, "we can sit
down and talk about whatever is on Iran's mind".

The US has said it wants a diplomatic solution but will not rule out
military action. Britain's stance is similar, though there is less
emphasis on force, even as a last resort. Dick Cheney, the US
vice-president, said that it would be a "serious mistake" to allow
Iran to become a nuclear power. He endorsed comments by the Senator
John McCain that the only thing worse than a military confrontation
with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

Britain will be represented at today's talks by the Foreign Office
political director, John Sawers. Diplomats say he is likely to push
for new punitive measures, though these would have to be approved by
ministers. Russia and China, which have strong commercial links to
Tehran, have refused to back a travel ban and other tougher action.

Foreign ministers from seven Muslim states meeting in Pakistan,
meanwhile, called for a diplomatic solution to the "dangerous"
stand-off. "It is vital that all issues must be resolved through
diplomacy and there must be no resort to use of force," said a
statement issued jointly by Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Iranian officials last night denied state media reports that the
rocket had reached space, which would have meant a huge advance in
its missile programme. Tehran said it was a sub-orbital research
rocket. The rocket may be related to efforts to launch satellites -
Iran launched its first in a joint project with Russia two years ago.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 4 AFP: Top Iranian nuclear negotiator in South Africa to meet Mbeki -

Sun Feb 25, 7:43 AM ET

JOHANNESBURG (AFP) - Top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani 
arrived in South Africa Sunday to meet President Thabo Mbeki to 
discuss nuclear issues, the foreign ministry said.

"The president will meet the secretary-general of national security
of Iran today as part of an on-going consultation with all parties
in our capacity as members of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to discuss current developments around nuclear issues," a
ministry spokesman told AFP.

The spokesman declined to say where the meeting between Mbeki and
Larijani would be held and said it was private and the media were
not admitted.

Larijani's arrived as international concern grew after reports
Sunday that Tehran had fired its first rocket into space.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi was quoted on the ISNA
news agency as saying the country was prepared both for war and for
talks with its archfoe the United States as speculation about
possible US plans for military action against Tehran intensified.

The United States has insisted that it would only hold talks with
Iran if Tehran first agreed to a suspension of sensitive nuclear
activities.

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons,
charges Tehran has denied, insisting its atomic programme is
peaceful in nature.

The visit by Larijani comes six months after a visit to the country
by Iranian Foreign Minister who held talks with his South African
counterpart over the nuclear programme, when Tehran agreed to freeze
its programme only if the matter could be resolved through
"cooperation, negotiation and respect for the rights of Iran", based
on the regulations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

South Africa which has just taken up its seat at the United Nations
security council has always acted as a mediator over nuclear
problems in Iran, one of its chief suppliers of oil.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: Most US intelligence on Iran inaccurate - 

Sun Feb 25, 6:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Most US intelligence on Iran shared with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency has proved to be inaccurate 
and failed to lead to discoveries of a smoking gun inside the 
Islamic Republic, a US newspaper reported on its website 
Saturday.

Citing unnamed diplomats working in Vienna, The Los Angeles Times
said the US Central Intelligence Agency and other Western
intelligence services have been providing sensitive information to
the IAEA since 2002.

But none of the tips about Iran's suspected secret weapons sites
provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic is developing a
nuclear arms arsenal, the report said.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has
proved to be wrong," the paper quotes a senior IAEA diplomat as
saying.

Another official described the agency's intelligence stream as "very
cold now" because "so little panned out," The Times reported.

US officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on
Iran's nuclear programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult
to prove, the report said.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran.

In November 2005, UN inspectors discovered a 15-page document in
Tehran that showed how to form highly enriched uranium into the
configuration needed for the core of a nuclear bomb, The Times said.

Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has rebuffed IAEA
requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further analysis.

However, diplomats working for the IAEA were less convinced in 2005
by documents recovered by US intelligence from a laptop computer
apparently stolen from Iran, the paper said.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic
missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean
testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research into
uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during
uranium enrichment.

The Times said IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information
in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Farsi.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: World powers struggle to bridge gulf on Iran nuclear issue - 

Sunday February 25, 09:36 AM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The six world powers who have been trying to 
convince Iran to cease its nuclear activities are due to meet 
Monday, in a bid to hammer out a consensus on how to bring Tehran 
into compliance.

The Iran dossier is once again bringing together Britain, China, 
France, Germany, Russia and the United States to tackle the 
Islamic republic's consistent refusal of a United Nations demand 
to suspend uranium enrichment, according to the US State 
Department.

Two months after the first UN round of sanctions against Iran, 
the six nations must now decide how to respond to the lapse of a 
60-day deadline for Iran to comply with the international 
community's demands.

Iran not only ignored the demands of UN Security Council Resolution
1737 but also expanded its capacity for enrichment, according to the
UN nuclear watchdog.

Enriched uranium can be used to fuel power plants, but it can also
be used to build atomic bombs.

Iran says its program is designed purely to produce civilian energy
and insists it cannot accept UN demands that it halt uranium
enrichment, because they are contrary to its rights under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory.

"The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to
the end," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech
carried by the ISNA news agency.

In the face of such determination, the United States, France and
Britain have said the Security Council must once again take up the
Iran issue and impose fresh sanctions.

The council could meet as early as next week, with Monday's meeting
in London between US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and his
counterparts laying the groundwork.

The United States said the first round of sanctions -- which
included a ban on transfers of technology and a freezing of Iranian
individuals' and companies' assets -- had begun to have an effect by
dividing the Iranian leadership.

Washington insists that the international community must maintain
the pressure on Tehran, but the administration has declined to
publicly discuss the nature of any new sanctions, amid difficult
negotiations with its partners.

Russia and China, two fellow veto-wielding permanent Security
Council members, have special economic, energy and strategic
interests in Iran, and in December both signaled their reluctance to
ramp up pressure on Tehran.

Their reticence is further fueled by fears of a military escalation.

Two US aircraft carrier groups are currently in the Gulf region, the
highest concentration of US naval firepower there since the invasion
of Iraq in 2003. And Washington and Tehran have been locked in a
pitched battle over Iraq.

Early Saturday in Australia, Vice President Dick Cheney stressed
that "all options are still on the table," declining to rule out the
use of military force to deter Iran.

Still, the White House and the State Department insisted that the
focus would be on diplomacy, and the administration stressed the
importance of a united front in dealing with Iran.

"We've been very clear that we're on a diplomatic path, that we
believe the diplomatic path can succeed if the international
community stays unified in confronting Iran with the consequences of
its continued defiance of the international community," US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

Rice also expressed hope that Russia would eventually support a
second Security Council resolution for sanctions against Iran.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: US accused of drawing up plan to bomb Iran 

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Monday February 26, 2007 The Guardian

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises his fist during a public rally. 
Photograph: Mehdi Ghasemi/Getty

President George Bush has charged the Pentagon with devising an
expanded bombing plan for Iran that can be carried out at 24 hours'
notice, it was reported yesterday.

An extensive article in the New Yorker magazine by the investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh describes the contingency bombing plan as
part of a general overhaul by the Bush administration of its policy
towards Iran.

It said a special planning group at the highest levels of the US
military had expanded its mission from selecting potential targets
connected to Iranian nuclear facilities, and had been directed to
add sites that may be involved in aiding Shia militant forces in
Iraq to its list.

That new strategy, intended to reverse the rise in Iranian power 
that has been an unintended consequence of the war in Iraq, could 
bring the countries much closer to open confrontation and risks 
igniting a regional sectarian war between Shia and Sunni Muslims, 
the New Yorker says.

Elements of the tough new approach towards Tehran outlined by Hersh
include:

· Clandestine operations against Iran and Syria, as well as the
Hizbullah movement in Lebanon - even to the extent of bolstering
Sunni extremist groups that are sympathetic to al-Qaida

· Sending US special forces into Iranian territory in pursuit of
Iranian operatives, as well as to gather intelligence

· Secret operations are being funded by Saudi Arabia to avoid
scrutiny by Congress. "There are many, many pots of black money,
scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of
missions," Hersh quotes a Pentagon consultant as saying.

As in the run-up to the Iraq war, the vice-president, Dick Cheney,
has bypassed other administration officials to take charge of the
aggressive new policy, working along with the deputy national
security adviser, Elliott Abrams, and the former ambassador to Kabul
and Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Mr Cheney is also relying heavily on Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the
Saudi national security adviser, who spent 22 years as ambassador to
the US, and who has been offering his advice on foreign policy to Mr
Bush since he first contemplated running for president.

The New Yorker revelations, arriving soon after Mr Cheney reaffirmed
that war with Iran remained an option if it did not dismantle its
nuclear programme, further ratcheted up fears of a military
confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

Such concerns deepened further with the warning from the Iranian
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that there could be no stopping or
rolling back of his country's nuclear programme. "The train of the
Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear," Iranian radio
reported Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

Hersh, who made his reputation by breaking the story of the My Lai
massacre during the Vietnam war, was among the first US journalists
to report on the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Although the
most explosive material was supplied by unnamed sources, his status
in US journalism made his latest report an immediate talking point
on yesterday's TV chatshows.

His assertion that the Bush administration was actively preparing
for an attack on Iran was denied by the Pentagon. "The United States
is not planning to go to war with Iran. To suggest anything to the
contrary is simply wrong, misleading and mischievous," the Pentagon
spokesman, Bryan Whitman, told reporters.

Hersh was just as adamant. "This president is not going to leave
office without doing something about Iran," he told CNN. Hersh
claims that the former director of national intelligence, John
Negroponte, resigned his post to take a parallel job as the deputy
director of the state department because of his discomfort with an
approach that so closely echoed the Iran-contra scandal of the 1980s.

In seeking to contain Iranian influence - and that of its most
powerful protege, the Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah - the US
has worked with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Both
countries see a powerful Iran as an existential threat, and the
Saudis suspect Tehran's hand behind rising sectarian tensions in its
eastern province, as well as a spate of bombing attacks inside the
kingdom.

One prime arena for the new strategy is Lebanon where the
administration has been trying to prop up the government of Fouad
Siniora, which faces a resurgent Hizbullah movement in the aftermath
of last summer's war with Israel.

Some of the billions of aid to the Beirut government has ended up in
the hands of radical Sunnis in the Beka'a valley, Hersh writes.
Syrian extremist groups have also benefited from the new policy.
"These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hizbullah; at
the same time, their ideological ties are with al-Qaida," Hersh
writes.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Iranian Envoy Blasts U.S., U.K., Israel 

From the Associated Press

Saturday February 24, 2007 8:46 AM

By EDITH M. LEDERER

Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Iran accused the United States, Britain and 
Israel of making ``baseless allegations'' about its nuclear 
ambitions, insisting that it has always considered weapons of 
mass destruction to be ``inhumane, immoral and illegal.''

    Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador Mehdi Danesh Yazdi told the 
U.N. Security Council Friday that his country has an 
``inalienable right'' to develop nuclear technology for peaceful 
purposes and would not ``give in to the pressures emanating from 
groundless and unsubstantiated allegations and ulterior political 
motives.''

 Iran was a last-minute addition to the list of countries 
speaking at a daylong council meeting on implementation of a 2004 
resolution requiring all U.N. member states to pass laws to keep 
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons out of the hands of 
terrorists and black marketeers.

  The meeting took place a day after the International Atomic 
Energy Agency reported that Iran had ignored a council ultimatum 
to freeze uranium enrichment - a possible pathway to nuclear arms 
- and had instead expanded its program.

  Iran's president and a former president accused the West on 
Friday of ``bullying'' Tehran through ultimatums and threats of 
new sanctions.

  Divisions had emerged within the Iranian leadership over 
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's handling of the nuclear standoff 
following the council's adoption of limited economic sanctions 
against Iran in December.

  Some Iranians believe Ahmadinejad has been too antagonistic 
toward the U.S. and its allies. Former President Akbar Hashemi 
Rafsanjani in recent weeks has emerged as a high-level advocate 
of a more conciliatory stance toward the West in the nuclear 
dispute.

    But Rafsanjani told worshippers gathered for Friday prayers 
in Tehran, the Iranian capital, that Western countries would fail 
to achieve anything by pressuring Iran over its nuclear 
activities.

 And, in northern Iran, Ahmadinejad told a crowd of thousands: 
``The Iranian nation has resisted all bullies and corrupt powers 
and it will fully defend all its rights,'' according to state 
television.

     The U.N. nuclear agency's report set the stage for difficult 
negotiations on new U.N. sanctions, with the United States, 
Britain and France again likely to seek tougher measures than 
Russia and China will accept. Senior diplomats from the five 
permanent Security Council nations and Germany will meet on 
Monday in London to start work on a new resolution to try to 
pressure Iran to suspend enrichment.

   U.S. deputy ambassador Jackie Sanders told Friday's open 
meeting that, ``unfortunately, Iran has yet to ... make the 
strategic decision to cooperate with the international community 
and end its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,'' she said.

   Britain's U.N. ambassador mentioned ``our continuing concern 
at developments in Iran and the failure of the government of Iran 
to meet the obligations'' to halt enrichment. And Israel's deputy 
U.N. ambassador said the Iranian supply of weapons to Hezbollah 
fighters in Lebanon violated the 2004 resolution.

   The three countries were the only ones among 36 speakers in 
the debate to mention Iran.

    Danesh Yazdi, speaking last, said it was regrettable that 
``an ill-intended and extensive campaign with political 
motivation has been at work attempting to distort and fabricate 
the facts and realities about Iran's peaceful nuclear program, as 
we have witnessed in today's meeting through the baseless 
allegations made against my country by the representatives of the 
United States, United Kingdom and Israeli regime.''

  The Iranian envoy said it was unreasonable for countries that 
have nuclear weapons to ``threaten others with their massive 
arsenals and aggressive policies, while crying wolf about others' 
peaceful nuclear program.''

                                -----

  Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, 
contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 9 The Observer: Iran calls for talks before new sanctions 

 Guardian Unlimited Web

Britain seeks support at UN to halt nuclear plans

Ned Temko and Jason Burke
Sunday February 25, 2007
The Observer

Tensions were rising between Iran and the West this weekend as 
Britain prepares to push for tough new UN sanctions against 
Tehran over its nuclear enrichment programme.

Talks in New York this week aimed at agreeing the text of a UN 
resolution follow a weekend of tough verbal exchanges that began 
with a reaffirmation by US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, that 
Washington is leaving open 'all options', including military 
action, in its efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.

A response to Cheney's warning - hours after a defiant speech by
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defending his nuclear projects
- came from Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki who said the
US was not in a position to take military action.

'We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its
taxpayers by starting another war in the region,' Mottaki said in a
press conference with Bahrain's visiting foreign minister. 'The only
way to reach a solution for disputes is negotiations and talks.
Therefore, we want the London meeting to make a brave decision and
resume talks with Iran.'

Bill Richardson, US governor of New Mexico and a 2008 presidential
candidate, yesterday urged the Bush administration to negotiate
directly with Iran. 'Sabre-rattling is not a good way to get the
Iranians to cooperate,' he said. 'But it is a good way to start a
new war.' Richardson, UN ambassador during the Clinton
administration, said Iran would 'not end their nuclear program
because we threaten them and call them names'.

But Foreign Office sources in London were at pains to stress that
Cheney had also reiterated that the West preferred a 'peaceful'
resolution to the nuclear dispute. They said all current efforts by
the US and the EU were focused on the diplomatic front. A senior
member of Israel's intelligence establishment, meanwhile, told The
Observer that suggestions that preparations were under way for
possible Israeli military action against Iran were 'wrong'. He said
his country wanted a diplomatic solution but added that there was
deep concern over the situation. He said Israel remained deeply
sceptical of suggestions that Ahmadinejad's hardline nuclear policy
was being eroded by outside diplomatic pressure.

Foreign Office sources took a more bullish view, saying they had
been encouraged by 'a number of visible signs' in recent weeks of
internal criticism of Ahmadinejad and that 'his standing is
diminishing'.

The key now, according to an FO official involved in the Iran issue,
was to 'ratchet up the pressure' by getting the toughest possible
new UN resolution capable of winning not only American and EU
support but that of a more sceptical Russia and China as well.
'There must be a united front, so that the Iranians understand we
are sending a clear message,' a source said.

The International Atomic Energy Agency formally reported back to the
UN last week that Iran had flouted the Security Council's 60-day
deadline to freeze its enrichment programme and thus allay
international concerns that it is developing a nuclear weapon.
Instead, it had expanded the programme by setting up hundreds of
centrifuges.

Ahmadinejad responded to the report by saying that it was irrelevant
whether foreign powers believed Iran's repeated insistence that its
nuclear activities were peaceful. He said Iran would resist 'all
bullies' and go ahead with the programme.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 YN: Opposition's presidential aspirants demand re-negotiation of wartime
control transfer 

Three major opposition presidential aspirants said Sunday that 
South Korea's next government should renegotiate an agreement to 
regain the wartime command control of its troops from the United 
States in 2012.

During a meeting of their defense chiefs in Washington on 
Saturday (Seoul time), the two countries agreed to disband their 
joint military command system when South Korea regains the 
wartime control of its troops effective April 17, 2012.

The decision highlights the two nations' move to redefine a 
military alliance that dates back to the 1950-53 Korean War, when 
American soldiers fought on South Korea's side against a North 
Korean invasion.

South Korea put its military under the control of the U.S.-led 
United Nations forces at that time. Seoul took back the peacetime 
control of its military 1994, but the wartime control still 
remains in the hands of the chief U.S. military commander here.

South Koreans are divided over the issue. Liberals support 
President Roh Moo-hyun's initiative to make the country's 
military independent of the U.S. but conservatives argue that 
such a move is premature in view of North Korea's effort to arm 
itself with nuclear weapons.

All three major presidential hopefuls from the main conservative 
opposition Grand National Party (GNP) argue that the issue should 
be reviewed by the next government to be installed in early 2008. 
The next presidential elections is scheduled for mid-December.

Park Geun-hye, former chairwoman of the GNP, claimed it is 
improper to fix the timing of the wartime control transfer in 
2012.

"This issue should be up for serious review by the next 
government with focus on strengthening South Korea-U.S. 
alliance," Park said in a statement read by her spokesman, Han 
Sun-kyo.

Former Seoul Mayor Lee Myung-bak, also a member of the GNP, said 
the timing should be decided with "flexibility as long as South 
Korea is under Pyongyang's nuclear threat."

"The next government should renegotiate the issue with the U.S. 
if necessary, depending on whether tension remains heightened on 
the Korean Peninsula due to the North Korean nuclear program," 
Lee said.

Former Gyeonggi provincial governor Sohn Hak-kyu, also from the 
opposition party, emphasized the need for linking the timing of 
the wartime command transfer to the establishment of a permanent 
peace regime on the peninsula.

"We need to flexibly deal with the matter within the big 
framework of relating the timing to a roadmap for the 
establishment of a peace regime on the peninsula without 
undermining the foundation of the South Korea-U.S. alliance," he 
said.

In a related move, a group of South Korea's former defense 
ministers will meet on Monday to express their position on the 
agreed timing of the wartime command transfer, according to Lee 
Sang-hoon, one of the ex-ministers.

The meeting will be joined by retired generals and Korean War 
veterans who have already opposed the planned transition of 
wartime control, citing security jitters, he told Yonhap News 
Agency by phone.

"I don't understand why the two countries so hastily reached an 
agreement on the wartime control transfer during the first 
meeting between their new defense chiefs, not in the Security 
Consultative Meeting (SCM)," Lee said.

SCM refers to the annual defense ministerial talks between the 
two countries. This year's meeting is tentatively scheduled for 
October.

Seoul, Feb. 25 (Yonhap News)

Posted on : Feb.25,2007 20:18 KST

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 BBC NEWS: Cheney renews US warning on Iran

Last Updated: Saturday, 24 February 2007, 11:06 GMT

Australia is a key member in the US-led coalition in Iraq

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has renewed a warning that the use of
force could be an option if Iran continues to defy the West over
uranium enrichment.

Mr Cheney, speaking in Australia, said diplomacy was the preferred
course.

But in a newspaper interview he backed US Senator John McCain's view
that the only thing worse than a military clash would be an Iran
with nuclear arms.

Iran insists that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes
only.

Mr Cheney, a noted hawk in the Bush administration, endorsed Mr
McCain's stance in an interview with The Australian daily newspaper.

The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to
the end

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iranian President

And speaking at a joint news conference with Australian Prime
Minister John Howard, he also spoke of US concerns about Tehran's
nuclear ambitions and warned that "all options are on the table" in
terms of how the US would respond.

"They have made some fairly inflammatory statements," he said. "They
appear to be pursuing the development of nuclear weapons."

Mr Cheney spoke of concern at Iran's "fairly aggressive" role in the
Middle East, and its flouting of a UN deadline to stop uranium
enrichment.

Permanent UN Security Council members and Germany will meet on
Monday to discuss further sanctions against Iran following its
decision to ignore last Thursday's deadline.

Resistance vow

On Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran will
defend its nuclear programme to the end, and must not show weakness
"in front of the enemy".

"The Iranian people are vigilant and will defend all their rights to
the end," Iranian news agency Isna quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying,
at a rally in northern Iran.


POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

"If we show weakness in front of the enemy the expectations will
increase but if we stand against them, because of this resistance
they will retreat."

The IAEA concluded in a report on Thursday that Iran was expanding
rather than halting its enrichment programme, defying a UN
resolution of December 2006.

Iran says the UN call for it to stop uranium enrichment is
unacceptable as it has no legal basis.

Tehran denies Western claims it is secretly trying to build nuclear
arms, saying its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful,
energy-producing purposes.

While enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, highly
enriched uranium can also be used to make nuclear bombs.

Australia is a key member of the US-led coalition in Iraq, with
about 1,400 troops in and around the country.

Speaking after his meeting with Mr Cheney, Mr Howard warned of the
possibility of Iran's influence in the Middle East region growing if
coalition troops are pulled out of Iraq too soon.

He told reporters that instability in Iraq resulting from an early
coalition withdrawal could tip the regional power balance in Iran's
favour, with disastrous consequences:

"I think Iran would benefit enormously from that and that would be
to many in the Middle East, not just the Israelis, that would be a
nightmare scenario."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 12 AFP: US aircraft carrier has no plans to 'intimidate Iran' - 

Sunday February 25, 09:36 PM

By Christian Chaise

ON BOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS, off the coast of Pakistan (AFP) 
- To the deafening roar of war planes taking off from the 
nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis, US 
military commanders insist that intimidating Iran is not part of 
their mission in the region.

The carrier and its battle group has been in the Gulf of Oman 
since February 19, anchored about 120 nautical miles off the 
coast of Pakistan, in what the US Navy says is a mission to 
provide support for ground forces operating in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.

The Stennis has joined the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the area,
fuelling speculation that Washington could be preparing for a
military strike against arch-foe Iran over its controversial nuclear
programme.

But the carrier's commanding officer Captain Bradley E. Johanson
said the vessel was in the region to reassure Washington's key
oil-rich Arab allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council.

"We have received very explicit guidance that we will not assume any
sort of escalatory posture with Iran," Johanson told AFP as an
F/A-18F Super Hornet took off heading north in the direction of
Pakistan and Afghanistan.

On the flight deck, which is over 300 metres (yards) long, dozens of
sailors worked non-stop to prepare for the take-off of the next
fighter jet whose engine was roaring in anticipation.

"No sort of escalatory posture at all with Iran," Johanson
reiterated. "Our mission is not to go and intimidate Iran. Our
mission is to go and make the GCC partner-nations comfortable with
the security situation."

However, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said in January that
reinforcing the US naval presence in the oil-rich region was a
message to Iran, which has defied the international community over
its nuclear drive.

Tehran last week failed to meet a UN Security Council deadline to
freeze uranium enrichment, a process that is at the heart of Western
fears it may be seeking to built atomic weapons, and risks further
sanctions.

On Saturday, US Vice President Dick Cheney said that allowing Iran
to acquire nuclear weapons would be a "serious mistake" and that all
options remained on the table, in apparent reference to a possible
use of force.

"The nice thing about my position is I don't have to explain what
the Secretary of Defence said," said Rear Admiral Kevin M. Quinn,
commander of Carrier Strike Group Three, formed by the Stennis and
its battle group.

"There was no word in my tasking to come over here that had anything
to do with Iran," he told AFP.

Iran, which has seen its regional influence soar since the US-led
invasion of March 2003 that ousted Saddam Hussein's regime, has also
played down the possibility of military action by the United States
while boasting it could confront any attack.

The two nations have had hostile relations since the 1979 Islamic
revolution ousted the US-backed shah and Tehran has been lumped by
US President George W. Bush into his "axis of evil".

Quinn said his mission was to support coalition operations in
Afghanistan, where the Super Hornets made their first sorties on
Friday following a series of exercises.

Stennis has about 3,000 sailors, plus 1,800 servicemen deployed
exclusively in air operations.

Quinn however acknowledged that Washington's decision to dispatch a
second carrier sent a message to the Gulf countries that stressed
"the commitment that the US has to the security and stability of
this entire region."

"When you have this level of naval force, you are showing resolve
and you are showing commitment, and... (that) your country can be
counted on," he added.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 13 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan PM Urges Diplomacy With Iran

From the Associated Press

Sunday February 25, 2007 11:46 AM

By SADAQAT JAN Associated Press Writer

   ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan's prime minister said 
Sunday that the international standoff over Iran's nuclear 
program should be resolved through negotiations, not force.

   Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz made the remarks at the opening of 
a meeting of foreign ministers from seven Muslim nations meeting 
to discuss ways to resolve tensions in the Middle East, a 
statement by Aziz's office said.

   Ministers from Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi 
Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, as well as Turkey's Ekmeleddin 
Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the Organization of the 
Islamic Conference, a 57-member bloc of Islamic states, held the 
meeting in the capital Islamabad.

 Musharraf recently visited the six countries in addition to Iran 
and Syria for talks on settling conflicts in the Middle East, 
including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the fighting in Iraq 
and tensions between Washington and Tehran.

  But Iran and Syria were not invited to the meeting, because 
``they are considered to be (directly) involved in the crisis'' 
in the Middle East, a government official said on condition of 
anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

  Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri spoke with his 
Syrian and Iranian counterparts about the gathering on Friday, 
the official said. He gave no additional details.

 Pakistan has denied suggestions in the Arab media that Pakistan 
was forming a Sunni bloc opposed to Iran.

  The United States and several of its Western allies fear that 
Iran is using its nuclear program to produce an atomic weapon - 
charges Iran denies, saying its aim is to generate electricity.

    Aziz's statement said that the Iranian nuclear issue should 
be resolved through diplomacy and the ``use of force should be 
avoided.'' Aziz also said that the Palestinian issue be revolved 
with ``justice, equity and realism in line with the wishes of the 
Palestinian people.''

 Aziz urged Muslim states to join hands to jointly fight 
``radicalism and extremism'' and said that the people of Iraq 
``must be enabled to decide their own future.''

  Vice President Dick Cheney, while visiting Australia on 
Saturday, criticized Iran's defiance of a U.N. deadline for 
freezing its uranium enrichment programs. Cheney said that while 
the U.S. seeks a peaceful resolution with Iran, ``all options'' 
were on the table.

  Musharraf has said he is trying to build consensus among 
countries who support ``a conciliatory approach'' to the region's 
problems.

  Sunday's meeting is supposed to lay the groundwork for a summit 
of Muslim leaders to be held in the holy city of Mecca, Saudi 
Arabia. No dates have been announced for that meeting.

 On Friday, Musharraf spoke with Palestinian President Mahmoud 
Abbas, who supported Musharraf's initiative, the state-run 
Associated Press of Pakistan news agency reported.

 Pakistan - a key ally in the U.S.-led war against terrorism - 
has no diplomatic ties with Israel and supports a separate state 
for Palestinians with Jerusalem as its capital.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 14 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI makes document available to IAEA

2007/02/25

Deputy Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency Mohammad Saeedi said on
Saturday that Iran responded positively to the UN nuclear watchdog's
call for access to the 15-page document on production of metallic
uranium.

He said that Iran prepared the grounds for making the document
available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors, while it could have rejected the call.

Concerning plutonium tests, he said that in a letter, the IAEA
called for more accurate and complete information on Iran's
plutonium test.

About the reference to Arak heavy water projects in the report of
IAEA Chief, Mohamed Elbaradei, he said that according to the IAEA,
the reactors have been tested and no problem has been observed.

Replying to the question about the activities underway at the
Uranium Conversion Facilities (UCF) in Isfahan and Natanz, he said
that their various stages are viewed by IAEA cameras and inspected
by its inspectors.

He noted that the activities in Natanz facilities are conducted
under the supervision of the IAEA and are inspected once a month.

Turning to the propaganda of western media on the issue, he said
that they continue despite Elbaradei's recent report which confirms
that no reprocessing activities have been detected.

Saeedi pointed to another section of Elbaradei's report about no
deviation to banned activities and material has been observed in
Iran's nuclear activities and raised the question, "why does the
UNSC, which should provide the ground for promotion of peace and
tranquility, itself cause insecurity and international chaos?"

"Elbaradei has declared that based on NPT, Iran has facilitated
access of IAEA inspectors to the nuclear facilities in Arak, Natanz
and Isfahan, which shows that the propaganda of western media on
Iran are baseless," he added.

mk

Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran 
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. 
E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir 
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Vows Talks if Iran Halts Nuke Plans 

From the Associated Press

Sunday February 25, 2007 8:31 PM

 WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the 
U.S. would hold direct talks with Iran if Tehran suspended its 
nuclear program. Iran's president, however, pledged to move ahead 
with enrichment activity that Washington contends masks weapons 
development.

 ``I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian 
representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment 
and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal,'' 
Rice said in Washington.

 Earlier Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comparing 
his nation's nuclear drive to a train without a reverse gear or 
brakes. ``We dismantled the rear gear and brakes of the train and 
threw them away sometime ago,'' he was quoted on the radio as 
telling Islamic clerics.

              Iran says its energy program is peaceful.

  Vice President Dick Cheney said last week on his trip to 
Australia that the United States believes ``it would be a serious 
mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear power.'' He 
reaffirmed the Bush administration's policy that ``all options 
are on the table'' to deter Tehran.

   Rice said the Iranians ``don't need a reverse gear. They need 
to stop and then we can come to the table and we can talk about 
how to move forward.'' She contended Ahmadinejad's stands are 
isolating his country.

   ``I have no doubt that the Iranian people want to be like 
other people, capable of carrying out their freedom of having 
greater pluralism in their politics. All of that is important.''

   President Bush, she said, ``has made very clear that around 
the world we're going to continue to advocate for democracy. We 
are. However, with Iran, in a situation in which they are in 
defiance of the international community and they need to change 
that behavior, then we can talk about everything.

   ``And we'll talk about it with this regime. I've said that I 
am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative 
at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing 
activities. That should be a clear signal,'' Rice said.

  The International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday that Iran 
had ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze its 
uranium enrichment program and had expanded the program by 
setting up hundreds of centrifuges.

 A council resolution adopted Dec. 23 penalized Tehran and warned 
of further punishment if Iran did not comply.

    Diplomats from the five permanent Security Council members 
and Germany planned to meet in London on Monday to begin 
discussing what steps to take to increase international pressure 
on Tehran to cooperate.

     ``People in Iran are concerned about the fact that financial 
institutions are moving out of Iran and refusing to deal with 
Iran,'' Rice said. ``They're concerned that their oil and gas 
fields need investment that they're probably not going to be able 
to get at the high end because people are not going to take the 
reputational and investment risk of dealing with a country that 
has gotten itself into a very bad club.''

   But, she added, ``I just want to repeat, Iran has another 
course that it can take. If it stops its enrichment and 
reprocessing activities, as demanded by the international 
community, we're all prepared to have full-scale negotiations any 
time and any place.''

  In addition to the nuclear impasse, the administration has 
clashed with Iran over Iraq, with the administration saying U.S. 
intelligence has pinpointed Tehran as supplying weapons that have 
killed American soldiers.

 Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. has no 
intention of attacking Iran. Bush, in defending the intelligence 
on Iran, has said, ``Does this mean you're trying to have a 
pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops.''

 The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue that a 
special planning group has been set up in the offices of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a bombing plan against Iran that 
could be activated within 24 hours of Bush's orders. The author, 
Seymour Hersh, cited a former senior intelligence official as his 
source.

  A Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, said Sunday he know of no 
such planning group, the U.S. is not planning to go to war with 
Iran and ``to suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, 
misleading and mischievous.''

  The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee said 
U.S. intelligence long has focused on Iran, especially for its 
nuclear intentions.

   ``We have contingency plans around the world. We had 
contingency plans with the Soviet Union, and we had specific 
targets. That didn't mean that we were planning to strike the 
Soviet Union,'' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, D-Calif.

 He said Hersh interprets that ``into an intent to attack Iran in 
the near future. That's not the case.''

    Rice appeared on ``Fox News Sunday'' and ``This Week'' on 
ABC. Hunter on ``Late Edition'' on CNN.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 16 Reuters: U.S. developing contingency plan to bomb Iran - report 

9:12PM EST, Sun 25 Feb 2007

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Despite the Bush administration's insistence it
has no plans to go to war with Iran, a Pentagon panel has been
created to plan a bombing attack that could be implemented within 24
hours of getting the go-ahead from President George W. Bush, The New
Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.

The special planning group was established within the office of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent months, according to an unidentified
former U.S. intelligence official cited in the article by
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in the March 4 issue.

The panel initially focused on destroying Iran's nuclear facilities
and on regime change but has more recently been directed to identify
targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding
militants in Iraq, according to an Air Force adviser and a Pentagon
consultant, who were not identified.

The consultant and a former senior intelligence official both said
that U.S. military and special-operations teams had crossed the
border from Iraq into Iran in pursuit of Iranian operatives,
according to the article.

In response to the report, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said:
"The United States is not planning to go to war with Iran. To
suggest anything to the contrary is simply wrong, misleading and
mischievous.

"The United States has been very clear with respect to its concerns
regarding specific Iranian government activities. The president has
repeatedly stated publicly that this country is going to work with
allies in the region to address those concerns through diplomatic
efforts," Whitman said.

Pentagon officials say they maintain contingency plans for literally
dozens of potential conflicts around the world and that all plans
are subject to regular and ongoing review.

The article, citing unnamed current and former U.S. officials, also
said the Bush administration received intelligence from Israel that
Iran had developed an intercontinental missile capable of delivering
several small warheads that could reach Europe. It added the
validity of that intelligence was still being debated.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 UPI: Israel denies reported Iran attack plan

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/24/2007 9:31:40 AM -0500 UTC

Israel denies reported Iran attack plan

TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A top Israeli official Saturday
denied a published report that Israel has a plan to attack Iran's
nuclear facilities.

Deputy Defense Minister MK Ephraim Sneh said Israel is not laying 
the groundwork to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, despite a 
report saying so in the British Daily Telegraph, the Jerusalem 
Post reported.

The Telegraph said Israel has asked the United States for 
permission to fly over Iraq as part of the attack on Iran.

The Telegraph quoted an Israeli source saying, "We are planning 
for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are 
crucially important.

"The only way to do this is to fly through U.S.-controlled air 
space. If we don't sort these issues out now we could have a 
situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at 
each other," said the source described by the Telegraph as a 
senior defense official.

Iran missed a United Nations deadline Wednesday to halt its 
production of nuclear fuel that the United States, Israel and 
other nations suspect is for nuclear weapons. Iran has said it 
won't stop enriching uranium and that its nuclear program is for 
producing energy.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 UPI: Iranian rocket test 'wake up' call

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/25/2007 7:02:56 PM -0500 UTC

JERUSALEM, Israel, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- A senior researcher at an
Israeli air and space institute says Iran's successful test of a
space rocket Sunday is a "wake up" call for Israeli leaders.


"If they can reach space, then they can launch missiles to a high
enough altitude and detonate them primitively with bolts and metal
pieces that will definitely cause damage to satellites," Tal Inbar
-- senior fellow at the Fischer Institute for Air & Space Studies --
told the Jerusalem Post.


Iran announced its successful launch of a rocket into space on
state-run television Sunday. It was not clear whether the test was
part of Iran's effort to place a commercial satellite into orbit,
the report said.


Iran launched a communications satellite in 1998.


Inbar said the Middle East is now in a space race, with Egypt
preparing to launch a surveillance-satellite into orbit in March.


"While Israel is technologically more advanced than Iran, we need to
be concerned with the testing, which proves they have independent
space capabilities," he said.

Del.icio.us | Digg it | RSS

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 19 UPI: IAEA distrusts U.S. information on Iran

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/25/2007 1:19:52 AM -0500 UTC

VIENNA, Austria, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Officials with the 
International Atomic Energy Agency say most information supplied 
by U.S. intelligence agencies on Iran has been inaccurate.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us 
has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the United Nations 
atomic watchdog told the Los Angeles Times.

While the United States has given information to the IAEA since 
2002, it has been unable to provide credible information 
pinpointing nuclear sites. The agency tends to be leery of U.S. 
claims because of the history of U.S. intelligence in the weeks 
leading up to the Iraq War, the newspaper said.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.



*****************************************************************
 20 UPI: Cheney hints at possible strike on Iran

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/23/2007 7:45:58 PM -0500 UTC

Cheney hints at possible strike on Iran

SYDNEY, Australia, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- U.S. Vice President Dick 
Cheney has hinted military action against Iran is possible to 
keep Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Weekend Australian newspaper, Cheney 
said he had no doubt Iran is trying to enrich uranium to produce 
nuclear weapons.

He said he was "pretty close to agreement" with U.S. Sen. John 
McCain, R-Ariz., that the only thing worse than a military 
confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

Cheney said nuclear terrorism is the greatest threat facing the 
world and, while the U.S. does not believe Iran possesses nuclear 
weapons yet, "you get various estimates on the point of no 
return."

"Is it when they possess weapons or does it come sooner, when 
they have mastered the technology but, perhaps, not yet produced 
fissile material for weapons?" he asked.

Cheney, on a three-day visit to Australia, held talks with 
Australian Premier John Howard Saturday on the question of 
Australia's commitment in Iraq and whether to send more troops to 
Afghanistan.

Earlier, in an address to the Australian-American Leadership 
Dialogue, Cheney warned of the dangers of pulling out of Iraq 
before Iraqis can properly defend themselves against terrorism.

Many jihadists would head for Afghanistan and others would 
undermine moderate governments in the Middle East, while other 
terrorist groups sought victims on other continents, he said.

"We have a duty to stand in their way," Cheney said.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 21 UPI: Report: Generals might quit over Iran

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/25/2007 12:59:53 AM -0500 UTC

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- Several top U.S. military commanders 
would be likely to resign if the Bush administration uses 
military force against Iran, The Times of London reported.

"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who 
would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with 
close ties to British intelligence told the newspaper. "There is 
simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people 
question whether such an attack would be effective or even 
possible."

President George W. Bush has consistently said he prefers a 
diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear program. But his 
administration has sent mixed signals, with Vice President Dick 
Cheney sounding more bellicose, the newspaper said.

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the 
military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion," a 
British defense source said. "Nobody wants to do it and it would 
be a matter of conscience for them."

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 AFP: Iran ready for both 'talks and war' with US 

Sunday February 25, 10:33 AM

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran is prepared both for war and talks with 
archfoe the United States, a top foreign ministry official said 
on Sunday, amid speculation of American plans for military action 
against Tehran.

"We have prepared ourselves for any situation, even if war happens,"
Deputy Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mohammadi told the ISNA news
agency.

"Iran is ready for negotiations without preconditions with the
United States, but the Americans have not accepted it yet," he added.

"We have had unofficial meetings with Americans over Afghanistan and
Iraq, but they say first Iran should accept US conditions and then
talks take place."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has insisted she would only
hold talks with her Iranian counterpart if Tehran first agreed to a
suspension of sensitive nuclear activities.

Mohammadi said that if the UN Security Council adopted a second
resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's controversial nuclear
programme, Tehran would press on with its atomic drive.

"If the second resolution is issued we will not react and Iran will
continue its nuclear work," said Mohammadi.

US Vice President Dick Cheney reignited speculation of US military
intervention in Iran when he said Washington favours a diplomatic
approach to Tehran's atomic programme but that "all options are
still on the table."

The United States and Israel accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies the charges, insisting its atomic programme is
peaceful in nature.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 23 AFP: Iran says fires first rocket into space 

by Stuart Williams Sun Feb 25, 7:20 AM ET

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said on Sunday it had successfully launched 
its first rocket into space, at a time of mounting tension with 
the West over its nuclear programme.

"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space,"
a state television anchor announced, without disclosing its range or
the date of the launch.

"The rocket was carrying material intended for research created by
the ministries of science and defence," Mohsen Bahrami, the head of
Iran's aerospace research centre, told state television.

He did not give further details on the nature of the cargo. State
television has yet to broadcast pictures of the launch.

Iran's claim of success in launching a space rocket appears to be
the first major step towards its stated ambition of putting homemade
satellites into space on the back of Iranian-made rockets.

Iran has for the past years been pressing ahead with a nascent space
programme, which has already seen an Iranian Russian-made satellite
put into orbit by a Russian rocket in October 2005.

That satellite, called Sina-1, was Iran's first and so far only
probe to be launched into space and was described by the Iranian
press at the time as being for research and telecommunications
purposes.

Iran has said it is planning the construction and launch of several
more satellites over the next three years.

Officials were quick to emphasise that the rocket had been
manufactured using Iran's own resources, echoing similar statements
about its nuclear programme.

"All the tests (leading up to the launch) have been carried out in
the country's industrial facilities in line with international
regulations," said Bahrami.

"The manufacture of the rocket and the cargo was achieved by experts
at the centre of aerospace research and the engineering centre at
the ministry of agricultural planning," he added.

Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najar said the US trade embargo
imposed in the wake of the Islamic revolution in 1979 had spurred
Iran to press ahead with developments in its space programme.

"The sanctions of the enemies in the area of aerospace have allowed
us to to develop our aviation, space and electronics industries," he
said.

"We are working on constructing satellites and on rockets capable of
launching a satellite into space."

The Islamic republic has in recent weeks boasted of its scientists'
progress not just in nuclear energy but also in medicine, where it
has announced the development of a new therapies for AIDS and
spinal-cord disorder patients.

Iran has already announced the development of a plasma-thrusting
engine to help guide satellites as part of its nascent space
programme.

The announcement Iran has succeeded in launching its first rocket
into space comes amid mounting tensions with the United States over
its nuclear programme, which Washington alleges is cover for weapons
development.

OPEC's number two producer Iran denies the charges, saying its
atomic drive is solely aimed at supply energy for a growing
population.

US Vice President Dick Cheney reignited speculation of US military
intervention in Iran when he said Washington favours a diplomatic
approach to Tehran's atomic programme but that "all options are
still on the table."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 24 AFP: Israel denies seeking US go-ahead for Iran strike 

Sat Feb 24, 4:55 AM ET

JERUSALEM (AFP) - Israel on Saturday has denied a report in a 
British daily that it is seeking permission from the United 
States to fly its bombers over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear 
facilities.

"There has never been such a request, it is obvious," Deputy Defence
Minister Ephraim Sneh told public radio.

The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed senior Israeli defence
official as saying that negotiations were taking place with the
US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" over Iraq if
the Jewish state decided on unilateral action.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such
as these are crucial," the official told the conservative British
broadsheet in a dispatch from Tel Aviv.

"If we don't sort these issues out we could have a situation where
American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

Sneh put the report down to "international sources who wish to dodge
dealing directly with Iran and invent reports that we allegedly want
to attack Iran in order to relieve themselves from the
responsibility."

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in the past called
for Israel to be wiped off the map.

But Israel has consistently said that the Iranian nuclear question
should be solved by the international community and not the Jewish
state alone, even though it refuses to rule out a preemptive strike
against Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report
Thursday saying that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded,
its uranium enrichment programme, defying a United Nations Security
Council demand to stop by this week.

The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher
Security Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and
Russia have taken softer stances. Iran denies US charges that it
seeks nuclear weapons.

An Israeli officer involved in the military planning told The Daily
Telegraph: "One of the last issues we have to sort out is how we
actually get to the targets in Iran. The only way to do this is to
fly through US-controlled airspace in Iraq."

A senior Israeli security official who works on the strategic
committee set up to deal with the Iran threat, chaired by Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, said: "The amount of effort we are putting
into this single issue is unprecedented in the history of the State
of Israel," the newspaper reported.

Israel is itself considered to be the sole nuclear weapons power in
the Middle East. It does not officially acknowledge that it has an
arsenal although Olmert appeared to do so in an apparent lapse last
year.

Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near
Baghdad after suspecting Iraq of aiming to build nuclear weapons.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 AFP: Israel seeks US green light for Iran attack - report - 

Sat Feb 24, 1:25 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - Israel is seeking permission from the United 
States to fly its jets over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear 
facilities, The Daily Telegraph newspaper said Saturday, citing 
sources.

A senior Israeli defence official told the conservative British
broadsheet in a dispatch from Tel Aviv that negotiations were taking
place for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor"
over Iraq if the Jewish state decided on unilateral action.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such
as these are crucial," the official said.

"If we don't sort these issues out we could have a situation where
American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in the past called
for Israel to be wiped off the map.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report
Thursday saying that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded,
its uranium enrichment programme, defying a United Nations Security
Council demand to stop by this week.

The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher
Security Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and
Russia have taken softer stances. Iran denies US charges that it
seeks nuclear weapons.

An Israeli officer involved in the military planning told The Daily
Telegraph: "One of the last issues we have to sort out is how we
actually get to the targets in Iran. The only way to do this is to
fly through US-controlled air space in Iraq."

A senior Israeli security official who works on the strategic
committee set up to deal with the Iran threat, chaired by Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, said: "The amount of effort we are putting
into this single issue is unprecedented in the history of the State
of Israel," the newspaper reported.

Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against
Iran. Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor
near Baghdad after suspecting Iraq of aiming to build nuclear
weapons.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 YONHAP NEWS: Foreigners consider N.K. nuke biggest obstacle to improving S.
Korea's image: survey

 2007/02/26 09:36 KST

SEOUL, Feb. 26 (Yonhap) -- Foreign opinion leaders here are
skeptical about North Korea's intentions to fulfill its disarmament
commitments made in a recent nuclear deal, according to a survey
released by a private institute on Monday.

The survey, conducted on Feb. 9-23 by Corea Image Communication
Institute (CICI), showed that 42.1 percent of 254 foreign CEOs,
diplomatic envoys and other foreign opinion leaders in South Korea
consider Pyongyang's nuclear threat to be the biggest obstacle to
improving the South's image.

North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear facilities as the first
step towards denuclearization in return for energy aid and other
economic and diplomatic benefits in the Feb. 13 agreement reached
between the two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan.

Roughly 39 percent selected "social instability" as the biggest
problem, followed by political instability with 7.4 percent and the
image of stagnated IT power with 1.6 percent.

The survey also showed that business people take social instability
(47.4 percent) more seriously than Pyongyang's nuclear program (39.7
percent).

"Foreigners appear to be dubious about whether the six-party talks
can provide a fundamental solution to the North Korea nuclear
issue," said Choi Jung-wha, president of the institute and professor
of the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. "This survey
suggests that it is important to improve the overall environment
surrounding the society to improve its image."
(END)

*****************************************************************
 27 IAEA: Dr. ElBaradei Accepts Invitation to Visit North Korea

Web IAEA.org

Staff Report

23 February 2007

IAEA Director Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon brief members of the international media on
their discussions. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)

IAEA Chief Dr Mohamed ElBaradei today accepted an invitation from
the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK/North Korea) to
visit the DPRK for talks in March. Dr. ElBaradei announced the visit
during a press conference with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Dr. ElBaradei welcomed the visit as an opportunity to discuss
"issues of mutual concern" and "work toward the normalization of the
relationship between DPRK and the Agency."

"I see this as a step toward the denuclearization of the North
Korean Peninsular," Dr. ElBaradei told the press. "I hope that DPRK
may eventually come back as a member of the IAEA. We will discuss
issues of mutual concern and how we can implement the agreement
reached at the six-Party talks about the shut down and eventual
abandonment of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the
reprocessing facility. I look forward to seeing the DPRK come back
to the Agency as full members where we can not only provide
verification but provide also assistance in many areas in terms of
nuclear technology and nuclear safety."

Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 28 UPI: El Baradei to visit North Korea

United Press International - NewsTrack - 

Updated: 02/24/2007 12:56:19 AM -0500 UTC

VIENNA, Austria, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of 
the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, has been invited to North 
Korea.

ElBaradei said the invitation demonstrates North Korea's desire 
to have normal relations with the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported.

A spokeswoman said ElBaradei will travel to Pyongyang after the 
next meeting of the IAEA board of governors, scheduled for March 
5 through March 9.

North Korea has agreed to give up its nuclear weapons program in 
return for incentives.

ElBaradei said the short-term goal of his visit is to discuss 
dismantling North Korea's nuclear facilities. But he said his 
major goal is to bring the country back into the IAEA.

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 29 Korea Times: Korea to Reclaim Wartime Military Control in April 2012

    Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation

South Korea will reclaim wartime operational control of its forces
from the United States as of April 17, 2012, the two countries
announced Friday.

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo and U.S. Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates said in a joint press statement in Washing that
the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) will
simultaneously be disbanded.

The Yonhap News Agency reported that the agreement resolves one of
the most controversial bilateral issues as Seoul and Washington
continue to redefine a military alliance that dates back to the
1950-1953 Korean War, when American soldiers fought with South Korea
against North Korea's invasion.

Following the disbandment of CFC, the two countries will adopt a new
"supporting-supported command relationship," Yonhap quoted the joint
statement as saying.

The United Nations Command, which oversees the armistice that ended
the Korean War, will remain in place.

Yonhap, South Korea¡¯s semi-official news agency, reported that a
roadmap for the transfer of operational control would commence in
July this year, and it will be tested in a joint certification
exercise in March 2012.

After roughly two weeks of review on the outcome of the drill, the
transfer will become official as of April 17 that year.

There will be prior test drills from 2010 during the South
Korea-U.S. Ulchi Focus Lens maneuvers held every August, at which
potential problems will be resolved. The final certification drill
in March 2012 will be led entirely by the South Korean side.

Defense Minister Kim met privately with Secretary Gates for some 20
minutes in what was their first meeting, according to Yonhap. The
talks continued over a luncheon attended by officials from both
countries.

The defense chiefs reaffirmed earlier agreements on relocating U.S.
forces out of Seoul and pledged close cooperation on their
implementation.

Yonhap said they discussed the importance of joint readiness to
counter North Korea's conventional, nuclear and missile threats and
agreed that the military alliance between their countries is capable
of defending against security challenges from the North.

They also agreed on the importance of training and exercises to
maintaining a high-level of combined war fighting capability, the
statement said.

Seoul and Washington have been reassessing their respective roles in
military relations, with South Korea wanting to assume larger
responsibilities in national defense while the U.S. takes on a
supporting position.

Operational control became a focal point as South Korea desired to
command its own forces during wartime. The U.S. side currently has
the command after South Korea voluntarily handed it over during the
Korean War.

Seoul regained peacetime operational control of its troops in 1994.

The timing of the transfer was much debated between the two
countries, with the Pentagon pushing for an earlier 2010 date while
Seoul argued for 2012.

Although officials won't go on record, they indicated that the U.S.
met South Korea's request after the departure of "more hawkish"
figures in the George W. Bush administration.

"There was a lot of flexibility on the U.S. part. The atmospherics
in Washington has changed much," Jeon Jei-guk, South Korea's
assistant defense minister for policy, told reporters at a briefing.

The U.S. agreed to the year 2012 because it acceded to South Korea's
argument that the extra time is necessary to sufficiently conduct
test drills, he said.

Jeon reaffirmed that the transfer of operational control would not
compromise U.S. military augmentation at times of contingencies.

"The transfer is being made under the guarantee of such U.S. forces
augmentation," he said.

South Korea already has its own established plans to become capable
of independent command by 2012, Jeon said.

Still to be pinpointed is the date for relocation of U.S. bases and
forces and return of the land used by the U.S. Forces Korea.

The relocation was initially planned to be completed by the end of
next year, but it is likely to be delayed to as late as 2013.

02-24-2007 22:40
*****************************************************************
 30 TCPalm: Florida can take action now to chart a new energy path

Opinion Columnists

February 24, 2007

Don't you wish that every serious problem facing Florida had a 
cost-effective solution that's already right under our noses?

That's what could happen with Florida's energy future. We have 
the formula for cheaper, cleaner and faster solutions to meet our 
demand for electricity, and we've got it right now.

A new academic study shows that energy efficiency and renewable
energy together can reduce Florida's future electricity needs by
almost half (45 percent) over the next 15 years ? almost half! Our
group, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy,
recently released the study, "Potential for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy To Meet Florida's Growing Demand."

ACEEE is not involved in the debate over what type of energy Florida
ought to use. Our goal is to narrowly look at where Florida gets its
energy from, what it costs, how it is used, and what the future
might hold if we use existing technology to slow demand without
difficult sacrifices for industry or residential users.

The hard fact is that Florida's electricity demand is growing faster
than the state's population. Florida can take action ? now ? to meet
the demands of both population growth and increased energy usage. A
particular challenge is peak demand ? those times when extreme heat
or extreme cold crank up air conditioners and heaters. Peak demand
is growing even faster than Florida's regular day-to-day electricity
demand, and it is the most expensive type of electricity.
Fast-rising peak demand requires utilities to build high-cost
"peaker" power plants that run only a few hours a year.

Florida's energy vulnerabilities have become more apparent during
the past several years. Florida is one of the most natural
gas-dependent states in the country, with more than a third of its
electricity generated by natural gas. In December 2005, the natural
gas "crisis" drove utility prices from less than $3 per
1,000-cubic-foot in the late 1990s to more than $14, a price that
hurt Floridians' pocketbooks. The pain got worse when Hurricane
Katrina disrupted natural gas supplies and jeopardized electricity
generation. While the price of natural gas has fallen over the past
year, it still costs more than two and a half times more than it did
when many of state's new natural gas power plants were planned. It
is not the bargain we once thought. The state now faces plans for
major investments in new power plants. While many of the new power
plants will be coal or nuclear, Florida will still need more natural
gas plants to meet the peak electricity demand.

Unfortunately, Floridians are only being offered two choices for
energy with no consideration for options to cut demand. By building
expensive new coal and nuclear plants to meet growth, we both lock
in high prices for utility customers and also ignore serious
environmental concerns.

Fortunately, another energy course is available. Our study
objectively proves that energy efficiency, coupled with renewable
energy, can slow the future electricity demand, It would also
diversify the state's energy resources, making Florida less
vulnerable to global markets. The ACEEE study shows that
implementing energy efficiency policies alone, such as efficient
windows, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and Energy Star appliances
can almost offset the future growth in electric demand.

Energy efficiency is the most affordable resource, as evidenced by
states from Texas to Vermont finding energy efficiency resources
available at less than 4 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to the
cost of building new power plants in Florida of 5 to 10 cents.

Adding renewable energy ? such as wind, solar, and biomass ? to
energy efficiency cuts electricity demand even more. Today, Florida
only generates 0.1 percent of its electricity from renewable
resources, compared to a national average of 2.3 percent. Previous
research shows that energy efficiency and renewable energy together
generate twice the jobs in Florida that would be generated from the
same investment in new power plants.

Florida has the power to change course and realize the benefits of
greater reliability, cost savings and a cleaner environment. All it
takes is leadership.

Elliott is the industrial program director for the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a non-partisan, non-profit
organization based in Washington, D.C.


© 2007 Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers.
*****************************************************************
 31 Economic Times: No warmth, energy comes first 

Indiatimes

AGENCIES[ SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2007 05:09:03 AM]

WASHINGTON: You could be excused for thinking that we’ll soon do
something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, to
a 90% probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier,
Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a
top priority and 10 big US firms (including GE and DuPont) endorsed
federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand.

Don’t be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We
have no solution. About 80% of the world’s energy comes from fossil
fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), the main sources of man-made
greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which
buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace
fossil fuels, or find ways to capture their emissions, governments
will not sanction deep energy cuts that would affect global warming.

You should treat the pious exhortations to “do something” with
scepticism, or contempt. These pronouncements are naive,
self-interested, misinformed, stupid, or dishonest. Politicians
mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when they’re not.
Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by
new environmental regulations.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these
harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of CO2 totalled 26
billion metric tonnes. Under plausible economic and population
assumptions, they’ll grow to 40 billion metric tonnes by 2030,
projects the International Energy Agency in Paris. About
three-quarters of the increase comes from developing countries,
two-fifth from China alone. By 2009, IEA expects China to pass the
US as the largest source of CO2.

Poor countries won’t sacrifice economic growth — lowering poverty
and fostering political stability — to placate the rich world’s
global warming fears. Why should they? On a per person basis, their
CO2 emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries.
In Africa, less than 40% of the population even has electricity.

Nor will the existing technologies rescue us. IEA did an
“alternative scenario” that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies
to reduce fossil fuel use; for example, fuel economy for new US
vehicles was assumed to increase 30% by 2030. The result: by 2030,
annual CO2 emissions would rise 31% instead of 55%.

Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree
Celsius. Sea level has risen about 7 inches. So far, global warming
has been a change, not a calamity. IPCC projects wide ranges for the
next century: temperature increases anywhere from 1.1 degrees
Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises anywhere from 7 inches to
almost 2 feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly
disruptions.

In practice, no plausible “cap and trade” programme would curb
global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to
shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket
and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices.
Neither seems likely. The programme would be a regulatory burden
with little benefit. It would be a bonanza for lobbyists and
lawyers, as industries and localities besieged Washington for
exceptions and special treatment.

We need a more urgent programme of R&D, focusing on nuclear power,
electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of CO2.
There’s no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive
technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more
or less on automatic pilot.

Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
 32 HindustanTimes.com: 'March crucial for Indo-US N-deal'

New analysis: Pramit Pal Chaudhuri

New York City/Washington, February 25, 2007

The coming month will be crucial to the final success of the Indo-US
nuclear deal, say both Indian and US officials. The 123 Agreement
will see week-long negotiations starting March 5. India is also
scheduled to begin talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency
on an inspection regime at about the same time.

This past week's talks between Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar
Menon and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns represented the opening round for the 123 Agreement
negotiations.

The 123 is the final document defining the legal and administrative
nature of civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

During his visit, Menon presented the opening Indian position on the
123 text.

The document, largely drafted by the Department of Atomic Energy and
reflecting that agency's wariness of cooperating with the US, is
seen as a maximalist position.

The 123 draft includes three key areas of difference between the two
countries.
First is an Indian demand for guarantees on nuclear fuel supplies.
Burns on Thursday said that on this topic "President Bush provided
assurances personally to the prime minister of India…there is no
disagreement between India and the US on fuel assurances." The real
meat of this assurance will be part of the agreement India
negotiates with the IAEA.

Second is that the 123 should not have mandatory sanctions against
India in case the latter carries out nuclear tests. On this Burns
merely said, "I don't think this is going to conflict with our
ability to complete the 123 agreement." Officials say this is a
problem of finessing the wording of the sanctions.

Third, and most difficult, is about the right of India to reprocess
spent nuclear fuel. "This will be the toughest nut to crack," admit
Indian officials. US officials concur. The latter are hampered by
the strong sentiments this arouses in a Democratic Party-controlled
Congress.

Indian and US officials expect the negotiations that will be held in
the second week of March will overcome many of the hurdles. The last
and most difficult gaps will require "political intervention at the
highest levels" to be bridged.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee may go to Washington later in
March if the lower-level talks cover enough ground.

Time is seen as the main threat to the Indo-US nuclear deal. There
is still a whole raft of negotiations and documentation to be done,
especially on the Indian side. The completed 123 and IAEA agreements
will open the door to talks with the Nuclear Suppliers Group. In
turn, NSG approval will depend on India's adopting a number of
international measures like the Missile Technology Control Regime.
"These are in the national interest but are time-consuming," admit
Indian officials.

However, the sands are running against the deal in the US Congress,
which must vote for or against the 123 Agreement. Burns hoped the
vote would take place by the end of 2007 or early 2008.

A number of Democrats in Congress have begun quietly arguing for a
roll back on the nuclear deal legislation that was passed in
December last year. This sentiment, say diplomatic sources in
Washington, is likely to become more intense post-summer when the US
presidential campaign will make bipartisan legislative action
difficult.

That the clock was ticking was one point of bilateral agreement
during special envoy Shyam Saran's visit to Washington DC earlier
this month. Menon implicitly acknowledged this during his US visit.
As far as a timeframe for completing the 123 was concerned, he said,
"the quicker the better." The various dates for talks and the
changing political winds in the US, however, have already defined an
unofficial timeline that is determining the work pace of Indian and
US officials.

Asia News  © HT Media Ltd. 2007.  India News
*****************************************************************
 33 Guardian Unlimited: Bush breathes new life into Reagan's dream

Alok Jha, science correspondent
Saturday February 24, 2007 The Guardian

American dreams of a Star Wars defence system were first revealed 
by Ronald Reagan in a speech in 1983 as a way of ending the 
deadlock of the cold war doctrine of mutually assured 
destruction, where his country and the Soviet Union were forever 
poised to annihilate each other.

Reagan's missile defence plan was called the Strategic Defense 
Initiative (SDI) and was designed to protect against a massive 
Soviet strike, perhaps 20 or more nuclear warheads flying into 
the US at one time. The central concept was called brilliant eyes 
and brilliant pebbles, a flotilla of sensors and interceptors in 
separate orbits around the Earth.

"There was no central command - a brilliant eye would spot a 
missile, communicate with a brilliant pebble and send it off to 
hit it," said Tim Williams, head of the EU security programme at 
the Royal United Services Institute. "The technology worked, it 
was proven. What they weren't sure about was whether it would 
actually stop a major attack, whether it could get every missile 
in a 20-strong attack."

A possible cost of $69bn led to the programme being called off but,
after the end of the cold war, George Bush senior revived it in a
programme called the Global Protection Against Limited Strike but it
was again abandoned when he lost the 1993 presidential election.

Bill Clinton shifted the focus of missile defence to ground-based
interceptor missiles as part of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organisation, though it was never very high on his list of
priorities.

When George W Bush came to power in 2001, he resurrected some of the
old SDI technology as part of the National Missile Defence and
Ground-based Midcourse Defence, the "son of Star Wars". There are
space-based sensors that draw on the brilliant eyes technology and
multiple kill vehicles (MKV) that are designed to distinguish
between decoys and real weapons as close to the launch site as
possible.

The MKVs, which could cost more than £20m each, are likely to carry
no warheads of their own. Once the satellites and sensors detect an
incoming nuclear missile, the missile defence system would launch an
MKV to ram a block of metal into the incoming missile at speeds of
16,000mph. If the collision occurred in space, the resulting debris
would burn up as it fell through the atmosphere.

It is one of scores of technologies that could be employed as part
of a missile defence programme: one of the more ambitious ideas
touted is a laser attached to planes that would circle around rogue
states, in case they launched a rocket.

Useful links
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Department for International Development

Email comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 34 Spectrum: Divine Strake bites the dust

www.thespectrum.com The Spectrum, St. George, UT 

Sunday, February 25, 2007   

In the end, all it took was 10,000 voices in protest. That's 
10,000 voices from mostly red-state Utah where residents were 
opposed to detonation of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel 
oil in an attempt to gather data for the design, manufacture and 
deployment of nuclear bunker buster weapons.

They called this travesty Divine Strake, one of those military 
code names that really makes no sense to anybody outside of The 
Pentagon.
 
But, there was nothing divine about this test, planned to go off in
some of the most highly radiated turf in the nation in the middle of
the Nevada Test Site where, during the Cold War, the federal
government exploded more than 1,000 nukes in pursuit of truth,
justice and the American Way. At one point, the U.S. had 32,193 of
these babies locked and loaded, ready to go at the push of a button
if the Great Red Menace got out of hand. Now, there are nearly
10,000, more than half of them tipped and ready to go.

But, this administration decided that wasn't enough and wanted to
push for the bunker busters, soft-pedaling them as mini-nukes, as if
that makes a difference.

It caused the people of Utah, Nevada and Idaho to wage a nuclear
jihad the moment the test was made public.

The original paperwork described it as the first course of a menu
that would eventually lead to the new nukes. And, as anybody with
half a mind can tell you, if you build a bomb, you must test it
before you deploy it.

But now, at least for the time being, it is over, thanks to a cadre
of residents who had the courage to stand up and say, "Not this
time!"

This was one of those truly rare bipartisan issues.

Staunch, old-line Republicans stood shoulder-to-shoulder with
progressives and members of the Democratic Party's left-leaning
activists and demanded an end to this test, which they feared would
toss tiny little microns of atomically charged dust 10,000 feet into
the sky, only to land God knows where.

They had been through this before when, during the Cold War, the
government blew nasty nukes up in the desert and these people were
hit with the fallout, causing many cancerous deaths and ailments.
The feds told them they had nothing to fear, that the fallout was
harmless.

Many are gone. Some of those children, severely maimed by the cancer
that fell from the sky, are still around, however, and they led the
charge. And after the announcement they shed tears of joy for those
who will be spared and tears of sorrow for the innocent victims of
the worst attack ever on the citizens of this country.

It's over.

At least for now.

Contact Local News Editor Ed Kociela at ekociela@the spectrum.com or
call 674-6237.


Copyright ©2007 The Spectrum.
*****************************************************************
 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Columnist unfairly criticized Divine Strake

commentary

David M. D'Antuono

Article Last Updated: 02/23/2007 10:01:05 PM MST

On behalf of the news staff and management team here at ABC 4, we
take great exception to Salt Lake Tribune TV columnist Vince
Horiuchi's opinion in columns on Feb. 11, 15 and 19 that ABC 4's
stance on the Divine Strake proposal blurs "the line between fair
news and editorializing."

    Of course, what Mr. Horiuchi is referring to is an ABC 4 report
that aired on our late newscast of Feb. 7, when veteran anchor Terry
Wood visited the Department of Energy headquarters in Las Vegas,
Nev., and delivered more than 1,000 public comments from Utahns
concerned about the potential negative impact of the Pentagon's
plan, abandoned Thursday, to explode a 700-ton non-nuclear device at
the Nevada Test Site.

    Following his report, Mr. Wood used the next few minutes to
vigorously argue against the Divine Strake test. This portion of the
newscast was clearly labeled "Commentary" and was distinguished from
the main newscast quite noticeably in terms of language, visuals and
tone.

    Not only did ABC 4 management authorize Mr. Wood's public
commentary, we applauded it. The prospect of Divine Strake raising
long dormant radioactive dust from these previous tests into the air
over Utah once again was simply unacceptable.

    And we didn't enter into this lightly. Mr. Wood was very 
clear about what he was going to say, and we vetted the pros and 
cons of him saying it. That's why we made the on-air distinctions 
we did. But Mr. Horiuchi claims our ultimate treatment "destroys 
the credibility of [our] news department."

    Again, we take great exception. We were very aware that
injecting this type of editorial opinion into our newscast would be
compelling, but we were very cautious to call attention to the fact
that it was just that: editorial opinion. We believe that taking
this kind of public stance on such a noteworthy issue doesn't blur a
line or destroy credibility - it strengthens those attributes. Our
viewers know exactly where we are, what we've said and where we
stand.

    Mr. Horiuchi's most pressing point seemed to be that we were
mistaken to be using Mr. Wood, one of our primary anchors, as the
commentator on this subject. But in fact, this is a widely accepted
practice in television news - one common in many markets across the
country and on a national basis.

    TV journalists as far back as Edward R. Murrow and Walter
Cronkite openly took public stances on controversial topics. Even
today, longtime respected newsmen like CBS's Bob Schieffer offer
personal viewpoints in a commentary form, as he does every Sunday on
"Face the Nation."

    The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for the
Radio-Television News Directors Association is very precise on this
matter, stating that "opinion and commentary" segments should be
"clearly labeled."

    The Code of Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists
is equally stringent, saying that it's our job to "distinguish
between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should
be labeled and not misrepresent fact or content."

    ABC 4's adherence to these journalistic tenets was clearly
evident in the Divine Strake commentary. It was manifest in Mr.
Wood's copy and accompanying on-screen text, which labeled his
opinion as a station editorial. In no way did Mr. Wood mask ABC 4's
position, nor did he subvert the code of ethics to which ABC 4 and
thousands of other American TV news operations subscribe on a daily
basis.

    So, was this really a breach of trust with our viewers?
    We say no.
    In the end, our viewers will judge for themselves.

   ---
    * DAVID M. D'ANTUONO is the vice president and general manager
of ABC 4 TV in Salt Lake City.

Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 36 Salt Lake Tribune: A lot of people gave their all to nuke Divine Strake

Barb Guy

Article Last Updated: 02/24/2007 09:15:18 AM MST

A one-line e-mail greeted me last Thursday after lunch. It said,
"Your voice is not a miracle. Your voice can be heard. Divine Strake
is dead."

    It was from Pete Ashdown, an opponent of Divine Strake who lives
in Salt Lake City. The message was to Pete's e-mail list, which he
compiled during his campaign to oust U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch.

    I smiled at Pete's fortune cookie brevity. To convince myself
the news was real, I visited The Salt Lake Tribune's Web site. It
had already posted Robert Gehrke's story, which ran on the front
page of the Trib the next morning: "Feds pull plug on desert blast."

    I was thrilled. Stunned. Thrilled. Stunned. Victories like
these, where the little guy stares down the leviathan defense
machinery of the United States of America and makes the government
blink, are rare and impossibly sweet.

    Who gets credit for winning the battle? You do, if you called
your representatives, wrote a letter to the editor, shared your
thoughts at a hearing, engaged in a courageous conversation,
participated in a poll, or submitted your concerns to the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency. If you did anything at all, you helped win
it.

    Two people who earned big kudos are Steve Erickson and Robert
Hager. Last year Erickson, a life-long policy wonk, signed his name
to an intense legal document. It opens with these sobering words:
STEPHEN ERICKSON [among Advertisement 12 others], plaintiffs, v. 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DONALD RUMSFELD, [and two others], 
defendants.

    Yes, Erickson sued the Bush administration to stop Divine
Strake. Robert Hager is the Nevada lawyer who handled the case.

    Erickson says it never would have happened without Hager, who
credits Peggy Maze Johnson, head of Citizen Alert, a Nevada watchdog
group. He also cites the five world-renowned experts who gave
comments as part of the lawsuit - two scientists, a legal scholar, a
pathologist and a Western Shoshone elder. Hager adds, "I appreciate
the public comments of everyone in Utah. You cannot underestimate
the effect a dedicated group of people can have."

    Ashdown expressed gratitude that so many spoke from their hearts
at the public meetings. He says, "I'm extremely encouraged that [the
government] listened to us. I'm encouraged Senator Hatch listened to
us." Against all odds, beyond usual boundaries, people want to share
the glory.

    Erickson sums it up this way, "It's a nice little victory.
Everybody did a fine job on this across the board. I think the
lawsuit had a major role. Individuals, organizations, city councils,
county commissions, the governor, and even the Utah delegation - all
of that combined had an impact on the outcome. ... It's a team win."

    It's such ecstasy to win. First the elections, then a round of
resignations, and now this. For some, the world is just beginning to
make sense.

    But I hear Erickson choose the word "little" and it gives me
pause. On one hand, I crave a victory party, but I also understand
that it's never over. Vigilance is required. That's where "little"
comes from. We can relax a moment, but must do it with one eye open.

    A curt DTRA press release says in part, "[The decision] was not
based on any technical information that indicates the test would
produce harm to workers, the general public, or the environment."

    Right. You can tell they'll be back.

    A lot of people gave their all to nuke Divine Strake. So for the
triumphant stakeholders, maybe a joyous revel is in order, but then
it's right back to staying informed and speaking out.
   ---
    * BARB GUY is a regular contributor to these pages.

Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 37 Scotsman.com News: Rally hears calls for 'son of Trident' to be axed

Sun 25 Feb 2007

MATT DICKINSON

POLITICAL, church and union leaders joined forces yesterday at a 
rally to put pressure on the government to ditch the Trident 
nuclear weapons system.

Around 1,000 protesters joined the demonstration in Glasgow 
calling for plans to update the submarine-based system to be 
abandoned.

The event, tied in with an anti-war and anti-nuclear rally in 
London's Trafalgar Square, came as a poll found 76% of Scots 
would rather see money for Trident spent on public services.

The YouGov poll, commissioned by the SNP, also found two-thirds 
of the country opposed the purchase of a system to replace 
Trident.

Last year, Prime Minister Tony Blair set out plans to replace 
Trident - based on the Clyde at Faslane - at an estimated cost of 
up to Â£20bn.

He said retention of the nuclear deterrent was "crucial" to 
national security. Parliament is due to formally decide next 
month whether to give the renewal the go-ahead.

SNP leader Alex Salmond joined Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan and 
CND vice-president Bruce Kent to speak in Glasgow's George Square 
after an hour-long march through the streets. Also present were 
the Right Reverend Alan McDonald, moderator of the General 
Assembly of the Church of Scotland and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, 
head of the Catholic church.

Salmond told members of the rally that they had a choice at this 
May's Holyrood elections to vote for a "nuclear-free Scotland".

He added:

"The people of Scotland have shown their opposition to Trident 
time and again. Instead of wasting billions on a weapons system 
that cannot protect us from terrorism, people would rather see 
that money spent on schools, hospitals and fighting crime.

"These new poll figures show the vast majority of Scots reject 
'son of Trident'. Like me, they want to see peace with security 
and prosperity."

Other speakers scheduled for the event included former Labour 
communities minister Malcolm Chisholm, who quit office after 
voting against the Scottish Executive on Trident, and Matt Smith 
of Unison.

Reverend McDonald, who has argued that nuclear weapons are 
morally and theologically wrong for the Past 25 years, told the 
rally: "As the government prepares to make the decision about 
renewing Trident, it is now make up your mind time for all of 
us."

Dr Richard McCready, secretary of the Roman Catholic social 
movement Justice and Peace Scotland, added: "In the run-up to the 
vote in the House of Commons in March, I would urge everyone who 
is concerned about the possibility of renewing weapons of mass 
destruction to contact their MP.

"Nuclear weapons are immoral and we must use this opportunity to 
clearly state our case."

Yesterday's rally came after the arrest of 45 people on Friday at 
the Faslane Naval Base, home to the UK's Trident submarine fleet.

Ministry of Defence police moved in after seven Greenpeace boats 
tried to enter the base.

Related topic * Nuclear defence 
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=373

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=298472007

Last updated: 25-Feb-07 00:06 GMT

©2007 Scotsman.com | contact 
*****************************************************************
 38 Guardian Unlimited: The compelling case that confrontation is still on the cards

Analysis

Ian Black
Monday February 26, 2007 The Guardian

Seymour Hersh's reputation as an investigative journalist means 
his latest report on US policy in the Middle East will fuel 
worries that despite Washington's insistence on using diplomatic 
means to end the nuclear crisis with Iran, confrontation is still 
on the cards.

Dick Cheney, the vice-president, underlined this at the weekend 
when he warned that "all options were on the table". Hersh 
fleshes this out by revealing that a Pentagon special unit is 
planning a bombing campaign that could be implemented within 24 
hours of getting a White House go-ahead.

The article in the New Yorker magazine sets the wider scene by
describing how failure in Iraq has led the Bush administration to
see the Islamic republic as the chief strategic beneficiary of the
war. The so-called "redirection" of US policy starts from that point.

Elements of this shift have been clear for some time. The US
"moderates" versus "extremists" agenda was laid out publicly by the
secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, last month; Israel and Saudi
Arabia have been driven together by shared hostility to Iran and its
Lebanese Shia ally, Hizbullah, since last summer's war. Tensions
between Sunni and Shia Muslims are now part of everyday political
discourse across the region.

Blending analysis with revelation, Hersh reports that the US is now
operating secretly in both Lebanon and Iran, though he provides
little detail from sources that include government consultants,
former diplomats, former intelligence officials or academics. The
overall picture is convincing enough, but it is hard to judge either
the scale or the significance of some of what he writes.

Experts will not be surprised by the key role he attributes to the
Saudi national security adviser, Prince Bandar, who is close to Mr
Cheney, or by the claim that the funding and execution of some
clandestine activities is being left to the conservative kingdom.
That would mirror Saudi support for the mujahideen during the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan.

One fascinating revelation is that "budgetary chaos" in Iraq is
creating "pots of black money" for covert purposes - with echoes of
the Iran-Contra scandal of the Reagan presidency in the 1980s.
Another is that some cash for Fuad Siniora's beleaguered pro-western
government in Beirut "to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shia
influence" has found its way to Sunni radical groups with
ideological ties to al-Qaida.

Walid Junblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader, is quoted as telling Mr
Cheney that the US should support the banned Syrian Muslim
Brotherhood to undermine the Assad regime in Damascus, and a former
CIA officer confirms the US and Saudis are now backing Syrian
opposition groups. Syria is Iran's only Arab ally and a key backer
of Hizbullah.

Hersh's report that American military and special operations teams
have escalated activities in Iran, crossing from Iraq to gather
intelligence and pursue Iranian operatives, will confirm allegations
made by Tehran. It has accused the US, Britain and Israel of
fomenting separatist attacks in Arab-majority Khuzestan in the
south-west of Iran, in Baluchi province bordering Pakistan and in
Azeri and Kurdish frontier areas.

Hersh was the first to write about the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison,
and wrote extensively about the build-up to the Iraq war. He made
his name by exposing the My Lai massacre and has written an exposé
of Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 39 Guardian Unlimited: Government denies nuclear hypocrisy 

From Press Association

Sunday February 25, 2007 2:13 PM

Claims that Britain cannot expect other countries to refrain from
developing nuclear weapons if it upgrades its Trident missile system
have been dismissed by the Government.

Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram said claims by Mohammed El
Baradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the
West risked losing its moral authority when criticising states such
as Iran were "wrong."

Mr Ingram said that when it came to Britain's national security,
taking the moral high ground didn't save lives.

He was speaking amid reports that Iran had fired a missile capable
of reaching space. The launch, if true, comes at a time of mounting
tension between Tehran and the West over Iran's controversial
nuclear programme.

Asked about Mr El Baradei's argument that Britain upgrading Trident
would encourage other countries to want their own nuclear weapons,
Mr Ingram told ITV1's The Sunday Edition: "It's certainly a powerful
point but I think he is wrong in all of that."

He added: "I asked a question in a debate with Michael Meacher
(Labour candidate for the leadership) in a debate the other day. I
said if we gave up our nuclear deterrent, would it stop Iran
developing theirs?

"He said no - but it would give us a moral high ground.

"Now when it comes to national security, moral high ground doesn't
save lives. I think it is part of the component of how we argue our
case in the United Nations and elsewhere."

Mr Ingram also said that the the upgrade to Trident would "not
affect conventional spending" but would cost £20 billion.

However this figure would increase with maintenance "in the same way
as it has been for the last 25, 30 years and indeed beyond that as
well."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 40 Guardian Unlimited: Why can't MPs see the folly of Trident? 

| Comment | 

Britain can have no moral authority over Iran's nuclear crusade 
while we are hellbent on upgrading our fleet

Mary Riddell Sunday February 25, 2007 The Observer

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men 
to do nothing. Edmund Burke's warning, possibly the most 
overworked quote in public life, is often the least helpful. Bad 
laws might stay unframed and unwinnable wars unfought, but for 
the impulse to do something.

Take Trident. Within the next few weeks, Parliament will vote on 
modernising the UK's nuclear deterrent, even though no one can 
explain why a new fleet must be authorised now. The Vanguard 
submarines could stay in service until at least 2020 and very 
likely for 15 further years. MPs should say no to Trident. But, 
almost certainly, they won't. So, as a second best, they should 
go for the do-nothing option.

An early-day motion, calling for delay on replacement, has 
already been signed by 81 MPs from all three parties and a 
similar amendment should be put before the House. Last week, an 
unexpected advocate joined in. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN 
nuclear watchdog, warned that Britain cannot expect other 
countries to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons if it 
upgrades Trident.

Mr ElBaradei fits no peacenik caricature. Admired for scotching
rumours of Saddam's nukes, he is a rigorous diplomat whose attack on
the UK for planning a nuclear future 'far into the 21st century' has
astounded those who did not believe a senior figure would dare be so
forthright. ElBaradei is, in effect, accusing the Blair government
of hypocrisy and incitement to the bomb-builders of Iran.

The timing could not be worse. Tomorrow, representatives of the five
permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany, will meet
in London to devise a new resolution after the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), which ElBaradei heads, reported that Tehran
has accelerated its nuclear programme in defiance of UN demands for
its suspension.

There are three options to deflect President Ahmadinejad from his
crusade. The first is to strengthen sanctions, although it is
doubtful whether Russia would favour punitive measures. The second
is ElBaradei's favoured course of a 'time-out', in which Iran's
nuclear programme and sanctions are set aside, to get both sides to
the negotiating table. This may have the best potential to impress
on Bush that he must talk, without preconditions, and to influence
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is less reckless
than his President.

Option three is the Bush/Cheney blitz, in which Tehran's nuclear
operations are bombed. This would inflame the Middle East, kill many
civilians, provoke terror attacks on the West, rally Iranians behind
their rabid President, threaten the safe passage of 40 per cent of
the world's oil that passes through the Straits of Hormuz and put
Tehran's nuclear programme back by as little as two years. The utter
lunacy of Plan C has seemingly convinced Tony Blair to do nothing on
the military front. Political diplomacy, he told the Today
programme, is the only route. But his government cannot have clean
hands in this negotiation, or future ones, as long as it demands
weapons it forbids to others. Any notion that our 'independent'
deterrent (in reality signed over to America) holds no international
interest has been exploded by ElBaradei's frustration. The argument
that the UK deserves the perks of a top table power is
anachronistic, and the idea that we merit the means of mass
annihilation because we are 'good' and other countries are 'bad' is
seen as risible throughout the non-nuclear world.

Tehran is clogged with shoppers buying presents for the Persian New
Year. Despite the celebrations, Gemma Mortensen, of Crisis Action,
detects an 'understated tension' on the streets. Ahmadinejad's
rhetoric remains bullish, but he let pass the anniversary of the
revolution without any hubristic progress bulletins. Iran's nuclear
future, and the world's, swings in the wind.

In April, shortly after the Trident vote, British diplomats will go
into preparatory talks for the 2010 conference on the future of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Since 1970, the treaty has held a
creaky peace, on the promise that the five official nuclear powers
will help others achieve civil programmes as long as they eschew the
bomb. So far, it has withstood breaches. But now North Korea has
pulled out, Iran may follow, and much of the Middle East eyes up a
nuclear future. The NPT needs toughening, but that will mean nothing
unless all its signatories stick to the core principles of
non-proliferation and disarmament. Whether or not the UK government
observes the letter of the treaty, it will tear its spirit to shreds
if, at this critical moment, it goes for Trident Two.

While the US does not trade and will not talk with Tehran, the role
of Europe is key in persuading both sides to the table and helping
strengthen the Iranian economy. Instead of focusing, Britain is
hellbent on upgrading its nuclear fleet and, apparently, petitioning
for a slice of Bush's Star Wars programme. It defies belief that Mr
Blair should jostle to join a new arms race and acquire a dangerous
weapons system that would cement a client relationship with a US
administration that may yet lead the West into collective suicide.

If Iran gets its bomb, as it well might, or if the US hawks prevail,
as they well might, will this government still condemn a war that
could destroy the world? No one dare be complacent, least of all
ElBaradei, whose plea that 'we treat nuclear weapons the way we
treat slavery or genocide' finds few echoes. Why can't MPs see the
folly of Trident? The answer is they can. When I talked to our
Foreign Secretary, Mrs Beckett endorsed replacement with the
enthusiasm of someone invited to swallow a leech. Other cabinet
members are uneasy; Charles Clarke, from the sidelines, is scathing.

But, most likely, the whipped ranks of Labour and Tories will say
yes, just as they endorsed the Iraq war - through lassitude,
cowardice or because a nation that has grown more fearful of dying
and more inured to killing has not reacted with sufficient fury.
Behind the scenes, Treasury officials are balking at a likely cost
far above the projected £20bn. The campaigning think-tank, Basic,
remains hopeful that Trident Two may eventually be stopped.

But the moment to show our good faith will have passed and the world
will have shifted. In the same way that Reagan and Gorbachev veered
away from mutually assured destruction, their successors could
stumble back into a fiercer Cold War. MPs should remember Iraq's
lesson that disaster often stems from too much action, not too
little. Here is a chance to change the pattern. Those who won't vote
against Trident must at least endorse delay. Just opt for doing
nothing.

mary.riddell@observer.co.uk

 Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 41 Guardian Unlimited: Can we join the Star Wars club? Blair lobbies 
for UK to be launching pad for defence system | Special Reports | 

Julian Borger and Tania Branigan
Saturday February 24, 2007 The Guardian

A US missile interceptor at an Alaska base. Photograph: John Hagen/AP

Downing Street yesterday confirmed it had asked the US to consider
Britain as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors as
part of the Bush administration's proposed "son of Star Wars"
anti-ballistic defence scheme.

The government had previously played down such reports and the
admission that talks were under way came only after The Economist
reported that Tony Blair was lobbying the Bush administration

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Discussions with the US have
taken place at various levels. Decisions on additional support for
the missile defence system are at a very early stage and no
decisions have been taken as to whether any element of that system
would be based in the UK or where they might be based in the UK. We
welcome plans to place further missile defence assets in Europe."

She declined to comment on reports that the prime minister had 
raised the matter directly with President Bush.

A Ministry of Defence official added: "Poland and the Czech Republic
have expressed interest in hosting elements of missile defence. Our
request is just to be kept in consideration."

However, David Johnson, the deputy chief of mission of the US
embassy in London, said Britain might not be needed. "There may be
opportunities for us to talk to other countries but right now we are
concentrating on the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary
sites."

The system is intended to create a space-age shield around the US
and its allies with an array of interceptor missiles capable of
knocking incoming ballistic missiles out of the sky.Critics argue it
represents a huge expenditure on unproven technology. The nickname
"Son of Star Wars" is a reference to a scheme proposed by Ronald
Reagan.

Both Labour backbenchers and the opposition complained that the
government had not raised the issue with MPs at any point. It has
been suggested the US would want work to begin in 2008 with the
anti-missile system in place by 2012. Such a scheme would be
controversial and raise the spectre of a return to Greenham
Common-style mass peace protest.

Gordon Brown is understood to be aware of the discussions - and the
financial implications - but not to have played an active role in
them. Several Labour MPs expressed concern that Mr Blair might be
attempting to cement Britain's close ties to the US before standing
down.

Joan Ruddock, an ex-minister and former chair of CND, said: "This
needs a proper consultation. It's not something that the outgoing
prime minister should be negotiating with the US in the absence of
parliamentary and public debate."

The Labour leadership contender Michael Meacher said: "This has
apparently been discussed at prime ministerial level for the past
six months when the rest of us knew nothing about it."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "We have had no
details despite asking a lot of questions in Parliament."

He said there were questions about how "applicable and practical"
the system was and where it might be deployed. "If the government
want to maintain a bipartisan approach to defence, they had better
start getting honest with the opposition."

A year ago, Lord Drayson, the minister of defence for procurement,
said the government appreciated "the complexity and sensitivity" of
the issue and promised "a full debate" if any request to deploy
interceptors on British soil was made.

The US has already deployed interceptors in California and Alaska
and is looking for a European site. The Bush administration says the
system is designed as a shield for the US and its allies against
"rogue states" such as North Korea and Iran.

The European site is intended to counter a threat from Iran, but
Moscow has viewed it as an attempt to undermine Russia's nuclear
deterrent.

The development of the missile defence system has been fraught with
technical hurdles but the Ministry of Defence believes the US is
making progress.

"The beginnings of a capability are there, but there is scope for
improvement as the technology matures," an official said. Andrew
Brookes, an aerospace expert and the International Institute for
Strategic Studies was blunter. "The system won't work for 10 to 15
years," Mr Brookes said. "They are spending $18bn a year on it and
they're not getting it right."

The satellite-aided guidance systems would have to achieve the feat
of "getting two bullets to hit each other every time". Meanwhile,
the principal threat being considered, Iran, was at least 10 years
away of being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile capable of
reaching the US, Mr Brookes argued.

If Britain was chosen as a site for interceptor missiles, it is
unclear where they would be sited, as they would be likely to
provoke fierce resistance. Analysts suggest US bases such as
Lakenheath or Mildenhall in Suffolk could be used.

 Useful links
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Department for International Development

Email comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 42 Guardian Unlimited: Thousands take part in anti-war rallies 

Special report: anti-war movement

Rowan Walker
Sunday February 25, 2007 The Observer

Thousands of anti-war protesters took part in demonstrations 
yesterday in London and Glasgow calling for British troops to be 
withdrawn from Iraq.

Among the activists and military families who took to the streets 
were politicians and entertainers. Comedian Mark Thomas and 
playwright David Edgar were expected to speak at a rally in 
Trafalgar Square. The Stop the War coalition, which organised the 
event, along with CND and the British Muslim Initiative, 
estimated that around 100,000 participated in London. The 
Metropolitan Police estimated about 2,000-3,000 took part. The 
protest also demonstrated against the replacement of the Trident 
nuclear missile system and warned against attacking Iran.

Lindsey German, of the Stop the War Coalition, said: 'We know 
that many people are coming to the view that the government is 
addicted to war.' She added: 'They are planning to renew Trident 
and Tony Blair is helping George Bush with his star wars 
project.'

On Friday, relatives of soldiers killed or still serving in Iraq 
set up camp outside Downing Street to coincide with the protest 
and handed in a letter to the Prime Minister calling for troops 
to be withdrawn.

Useful links
Guide to anti-war websites
Stop the War Coalition (UK)

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 43 Times of India: NPT was discriminatory - Kalam-

[ 24 Feb, 2007 1615hrs ISTPTI ]

WELLINGTON (TN): India had not signed the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty since it was discriminatory, President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam
said on Saturday.

Addressing the students and faculty members of Defence Service Staff
college, Kalam said though the US and its allies and Soviet Block
accumulated vast quantities of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, there seems to the some sort of control on them due to
international conventions and treaties.

â€œDespite the noise made against nuclear proliferation, the
developed countries were not likely to reach the state of zero
nuclear weapon under the NPT,â€ he felt.

â€œIn the next two decades antiballistic missile defence systems
were going to be the major force, after which space systems and
strategic military satellites would come in a big way, to guard
against nuclear weapons attack,â€ he said.

â€œAs far as technology control regimes were concerned, the only
answer was through self-reliance in critical technology area. The
motive behind technology denial and NPT and MCTR was to control the
market forces and gain domination,â€ he added.

The President said that the key to becoming a strong nation was to
have economic and military strength.

â€œStarting with the Pokhran explosion in 1974 and the Green
Revolution, we have developed expertise in launch vehicle
technology, remote sensing satellites, communication satellites,
meteorological satellites, strategic missile systems, battle tanks,
electronic warfare systems, light combat aircraft, naval systems and
state-of the art C41 systems. There is a need to integrate all the
technologies and build indigenous systems which will meet the needs
of the Defence services of the country,â€ he said.

Copyright ©2007Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 44 The State: Pontificating Putin pushes Graham toward energy platform

02/25/2007 

Opinion 

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force 
in international relations military force.... Primarily the 
United States has overstepped its national borders, and in every 
area.... They bring us to the abyss ....

 Vladimir Putin

By Brad Warthen

Editorial Page Editor

VLADIMIR PUTIN is pushing Lindsey Graham toward the Energy Party,
and I feel fine.

Sure, that anti-American diatribe at the Munich security conference
on Feb. 10 was the biggest step back toward Cold War since Nikita K.
took off his shoe, but I like to look at the bright side.

“The biggest threat to everybody in the room wasn’t al-Qaida, or
Chechen rebels, it was the United States,” our senior senator said
in an interview last week, marveling at the neo-Stalinist’s
international demagoguery. “It was a blatant pitch at trying to
divide Europe and the United States, because he sees us as weak.”

“Which takes us to energy independence,” I said.

“Which takes us to energy independence,” he nodded.

I like the way this guy thinks.

As regular readers know, I recently called for the creation of a new
political party, one that would get serious about our greatest
strategic vulnerability, while saving the world from global warming
at the same time.

Sen. Graham’s still a Republican, but we might have to nominate him
anyway.

He had thought plenty about this stuff before Munich, but that one
intemperate speech (followed immediately by an Iranian dissertation
on democracy that seemed to come from some other planet) jacked up
his resolve. “Whatever doubts I had about us being
energy-independent were put away,” he said. “I don’t think he ever
made that speech unless he sensed weakness.”

So how do we get strong?

He says the United States government must use economic incentives to
encourage hybrid technology, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear power —
pretty much any viable alternatives that we can embrace that neither
strengthen the worst bad guys in the world nor pump out more
greenhouse-promoting carbon dioxide.

He would promote the transition to hybrid cars — and eventually
hydrogen — on three levels:

? Research. Grants for improving the technology.

? Wholesale. Tax incentives to encourage manufacturers to make the
new vehicles.

? Retail. More tax incentives for individuals to buy them.

He makes sure to point out that South Carolina can play a pivotal
role in all this. We’re well positioned to help develop the
technologies for a hydrogen economy. Meanwhile, we can grow and
process switchgrass and other plants for biofuels.

He sees “a whole economy in energy-efficiency,” one that South
Carolina could help lead.

Beyond that home-team advantage is the bigger picture: “It is in our
long-term national security interest to get people thinking about
alternatives.”

It’s not just cars. We need to make more efficient, cleaner
refrigerators, computers and every other item that uses electricity.

As for that, “Most of our power comes from coal-fired plants.” We
need to “give nuclear power the same tax advantage we give solar and
wind.” Like those usual green suspects, nukes don’t emit CO2, either.

Expensive, yes, but he’s convinced that the economic cost of global
warming is far greater than the 1 percent of gross domestic product
that a full transition away from emitters would cost.

So how do we pay for it?

Well, he said, we can’t do it by “cutting waste” in the
discretionary budget — what most people think of when they say
“federal spending.” There’s just not enough there.

You have to go where the real money is: entitlements. “Change the
structure of our debt,” he said. “Give people like me and Joe
Lieberman and others some breathing room on Social Security,” room
to do the kinds of politically unpalatable things that are necessary
to save it without pulling us further into the fiscal black hole.

Can we produce our way out? No. “Yes, there’s gas and oil, but it’s
a drop in the bucket,” he said, no matter how deep you drill in the
ANWR or offshore. “They’re sort of just one more drink” for the
hopeless alcoholic.

What about increasing the gas tax, to promote conservation and raise
money for incentives? No. “Gas taxes will put some businesses at a
competitive disadvantage with China and India.” Besides, “it’s not
progressive.” It hurts the poor.

“The next president of the United States should declare a war of
energy independence,” he said, evoking the usual metaphors such as
the Manhattan and Apollo projects. We had such a war once against a
king. Now we should “declare a war of independence from the
dictators and sheiks.”

The next president? So he’s given up on this one? He didn’t say
that, but I will. He said President Bush has addressed the issue,
but only in a “piecemeal” fashion.

As for Lindsey Graham, he says he’s doing what he can, such as
working “with McCain and Lieberman to strengthen the conservation
part of their global warming bill.”

But ultimately, he’s just one of 100. “The real megaphone is for the
person who’s going to be president.” Does that mean John McCain, his
preferred candidate for the GOP nomination? Yes, partly: “He’s led
on global warming like no other Republican.” But “I’m urging all the
candidates.”

OK, so I didn’t start this discussion. Mr. Putin did. But that
doesn’t mean the Energy Party’s not going to grab the opportunity
thus created to strengthen national security and save the Earth.

Neither should you. So go ahead. Jump right in.

*****************************************************************
 45 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Unlikely allies united on Trident

Last Updated: Saturday, 24 February 2007, 15:44 GMT

Stephen Stewart BBC Scotland news website

Anarcho-syndicalists. Communists. Scottish Nationalists. 
Anti-racism campaigners. Trades unionists.

It was an eclectic mix which wound its merry way from Cowcaddens 
to Glasgow's George Square.

There was something of a carnival atmosphere despite the rain and 
the city centre's usual Saturday traffic chaos.

Placards and flags of various hues were the order of the day.

An eclectic crowd gave a display of public grumpiness over 
Trident

It appeared that Scotland's chattering classes had shelved their 
differences for the day.

Trident, the nuclear missile system which is carried by submarines
based in a sea loch 30 miles up the road, was undoubtedly the enemy
as thousands descended on the centre of the city.

The prime minister recently outlined plans to spend up to £20bn on a
new generation of submarines for Trident missiles.

One protester, 29-year-old Arwen McConnell, said: "It's time we
stopped throwing money away on an obsolete and destructive weapon.

"We are totally against nuclear weapons in all of their guises."

Real resurgence

In the civic square in which it is said Lenin once hoped revolution
would spring eternal, it was less class war than public grumpiness.

A mild-mannered crowd seemed happy to make the point and drift home.

Susan Galloway, 41, secretary of the Communist Party of Britain,
from Fife, said: "I'm really pleased with the breadth of
participation in today's events.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 46 BBC NEWS: Call for 1bn defence budget cut

Last Updated: Sunday, 25 February 2007, 17:58 GMT

The Trident nuclear submarine fleet is based at Faslane

A senior Nationalist MSP is calling for a £1bn cut in the defence 
budget in an independent Scotland.

Alex Neil said he wanted a large chunk of Scotland's £2.8bn share 
of UK defence spending to be redirected to the fight against 
child poverty.

The Central Scotland MSP said scrapping Trident and withdrawing 
troops from Iraq would cut costs, leaving enough money to open 
new military bases.

Mr Neil hopes his party will adopt his defence proposals as 
official policy for the forthcoming Holyrood election.

He told the BBC's Politics Show that an independent Scotland 
should have a defence policy which was non-nuclear and 
non-aggressive.

National wealth

He said the UK was facing a "double whammy" over the next two 
decades, having to maintain the Trident weapons system and pay 
for its successor.

Scrapping Trident would save Scotland hundreds of millions of pounds
each year, he estimated.

He believes an independent Scotland should spend about 2% of its
national wealth on defence.

However, the vice chairman of Labour's election campaign, George
Foulkes said the proposals showed there was "a high cost to
separation".

"The SNP will cost Scottish families more," he claimed.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 47 Hindustan Times.com: Pakistan inks safeguard pact with IAEA

Press Trust of India

Islamabad, February 24, 2007|18:21 IST
 
Pakistan has signed safeguards agreement with the international
nuclear watchdog for its second Chinese assisted nuclear power plant
at Chashma in Punjab province.

The safeguards agreement was signed by ambassador Shahbaz on Friday
on behalf of the government of Pakistan and Mohamed ElBaradei,
Director-General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"The conclusion of the agreement is a success for Pakistan and
recognition of its non-proliferation commitments," Pakistan Foreign
Office said in a statement.

IAEA Board of Governors had unanimously approved the safeguards
agreement in November last year between Pakistan and the IAEA in
respect of CHASHMA-2 nuclear power plant.

Pakistan's two research reactors (PARR-I & PARR-II) and two nuclear
power plants (KANUPP & CHASHMA-1) are already under the IAEA
safeguards.

"Pakistan has been fulfilling its obligations in respect of these
agreements and looks forward to continued cooperation with the
atomic agency within the framework of the applicable safeguards
agreements in the future as well," the statement said.

CHASNUPP-2 is part of Pakistan's 'Energy Security Plan' that
envisages an increase in nuclear power generation from the current
425 megawatt electrical to 8,800 MW by the year 2030 to meet its
growing energy demands, it said. 

Tension persists with India over Kashmir and a nuclear arms race
began after 'Pokhran nuclear explosions', though CBMs are in full
swing. 

HT Media Ltd. 2006
*****************************************************************
 48 London Times: Diplomats seek to halt nuclear train ;with no brakes

February 26, 2007

Tom Baldwin in Washington and Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia

Diplomats embark on a fresh round of talks today aimed at halting 
Iran's nuclear ambitions, which the country's president described 
yesterday as "like a train which has no brake and no reverse 
gear".

Measures being discussed include imposing travel bans on a dozen 
named Iranians involved in the nuclear programme and tighter 
restrictions on the trade of arms and technology, as well as an 
attempt to block investment and export credits.

But officials meeting in London from the five permanent United 
Nations Security Council members, Britain, the United States, 
France, China and Russia &mdash; plus Germany, acknowledge that 
it could take weeks to reach agreement on a new resolution.

The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA), last week reported that the sanctions appeared to have 
had little effect on Iran, which insists its nuclear programme is 
for peaceful purposes. Not only had the country failed to cease 
uranium enrichment activities, but had expanded them. America 
believes that the programme is a cover for nuclear weapons. But 
diplomats at the IAEA have, according to reports yesterday, said 
that intelligence information provided by the US &mdash; 
purporting to demonstrate the existence of a weapons programme 
&mdash; is unreliable.

President Bush has denied that the presence of two aircraft carriers
in the region means that the US is preparing to attack Iran. But
rumours abound in Washington that he will not leave office without
resolving the issue &mdash; by military means if necessary.

An article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine this week
claims that a Pentagon panel has been created to plan a bombing
attack that could be implemented within 24 hours. It also suggested
that covert raids had been made across the Iranian border by
American personnel.

Western alarm over Iran&rsquo;s intentions was exacerbated yesterday
by an announcement that it had launched its first rocket into space.
Experts say that the same technology can be used to build
intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching Britain,
which Iranian hardliners demonise as the &ldquo;little Satan&rdquo;
to distinguish it from its big brother &ldquo;the Great Satan&rdquo;
of America.

But Iran, which has a tendency to embellish its scientific and
military prowess, later back-tracked, saying that what had been
launched was a suborbital rocket for scientific research and not a
missile capable of reaching space.

President Ahmadinejad defiantly shrugged off the threat of further
sanctions, saying that the nuclear programme had no reverse gears.

This brought a swift response from Condoleezza Rice, the US
Secretary of State, who said: &ldquo;They don&rsquo;t need a reverse
gear. They need a stop button.&rdquo;

British officials believe that the pressure on Iran is slowly
beginning to work, pointing out that the country&rsquo;s chief
nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, is &ldquo;looking for a way
out&rdquo;. He has already offered to delay installing more cascades
of centrifuges needed for industrial-scale production of enriched
uranium. &ldquo;This isn&rsquo;t enough&rdquo;, said one diplomat
close to the negotiations yesterday, but it is a start.

&ldquo;We&rsquo;re getting pinged all over the world by Iranians
wanting to talk to us,&rdquo; said Nicholas Burns, the US Under
Secretary of State. The problem is that the Iranians have not yet
said the &ldquo;magic word&rdquo;, which is to promise suspension of
uranium enrichment.

Pariah state

&mdash; UN Resolution 1737 (adopted December 2006): All member
states compelled to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical
and financial assistance that could aid nuclear programme

&mdash; US sanctions against Iran Almost all imports over $100
banned. Ban on virtually all exports if the final destination is
believed to be Iran

Source: UN, US Treasury

Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.
*****************************************************************
 49 Daily Times: Pakistan decries nuclear proliferation on false pretence

Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Sunday, February 25, 2007 

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: While Pakistan supports international efforts to halt
the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the pursuit of this
objective should not be used to hamper international cooperation in
materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes. Nor
should the goals of peaceful utilisation of such materials be used
as a cover for proliferation, a Pakistani official said on Saturday.

Addressing the Security Council on two related resolutions,
Khalil-ur-Rehman Hashmi, first secretary at the Pakistan Mission to
the UN, stressed that the growing global demand for nuclear power
generation underlined the need for equitable and non-discriminatory
steps by supplier states to strike a balance between proliferation
concerns and facilitation of legitimate trade in equipment,
materials and technology for the enlarged generation of nuclear
powered energy. One way of achieving this balance will be to start
negotiations for truly multilateral arrangements governing the trade
in dual-use and sensitive technology. The existing arrangements, and
their selective application, remain contrary to the spirit of
resolution 1540, under discussion at the Security Council, he added.

The Pakistani official was critical of the working methods of the
1540 Committee, especially with regard to its hiring of experts. The
manner in which the contracts of some of them had been handled only
served to reinforce the perception outside the council that the
entire process of the marshalling of the resolution, its
implementation, the composition of the committee, and its experts
and staff was being led by developed countries, to the exclusion of
the developing world. He called for a more adequate and equitable
representation of experts from developing countries in a transparent
manner.

The Pakistani representative also drew the Security Council’s
attention to the manner in which member states were implementing the
required measures, the gaps that existed between assurances and
supply of assistance and the lack of capacity in member states. He
underscored the need for a critical assessment of the competence and
capability of the Security Council to promote the non-proliferation
agenda. Member states, he added, may also have to evaluate the
outcome of Resolution 1540’s “encouragement” in the past three years
by member states to fully implement disarmament treaties and
agreements. He said it was important to reconcile and balance the
lack of implementation of their disarmament obligations by certain
Security Council members in contrast to their zeal to promote
non-proliferation. There should be no discrimination or double
standards as they were self-defeating, he stressed.

Pakistan, the official, noted, as a member of the Security Council,
had joined the consensus when resolution 1540 was adopted, because
it agreed that there was a gap in international rules relating to
acquisition and illicit transfer of WMD by non-state actors.
Pakistan also agreed that the matter was urgent enough to be taken
up by the Security Council. Therefore, now that the Council had done
so, it was necessary to revert to normal avenues for the creation of
international rules and norms. “The time has now come to revive the
multilateral disarmament machinery so that future challenges in the
area of non-proliferation can be addressed in open, transparent and
inclusive processes,” he added.

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 50 Antiwar Radio: Fear Stupid Acts - by Charley Reese

February 24, 2007

I hope President George Bush will not be so stupid as to allow the
Israelis to push him into an attack on Iran. Based on his past
performance, however, I'm not sure what he will do.

Washington today is so riddled with intellectual dishonesty, you
have to take what officials say with a large dose of salt. The
statement "We have no plans to attack Iran" can mean nothing more
than we haven't made that decision yet or we don't have plans to
attack this week, but we do intend to attack by April.

The Pentagon, by the way, probably has had contingency plans for an
attack for who knows how long. That's part of its job. It probably
has contingency plans to attack a lot of countries. The point is
that the military plans, but the decisions are made by politicians.

If we do attempt to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, it should
provide a good test of Russia's air defense system, a version of
which the Russians have sold and installed in Iran. It will be
interesting to see how well it works ? though not, of course, for
our pilots.

Given the enormous trouble Iraq and Afghanistan are giving us, it
seems to me that it would be moronic to add an enemy of 70 million
people to our list of unresolved military conflicts. An attack by
America will, of course, cut the feet off of all Iranian reformers.
Under attack, Iranians will rally around their leaders, just as
human beings have been doing for centuries.

Another strategic problem worth worrying about is the Bush
administration's push to build and install an anti-ballistic missile
system. The administration claims it is for defense against rogue
states like Iran. The Russians and probably the Chinese see it
differently.

They see the anti-ballistic system as a first-strike weapon. The
system would be helpless against a launch of Russian missiles, but
if a U.S. first strike could take out many of the Russian missiles,
then the ABM system could so thin the surviving missiles that
American officials might well be tempted to start a nuclear war.
That's why Russia is upset with plans to put components of the
system in Eastern Europe.

Never forget that intelligent military planners must disregard
intentions and concentrate on capabilities. Intentions can change in
minutes; capabilities cannot. So, if the U.S. deploys an ABM system
that provides the capability to launch a first strike, the Russian
planners will have to consider that as a fact and react accordingly.
It is an exceedingly dangerous ploy by the president, not to mention
an enormously expensive one.

As for Iraq, keep in mind the ABCs of guerrilla warfare. If we do,
in fact, deploy all those additional troops to Baghdad (and that's
not yet a certainty), the guerrillas will go to ground and simply
wait us out or shift their attacks to other parts of the country.
That's how it's always been when irregular forces are confronted by
superior conventional power. Our own George Washington learned that
lesson and became a master of retreating to prevent the British from
destroying his army and the revolution.

Naturally, American officials will trumpet a great triumph and
proclaim that the light at the end of the tunnel radiates from a
glorious liberal democratic future for Iraq. That will be a load of
horse apples. Iraq is so impoverished, so riddled by corruption and
incompetence, so full of vicious sectarian strife, that the best the
Iraqi people can hope for is a benign dictator.

Unfortunately, the Middle East produces oil, dates, olives and
pistachio nuts in abundance, but has so far been mighty short of
benign dictators. Well, we've been awfully short on smart leaders.
Maybe the whole human race is in decline.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on 
everything from sports to politics. From 1969-71, he worked as a 
campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional 
races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the 
publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 
2001. He now writes a syndicated column three times a week for 
King Features, which is carried on Antiwar.com. Reese served two 
years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner.

     Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages 
without written permission is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2003 
Antiwar.com
*****************************************************************
 51 Antiwar.com: Yet Another Famous Victory - 

by Gordon Prather

February 24, 2007

When President Bush the Junior first rode into town with his 
vigilante entourage, North Korea was still a signatory to the 
Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and had made all 
NPT proscribed materials, facilities and activities subject to 
International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

More importantly, North Korea was adhering – as best the IAEA could
determine – to the US-DPRK Agreed Framework negotiated by President
Clinton in 1994.

Why was the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea so adhering?

Well, as you may recall, back in 1950, North Korea had invaded South
Korea and President Truman got the (somewhat illegitimate) United
Nations Security Council to authorize South Korea and "Member
states" allied with South Korea to oust the invaders from the North.

("Somewhat illegitimate," because Truman had prevented the People’s
Republic of China from assuming the "permanent member" seat, vacated
by Chiang Kai-shek when he fled the Chinese mainland in 1949, and
the Soviet Union was, as a consequence, boycotting the Security
Council. Technically, then, according to the UN Charter, the absence
of the Soviet Union for the vote to oust North Korea was the same as
if it had cast a veto.)

The UNSC didn’t authorize Truman and his entourage of vigilantes to
pursue the invaders – once ousted from the South – clear through
North Korea to the border with the PRC, but Truman did it anyway.

So, "hordes" of Chinese "volunteers" poured across the Yalu River
and drove Truman’s invading coalition back out of North Korea.

Finally, on July 27, 1953, with the North-South boundary restored, a
military armistice was concluded between "the Commander-in-Chief,
United Nations Command" and "the Korean People’s Army and the
Commander of the Chinese People’s volunteers."

When Clinton negotiated the Agreed Framework with the North Koreans
– in lieu of launching a pre-emptive attack against their IAEA
safeguarded facilities, as Congressional warhawks were demanding –
the armistice had been in effect for more than forty years!

Under the Agreed Framework – inter alia –

"II. The two sides will move toward full normalization of political
and economic relations.

"1) Within three months of the date of this Document, both sides
will reduce barriers to trade and investment, including restrictions
on telecommunications services and financial transactions.

"2) Each side will open a liaison office in the other’s capital
following resolution of consular and other technical issues through
expert level discussions.

"3) As progress is made on issues of concern to each side, the U.S.
and the DPRK will upgrade bilateral relations to the Ambassadorial
level.

"III. Both sides will work together for peace and security on a
nuclear [weapons] free Korean peninsula.

"1) The U.S. will provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the
threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

"2) The DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the
North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula.

"3) The DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this Agreed
Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.

"IV. Both sides will work together to strengthen the international
nuclear non proliferation regime.

"1) The DPRK will remain a party to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and will allow
implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty."

It is perhaps worth noting at this point that the PRC was not a
party to either the Korean War Armistice Agreement or the Agreed
Framework.

Congressional warhawks had kittens when they learned what Clinton
had done.

And, upon becoming president, Bush the Junior almost immediately
repudiated Clinton’s efforts to implement the Agreed Framework,
telling South Korea’s president and North Korean emissaries he had
no intentions of normalizing relations with North Korea.

In October, 2002, after having gotten Congress to give him a blank
check to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq, Bush the Junior
unilaterally abrogated the Agreed Framework, charging that North
Korea had a secret enriched-uranium nuke program.

No longer subject to the Agreed Framework, North Korea announced on
the eve of Bush’s war of aggression against Iraq that it was
withdrawing from the NPT, restarting its "frozen"
plutonium-producing reactor and its plutonium-recovery facility and
– according to CIA estimates – now has a dozen or so plutonium
implosion-type nukes.

As you can imagine, what Bush the Junior has wrought on the Korean
Peninsula bothers North Korea’s neighbors – especially Russia and
China – more than somewhat.

Hence, the Six-Party [China, Russia, Japan, DPRK, South Korea and
its occupier these past 50-years, the United States] talks were able
to issue a Joint Statement on September 19, 2005, according to which

"The DPRK committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing
nuclear programs and returning, at an early date, to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards."

And,

"The DPRK and the United States undertook to respect each other's
sovereignty, exist peacefully together, and take steps to normalize
their relations subject to their respective bilateral policies."

Of course, Junior and his UN stooge (Bonkers Bolton) immediately
began to respect North Korea’s sovereignty and to take steps to
normalize relations with the "Hermit Kingdom," right?

Wrong.

Among other actions, Junior’s Treasury Department proceeded to
blacklist Macau’s Banco Delta Asia – accusing it of providing "a
tolerant environment for illicit North Korean activities" – which
resulted in a run on the bank and the bank ‘freezing’ all accounts
linked to North Koreans.

So, the North Koreans (at least semi-successfully) tested a few
long-range ballistic missiles.

Why not? The Agreed Framework and the Six-Party Statement were all
about nukes, not ballistic missiles.

Then, four years after Bush the Junior unilaterally abrogated the
Agreed Framework, North Korea conducted an at least semi-successful
test of a plutonium implosion nuke device.

Result?

The Third Round of the Fifth Six-Party talks on implementing that
Joint Statement have just concluded in Beijing, wherein China and
Russia got Junior to agree that

"The DPRK and the U.S. will start bilateral talks aimed at resolving
bilateral issues and moving toward full diplomatic relations."

"The U.S. will begin the process of removing the designation of the
DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism, and advance the process of
terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with
respect with the DPRK."

The US reportedly agreed to try to undo the damage done in Macau.

And Bonkers Bolton is reportedly writing a book.

the Antiwar.com Home Page

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the
Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development
Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather
also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs
to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate
Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and
Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com
*****************************************************************
 52 The Hindu: Pak. inks pact with IAEA for Chashma nuke plant

Sunday, February 25, 2007 : 0130 Hrs

Islamabad, Feb. 25 (PTI): Pakistan has signed safeguards agreement
with the international nuclear watchdog for its second
Chinese-assisted nuclear power plant at Chashma in Punjab province.

The safeguards agreement was signed by Ambassador Shahbaz on Friday
on behalf of the government of Pakistan and Mohamed El Baradei,
Director-General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

"The conclusion of the agreement is a success for Pakistan and
recognition of its non-proliferation commitments," Pakistan Foreign
Office said in a statement.

IAEA Board of Governors had unanimously approved the safeguards
agreement in November last year between Pakistan and the IAEA in
respect of CHASHMA-2 nuclear power plant.

Pakistan's two research reactors (PARR-I & PARR-II) and two nuclear
power plants (KANUPP & CHASHMA-1) are already under IAEA safeguards.

"Pakistan has been fulfilling its obligations in respect of these
agreements and looks forward to continued cooperation with the
atomic agency within the framework of the applicable safeguards
agreements in the future as well," the statement said.

CHASNUPP-2 is part of Pakistan's 'Energy Security Plan' that
envisages an increase in nuclear power generation from the current
425 megawatt electrical to 8,800 MW by the year 2030 to meet its
growing energy demands, it said.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 53 MyWestTexas.com: UTPB nuclear reactor project moving ahead

Ruth Campbell<br>Staff Writer

Midland Reporter-Telegram

02/25/2007

The high-temperature teaching and test reactor project, a joint 
venture of the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, General 
Atomics and the city and county of Andrews, among others, is 
moving ahead on funding options.

A project director is in place as is a nuclear physicist.

Project cost for the state-of-the-art, helium-cooled nuclear 
research facility is some $500 million. $3 million has been 
raised for the preconceptual design and $1 million more was 
offered by the U.S. Congress.

"We've made great progress on the preconceptual design, we have a 
draft report and we need to complete the business plan," UTPB 
President David Watts said. "We need to continue to develop the 
preconceptual design."

Engineering on the reactor is expected to start in 2006 and 
construction completed by late 2012. "It will be a unique 
teaching and test facility that will help train a new generation 
of scientists and engineers on how to safely operate new nuclear 
technologies that will generate electricity at efficiencies above 
50 percent with no greenhouse gases," the project Web site said.

"Additionally, excess process heat from these reactors is 
sufficient to economically create hydrogen from water and 
synfuels from coal and long-chain hydrocarbons," the site said.

The reactor would sit on land in Andrews County, which is also 
home to Waste Control Specialists and near the National 
Enrichment Facility, built by Louisiana Energy Services in 
partnership with Urenco Limited in England.

The modular helium reactor is designed so it cannot melt, even at 
temperatures up to 1,500 degrees centigrade.

University officials still need approval from the University of 
Texas System regents to move forward on some of aspects of the 
project.

The reactor would be used to help develop the next generation of 
nuclear reactor to help reduce dependence on foreign oil. China 
and Japan each have one of the same type, Wright said. It could 
be used for electric generation and be available for coal and 
hydrogen gasification.

Major project partners include the cities of Midland, Odessa and 
Andrews and Andrews County, University of Texas of the Permian 
Basin, General Atomics of San Diego and the UT System.

©MyWestTexas.com 2007
*****************************************************************
 54 KIPLINGER'S: Exelon: Nuclear Powerhouse 

 Kiplinger.com

STOCK WATCH

This utility’s atomic reactors are providing an earnings boost 
and should give the company an edge for the long term.

By Katy Marquardt

February 23, 2007

The growing momentum to curb global warming by regulating carbon 
dioxide emissions bodes well for Exelon, a Chicago-based utility. 
That’s because the company -- which sells electricity and gas to 
5.2 million customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania -- is also the 
nation’s largest operator of nuclear power plants.

    Compared with coal-fired plants, atomic plants are cleaner 
and are cheaper to operate, making nuclear-powered energy an 
attractive investment (for more on our take, see Nuclear 
Ambitions, from the February 2007 issue of Kiplinger’s Personal 
Finance). Exelon’s fleet of 17 atomic reactors gives it an 
advantage over the droves of utilities that operate coal-fired 
plants. “We are increasingly convinced that investors will value 
Exelon's longer term leverage to the implementation of carbon 
emissions caps in the United States,” Citigroup analyst Greg 
Gordo wrote in a note to clients on February 23.

    Gordon upgraded Exelon’s stock (symbol EXC) from “hold” to 
“buy,” and increased his price target for the stock from $63 to 
$73. After the upgrade, Exelon’s stock jumped 4%, closing at 
$66.93 on February 23.

    Exelon’s shares have been un-utility-like over the past year. 
They fell to $50 in April 2006, climbed to $62 in October, and 
dropped to $58 in November. In 2006, the company faced regulatory 
battles in Missouri and Illinois, and saw a merger with New 
Jersey’s Public Service Enterprise Group fall through. Exelon 
also reported less-than-expected profits in the fourth quarter. 
But for all of 2006, it earned $1.6 billion, or $2.35 per share, 
a 73% increase over 2005 profits of $923 million, or $1.36 a 
share. Revenue rose 2%, to $15.7 billion. In 2007, the company 
expects to earn between $4.10 and $4.40 per share.

    Aside from its nuclear advantage, Exelon has a strong balance 
sheet and is churning out plenty of cash. The company has boosted 
its dividend at an annual rate of 14% over the past five years, 
to the current yearly rate of $1.76 per share. The stocks yields 
2.6% and trades at 16 times the $4.31 per share that analysts 
estimate Exelon will earn in 2007.

    On February 6, Deutsche Bank Securities upgraded Exelon from 
“hold” to “buy,” also with a $73 price target. The analysts cited 
the company’s strong balance sheet, along with the expiration of 
a below-market contract in 2010 that should give the company an 
earnings lift. .

All Contents © 2007 The Kiplinger Washington Editors
*****************************************************************
 55 MHNN: Ulster lawmakers go on record on Indian Point

Weekend, February 24-25, 2007

  Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide

   Kingston &ndash; Two resolutions, carrying no force of law, 
were adopted by the Ulster County Legislature, calling on federal 
lawmakers to tighten the screws on Indian Point.

 One resolution asks New York State&rsquo;s congressional 
delegation to support a bill calling on the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to conduct an independent safety assessment of the 
nuclear plant.  The other asks congress to require that the NRC 
to judge license renewals by the same standards used to grant the 
initial license.

                    The votes were not unanimous.

   Democrat Michael Berardi questioned whether the resolutions 
were just disguised attempts to dismantle Indian Point.

Liepmann: "not a Chernobyl-type reactor"

Not so, said Democrat Susan Zimet.

&ldquo;Indian Point might not belong in that place any more, but
that doesn&rsquo;t mean that nuclear power plants all over the
country, when they get relicensed won&rsquo;t get relicensed,
because they&rsquo;re fine.&rdquo;

Another Democrat, Dr. Peter Liepmann, was even more blunt against
the resolutions, suggesting critics of nuclear power have it
backwards:

&ldquo;this is not a Chernobyl-type reactor which was a 1940s
design, run by Soviet safety standards&rdquo;, said Liepmann. 
&ldquo;I think we need to reflect that we need the power
that&rsquo;s coming from the plant.&rdquo;

Liepmann argued that far more people die from the effects of
coal-fired power plants.

Liepmann voted against both resolutions. Republicans Glenn Noonan,
the minority leader, and Richard Gerentine, also voted against the
ISA resolution.  Legislature Chairman David Donaldson, Berardi and
Republican Susan Cummings added their &ldquo;no&rdquo; votes on the
second resolution.

Zimet said Ulster would be joining a coalition of counties,
including Westchester, Putnam and Rockland, in adopting the
resolutions.

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only
                     Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 56 ContraCostaTimes.com: Nuclear power only solution

02/24/2007 | 

GUEST COMMENTARY By Robert Rickman

California's new law on CO emissions is like rearranging the deck
chairs on the Titanic. The only feasible way to reduce fossil fuel
use is nuclear power.

We must build about 400 plants in the United States in the next 10
years.

Solar -- if we cover 90 percent of the country with cells, it will
produce about 5 percent of our needs.

If solar panels are not washed regularly, they lose about 50 percent
of their capacity.

Wind -- About 3 percent at the least useful times.

Ethanol -- Requires more fossil fuel than it replaces to plant,
harvest and distill.

The price of corn has already risen to where Mexican citizens can't
afford tortillas.

Hydrogen -- Needs electricity to produce. Practical only if we have
excess nuclear capacity at night.

Coal -- The worst, produces billions of tons of CO, kills about
60,000 people a year, puts out more radiation than all nuke plants
in the world.

Trace uranium in coal is about 2 parts per million, thorium about 1
ppm. Therefore, a billion ton coal plant puts about 3,000 tons of
radiation up the stack or in the slag pile.

California's energy commission plans to reduce state CO output by
burning coal in Wyoming.

Brilliant?

Nuclear generating capacity, in addition to making hydrogen, could
make the electricity the cheapest source for home heating.

The spent fuel rods are only a problem in the small minds of the
obstructionist.


About The Contra Costa Times | About the Real Cities Network | Terms
*****************************************************************
 57 Arizona Republic : Nuclear station's challenges laid out

February 25, 2007

Opinions|azcentral.com

Mark Shaffer The Arizona Republic

Count Silverio Garcia, a former supervisor and long-time worker 
at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, as the least surprised 
person last week when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
downgraded the plant to being the most monitored in the country.

Garcia has been on a mission for more than a decade, pointing out 
to federal regulators all the wrongs he says he has seen.

"The name of the game has been put power on the grid, send the
profits downtown and keep the noise (of protest) down," Garcia said.

Other workers and former workers saw what they thought was a chaotic
situation created by an emphasis on cross-training for too many
other jobs, beginning in the mid-1990s, and intense pushes to make
sure that refueling of the plant's three units last no more than 30
days.

Then, NRC Chairman Dale Klein piled on in a Phoenix news conference
on Friday.

Klein said identifying problems at Palo Verde seemed to happen in
reverse of established procedures. "The NRC found the problems, the
INPO confirmed them, and then a company light bulb came on and said,
'We have to fix that,' " Klein said.

INPO, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, is an industry
group that conducts plant inspections.

The NRC's decision to place the plant in the agency's Category 4
means the nation's largest nuclear plant will face much more
rigorous oversight and up to 2,500 additional hours of federal
inspections annually for at least two years. It also could involve
millions of dollars in repairs that could arise with the increased
scrutiny.

Klein said the NRC surpassed its level of tolerance after the number
of safety inspection concerns jumped from five in 2003 to 40 in 2004
and remained nearly at that level in 2005 and 2006, with 70 concerns
registered during those two years.

"I did not see a lot of hardware issues out there," said Klein of
his Friday plant tour. "This is much more people issues than
hardware issues."

New leadership

Enter Randy Edington, one of the country's top experts at how to
bring troubled nuclear plants back in the good graces of the NRC.

Edington was hired last month by Arizona Public Service Co. as chief
nuclear officer after bringing back Cooper Nuclear Station in
Nebraska from shutdown's doorstep in a remarkably fast two years.

And Edington sees many of the same problems that critics of Palo
Verde operations have pointed out.

Edington said he can't attest to lax attitudes since he was working
in faraway places. But he can attest to outdated procedures and work
instructions after reviewing the power plant's documents.

"Yes, some need to be updated and we need to make the upgrade now,"
Edington said. "Bad choices were made years ago and it slowed a lot
of work down. You can't do a job without getting the procedures
updated. They have to be rewritten."

Edington said that not only Palo Verde, but also the nuclear power
industry overall, had a huge emphasis on cross-training, starting in
the 1990s.

"I'm a fan of controlled multitasking but there have been excesses,"
Edington said. "In general, people prefer broadening their jobs and
that helps with boredom issues. But that has to be in a controlled
environment."

When it comes to units being down for more than 30 days, however,
call Edington a control freak.

"Better planning, coordination and training can bring about shorter
outages," Edington said.

"It used to be when turbines were taken down, it would take 50 days
for the work. But I've been involved in recent projects where that's
down to 20 days now. Thinking through things and better contingency
planning can really reduce the time."

APS commitment

More resources are on the way. Edington said that he has been
authorized to increase Palo Verde's workforce of 2,250 to 2,350 to
help get through the rigors of federal oversight during the coming
years.

He also said that a detailed improvement plan, required by the NRC
because of Palo Verde's downgrade, is expected to be completed
within three months.

Although NRC officials said that most of the plants placed in
Category 4 take two to four years to improve their rating, both
Klein and Edington said they expect Palo Verde to be on the short
end of the scale.

Edington said he thought Palo Verde could return to good standing
with the feds in less than two years.

Already, Edington has brought four of his key aides from past plant
recovery projects on board and said two more might be brought in
soon.

APS officials also said last year that they had fired about a dozen
employees because of lack of past oversight at Palo Verde.

Reach the reporter at (602) 444-8057 or
mark.shaffer@arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 FresnoBee.com: Bill McEwen: No nuclear plant in my backyard, thank you

By Bill McEwen / The Fresno Bee

02/25/07 06:52:57

I'm for bold strokes and taking chances. Unless you're talking about
putting a nuclear energy plant in my backyard.

That's when I head to the back of the line screaming, "Beware the
torpedoes! Full speed retreat!"

Let another city be the guinea pig, if California ever permits
another nuclear power plant to be built.

How about Barstow?

If the desert starts glowing, people headed to and from Las Vegas
might have a reason to stop besides gas.

The people pushing nuclear power in Fresno say reactor safety has
significantly improved in the past 30 years.

Know what I want to hear?

Nuclear reactors are completely safe, and the federal government has
figured out what to do with that pesky spent fuel.

Know what else?

I must be convinced that the people proposing nuclear construction
know what they're doing before I even entertain the idea that four
identical control rooms and 4-foot-thick concrete domes will protect
me and my loved ones from disaster. Right now, I'm not a believer.

One reason is they brought Patrick Moore to Fresno.

He used to be with Greenpeace. Now he's a mouthpiece for a
pro-nuclear group called the Clean and Safe Energy coalition. Moore
also is a "consultant" -- a word that means opinions and reputation
available to the highest bidder. People had to pay -- $10 for
adults, $5 for students -- to hear Moore. Excuse me, but if you're
trying to convince the masses that an incandescent purple-and-pink
elephant will lower their energy bills, you don't charge to peek
under the circus tent.

If you want to rally support for nuclear power, you rent the Save
Mart Center, hire the Rolling Stones and let everyone in free.

That way, people would think you're pretty sharp -- and loaded with
money.

Money is important.

If the Nuclear Brotherhood is going to win me over, I want to see
billions and billions of Benjamins in their portfolios. And I want
to know that the people designing and operating the plant are
21st-century Einsteins.

I also want to know where the plant would go. And how many partners
in Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC will live downwind of the
operation. A confession: I was tempted to skip our little nuclear
debate because it'll be a long time before a new plant is built in
California.

But knowing the ins and outs of our state politics, I had to admit
that if nuclear power returns to California, that first plant
probably will be here in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley.

The Valley is California's dumping ground. We take everyone else's
prisoners and sewer sludge and say it's good for our economy.

Imagine the spin for nuclear. Fresno is centrally located. Fresno
needs jobs, especially high-tech jobs. The plant will clean the
Valley's crummy air.

Know what?

I'm coming around.

I'd love to live in the city that gets the fourth plant after the
nuclear moratorium is lifted.

Upwind, of course.

And only if they use 10-foot- thick concrete domes.

* © Copyright 2007 The Fresno Bee
*****************************************************************
 59 Earth Times: Government says no to entrepreneur's nuclear technology

Science Technology News | Home

 Posted on : Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:44:02 GMT | Author : Indo Asian News

New Delhi, Feb 25 The government has refused to make use of a
'cost-effective' technology to produce heavy water developed by a
researcher as the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 bars it from accessing
any privately developed technology in this sensitive field.Following
Durga Prasad Mishra's petition, the Delhi High court has asked the
government to permit the entrepreneur to have his technology to
produce heavy water, utilised in nuclear power generation, patented
abroad.

Justice B.D. Ahmed Thursday directed the government to clear the
application of Mishra, who claimed to have developed a
cost-effective technology to produce heavy water, if he sought for
permission to apply for patent of the technology abroad.'If the
petitioner makes such an application for permission, the central
government, as provided under the Atomic Energy Act itself, shall
consider the application in accordance with the law,' said Justice
Ahmed in his four-page order.Responding to the court's show-cause
notice, the government had earlier said, 'The heavy water is a
controlled and regulated item for its exclusive use by the
government. Experimentation pertaining to such technologies cannot
be permitted for research or exploitation by any individual for its
industrial use.'The government had added that the ministry of
science and technology had considered Mishra's proposal in the 77th
Technology Screening Committee meeting on Nov 14, 2006 and had it
rejected. 'It was considered to be beyond the purview of the
Technopreneur Promotion Programme and the committee recommended for
its closure,' the government said.The Technopreneur Promotion
Programme examines individuals' technological discoveries and
products for their veracity and further use.Government counsel
Gaurav Duggal told the court that the centre had directed Mishra to
approach the Mumbai-based Heavy Water Board for guidance.'Mishra,
however, refused to seek guidance and preferred to have his
technology patented,' said counsel Anoop Kumar Srivastava appearing
for Mishra.
(c) Indo-Asian News Service

(c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 60 Green Left: Inconvenient truths about the environmental crisis

 2007 » #700 » Comment & Analysis » 

Mitchel Cohen 24 February 2007

Al Gore?s film, An Inconvenient Truth, raises the issue of global 
warming in a way that scares the bejeezus out of viewers, as it 
should since the consequences of global climate change are truly 
earth-shaking. The former vice-president does a good job of 
presenting the graphic evidence: exquisite and terrifying 
pictures that document the melting of the polar ice caps and the 
effects on other species, new diseases and rising ocean levels.

But the solutions Gore offers are standard US Democratic Party fare.
You?d never know by watching this film that Gore and Bill Clinton
ran the US for eight years and that their policies ? as much as
those of the Bush regime ? helped pave the way for the crisis we
face today.

Gore never critiques the system causing the global ecological
crisis. At one point, he even mourns the negative impact of global
warming on US oil pipelines! What it comes down to, for Gore and the
Democrats, is that we need to shift away from reliance on fossil
fuels and tweak existing consumption patterns. Even there, Gore and
Clinton did nothing to improve fuel efficiency in the US, a topic
which Gore talks about in the movie without any hint that he?d once
actually been in a position to do something about it.

The question Gore poses is: who can best manage the relatively minor
solutions he recommends, the Democrats or Republicans? For Gore,
it?s ?trust US, not them, to deal with this situation because they
are liars and we?re not?.

Well, should we trust him?

As Joshua Frank wrote in the May 31, 2006, Counterpunch, during the
campaign for president in 1992 Gore promised a group of supporters
that the Clinton-Gore Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) would
never approve a hazardous waste incinerator located near an
elementary school in Liverpool, Ohio, which was operated by WTI
(Wineman Technology Inc).

?Only three months into Clinton?s tenure?, Frank wrote, ?the EPA
issued an operating permit for the toxic burner. Gore raised no
qualms. Not surprisingly, most of the money behind WTI came from the
bulging pockets of Jackson Stephens, who just happened to be one of
the Clinton-Gore?s top campaign contributors.?

But failing to shut down toxic incinerators is just the tip of their
great betrayal. In the film, Gore references the Kyoto accords and
states that he personally went to Kyoto during the negotiations,
giving the impression that he was a key figure in fighting to reduce
air pollution emissions that destroy the ozone layer. What he omits
is that his mission in going to Kyoto was to scuttle the accords, to
block them from moving forward. And he succeeded.

Environmentally friendly?

The Clinton-Gore years were anything but environment-friendly. Under
Clinton-Gore, more old growth forests were cut down than under any
other recent US administration. ?Wise Use? committees ? set up by
the timber industry ? were permitted to clear-cut whole mountain
ranges, while Clinton-Gore helped to ?greenwash? their activities
for public consumption.

Under Clinton-Gore, the biotech industry was given carte blanche to
write the US government?s regulations (paltry as they are) on
genetic engineering of agriculture, and to move full speed ahead
with implementing the private patenting of genetic sequences with
nary a qualm passing Gore?s lips.

You?d think watching this film that Gore is just some concerned
professor who never had access to power or held hundreds of
thousands of dollars of stock in Occidental Petroleum (driving the
U?wa people off their lands in Colombia), let alone was the number
two man actually running the US government!

?Gore, like Clinton who quipped that ?the invisible hand has a green
thumb?, extolled a free-market attitude toward environmental
issues?, wrote Frank, who goes on to quote Jeffrey St. Clair (Been
Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: The Politics of Nature,
Common Courage Press, 2004): ?Since the mid-1980s Gore has argued
with increasing stridency that the bracing forces of market
capitalism are potent curatives for the ecological entropy now
bearing down on the global environment. He is a passionate disciple
of the gospel of efficiency, suffused with an inchoate technophilia.?

Before Kyoto, before the Clinton-Gore massive depleted uranium
bombings of Yugoslavia and Iraq, before their missile
?deconstruction? of the only existing pharmaceutical production
facility in northern Africa in the Sudan (which exacerbated the very
serious problems there, as we?re seeing in Darfur today), there was
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The task of Clinton-Gore was to push through this legislation, which
not even strong Republican administrations under Ronald Reagan or
Bush Sr. had been able to do. Since its inception, NAFTA has
undermined US environmental laws, chased production facilities out
of the US and across the borders, vastly increased pollution from
maquilladoras (enterprise zones) along the US-Mexico border and
helped to undermine the indigenous sustainable agrarian-based
communities in southern Mexico ? as predicted by leftists in both
countries, leading to the Zapatista uprising from those communities
on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA went into effect.

Clinton-Gore also approved the destructive deal with the sugar
barons of south Florida arranged by interior secretary Bruce
Babbitt, which doomed the Everglades.

Early in Clinton-Gore?s first administration, they pledged they
would stop the plunder of the northwest forests, wrote former
Village Voice columnist James Ridgeway in August 2000. ?They then
double-crossed their environmental backers. Under Bush Sr., the
courts had enjoined logging in the Northwest habitats of the spotted
owl. Clinton-Gore persuaded environmentalists to join them in axing
the injunction. The Clinton administration went before a
Reagan-appointed judge who had a record as a stalwart
environmentalist and with the eco toadies in tow, got him to remove
the injunction, and with it the moratorium on existing timber sales.?

Then, explains Frank, the Gore and Clinton administration
?capitulated to the demands of Western Democrats and yanked from its
initial budget proposals a call to reform grazing, mining and timber
practices on federal lands. When Clinton convened a timber summit in
Portland, Oregon, in April 1994, the conference was, as one might
expect, dominated by logging interests. Predictably, the summit gave
way to a plan to restart clear-cutting in the ancient forests of the
Pacific Northwest for the first time in three years, giving the
timber industry its get rich wish.?

Gore and Clinton sent to Congress the infamous Salvage Rider, known
to radical environmentalists as the ?Logging without Laws? bill,
which Frank described as ?perhaps the most gruesome legislation ever
enacted under the pretext of preserving ecosystem health?. Like
Bush?s ?Healthy Forests? plan, the Clinton-Gore act ?was chock full
of deception and special interest pandering?.

??When [the Salvage Rider] bill was given to me, I was told that the
timber industry was circulating this language among the Northwest
Congressional delegation and others to try to get it attached as a
rider to the fiscal year Interior Spending Bill?, environmental
lawyer Kevin Kirchner said. ?There is no question that
representatives of the timber industry had a role in promoting this
rider. That is no secret.??

What the Salvage Rider did was to ?temporarily exempt ? salvage
timber sales on federal forest lands from environmental and wildlife
laws, administrative appeals, and judicial review?, according to the
Wilderness Society, long enough for multinational lumber and paper
corporations to clear-cut all but a sliver of the US?s remaining old
growth forests.

Frank wrote: ?Thousands of acres of healthy forestland across the
West were rampaged. More than 4000 acres of Washington?s Colville
National Forest was clear cut. Thousands more in Montana?s Yak River
Basin, hundreds of acres of pristine forest land in Idaho, while the
endangered Mexican Spotted Owl habitat in Arizona fell victim to
corporate interests. Old growth trees in Washington?s majestic
Olympic Peninsula ? home to wild Steelhead, endangered Sockeye
salmon, and threatened Marbled Murrieta ? were chopped with
unremitting provocation by the US Forest Service.?

Special interests

The assault on nature continued with Gore?s blessing.

Around the same time, Clinton-Gore appointee Carol Browner, head of
the EPA, was quoted in the New York Times as having said that the
administration would be ?relaxing? the Delaney Clause (named after
its author, James Delaney, a Democratic member of Congress for New
York).

Congress had inserted this clause into section 409 of the federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1958. It prohibited Food and Drug
Administration approval of any food additive found to cause cancer
in humans or animals. Alone among all food-related directives, this
legislation put the onus on the manufacturers to demonstrate that
their products were safe before they were allowed to become
commercially available.

A federal appeals court in July 1992 expanded the jurisdiction of
the Delaney Clause, ruling that it was applicable to cancer-causing
pesticides in processed food. Browner retracted her comment,
claiming she?d never said it, but the proof was in the pudding. The
ban on cancer-causing additives (the ?Precautionary Principle?) that
had held through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford,
Reagan and Bush senior administrations was finally removed, not by
the Republicans but by the Clinton-Gore administration.

Instead of expanding the Delaney clause to protect produce and other
unprocessed foods, the new Food Quality Protection Act legislation
permitted ?safe? amounts of carcinogenic chemicals (as designated by
the Environmental Protection Agency) to be added to all food.
(According to Peter Montague, editor of Rachel?s Weekly, no-one
knows how ?safe amounts? of carcinogens can be established,
especially ?when several carcinogens and other poisons are added
simultaneously to the food of tens of millions of people?.)
Nevertheless, the Clinton-Gore administration spun this as
?progress?.

The Clinton administration, with guidance from Gore?s office, also
cut numerous deals over the pesticide methyl bromide, despite its
reported effects of contributing to ozone depletion and its
devastating health consequences on farm workers picking strawberries.

Much is being made these days about the need to save the Arctic
Wildlife Refuge. But Clinton-Gore opened the National Petroleum
Reserve ? 24 million untouched acres adjacent to the refuge, home to
a large caribou herd and numerous arctic species ? to oil drilling.

The chief beneficiary of this was Arco, a major ($1.4 million)
contributor to the Democratic Party. At the same time, wrote James
Ridgeway, ?Clinton dropped the ban on selling Alaskan oil abroad.
This also benefits Arco, which is opening refineries in China. So
although the oil companies won the right to exploit Alaskan oil on
grounds that to do so would benefit national development,
Clinton-Gore unilaterally changed the agreement so that it benefits
China?s industrial growth.?

Not once in the entire film does Gore criticise this awful
environmental record or raise the critical questions we need to
answer if we are to effectively reverse global warming: Is it really
the case that the vast destruction of our environment that went on
under his watch and, continuing today, is simply a result of poor
consumer choices and ineffective government policies? Is the global
environmental devastation we are facing today rectifiable with some
simple tuning-up, as Gore proposes?

Neither he ? as point man for the Clinton administration on
environmental issues ? nor Clinton-Gore?s energy secretary Bill
Richardson (with major ties to Occidental Petroleum), nor the
Democratic Party in general offer anything more than putting a tiny
band-aid on the Earth?s gaping wounds, which they themselves helped
to gash open.

Clearly, the vast destruction of the global ecology is a consequence
not just of poor governmental policies but of the capitalist
system?s fundamental drive towards growth and what passes for
development. Environmental activists won?t find in Gore the kind of
systemic analysis that is needed to stop global warming. Instead, we
need to look elsewhere for that sort of deep systemic critique.

[Mitchel Cohen is a member of the Greens Party in Brooklyn, US. He
can be contacted at &#060;mitchelcohen@mindspring.com&#062;.]

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #700 28 February
 
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW. Site
by Kiwa Systems
*****************************************************************
 61 Tucson Citizen: Nuke operator became complacent 

www.tucsoncitizen.com

Published: 02.24.2007

PAUL DAVENPORT The Associated Press

PHOENIX - The operators of the nation's largest nuclear plant 
slipped into complacency that reduced its margin of safety but 
did not put the public at immediate risk, the nation's top 
nuclear regulator said Friday.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein toured the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station and met with plant officials one 
day after the NRC downgraded the plant's safety rating.

"It's a safe plant, but it does not have the margins that we 
expect," Klein said.

The NRC's downgrade of Palo Verde followed a series of problems - 
most recently the discovery in September that an emergency diesel 
generator had been broken for 18 days. Emergency generators at 
nuclear reactors provide electricity to pumps, valves and control 
rooms if the main electrical supply fails.

Workers previously have found leaking oil seals in reactor 
coolant pumps and potential problems with a so-called dry pipe 
that could have disrupted the flow of water to the emergency 
core-cooling system. Federal inspectors also have said engineers 
and staff haven't always followed technical requirements when 
restarting the reactors.

Palo Verde, which has three uranium-fueled reactors, is about 50 
miles west of downtown Phoenix. It's operated by Arizona Public 
Service Co., a subsidiary of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital 
Corp., for utilities in Arizona, California, New Mexico and 
Texas.

Klein said Palo Verde slipped from strong performance levels of 
years past as workers addressed symptoms of problems but not 
underlying causes.

But the federal regulator said he believes plant officials now 
grasp the situation and will aggressively respond to the 
downgrading, which took it to the lowest of four safety ratings 
before a plant is deemed unsafe to operate. "They get it. They 
know they have a problem," Klein said.

The NRC is stepping up its inspections and requiring the plant to 
come up with an improvement plan satisfactory to the NRC.

Klein said how long it will take for Palo Verde to improve its 
safety rating depends on plant officials, but that it has taken 
other nuclear plants two to four years to improve from the same 
position.

On the plus side, Palo Verde appears to be in good shape 
physically, Klein said. "It's much more of a people issue."

APS' top nuclear official, Randy Edington, said he generally 
agreed with Klein's assessment that the problems reduced safety 
margins but that backup systems still were available.

"The general message is right on," said Edington, a 25-year 
veteran of the nuclear power industry who was hired by APS in 
January. "There's no major large infrastructure problem like we 
may find at many other plants."


www.tucsoncitizen.com | Copyright © 2007 Tucson Citizen All 
Rights Reserved. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 62 Santa Fe New Mexican: House temporarily tables power-plant bill

Legislative roundup, 02/24/2007

By | The New Mexican February 24, 2007

The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Friday
temporarily tabled House Bill 178, which provides a tax break for a
proposed coal-fired power plant on Navajo land.

The panel wanted to review several amendments proposed separately by
Rep. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, and Sithe Global Power, the company
working with the Navajo Nation to build the plant south of Shiprock.

Wirth&rsquo;s amendments include requiring at least 25 percent of
the energy produced at the 1,500-megawatt plant be consumed
in-state. Sithe&rsquo;s amendments would make the tax credit
contingent on the company&rsquo;s voluntarily helping other
coal-fired plants in the region reduce emissions.

A dozen Navajo protesters who live near the proposed plant site,
ranging from teenagers to senior citizens, packed the small
committee room Friday morning asking legislators to deny the tax
break to the power plant.

The Senate Conservation Committee approved the tax break over their
protests Thursday night, sending it on to the Finance Committee.

Both bills would forgive up to $85 million in taxes for the project,
which also has a tax break from the Navajo Nation. HB 178 was tabled
by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last week, seemingly
killing it. On Friday, however, Rep. Joni Gutierrez, D-Mesilla, who
had voted to table the measure orginally, brought it back up for a
vote. She declined to say why.

Vangee Nez, a University of New Mexico graduate student from
Sanostee who opposes the plant, said outside the hearing that the
Navajo government has taken on the modern philosophy that mineral
extraction and power development are the ways to make money and
create jobs. She said it has strayed from the traditional Diné
philosophy.

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s a Catch-22 for them now,&rdquo; Nez said.
&ldquo;The Navajo Nation on one hand says no uranium mining (because
of its environmental impact). On the other, it allows coal mining
and a coal-fired plant.&rdquo;

She said most elders in Sanostee oppose the plant, having lived with
the brown cloud from two other nearby coal-fired power plants in the
valley for 30 years. &ldquo;The fundamental law says you take what
you need, what you can use. You don&rsquo;t leave behind poisons on
the land, air and water,&rdquo; Nez said.

Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Executive Director
Stephen B. Etsitty, who was at the Capitol to lobby for the bill,
said the project&rsquo;s design meets the tribe&rsquo;s standards.
He said the Navajo fundamental law that opponents of the plant refer
to also allows the &ldquo;wise use&rdquo; of natural resources

Steven C. Begay, general manager of the Navajo Nation&rsquo;s Diné
Power Authority, which sought a company to build the 1,500-megawatt
plant, said the authority looked at other sources, but wind, solar
and even newer coal-fired technology couldn&rsquo;t provide a
reliable, consistent energy supply at an economical cost for a plant
that size.

Contact Staci Matlock at 470-9843 or smatlock@sfnewmexican.com.


AT A GLANCE

Background: HB 178 and SB 431 give a tax break of up to $85 million
to a coal-fired power plant proposed by the Navajo Nation and Sithe
Global Power, a Houston-based company. The 1,500-megawatt plant,
which would be built on Navajo land south of Shiprock, already has a
tax break from the tribe.

What's New: On Thursday, the Senate Conservation Committee gave a
do-pass to SB 431. On Friday, the House Energy and Natural Resources
Committee temporarily tabled HB 178 while its members study
amendments.

What's Next: The Senate Finance Committee takes up SB 431 and the
House Energy and Natural Resources Committee will vote on HB 178
next week. However, neither action has been scheduled.

Privacy Policy / Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican, all
*****************************************************************
 63 CAl Legis: Devore introduced bill to bypass 1976 block on new reactors

california legislature 2007 regular session (Bill Summary)

ASSEMBLY BILL  No. 719 

Introduced by Assembly Member DeVore 
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member La Malfa) 

February 22, 2007 

An act to add Chapter 5.5 (commencing with Section 25450) to 
Division 15 of, and to repeal Section 25524.2 of, the Public 
Resources Code, relating to energy resources. 

legislative counsel’s digest 

AB 719, as introduced, DeV ore. Energy: electrical generation: 
zero carbon dioxide emissions. 

Existing law prohibits land use in the state for nuclear fission 
thermal powerplants or, where applicable, the plants from being 
certified by the State Energy Resources Conservation and 
Development Commission, except for certain e xisting plants, 
until the commission mak es a finding regarding the existance of 
an aproved and demonstrated technology or means for the disposal 
of high-level nuclear waste. The commission is also required to 
perform certain other duties with re gard to nuclear fission 
thermal powerplants. 

This bill would create the California Zero Carbon Dioxide 
Emission Electrical Generation  Act of 2007.  The bill w ould 
repeal that prohibition regarding permitting and certifying 
nuclear fission thermal po werplants, along with certain other 
duties of the commission with re gard to nuclear fission thermal 
powerplants. 

Vote:   majority.  Appropriation:   no.  Fiscal committee:   yes. 
State-mandated local program:   no. 

*****************************************************************
 64 Gainesville Sun: Could Levy reactor repeat Crystal River's success

 Gainesville.com | Gainesville, Fla.

By RICHARD CONN Ocala Star-Banner

February 25. 2007 6:01AM Font Size: Font Sizes 

CRYSTAL RIVER - When he moved from big-city Tampa to small-town
Crystal River in 1971, Phillip Price still found a
metropolitan-style hustle and bustle.

That's because construction workers, commissioned to build a nuclear
power plant for Florida Power - predecessor to Progress Energy - had
descended on the town in droves and seemingly scooped up all the
available rental property.

''The big impact was there was nothing to rent,'' said Price, an
accountant who now sits on the Crystal River City Council. ''There
was lots of money changing hands. It was like a boomtown.''

The bulk of those workers would stay in Crystal River during the
week and then make a mass exodus out of town on the weekends,
leaving the city ripe for tourists, Price remembered. ''The saying
at the time was 'Will the last person in Crystal River turn the
lights off?' '' he said.

Construction would last six more years until the plant would
eventually become operational on March 13, 1977. Situated on some
4,700 acres near the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico, the nuclear
reactor is part of a 3,410-megawatt generating power plant complex,
which includes four coal-fired power plants, that has for 30 years
been Citrus County's largest private sector employer and taxpayer.

More than that, the plant largely reshaped Citrus County, because
the plant's employees created the need for a spate of new homes,
paved roads, schools and commercial developments.

''It brought kind of a new cultural twist,'' said Gary Maidhof,
Citrus County's development services director. ''It brought in folks
that were looking for more cultural amenities.''

The county's population has tripled since the power plant's
construction.

Now residents in neighboring Levy County could experience a similar
change in culture and boost to the local economy. Progress Energy
has proposed building up to two nuclear power plants on a 3,000-acre
parcel about eight miles north of the Crystal River energy complex.
The plant would create some 500 full-time jobs and generate some
2,000 construction jobs, utility officials said.

However, Progress hasn't submitted an application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and company officials say they haven't made a
firm decision to actually build a reactor.

Of course, for county and city officials, one of the primary lures
of having a nuclear power plant is the tax dollars a reactor can
generate. The Crystal River plant pumps close to $30 million
annually into Citrus County's coffers.

If a new reactor is built in Levy County, it could generate up to
$199 million in tax money during its first 12 years in operation,
according to Enterprise Florida. The plant would essentially double
the county's tax base.

But in the early 1970s, the promise of lower taxes wasn't enough to
make everyone happy about the power plant's arrival in Crystal River.

Helen Spivey said when she and her husband purchased a slice of land
in the city to build a home in 1971, they weren't aware that a
nuclear power plant was in the works just about six miles from their
home. ''It wasn't a thing at that point that Realtors revealed to
you,'' Spivey said.

When she found out, Spivey made a beeline to a City Council meeting,
bound and determined to convince officials that Crystal River wasn't
suited for a power plant. ''My eyes lit up, my veins were on fire
and away I went,'' Spivey said. ''I told them I had no desire to
glow green.''

But Spivey was apparently a voice in the wilderness. Asked if anyone
else showed up to fight the construction, she replied ''not really.''

Despite the power plant's impending arrival, the Spiveys went ahead
and built their house. She became a fixture in the community, and
was elected to the Crystal River City Council, and later, the state
House of Representatives.

Spivey recently moved to Homosassa, but said she still has plenty of
safety concerns about the plant, primarily the spent radioactive
fuel cells that are stored on-site. Spivey said she's amazed more
people aren't concerned that the plant is ''sitting in its own bath
water.''

Before he moved to Crystal River about 20 years ago, Ron Kitchen
said his friends cracked a few jokes at his expense about moving
close to a nuclear reactor. But Kitchen, now Crystal River's mayor,
said he's learned over the years that Progress has jumped through
numerous regulatory hoops and believes the spent fuel cells pose no
risk. ''It's got to be the most regulated thing there is in the
world,'' he said.

While the plant itself is certainly not hidden, it's also not
visible from the main drag through town, U.S. Highway 19. But
Kitchen said the power plant's employees are indelibly woven into
the fabric of the community. They are church choir members, Little
League coaches and Boy Scout troop leaders. ''It is difficult to
visit any particular street and not see someone who doesn't work for
Progress Energy,'' he said.

And undeniably, the power plant has provided higher-paying,
long-term jobs.

If Progress does decide to build in Levy County, a lengthy
permitting process is ahead and a new power plant wouldn't become
operational until 2016. Kitchen said he's still holding out hope
that Progress officials will change their minds and that Crystal
River would be able to snare a new nuclear reactor. ''As far as I'm
concerned, until they start building the plant, it's not a done deal
yet,'' Kitchen said.

Photos are special to The Sun
ABOVE: Progress Energy's nuclear power facility in Crystal River is
shown. The Crystal River plant routinely pumps close to $30 million
annually into Citrus County's coffers. LEFT: A warning sign marks an
entrance to the facility.

Copyright 2007, The Gainesville Sun. The information contained in
*****************************************************************
 65 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point acted fast to keep aberrant engineer off job

By GREG CLARY

(Original publication: February 25, 2007)

By the time nuclear engineer Steven Lessard vented his rage and
killed his wife and daughter in their Putnam Valley home, he had
been off his job for eight days at Indian Point - where that anger
could have produced very different consequences.

Lessard didn't get a chance to create problems at the nuclear
facility - located in the midst of 20 million residents - because
his co-workers and bosses watched him come undone over a flat tire
and quickly questioned his fitness to function in such a potentially
dangerous workplace.

"Normally, supervisors are trained to identify aberrant behavior or
whatever," said Jim Spry, a longtime worker at Indian Point. "I
don't know how a person could know if someone was going to crack up
like this guy did, but let's face it, he could have tried to kill
people on the job. That's a scary thing."

Lessard's supervisor, Michael Rutkoske, took him to medical staff
who counseled the quiet loner for an hour and a half, offering to
reduce his workload if needed or help him find a doctor to treat his
growing depression.

When he declined those offers, Lessard agreed with his bosses that
he would return to his job only after he was feeling better.

Those actions didn't keep the 51-year-old U.S. Naval Academy
graduate from strangling his wife, Kathy, and his 14-year-old
daughter, Linda, before stabbing himself with a steak knife, but
federal regulators say the company followed procedures designed to
protect the public from troubled power plant employees.

Lessard's own mother said her son "snapped" in recent months and
weeks, and was increasingly depressed. A psychiatric expert told The
Journal News that the former submarine officer fit the profile of a
"family annihilator," who could just as easily have taken his anger
out at work.

But despite an engineering position that would have granted Lessard
access to much of Indian Point's nuclear infrastructure, company
employees and federal regulators said he would have had little
opportunity to disrupt the reactors' operations.

And there is no evidence, plant officials have said, that he ever
had any such plans.

"He wasn't a control room operator," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "But we are still reviewing
the work that he did at the site."

Spry, a union shop steward for Local 1-2 Utility Workers of America,
didn't know Lessard but saw the nuclear engineer's name on a number
of documents related to different projects at the site.

Spry said Lessard was a management employee, with no union to
protect him, who could have been worried about staffing reductions
that have been rumored at the plant for months.

Letters discussing the "realignment," as Spry called it, had gone
out to employees' homes, with some arriving two days before Lessard
killed his family.

Company officials said after the double murder-suicide that they had
been satisfied with Lessard's work and any fears about his job being
in jeopardy would have come from him without any specific reason.

Still, whatever his concerns or condition, Lessard wouldn't have
been able to access secure areas without jumping through a number of
regulatory hoops, Spry said.

"The guy had access to the plant, but you can't just walk into the
reactor," Spry said. "It's locked and sealed. Someone has to let you
in, and you have to go through a whole system to even get there."

Officials from the NRC and Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and
operates Indian Point, say that a combination of safeguards,
physical and procedural, exists in the industry and at the Buchanan
facility that significantly lowers the odds of a disgruntled or
deranged employee's creating a radiological emergency.

"There's a military-like overlay to the way nuclear sites are run in
that there is always a lot of cross-checking done with other
supervisors and other plans," said Larry Gottlieb, Indian Point's
director of communications. "There would be numerous plan checks and
safety checks before you could do any work."

The site also has a phalanx of metal detectors, explosives screeners
and locked doors that workers as well as visitors must endure,
running all the way to the two working reactors.

Gottlieb said the workplace culture also becomes an important
protective element in a place where danger is an ever-present factor.

"A big part of the nuclear industry is observation," Gottlieb said.
"A lot of training is about observing physical conditions, whether
it's plant physical conditions or people's physical conditions,
because you are dependent upon your fellow worker in this job,
especially when you get inside the plant. Your safety is dependent
on each other doing his or her job."

Gottlieb said that in addition to having the typical worker
protection programs that most large corporations have - drug and
alcohol counseling, toll-free numbers for stress management and
financial-planning advice, the company also has the NRC looking over
its shoulder to ensure that employees are healthy as well as
safety-conscious.

NRC spokesman Sheehan said nuclear workers have the opportunity to
contact federal regulators directly and anonymously if they feel
there is something wrong with their workplace. As recently as last
year, Indian Point workers did just that, and the NRC followed up
with an investigation that led Entergy to take steps this year to
ensure that workers were comfortable pointing out safety problems.

Donna Scimia, a workplace conflict consultant and therapist from
Pleasantville, said it's important that facilities like Indian Point
continually review and improve their efforts to spot troubled
workers. She said a workplace becomes a family of sorts, and
behaviors that might seem abnormal to an outsider don't raise red
flags often enough with co-workers.

"I often find that employees don't just snap," Scimia said. "There
is always a consistent pattern of behavior that is often overlooked
or minimized by managers and co-workers."

Scimia said companies need to have programs in place that remind
workers and bosses to look for anything from poor impulse control
and changes in hygiene to controlling behavior and an inability to
concentrate.

"So many organizations, when these things happens, act as if they
never saw it coming," Scimia said. "You often find out that there's
much more going on than they think."

Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566.


     Everyday I read another article about this tragic event, and 
there’s always a line woven in about how the company he worked 
for did everything it could. I’m beginning to question how much 
ownership Entergy has of the media. I’m not interested in 
starting a discussion about the rights and wrongs of a nuclear 
power plant – I am however good with being reminded that they’ve 
washed their hands of this incident.

    While I’ve got the soapbox, the person who called him a 
family annihilator probably has no clue what events led up to 
this tragedy, and should probably not make a, "diagnosis," from 
such a distance.

   And finally, I’m appalled to discover that there is no law in 
NY that mandates a psychiatrist to be a mandated reporter. I’d 
like to know more about this – I’m not saying this doctor had any 
clue that this would happen, however, I can’t imagine that if he 
did, he’d keep that information to himself, and that if it was 
discovered that he knew and didn’t inform, that he would be able 
to retain his license.

      Posted by: Queens2SuburbChick on Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:49 pm

    Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper 
serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. 
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service 
and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005.
*****************************************************************
 66 Rutland Herald: Countries phasing out nuclear energy

Rutland Vermont News & Information

February 25, 2007

A recent Sunday opinion piece perpetuated a myth about the world's
energy direction. Besides France, which has had several economic and
environmental catastrophes with nuclear energy, few if any countries
are investing fully in nuclear energy.

Stephen Thomas is a senior research fellow at the Public Services
International Research Unit in the University of Greenwich, London.
From 1979 to 2000, he was a member of the Energy Policy Programme at
SPRU, University of Sussex. He is a member of the editorial board of
Energy Policy (since 2000), the International Journal of Regulation
and Governance, and he is a founding member of a network of
academies in Northern European countries (the REFORM group)
examining policy aspects of the energy systems. He was a member of
the team appointed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development to carry out the official economic due diligence study
for the project to replace the Chernobyl power plant.

He points out, worldwide, the ordering rate for new nuclear stations
has been at a low ebb for at least 20 years. One of the reasons
behind this is the poor economic performance of many existing
plants. This has occurred mainly because moves in the past decade to
competitive electricity markets, which favor low-capital-cost
generation options that are quick to build and for which the
performance can be guaranteed, have characteristics that nuclear
designs do not possess. He states further that nuclear generation
capacity in Britain will continue to fall sharply in the next
decade, reducing its contribution from about 25 percent of power
needs to less than 10 percent. Also a number of major countries have
actual or de facto nuclear phase-out policies, including Sweden,
Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland.

There are also three reasons why forecasting the cost of power from
a nuclear plant is difficult:

All experience of nuclear power suggests that unproven processes —
decommissioning and waste disposal — have not been proven on a
commercial scale and could easily cost more than expected, therefore
incurring the strong risk that forecasts of these costs could be
significantly too low.

There is no clear consensus on how provisions to pay for
decommissioning should be arranged.

Perhaps most important, there is a lack of reliable, up-to-date data
on actual nuclear plants. Utilities are notoriously secretive about
the costs they are incurring.

Finally, the issue of spent fuel is difficult to evaluate.
Reprocessing is expensive, but most importantly, the plutonium
produced may be used for weapons-grade material. This is relevant in
that recent Defense Department statements claim the "U.S. is awash
in plutonium." A deadly thought! Reprocessing merely splits the
spent fuel into different parts and does not reduce the amount of
radioactivity to be dealt with.

In addition, reprocessing creates a large amount of low- and
intermediate-level waste because all the equipment and material used
in reprocessing becomes radioactive waste. The collapse of British
Energy and our own West Valley, N.Y., facilities are good examples.

Robert Lincoln

Rutland

   © 2007 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 67 APP.COM: Top nuclear engineer favors closing of Oyster Creek plant

| Asbury Park Press Online

Sunday, February 25, 2007

BY NICK CLUNN STAFF WRITER Post Comment

The state's top nuclear engineer, who has inspected the Oyster Creek
nuclear power plant numerous times and has reviewed classified
documents about its operation, says the Lacey plant should close
after its operating license expires in two years.

The plant's obsolete design, its vulnerability to a 9/11-style
attack, and the chaos that would ensue if the public near the plant
had to evacuate from a radioactive release top Dennis Zannoni's list
of reasons — even if they've been heard before.

Citizen activists and environmental groups have championed those
concerns for years, but Zannoni is not your everyday renewal
opponent.

In addition to his special clearances, Zannoni has 20 years of
experience with the state Department of Environmental Protection and
four-year degrees in nuclear engineering and mathematics from the
University of Maryland.

Zannoni said he has also tracked the plant through a federal review
it must pass to have its license renewed for an additional 20 years,
though he was ordered to stop that work on Jan. 31 after being
reassigned pending an investigation of a complaint against him.

The performance of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission during
that review bolstered Zannoni's negative stance on the future of
Oyster Creek.

But regulators say they've taken a serious look at the plant, and
have placed dozens of conditions on the renewal — in the form of
additional inspections and tests — if the renewal is approved.

Zannoni said his once-productive relationship with the NRC began to
sour after the agency launched the renewal assessment two years ago.

Three months into the nearly three-year review, Zannoni called the
NRC to complain about how some of its officials had " "berated"
members of the public during a contentious renewal meeting at the
Lacey Municipal Building.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said he would not comment on that
accusation, but said that the agency expects its staff to treat
members of the public with respect. If that does not happen, he
said, citizens are encouraged to notify NRC management, or the
agency's inspector general.

Zannoni said he complained again in May 2006 after the NRC barred
two state nuclear engineers from participating in important meetings
related to the plant's drywell liner, a steel radiation barrier that
rusted and became thinner some 25 years ago.

State engineers, he said, were "specifically being excluded from all
activity and documentation related to the drywell, which completely
blew us away."

After receiving a telephone call from one of the state engineers who
was barred from the meetings at Oyster Creek, Zannoni drove there
from his office in Ewing to ask that his engineers be included.

Zannoni said NRC officials acknowledged they had made a mistake, and
allowed the state engineers to participate, though several days of
meetings had already passed.

They were included just in time for the inspection of the drywell,
in which water was found where it wasn't supposed to be.

AmerGen had not checked several jugs meant to catch water leaking
from an upper portion of the plant, as it had promised.

The NRC told AmerGen that the oversight raised doubts about
AmerGen's ability to meet commitments, but said the water did not
pose a safety threat.

Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 68 APP.COM: DEP yanks staffer who monitors Oyster Creek 

| Asbury Park Press Online

Sunday, February 25, 2007

BY NICK CLUNN STAFF WRITER Post Comment

The state has reassigned a veteran nuclear engineer with inside
knowledge of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant during a time when
Gov. Corzine and others in his administration are concerned about
safety and security at the Lacey reactor.

Dennis J. Zannoni, New Jersey's top nuclear engineer for 15 years,
said he now has to report to a cubicle without a phone or Internet
access after someone working for the federal agency that regulates
nuclear power complained about him.

The anonymous worker from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also
threatened to restrict the state's participation in plant
inspections if the complaint was not investigated, Zannoni said he
was told by a boss at the Department of Environmental Protection.

Though Zannoni said his relationship with the NRC has largely been
positive during his 20 years with the DEP's Bureau of Nuclear
Engineering, he cited several recent run-ins with commission
officials as a motive behind the complaint.

Zannoni's reassignment comes less than three months before the NRC
could finish a review meant to determine whether Oyster Creek is
safe enough to run for an additional 20 years under a renewed
license. State officials have been highly critical of the proposal,
and Corzine at one point said he was opposed to the renewal.

"This makes me sick. This is just so horrible," said Brick resident
Janet Tauro, a member of the renewal opposition group Grandmothers,
Mothers, and More for Energy Safety. "Dennis was the only person,
besides our attorney, who spoke on behalf of public safety."

DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura on Thursday confirmed the
investigation of a complaint against Zannoni, and a DEP memo
obtained by the Asbury Park Press says that he was temporarily
reassigned three weeks ago. But neither Makatura nor NRC spokesman
Neil Sheehan would verify the lodging of a complaint by someone at
the NRC.

Sheehan also denied the assertion that a federal regulator would
report Zannoni in an attempt to get back at him for his criticism of
the agency. The NRC, he said, has had a long, productive
relationship with the DEP.

"Like any relationship, there have been some bumps in the road, but
we have worked hard to try to deal with those," Sheehan said.

Told of complaint

A spokesman for the governor said Corzine could not comment on a
personnel matter at the DEP, but that he continues to follow what is
happening with the plant.

Although not given an official explanation, Zannoni said he was told
by a supervisor that the verbal complaint stemmed from a remark he
had made about the NRC while listening via conference call to a
meeting about the Lacey plant on Jan 18.

Zannoni recalled that he had questioned the expertise of the NRC
committee running the meeting when asked about the panel by someone
on the call, one of the several citizen opponents to Oyster Creek's
license renewal. Zannoni emphasized that he had made the remark
during a break, and not knowing that an NRC employee was listening.

"I said, "I did a review of the guys, and half of them are academics
and half of them are industry executives,' " Zannoni said. "So, I
said, "as far as being experts, I question that.' "

But Frank Gillespie, executive director of the advisory committee
whose members' expertise was doubted by Zannoni, said the committee
members are regarded as among the best in the field. Most have
doctorate degrees. Some were top officials at nuclear plants.

Tauro, who was on the call with Zannoni, vaguely recalled his
comment, but hadn't thought much of it. She said it might have come
during a break when Zannoni and the renewal opponents were chatting.

If a complaint was made by an NRC employee, that person was most
likely on the call with Zannoni, and not in the meeting at NRC
headquarters in Rockville, Md., where the phone lines were muted,
according to NRC officials.

A safety issue

The only NRC workers known to be on the call were those based at the
agency's regional office in Upper Merion, Pa., and who deal with New
Jersey's nuclear engineers on a regular basis.

Zannoni, who is paid an annual salary of about $88,000, said his
reassignment since Jan. 30 is excessive and will only hamper state
efforts to ensure Oyster Creek's safety, and to ensure that the NRC
is conducting a thorough evaluation of the plant.

If Oyster Creek passes its evaluation and obtains the renewal, the
37-year-old plant will become the nation's first commercial reactor
to run for more than 40 years. The plant will close in 2009 without
the renewal.

Zannoni identified Oyster Creek as the most important safety issue
New Jersey will face this year, and said that no one at the DEP
knows more about the plant than he does.

He also pointed out that Gov. Corzine and his administration have
been critical of his renewal due in large part to issues he has
raised about plant safety and what he sees as a rushed approach by
federal regulators considering the renewal.

Governors rarely visit nuclear power plants, but Corzine and several
state department heads toured Oyster Creek in December. Although
impressed with security measures and the work force, Corzine left
the plant with concerns he believed deserve further scrutiny.

New Jersey officials also have criticized the NRC for excluding the
threat of terrorism from its review. They are most concerned about a
9/11-style attack on the spent-fuel pool, a water-filled pool that's
elevated in the plant and holds highly radioactive fuel rods.

In addition, the DEP last month hired a corrosion expert to look at
the possibility of whether rust could corrode a steel barrier at the
plant's drywell meant to contain radiation.

Makatura, the DEP spokeswoman, said she would not comment on
Zannoni's role in the state's review of Oyster Creek. She could not
estimate how long the department would take in its investigation.

Zannoni said he ultimately wants his job back, and a meeting with
Corzine about why Oyster Creek should close when its license
expires. The DEP, he said, was wrong to remove him.

Looking back, however, Zannoni said he is unapologetic in how he
went about his work, even if his methods led to his reassignment.

"In fact, I should have been more aggressive," he said.

CARE TO COMMENT? Visit our Web site, www.app.com

Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 69 Desert Greens: Green Party of Utah Celebrate Cancellation of Divine Strake Test

Desert Greens/Green Party of Utah www.GPUT.org&nbsp; 
www.desertgreens.org

February 23, 2007

Contacts: Eileen McCabe 801-201-0219 leenaree@communitymail.org 
Deanna Taylor deesings@xmission.org 

UTAH -- Members of the Desert Greens, the Green Party of Utah were
delighted to hear that the Divine Strake explosion had been
cancelled. The Desert Greens have been members of the Stop Divine
Strake Coalition, an alliance of more than 4 dozen anti-nuclear,
peace and social justice, and indigenous rights groups world-wide,
started by the Western Shoshone Defense Project in Nevada, and
Shundahai Network, here in Utah. Through the leadership of the
coalition, efforts have been made to stop this test not just at the
Nevada Test Site, but at Mitchell, IN and White Sands, NM, sites
briefly considered over last summer and fall. Efforts of the
coalition included lobbying, direct action and public outreach. A
MySpace page was created last month which had hundreds of friends in
the first 48 hours.

While there has been much emphasis placed on the health concerns of
downwinders by other organizations, the Desert Greens, as well as
other coalition members also focused on the violations of treaty law
that the site of the test represented, as well as the escalation
this test represented in the development of new nuclear weapons, or
enhancement of existing nuclear weapons.

By the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, approximately 2/3 of what is
now the State of Nevada was acknowledged to belong to the Western
Shoshone. It was not ceded or "reserved" from public land for them,
it was acknowledged as their homeland. Over the years, land has been
taken for gold mines, claimed as public lands and the Western
Shoshone coerced into paying grazing fees, and in the late 1940's
the area known as the Nevada Test Site was seized. In March 2006,
the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination issued a finding against the United States, directing
them to "stop, freeze and desist" their actions on Western Shoshone
land, including extractive industries, and all activities at the
Nevada Test Site. One month later the National Nuclear Security
Administration announced the Divine Strake Test.

"For us, this has always been a broader issue. It is not just the
health of downwinders at stake, but the ongoing depredations of the
US federal government against the Western Shoshone people. The
United Nations CERD committee has told the US to stop, desist and
freeze its activities on Western Shoshone land. This test was
announced 1 month after that finding, in flagrant defiance of the
UN," says Eileen McCabe, a Green Party national delegate and
indigenous rights activist.

"The issue of nuclear fallout is not just one for downwinders,?"
says Tom King, former candidate for the Utah House, and organic
farmer. "If these weapons are ever used, innocent living beings the
world over will be poisoned for generations. I, for one, will fight
tooth and nail against the poisoning of this planet."

"This test was clearly, even by NNSA's own documents, intended to
enhance the development of nuclear weapons, likely to destroy
targets in Iran. We are bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty to eliminate our nuclear weapons, not improve them," says
Chuck Tripp former candidate for Salt Lake County Council, and
political science professor. "While Iran is not in violation of the
NPT, the United States clearly is."

"While this particular test has been cancelled, the program has
not," says Deanna Taylor, former Salt Lake County Council candidate
and local educator. "We need to remain vigilant to see how NNSA
proposes to advance this program, and be ready to respond."

Desert Greens, Green Party of Utah www.desertgreens.org Shundahai 
Network www.shundahai.org Western Shoshone Defense Project 
www.wsdp.org www.blueskyalternatives.net/Board 

Office: PO Box 57065 Washington, D.C. 20037 
Email: office@gp.org 202-319-7191 or toll-free (US): 866-41GREEN

*****************************************************************
 70 Guardian Unlimited: 1,000 join Bin the Bomb protest 

From Press Association

Saturday February 24, 2007 1:48 PM

Political, church and union leaders joined hundreds of people at a
Bin the Bomb rally in Scotland's biggest city.

An estimated 1,000 protesters joined the demonstration in Glasgow
calling for the Trident nuclear weapon system to be ditched.

The event, loosely tied in with an anti-war and anti-nuclear rally
in London's Trafalgar Square, came as a poll showed that 76% of
Scots would rather see money for Trident spent on public services.

The YouGov poll, commissioned by the SNP, also found that two-thirds
of the country opposed the purchase of a system to replace the
weapons system.

Prime Minister Tony Blair set out plans late last year to replace
Trident, based on the Clyde at Faslane, at an estimated cost of up
to £20 billion. He said retention of the nuclear deterrent was
"crucial" to national security.

Parliament is due to formally decide next month whether to give the
renewal the go-ahead.

SNP leader Alex Salmond joined Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan and CND
vice-president Bruce Kent speaking in Glasgow's George Square after
an hour-long march through the streets.

Also present were the Right Reverend Alan McDonald, moderator of the
General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and Cardinal Keith
O'Brien, head of the Catholic church.

Mr Salmond told members of the rally they had a choice at this May's
Holyrood elections to vote for a "nuclear-free Scotland".

He said: "May presents the people of Scotland with a choice of two
directions. A continuation down the route of wasting billions on a
Trident replacement and ignoring international commitments to rid
the world of nuclear weapons; or choosing to take the path of peace
and prosperity."

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 71 Salt Lake Tribune: Divine victory: Downwinders 1, Federal Government 0

Tribune Editorial

Article Last Updated: 02/23/2007 10:01:03 PM MST

Divine Strake is canceled. The Pentagon, under fire by thousands of
Utahns, capitulated on Thursday, calling off the planned detonation
of 700 tons of conventional explosives at the Nevada Test Site. It
just goes to show that every once in awhile the government will
listen when the people take the time to speak.

    The test, designed to gauge the effects of nuclear bombs on
underground bunkers, would have raised a cloud of dust thousands of
feet into the air. If past tests are any indication, much of the
dust would have settled on Utah. And much of the dust would have
contained traces of radioactive elements, the remnants of hundreds
of nuclear bombs set off during years of Cold War-era tests in the
Nevada desert.

    The Pentagon assured us that Divine Strake would be safe. But
we'd heard that before. It's no secret that thousands have suffered
and many have died from radioactive fallout despite past assurances.

    So we fought back. We lined up side-by-side and marched into
public hearings and went toe-to-toe with the federal government. We
armed ourselves with pens and paper, computers and keyboards,
telephones and microphones. We were brash, bold, brave, determined;
our arguments heartfelt, sincere, sound and convincing. And we were
victorious.

    Congratulations, folks. You should feel empowered. We the 
people won one for a change. But don't you dare stop here. Take a 
lesson from this.

    If we can stop a weapons test, we can do much, much more. We can
end the war, we can keep nuclear waste from piling up here, we can
get that stupid sodomy law off the books. Well, maybe not that last
one, but you get the point.

    Americans, Utahns included, have become lazy. We sit on our
duffs and count on others to carry our flags. Worse, we feel
powerless. We believe that the government won't listen so we don't
bother raising our voices.

    "I just felt such an overwhelming relief," said Michelle Thomas,
who lives downwind of the test site in St. George. Thomas has cancer
and an immune deficiency that she attributes to radiation exposure,
and she came to believe that the government didn't care. Now she's
astounded. "You just think, 'Oh my gosh. We matter.'"

    Thomas is wrong on that last count. We didn't matter until we
spoke up. Had we kept quiet, the big bang would have gone off as
planned.

    Congratulations, folks. You should feel empowered. We the people
won one for a change.

*****************************************************************
 72 American Centrifuge Piketon, Ohio
 
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:44:59 -0800

USEC resumes work on lead cascade

By JEFF BARRON
PDT Staff Writer Saturday, February 24, 2007 11:12 PM EST

With its test plant for the American Centrifuge program scheduled 
to open by the middle of the year the United States Enrichment 
Corp., Inc., will continue engineering work on its lead cascade.

The company plans to operate the program at the Portsmouth 
Gaseous Plant in Piketon. But it is conducting its engineering 
work in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

USEC leases the Piketon plant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Meanwhile, startup work at that plant continues, with a small 
number of centrifuges already built.

They opened about three months ago and were conditioned with 
uranium hexaflouride gas. USEC plans to introduce uranium gas in 
the near future.

The test plant is in preparation for the commercial plant USEC 
plans to open in late 2009.

 
It wants to have 11,500 machines running by 2012.

“This is an ambitious plan from both a cost and a schedule 
perspective, and the target estimate assumes cost savings we are 
working to achieve in 2007,” USEC President and CEO John K. Welch 
said in a statement. “A year from now, as we begin to finalize 
manufacturing contracts, we should have more data that will 
improve our ability to more accurately estimate the ultimate cost 
of the commercial uranium enrichment plant.”

USEC is operating the program in conjunction with DOE. A 2002 
agreement between the two includes a series of milestones and 
dates for deploying the American Centrifuge program.

For example, an October 2006 milestone called for obtaining 
satisfactory reliability and performance data from the lead 
cascade operations.

 
 
USEC and DOE are also discussing having a financial commitment 
for the project in place.

USEC officials say they hope to reach an agreement with DOE 
regarding the rescheduling of the two milestones and how future 
progress should be measured.

JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.
 
Home | Copyright © 2007 The Portsmouth Daily Times | Top  
*****************************************************************
 73 PE: Hearing set to find perchlorate blame | Riverside 

| PE.com |

Download story podcast

10:00 PM PST on Friday, February 23, 2007

By JENNIFER BOWLES The Press-Enterprise

A long-awaited hearing to determine blame for the Inland region's
most significant water-pollution case will be held in Rialto
starting March 28, officials said Friday.

The hearing could result in the cleanup of a several-miles-long
underground plume of perchlorate, long in the making. The rocket
fuel ingredient has tainted more than a dozen drinking-water wells
in Rialto and Colton.

Regional water-quality investigators based in Riverside believe much
of the contamination comes from two companies that operated at an
industrial site in northern Rialto in the 1950s and '60s. Attorneys
for those companies, Goodrich Corp. and Emhart, which is a
subsidiary of Black and Decker, have denied that.

William L. Rukeyser, a spokesman for the State Water Resources
Control Board in Sacramento, said the hearing will be held over five
days -- March 28-30 and April 4-5 -- in an auditorium at the San
Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health, 850 E. Foothill
Blvd., Rialto.

The state board's chairwoman, Tam Doduc, will serve as the hearing
officer and make a recommendation to the full board for a final
decision. A civil engineer, Doduc was appointed to the board by Gov.
Schwarzenegger.

She has served as deputy secretary at the California Environmental
Protection Agency, where she directed the agency's environmental
justice and external scientific peer review activities.

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@PE.com

© 2007 Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
 74 StockInterview.com: Record Number of Bidders Attend US$85/Pound Uranium Auction

February 25, 2007

By Julie Ickes

Has the Spot Uranium Price Reached Precious Metal Status?

Uranium Concentrate Production in the United States, 1996 &ndash; 
4th Quarter 2006. Table courtesy of Energy Information 
Administration (EIA).

Newly mined uranium remains "highly sought after" maintains 
Nuclear Market Review (NMR) editor Treva Klingbiel in the 
February 23rd issue of the weekly trade magazine, servicing the 
utility and nuclear fuel industry. It was no more evident than at 
this past week"s spot auction for U.S.-mined uranium.

The record $10/pound price increase, reaching a new spot uranium 
record of US$85/pound, was, according to Klingbiel, &ldquo;the 
single largest (dollar) increase recorded since prices were first 
published in 1968.&rdquo; TradeTech posts the weekly spot uranium 
price, as reported in NMR, on the consulting service"s website: 
www.uranium.info

At US$85/pound, it has occurred to us that uranium oxide 
concentrate has now begun to approach "precious metal" status at 
$5.31/ounce, or 17.4 cents/gram. It is reminiscent of the silver 
price, which last traded around this level in August 2003. Metals 
become precious when there is a scarcity of available supply.

A modest sum of 100,000 pounds of U3O8 was offered (again) by 
Mestena Uranium LLC, a privately held uranium miner in Texas. 
According to a February 13th quarterly report, published by the 
Energy Information Administration (EIA), annual production 
capacity at Mestena"s Alta Mesa in situ recovery (ISR) operation 
is one million pounds. The material auctioned this past week 
could represent as much as 10 percent of the company"s potential 
product to be offered at auction during 2007.

Because the majority of other uranium supply is being offered 
with "market-related pricing terms" at the time of delivery, a 
fixed delivery price has now become the rage among utilities and 
speculators. &ldquo;Bidding was extremely aggressive with a 
record number of bidders vying to purchase the material,&rdquo; 
wrote Klingbiel. &ldquo;Higher prices have not deterred potential 
buyers.&rdquo;

The spot uranium market has come to rely on the Mestena 
sealed-bid auctions for longer-term price guidance. &ldquo;Public 
auctions were a key factor in the price rise witnessed last year 
and clearly will continue to be instrumental in price formation 
during 2007,&rdquo; Klingbiel wrote. &ldquo;The year 2007 may 
well eclipse the extraordinary price increases witnessed last 
year.&rdquo;

Long-term demand for U3O8 now exceeds 54 million pounds. This 
past week, a non-U.S. utility requested offers to buy two million 
pounds U3O8 for delivery starting in 2008. Prior to this request, 
15 utilities were evaluating offers or seeking to purchase nearly 
54 million pounds, according to NMR.

The record price has also encouraged higher uranium production at 
U.S.-based facilities, such as Mestena. In its quarterly report, 
preliminary EIA data suggested total U.S. uranium concentrate 
production of 4.1 million pounds &ndash; a 53-percent increase in 
production over 2005. Douglas Bonner, who prepared the EIA 
report, wrote, &ldquo;This is the highest (annual) production 
level since 1999.&rdquo;

Cameco Corp"s U.S. in situ recovery uranium operations, such as 
the one in this photo, were strongly responsible for the highest 
annual uranium production since 1999. Smith Ranch is a 
functioning sheep ranch, but also includes uranium mining. While 
uranium is being mined beneath the surface with carbonated water, 
sheep safely graze on the property. Photo copyright © by 
StockInterview, Inc. 2006-2007. All rights reserved.

We believe this strong annual production level came mainly from 
Wyoming"s Smith Ranch-Highland and Nebraska"s Crow Butte ISR 
uranium mines. The in situ recovery (ISR) operations produced a 
record 2.7 million pounds U3O8. These operations contributed 
nearly 13 percent of Cameco"s worldwide mining production in 
2006. The balance of 2006 uranium production came from Mestena 
and Uranium Resources, both based in Texas.

Fourth quarter 2006 production was reportedly 78 percent higher 
than 4Q 2005. This was the highest quarterly production level 
since the fourth quarter of 1997. U.S. concentrate production 
this past year was 76 percent higher than at the nadir of the 
domestic uranium-mining depression in 2002. Despite this 
increase, the U.S. uranium mining industry only produces about 
seven percent of the raw product that nuclear fuel U.S. utilities 
consume each year. Nuclear utilities rely upon foreign-mined 
uranium and dwindling stockpiled inventories to power the 
country"s 103 nuclear reactors.

The next official U.S. government statistical report on U.S. 
uranium production will be released on May 17th.

The 304-page trade softcover edition of &ldquo;Investing in the 
Great Uranium Bull Market,&rdquo; is available online by 
visiting: http://bookstore.stockinterview.com  and is now offered 
on Amazon.com by visiting http://www.amazon.com

editor@stockinterview.com
*****************************************************************
 75 AU ABC: Gillard backs uranium mining. 

25/02/2007. ABC News Online

Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard has announced she will
support a push to end Labor's ban on new uranium mines.

Ms Gillard is breaking ranks with other left-wing Labor MPs ahead of
the ALP conference in April.

She says uranium mining creates jobs, so it should be allowed to
expand.

"On the question of uranium, I've had to think about this and think
about what position I would take at national conference, and really
I've decided that I will support [Opposition Leader] Kevin [Rudd]'s
position at national conference," she said.

"I'm for jobs, I'm for jobs, jobs, jobs, and I understand that the
expansion of the uranium mining industry in this country will mean
jobs."


&copy; 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 76 ABC4.com: Protestors take anti-nuke message to Governor's house - 

Last Update: Feb 24, 2007 11:00 PM

Watch This Video

Story by: Marcos Ortiz marcos@abc4.com

About seventy-five protestors rallied in front of the governors
mansionÂ on SaturdayÂ in hopes that he will veto legislation.
Protestors claim Energy Solutions is getting a sweetheart deal from
lawmakers.

The nuclear waste storage facility in Tooele County wants to double
its nuclear waste disposal size and according to protestors the
measure passed by the Legislature eliminates state oversight.

"It gives them the green light to add as much waste as they want to
without government regulation," said organizer Ryan Keller. "It
takes the governor out of the process."

Keller said Energy Solutions contributed big campaign dollars to
lawmakers. As a result, he said an overwhelming majority of the
House and Senate passed the measure which now awaits the governor's
signature.

Those who showed up in protest said the legislation is meant to help
Energy Solutions. "Exempting this company and no one else from
government oversight seems irresponsible," said Jim Bennion.

And others said there is distrust among the nuclear industry.
"Nuclear scientists really sort of self serving and they really
can't be trusted to think like the rest of us," said Bepe Kafka.

Carrying their signs, the protestors made their way from the
Governors mansion to downtown Salt Lake City getting supportive
honks from passing motorists along the way. One of those walking was
Duane Carling. He said he grew up near a nuclear waste disposal site
in Washington state and doesn't like another one nearby.

"My family has all paid a price over the years, deaths, birth
defects, cancer," he said. "I missed all of kindergarten because of
nuclear radiation poisoning at Hanford."

The governor did meet with Keller prior to the rally. Keller said
the governor has yet to make his mind up about the legislation. He
also claimed the Governor is concerned about possible lawsuits if
the legislation isn't made into law.

  &copy; 2007 Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. | 
*****************************************************************
 77 Gallup Independent: Foes debate risks of uranium mining

February 24, 2007: 

By Zsombor Peter Staff Writer

GALLUP ? The pair of mid-afternoon meetings the Gallup Water Board
hosted inside City Hall over the past month were low-key as far as
turning points go.

There was no shouting. There were no cameras. No one called anyone
else names. Mostly just scientists throwing around phrases like
"paleochannel" and "pregnant laxiviant." But those two meetings the
last one was Wednesday might just mark the start of the city's first
big step into a fight that's been going on around it for at least a
decade.

That's how long American Indian groups in northwest New Mexico have
been fighting the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision
to grant a Texas-based company a license to mine for uranium in
Church Rock and Crownpoint. The Gallup Water Board, an advisory body
of the City Council, wants to find out what that mining could mean
for Gallup.

Board chairman Larry Winn made it clear from the start that it was
neither the group's job nor intention to take a stand for or against
uranium mining or nuclear energy in general. Its only purpose here,
he said, was to help the council decide if the plans of Hydro
Resources, Inc., posed a threat to Gallup's water supply.

Leach mining
Most of the debate boils down to one key question: Does in situ
leach mining, a technique that involves injecting chemicals into
underground rock to strip it of uranium and bringing the mixture to
the surface for processing, pose an unacceptable risk to nearby
drinking water sources?

Because the uranium HRI is after sits outside of Gallup, city
officials haven't much cared about the answer. But as the city's own
depleting water resources have forced it to search farther afield
for new sources, they've started to take an interest. When Mayor Bob
Rosebrough heard the Water Board would be holding meeting on the
matter, he asked for a report when it was done.

HRI President Craig Bartels visited the board in mid-January to give
his side of the story. The company's opponents met with the board
Wednesday to give theirs.

Michael Wallace, a private hydrologist, is among those who believe
the NRC should never have given HRI a license to mine Church Rock or
Crownpoint. He's submitted data challenging the safety of the
company's plans and thinks the company's own data should have been
enough to at least raise some red flags among the commissioners.

But even Wallace doubts Gallup has much to worry about.

Separation
HRI wants to mine the Westwater Canyon aquifer of the San Juan River
Basin's Morrison Formation. The new well Gallup wants to dig near
Fort Wingate, called G-22, would tap the San Andreas-Glorietta
aquifer, which sits farther underground. While water flows through
each, the layers of rock between them tend to keep water from
flowing from one to the other. If and when Gallup starts drawing
water from G-22, said Wallace, who's studied the project, the
depression could potentially suck water from the Westwater aquifer
into the San Andreas-Glorietta, a problem for Gallup if the water is
contaminated. Practically, though, he doesn't think that's likely.

"I don't think you have to worry about their mining operations
affecting your water supply," he told Winn.

But Earl Dixon, principle hydrologist for the Navajo Nation
Department of Water Resources, gave the Gallup Water Board something
else to consider.

G-22 is only a stop-gap answer to Gallup's long-term water needs.
Along with most of the eastern Navajo Nation, it's counting most on
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, a pipeline that promises to
deliver more than 30,000 acre feet of water to the area from the San
Juan River by the time it's finished 15 to 20 years from now.

Gallup impact
By an arrangement that's yet to be fully worked out, the city and
tribe will each get a share of that water. But if the aquifers the
tribe will be using to supplement that water were contaminated,
Dixon said, the tribe may have to take some of the city's.

"Because we're working in one water supply system," he said, "the
City of Gallup is included in that risk."

All that assumes, of course, that HRI's operations will contaminate
the Westwater aquifer. And Mark Pelizza doesn't buy it.

Pelizza, the vice president of HRI's parent company, Uranium
Resources, Inc., sat in on Wednesday's meeting.

"You would have thought leaving (Wednesday's) meeting that this
project would have proceeded without a mitigation plan," he said
Thursday.

According to Pelizza, any leach mining site must be surrounded by a
ring of monitoring wells to make sure no contaminated water leaves
the area. Pelizza admits it happens sometimes. The monitoring wells
are there for a reason, after all. And there's even a name for it:
excursion. But it's always been corrected, he said.

In the 30 years HRI has been doing leach mining, Pelizza said,
"there has never been an underground water resource that has been
contaminated."

Opponents point out that no leach mining site has ever been restored
to its original conditions, that uranium levels are always higher
after the mining, even after the companies have cleaned up.

Pelizza didn't dispute that either. But they come awfully close, he
said. And considering how slowly water moves underground, he added,
any leftover contamination tends to stay confined.

Opponents say Church Rock and Crownpoint are different, that
underground conditions there allow water to move faster than HRI
will admit. Pelizza disputes that too.

What's not in dispute is that the members of the Gallup Water Board
have their work cut out for them. Winn said the board has amassed a
small library of information on uranium mining. These last two
meetings only add to the collection.

Winn isn't sure what the board will do with it all. In addition to
the report the mayor asked for, it could draft a resolution as it's
done before asking the council to take a position one way or another.

Whatever the board decides, it won't be rushed.

"This is not a race," Winn said. "We want to do this right." 

Weekend February 24, 2007 Selected Stories:

Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com
*****************************************************************
 78 The State: Nuclear waste landfill tour opened to public

02/24/2007 

By SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com

A company lobbying to keep South Carolina’s atomic waste landfill
from closing has scrapped plans for a private tour of the site with
an 18-member state legislative committee.

Utah-based Energy Solutions will allow the public to attend next
Wednesday’s tour — if the event is even held, company spokesman Tim
Dangerfield said Friday.

The company’s decision follows questions this week about public
access to the tour. Energy Solutions had previously denied a request
by an environmentalist to go on the landfill visit, Dangerfield said.

Under South Carolina law, the public can attend any meeting of a
government council or board. Energy Solutions invited the full
18-member House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental
Affairs Committee for the landfill tour. The committee is
considering a bill that would keep the landfill open beyond its
scheduled 2008 closure date.

“We want to make sure we do everything right,” Dangerfield said.
“After talking to our attorneys, this could have been construed as a
public meeting.”

Dangerfield said Energy Solutions will decide Monday whether to hold
the tour in Barnwell County and include the public or make a public
presentation before the agriculture committee in Columbia. The
company would still pay to bus legislators to the site; members of
the public would have to drive their own cars, he said.

Sierra Club member Joe Whetstone, who wanted to go on the tour, said
he was glad to hear Energy Solutions had changed its mind about
public access.

“It’s the right way to do business,” Whetstone said.

The S.C. Sierra Club had expressed concern that Energy Solutions
would gain the upper hand with lawmakers if other members of the
public were not allowed access to the tour.

Rep. W.D. “Bill” Witherspoon, who chairs the House Agriculture
Committee, said the landfill tour wasn’t an attempt to conceal
anything from the public. Witherspoon, R-Horry, said he wanted
members to see the landfill. He said he would decide Monday whether
lawmakers need to go on the tour if it is held.

Jay Bender, an attorney for the S.C. Press Association, said the
Energy Solutions landfill tour would have likely violated the
state’s open meetings law. Witherspoon said he didn’t want to do
that.

“Public business should be conducted in a public manner,” Bender
said. “What they are doing is calling a meeting to go to Barnwell
and discuss this thing in secret.”

Bender is a Columbia attorney who specializes in media law and First
Amendment issues. Among his clients is The State newspaper. The
State is a member of the S.C. Press Association.

Opened in 1971, Barnwell County’s landfill near the town of Snelling
is a 235-acre site where about 28 million cubic feet of low-level
nuclear waste has been buried. For decades, it has been a source of
bitter debate over its potential threat to the environment and South
Carolina’s legacy as a disposal site for atomic waste.

The landfill is one of two commercial low-level waste disposal sites
open to the entire country, but the only one that takes the most
radioactive type of low-level waste. Such waste ranges from lightly
contaminated hospital gowns and booties to more heavily radioactive
material from old nuclear reactors.

Under current law, the landfill is supposed to close July 1, 2008,
to all states except South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut,
which struck a deal in 2000 to use the waste dump.

The tour would mark the second time since December that Energy
Solutions has been accused of meeting privately with a state panel.
In December, company officials lunched with members of the
Governor’s Nuclear Advisory Council before the group’s regularly
scheduled meeting. Advisory Council chairman Ben Rusche said he did
not discuss the landfill with Energy Solutions at lunch, nor did he
sit at the table of company executives.

Energy Solutions, the parent company of Barnwell County landfill
operator Chem-Nuclear, is making a concerted effort to keep the
landfill open.

During the past year, Energy Solutions has hired 10 lobbyists and
run advertisements extolling the companies qualities. The company is
a nuclear services contractor that also has ambitions to bid on the
operating contract at the nearby Savannah River Site, a federal
nuclear weapons complex. The company is studying whether to build a
nuclear fuel recycling plant near the Barnwell County landfill.

Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537.

WHAT’S AT STAKE

Energy Solutions is working to keep its Barnwell low-level nuclear
waste landfill open past 2008, when the site is set to close to all
but three states.

A bill to extend the life of the facility another 15 years was
introduced in the Legislature earlier this month.


About TheState.com | About the Real Cities Network
*****************************************************************
 79 The Sun News: Visit to nuclear facility fought

02/24/2007 | 

House committee excludes visitors from Barnwell trip

By Zane Wilson The Sun News

COLUMBIA - The S.C. Press Association was considering legal action
Friday after Rep. Billy Witherspoon, R-Conway, denied a resident and
a lobbyist permission to attend a House committee site visit to a
nuclear waste facility.

Witherspoon, chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources
Committee, said he was taking the panel to the low-level nuclear
waste dump at Barnwell for educational purposes.

The committee will take up Witherspoon's bill that extends the use
of the Barnwell facility for any users for 15 more years. Existing
law requires it to close next year to all but South Carolina,
Connecticut and New Jersey.

Witherspoon said he did not see anything wrong with excluding others
from the visit because there would be no discussion and no voting.

"I want the committee to be fully informed," he said.

But a representative from Energy Solutions, the operator of the
waste facility, said it is considering whether to allow others on
the visit.

People should not worry about special favors for the company, he
also said.

"I don't do back-room deals," Witherspoon said.

Jay Bender, attorney for the press association, said the visit is
the same as if the committee were meeting in its chamber at the
capital. It is a public meeting and no one can be denied the right
to attend, Bender said.

If no one can attend, the public will have no way of knowing what
the operators at Barnwell tell the committee. Committees can't meet
in secret and take testimony from only certain groups, he said.

"That's exactly why we have the Freedom of Information Act," so
everyone can know what government bodies are doing, Bender said.

Witherspoon said the committee was invited by Energy Solutions Inc.
and he was not free to invite others. The company also was providing
the transportation, he said.

Energy Solutions vice president for S.C. operations said Friday that
the company is reconsidering since it was informed that the meeting
might be in violation of state law.

Tim Dangerfield said the company most likely will allow members of
the press, or hold the meeting in Columbia. A decision is expected
Monday.

Bender said Witherspoon should have informed Energy Solutions that a
legislative committee cannot have a closed site visit.

Witherspoon said he is having House legal staff look into the issue,
and if the trip does violate the FOI law, he will cancel it.

Dell Isham, director of the S.C. Sierra Club chapter, said
Witherspoon told his group's lobbyist and a member that they could
not come on the trip, but that Witherspoon would set up separate
trips for them.

"This is a committee meeting, and a committee meeting dealing with
legislation," Isham said. Unless it's an open visit, Energy
Solution's viewpoint gets a special advantage, he said.

Anyone should be able to hear what legislators are told and see what
they are shown about the operation, Isham said.

"The more open your government is, the better it's going to be on
the environment," he said.

Contact ZANE WILSON at 357-9188 or zwilson@thesunnews.com.
*****************************************************************
 80 The State: Barnwell dump defines what kind of state we are

02/25/2007 

IF SOUTH CAROLINA’S relationship with Chem-Nuclear were a play, the
script would read like this:

ACT I

LEGISLATURE: We’re tired of being the nation’s nuclear pay toilet.
We’re kicking the rest of the country out of our Barnwell landfill,
and you can’t stop us.

CHEM-NUCLEAR: But your utilities will have no place to bury their
waste, and nuclear waste will pile up at unregulated sites across
the state. Besides, you could make a killing off the taxes.

LEGISLATURE: OK. But just for a few more years. Then we’re putting
our foot down. We mean it.

CHEM-NUCLEAR: OK. Fair enough.

ACT II: Repeat ACT I.

ACT III: Repeat ACT II.

We’re now in ACT IV. Or ACT V. We lose count.

Again, the deadline is fast approaching to cut off the rest of the
nation and preserve the dwindling space for South Carolina’s
utilities. Once again, Chem-Nuclear has hired up all the big-name
lobbyists to get the deadline extended, raising the specter that
“‘mini-Barnwells’ might spring up” statewide if the Legislature
doesn’t back down and give in and sell out — again.

About the only new twist is that the company isn’t dangling new tens
of millions in front of us. Maybe because it’s a good budget year.
Maybe because the lobbyists know legislators aren’t that gullible —
previous promises have never been met. Maybe because we long ago
established what we are, and even settled on an embarrassingly low
price, without haggling.

This time, Chem-Nuclear is hyping the threat: The landfill won’t be
“financially viable” if it can’t accept waste from all comers.
Poppycock. Chem-Nuclear knew in 2000 that cutting off other states
would reduce the money, yet it agreed to the plan. Besides, Energy
Solutions just bought Chem-Nuclear last year. Either it’s still a
money maker or else the company was betting that our Legislature
would roll over. Again.

The United States needs nuclear power, Energy Solutions is on the
right track in trying to be a comprehensive nuclear company, and
it’s important to deal with nuclear waste as a nation instead of
individual states. But South Carolina has been doing its part since
1971. And if we ever stick to our guns, we’ll still do what only two
other states do: manage our own waste. That is, if we don’t sell off
all our space first.

The question is simple: Do we want to keep burying the nation’s
waste? Supporters say we bury only a tiny fraction of the nation’s
waste, but as long as we own one of just two sites open to all
comers, and as long as we own the only site that accepts
decommissioned nuclear reactors — one of the main reasons Energy
Solutions cites to keep the place open to the rest of the nation —
we are the nation’s nuclear dump.

We think we’ve held that title long enough.

Will we lose money if we give up the title? Of course so. Just like
we lost money when we shut down video poker. Just like we could gain
money if we legalized prostitution. Or cocaine. The question is what
kind of state we want to be. It’s whether there’s anything our
legislators won’t do for a buck. It’s a matter of integrity.

Go to www.thestate.com

About TheState.com
*****************************************************************
 81 The State: Earlier acts from Chem-Nuclear play

02/25/2007 

Opinion 

FORGIVE US if this feels redundant, but as we noted in our 
editorial today, the same things keep happening over and over. 
We've selected six editorials from the past decade to help give 
you a feel for the fight over the years. They're in reverse 
chronological order, but we especially like the ones from March 
2000 and from 1998.

S.C. must reject plan to take more nuclear waste

Published on: 03/18/2004

CERTAIN SOUTH CAROLINA legislators are hell-bent on selling this 
state's clean air, water and soil for a pittance, rejecting sound 
policy that would get our state out of the business of serving as 
the nation's nuclear dumping ground.

The House of Representatives, in a 68-48 vote, agreed to triple the
amount of radioactive waste allowed to come to the Chem-Nuclear
landfill near Barnwell in 2005. The extra 100,000 cubic feet of
waste would bring in $6 million in fees for the state, which the
House earmarked for police pay raises.

Adequate pay for law enforcement officers is important. But that
doesn't change the fact that using this income for this expense is a
bad deal. It is no better than the previous linkage of nuclear waste
disposal income to expenses for schools. A parade of good causes
tied to this income makes the moves look like what they are -
back-door attempts to circumvent the sound policy that would phase
out the nationwide use of this site.

State lawmakers agreed four years ago to close the dump to the
nation in 2008. After that, it would be open only to South Carolina,
Connecticut and New Jersey, which formed a compact to use the site.
In each year leading up to 2008, the site is scheduled to take less
waste from across the nation. That plan must stand.

Whether the money is for scholarships, or school buildings, police
officers or any other good cause you can think of, it's not worth
the cost to the state of backing away from the facility's phase-out.

The landfill has accepted some 28 million cubic feet of low-level
atomic waste from around the country since 1971. The dump was
scheduled to close in 1995, when then-Gov. David Beasley proposed a
different tack. He sold lawmakers on a plan to keep the facility
open, with its state revenue going for school buildings and
scholarships. Income from that deal never matched projections,
making the whole arrangement a bad deal gone worse.

Periodically since, questions have arisen about the site and its
costs to the state - financially and environmentally.

The Public Service Commission had to look at administrative costs at
the site, and determined they should be set lower than what
Chem-Nuclear sought. The difference was important, as it helped
determine how much eventually went to schools.

In addition, the site began taking more potent waste, waste that
will take longer to break down than that previously accepted.

Also, state lawmakers have raided a trust fund earmarked for the
site's eventual cleanup, taking money out to help balance the state
budget.

This list of dubious decisions must not grow with the addition of
the House's plan to expand the landfill's capacity for 2005.

Fortunately, the House's action is not the final word on this
matter. The Senate still must consider the budget. That chamber is
home to some longtime foes of this facility and its tactics. Gov.
Mark Sanford's office also has expressed concerns about the move,
which the governor is studying.

We're glad the measure is getting another look. The Senate and the
governor should consider history and, more important, our state's
future, and then reject this ill-considered idea outright.

Chem-Nuclear’s request is again without merit

Published on: 01/10/2002

Radioactive landfill operator Chem-Nuclear Systems is spending part
of this week trying to convince state regulators to let it keep more
money from the allotment the facility is supposed to send South
Carolina school programs.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the same ploy Chem-Nuclear tried
last April, which was rightly rejected by the Public Service
Commission. This panel should again refuse to let Chem-Nuclear
fleece the state.

In 2000, the PSC was charged with determining how much Chem-Nuclear
can keep for expenses and profit in operating its low-level
radioactive waste dump near Barnwell. Income after that goes to the
state of South Carolina for school buildings and scholarships.

After an extensive hearing in 2001, the PSC determined that
Chem-Nuclear could legitimately claim $8.2 million a year in costs
to operate the facility. Chem-Nuclear also keeps a 29 percent profit
on each of those dollars. The state-authorized figure was far better
and more reasonable than the $13 million Chem-Nuclear had originally
tried to claim. The bulk of the difference between what Chem-Nuclear
wanted and what the state granted could be found in two questionable
items.

Chem-Nuclear wanted to charge the state for "operating rights" and
"good will." These are common accounting terms that refer to the
value to Chem-Nuclear of its right to operate the Barnwell site and
the company's value above its tangible assets - things such as its
long-standing relationship with waste disposers and employees, for
example. These items are relevant when a business is sold, as
Chem-Nuclear has been during its relationship with South Carolina.
They are completely irrelevant, however, to the question of how much
Chem-Nuclear can hold back from South Carolina schools. The Public
Service Commission should again treat them as such.

Chem-Nuclear has tried to dress up its request a bit this time. The
company has returned seeking to retain $7.34 million - plus 29
percent profit - again attempting to call "Barnwell operating
rights" a legitimate cost of the current enterprise. Baloney. The
operating rights aren't a cost; they're an asset - an asset granted
by the state.

Chem-Nuclear has altered its proposal from last year, attempting to
spread this cost over eight years. That would lessen the impact of
the charge in any one year, but still doesn't make it right.

Chem-Nuclear's current parent company, Duratek Inc., can certainly
argue that it had to pay for Barnwell operating rights when it
acquired Chem-Nuclear. Any accountant would agree. South Carolina
law, however, specifically governs the PSC's actions in this
proceeding. The regulators must approve costs for Chem-Nuclear that
are "directly associated with disposal operations." The PSC's own
test requires that those allowable costs be incurred for operations
that are "used and useful" in a utility's primary purpose.

We have always known that Chem-Nuclear is the kind of company that
can work the system for its benefit. And you have to hand it to
their accountants, lobbyists and lawyers. They're quite clever to
come up with this request again and to make it in such a fashion.
That doesn't mean, however, that Public Service Commissioners have
to be stupid enough to say "yes."

It’s time to end S.C.’s role as nation’s nuclear dump

Published on: 05/24/2000

House members will decide in the next few days whether South
Carolina will continue to bury the nation's nuclear garbage - for
far less money than we were promised, at far higher levels of
radioactivity than we bargained for and with no reason to believe we
will be able to do the only thing we ever needed a nuclear landfill
in our state for: to bury South Carolina's waste.

The battle lines in this debate have shifted dramatically from years
past, when the landfill's operator, Chem-Nuclear Systems, joined
forces with the state's biggest radioactive waste producers, the
power companies, and folks from Barnwell County to fight efforts by
environmentalists to reduce or eliminate out-of-state waste.

Now, most of those groups are pushing a plan to join the Atlantic
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The plan slows the flow of
waste into the landfill and imposes greater state control over the
facility. It guarantees the state's utility companies space to bury
their nuclear reactors once they are decommissioned and gives S.C.
waste generators discounted burial rates. It phases down the waste
burial over an eight-year period so the state can adapt to the
reduction in tax money. It guarantees annual and up-front payments
to Barnwell County and guarantees Chem-Nuclear stability and a 29
percent profit.

Most importantly, for the first time since the General Assembly took
the ill-advised action in 1995 of withdrawing from the Southeast
Compact, South Carolina could control access to our borders. The
three-state compact could not accept new members or out-of-compact
waste without the approval of S.C. commissioners, who would be
prohibited by law from voting to accept more out-of-region waste
than is spelled out in the law or to accept a new state that does
not volunteer to host a disposal site.

It is not a perfect plan. As former House Speaker Bob Sheheen points
out, the state would accept out-of-region waste for eight more
years. Rep. Sheheen prefers the state to take over operation of the
landfill itself and immediately cut off access to the nation. While
that option sounds attractive to a state that has gained a
reputation as the nation's nuclear dump, it poses financial risks
and does not have the political support to pass.

So Rep. Sheheen, who has helped delay debate on the bill, is trying
to make sure legislators know what they're getting into.

"I just want to point out to people that while the status quo is not
the best thing for South Carolina and this is a step in the right
direction, it's not nirvana," he said. "And while everybody thinks
that we are creating an arrangement whereby the other states in the
compact will provide disposal for South Carolina in the future,
that's nowhere in this arrangement. I certainly don't want to defeat
the proposal, but I want everybody to hear what it does and to study
what it does."

Unfortunately, it's not clear that the House will even debate the
matter. Oh, some representatives are about to decide the issue. But
the decision could be made by the three representatives on the
conference committee handling the state budget.

Senators stuffed the matter into the budget, as they did five years
ago when they decided to pull out of the Southeast Compact - a bad
decision made worse by the way it sidestepped the normal legislative
process and barred input from the House. The same could happen again
this year unless the House does whatever is necessary - be it
staying at work late in the coming days or setting the bill on
priority status - to make sure the bill is debated this week.

Rep. Sheheen says that, most of all, he wants to make sure House
members can explain to their constituents what they did on this
matter and why they did it. And they certainly need to be able to do
that.

Even more, though, representatives need to make sure that they don't
have to explain how - once again - they let others make their
decision for them.

Nuclear compact plan has something for everyone

Published on: 03/28/2000

Several years ago there was a television show called "Barney
Miller," a situation comedy where urban cops grappled with
contemporary problems. In one episode ("Lady and the Bomb," 1981),
the police were called upon to find a home for nuclear waste in the
possession of an unstable citizen. After a number of phone calls,
the detective gave up in disgust, muttering, " ... Even South
Carolina won't take it." In a 1986 syndicated column, Art Buchwald
posed the question, "What do you do with nuclear waste?" then
answered it: "Find a hole in South Carolina and bury it."

-from the draft report of the S.C. Nuclear Waste Task Force

What a wonderful change it is to hear state lawmakers talking about
reducing the amount of the nation's nuclear waste that we bury,
instead of increasing it. How wonderful it is to hear them talking
about joining an interstate waste compact to deal with radioactive
waste, instead of leaving one. How wonderful that South Carolina
might finally be able to shed its image as the nation's nuclear
dumping ground.

For this marvelous change in the direction of state policy, we can
all thank Gov. Jim Hodges, who pledged during his campaign to close
South Carolina's borders to the nation's waste, and then set about
making that happen. But the credit is by no means his alone. It
would have been easy for Republicans to reject his bid to join the
Atlantic Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, dismissing it as a
partisan rebuke of former Gov. David Beasley, who in 1995 convinced
the Legislature to open South Carolina's just-closed borders to the
nation's waste. And it would have been easy for the Democratic
Senate to maintain its long tradition of supporting whatever
policies are most financially beneficial to Chem-Nuclear Systems,
the company that operates the nuclear landfill at Barnwell.

Of course, either could still happen. But both appear highly
unlikely as the Senate prepares today to debate the proposal. For an
amazing thing has happened over the last few months. Republicans and
Democrats, environmentalists and big business, folks in Barnwell
County (who have always fought any attempts to reduce the waste
stream) and even Chem-Nuclear Systems have come together to support
the plan. (In fact, the only fear anyone seems to have about passage
is the possibility that some Republicans might be unwilling to
support something they see as beneficial to Gov. Hodges - which
would be reprehensible.)

Each interest has a different reason to support the change.
Environmentalists like it because it slows the flow of waste into
the landfill and imposes greater state control over the facility.
Utility companies like it because it guarantees them space to bury
their nuclear reactors once they are decommissioned - and it
guarantees modest cost increases that allow them to put less money
into decommissioning funds (and perhaps lower utility bills) now.
In-state waste generators in general like it because it promises all
in-region producers the same burial rates, and gives a 33 percent
discount to S.C. generators. State budget writers like it - or at
least they can live with it - because it phases down the amount of
waste being buried over an eight-year period. That gives the state
time to adapt to the reduction in tax money, which is expected to
amount to $45 million this year.

Folks in Barnwell County like the plan because it guarantees them $2
million a year in fees, and it requires Connecticut and New Jersey
to make an up-front payment of $12 million for economic development
projects in their area. It even offers something for Chem-Nuclear,
in exchange for reduced volume: stability and a guaranteed annual
profit of 29 percent.

The plan puts South Carolina in as strong a position as it ever has
been to control access to our borders. The compact can't accept new
members or out-of-compact waste without the approval of South
Carolina's commissioners. And the bill prohibits them from voting to
accept more out-of-region waste than is spelled out in the law or to
accept a new state unless it volunteers to host a disposal site.
Outside of a compact, the only way South Carolina could keep other
states out and preserve space for S.C. waste would be to take over
the site itself or let the in-state generators do that - either of
which could make the facility financially unstable.

About the only fault we can find with the plan is that it doesn't
reunite South Carolina with the Southeast Compact to which we
originally belonged. But while we would have preferred being able to
work things out with our nearest neighbors, we understand that there
were tremendous obstacles to doing so. And that disappointment is
overshadowed, by far, by the fact that all interests seem to have
been able to reach common ground on how we should resolve this
matter. That's nearly as important as the fact that South Carolina
will soon be able to shed its distinction as the nation's nuclear
garbage dump. Lawmakers of all stripes can take pride in supporting
this smart proposal.

Barnwell panel makes progress on nuke waste

Published on: 08/05/1999

The new 13-member governor's task force charged with recommending
ways to reduce low-level nuclear waste buried at the Barnwell
landfill is off to a good start. On Monday, the task force began the
tedious job of gathering data on how much it costs to run the
235-acre nuclear burial site.

This is vital information: Chem-Nuclear, a company that has a
99-year sweetheart deal with the state to run the Barnwell dump,
uses the site as a cash cow to make tens of millions of dollars
profit each year - perhaps $50 million or more on costs of from $10
million to $20 million (a 250 percent to 500 percent profit). This
money comes from hundreds of companies across the nation that each
year send 200,000 cubic feet of nuclear waste to Barnwell and pay
Chem-Nuclear to have it buried.

Unlike other companies to whom the state grants monopolies,
Chem-Nuclear isn't required to open its financial books. It has
refused to provide verifiable information. Consequently, to get an
idea of the nuclear dump's operating costs, the task force is having
to interview nuclear waste experts. The information is necessary
because if the state does scale Barnwell back, it will need to know
the cost of running a dump that accepts sharply reduced amounts of
waste. With this information, the state can hire an operator to run
Barnwell in a way that both assures a good deal for taxpayers and
fairly compensates the operator.

Chem-Nuclear is sending signals it will pull out of Barnwell if it
can't continue accepting huge amounts of nuclear waste and making
large profits. If Chem-Nuclear wants to go, let it. At least one
competitor has expressed interest in operating this site on better
terms. Chem-Nuclear has enjoyed a wonderful ride on its
near-monopoly. The Barnwell dump is one of only three in the United
States. The other two dumps, in Utah and in Washington, are far more
restrictive in the waste they accept than Barnwell.

As Gov. Jim Hodges has pointed out, South Carolina must scale back
the amount of out-of-state waste Barnwell accepts if the landfill is
to have enough space to bury our own nuclear waste over the next
century. After 2030, our nuclear power plants will begin to be
decommissioned. It makes little sense to let Chem-Nuclear fill up
the Barnwell landfill with out-of-state nuclear waste when we will
need the space. South Carolina now generates only about 5 percent of
the waste buried at Barnwell. At the current rate, Chem-Nuclear may
completely use Barnwell's capacity by 2015.

Chem-Nuclear can be expected to fight anything that might cause a
profit reduction. The company has formidable weapons at its
disposal: In the 23 years it has operated Barnwell, Chem-Nuclear has
hired the state's best-connected lobbyists.

On Nov. 1, the task force turns over its report to Gov. Hodges, who
will give it to the General Assembly for action. By then,
Chem-Nuclear will have unleashed an army of lobbyists to convince
the Legislature to do nothing. Chem-Nuclear has a lot to lose -
perhaps another $500 million in profits. But South Carolina has much
to lose if things do not change. Reducing waste flow to Barnwell
will solve many problems, from saving capacity for S.C. generators
to getting other states to handle their own waste.

Legislature shouldn’t bail out Chem-Nuclear

Published on: 07/19/1998

We've heard it all before.

The state will lose vital tax revenues, and we'll all be exposed to
a dangerous proliferation of unregulated mini-nuclear storage
facilities unless the Legislature bails out Chem-Nuclear.

First we extended the deadline to close the state-owned
radioactive-waste landfill the company operates in Barnwell. That
action was propelled by a combination of worry over what S.C.
businesses would do with their nuclear waste and the lure of the
almighty dollars the facility sends to Columbia.

Then, in 1995, we walked away from two decades of state and federal
policy - and our only chance of ever getting out of the
nuclear-waste business - with an ill-conceived plan to pull out of a
regional compact and open the Barnwell site to the nation. In
return, Chem-Nuclear, Gov. David Beasley and the Legislature
promised the state would receive $140 million a year to build
schools and send poor and moderate-income students to college.

The money never materialized. From the start, the state's
$235-per-cubic-foot burial fee scared off customers. Those who
weren't scared were smart: They compacted their nuclear trash,
taking advantage of the Legislature's ignorance. The tax is based on
volume instead of radioactivity. And the result of that is grim;
projections last year indicated the facility would take 60 percent
more radioactivity before it fills up than initially expected.

In 1996, Chem-Nuclear sent the state $92 million. In 1997, it was
$77 million. That drop led legislators to demand the company make up
the difference if the 30 percent portion of the fee that pays for
scholarships didn't total at least $22 million. (That goes up to $24
million in 1999.)

Volume was down so much that the company couldn't meet the minimum
it had signed off on just five months earlier. So Chem-Nuclear
floated a plan last fall to essentially sell space in the landfill
on the futures market. The company would guarantee the state a $1
billion education trust fund in return for a legislative guarantee
that the landfill would remain open. Remarkably, the governor and
the Legislature showed no interest, and the company instead
convinced utilities to kick in the extra $8.5 million it needed to
meet its 1998 obligation.

Now Chem-Nuclear says it will probably be $10 million short next
year. So it's negotiating with waste generators in hopes of coming
up with another legislative proposal. Any plan is likely to involve
lowering the $235 fee and guaranteeing companies space into the next
century - a guarantee almost certain to lead eventually to expansion
of the landfill.

Senate Finance Chairman John Drummond has indicated he might be
willing to lower the tax. But the Senate has always been in
Chem-Nuclear's pocket. The real test is the reaction of the
company's new allies, Gov. Beasley and the House.

So far, reaction has been chilly. Gary Karr, the governor's
spokesman, calls fee reductions and guarantees "nonstarters" for the
governor. (Democratic challenger Jim Hodges opposes even the
concessions the state has already made.)

House Speaker David Wilkins predicts the Legislature won't be
interested in any deals. And Ways and Means Chairman Henry Brown
said it would suit him fine if Chem-Nuclear had to bail out of
Barnwell. "The state probably would take it over to serve in-state
uses," he said.

That's the first sensible suggestion we've heard since problems
first developed with the plan to rotate nuclear storage duties
through the region. If the goal is to make sure S.C. companies don't
let nuclear waste pile up on their property, then the most the state
should be willing to do is provide a disposal facility for those
companies. There is no reason we should prop up Chem-Nuclear's
attempts to salvage its bottom line by attracting waste from other
states.

*****************************************************************
 82 Courier News: Morris eyed for nuclear recycling

CourierNewsOnline.com

February 25, 2007

By Jim Ritter SUN-TIMES NEWS GROUP

MORRIS -- Sixty miles southwest of Chicago is Morris, host of the 
annual Grundy County Corn Festival.

This small city also happens to be one of the key sites the Bush 
administration is eyeing as it seeks to revive the moribund 
nuclear industry.

The Energy Department envisions building 200 or 300 new nuclear 
reactors by the end of the century. But first, the industry must 
solve one of its most vexing problems: What do you do with 
thousands of tons of highly radioactive depleted fuel?

A planned nuclear dump in Nevada wouldn't be big enough to store 
waste from all the new plants -- assuming the dump even gets 
built. It's already 22 years behind schedule, and Nevada is 
fighting it.

The Bush administration solution: Don't bury spent nuclear fuel 
in the desert. Instead, recycle it into fresh fuel that would 
power a new generation of reactors.

A General Electric site near Morris is one of 11 locations the 
administration is considering for its subsidized fuel-recycling 
plant. Morris also is in the running for a new type of reactor 
that would burn recycled fuel. The projects together would cost 
$1.5 billion to $2 billion if built at Morris.

Argonne National Laboratory near Lemont has played a leading role 
in developing the technology and is one of six sites being 
considered for a nuclear fuel research center. The Energy 
Department on Thursday night held a public hearing in Joliet on 
the proposed facilities.

President George W. Bush said nuclear fuel recycling "will allow 
us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount 
of nuclear waste."

But some say that if the past is any guide, nuclear fuel 
recycling could be an environmental disaster.


Major cleanup needed


Consider what happened in West Valley, N.Y., where a private 
contractor recycled spent fuel between 1966 and 1972. The 
contractor left behind toxic landfills, hazardous-waste lagoons, 
a plume of radioactive groundwater and 600,000 gallons of liquid 
waste that will remain radioactive for thousands of years.

The state and federal governments have spent nearly $3 billion 
cleaning up the mess, and they still have a long way to go.

France, Britain and other countries also recycle nuclear fuel. 
Every site "is an environmental catastrophe, with massive 
releases of radioactivity to air, land and water (and) high 
worker radiation exposures," according to the Nuclear Information 
and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear group.

In 1971, GE received a license to recycle nuclear fuel near 
Morris, but it halted the project after then-President Jimmy 
Carter banned nuclear fuel recycling. GE still has more than 600 
tons of spent fuel it never got around to recycling.

Now, GE is proposing a recycling plant and reactor that would 
create as many as 1,500 construction jobs and 600 permanent 
high-paying jobs. GE said it has received letters of support from 
local officials in Grundy County.

But the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists warns 
that a fuel-recycling plant would become a "de facto nuclear 
waste dump." Communities "would be wise to reject the Department 
of Energy's dirty millions and avoid this toxic legacy."

The 103 reactors now operating in the United States burn pellets 
of uranium fuel stacked inside metal tubes. After a few years in 
the reactor, the fuel rods become highly radioactive -- if you 
stood 3 feet away, you would receive a fatal dose in 10 seconds. 
The fuel retains 95 percent of its energy potential, but it no 
longer burns efficiently.

The Morris recycling plant would not be an environmental mess 
like West Valley because it would use a new process that produces 
little liquid waste, said GE spokesman Tom Rumsey. "It will be a 
much cleaner process."

By drastically reducing the nuclear waste, fuel recycling could 
increase the effective capacity of the Nevada nuclear dump at 
least 50-fold, the Energy Department said.


Terrorism concerns


But here's another worry: What if terrorists somehow stole 
plutonium from the recycling plant? Perhaps the hardest part of 
making a nuclear bomb is obtaining plutonium.

"You would be doing the terrorists' work for them," said David 
Kraft of Chicago-based Nuclear Energy Information Service.

© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and 
*****************************************************************
 83 BBC NEWS: Bosses slammed over nuclear leak

Last Updated: Saturday, 24 February 2007, 10:26 GMT

The leak occurred at the Thorp complex at Sellafield

A report into a radioactive leak at the Sellafield nuclear 
reprocessing plant in Cumbria criticised management after 
"serious" breaches in regulations.

The plant's Thorp facility was shut down in April 2005 after 
83,000 litres of acid containing uranium and plutonium escaped 
from a broken pipe.

No-one was injured in the leak and no radiation escaped from the 
plant.

Operator British Nuclear Group was fined £500,000 last year after 
it pleaded guilty to breaching aspects of the Nuclear 
Installations Act 1965.

The incident was regrettable and clearly should not have occurred 
in the first place

British Nuclear Group

In a 28-page report, the HSE made a total of 55 recommendations and
actions for company improvements.

The report said a number of failures in management meant the leak
remained undetected for eight months. It highlighted a lack of a
"questioning attitude" or "challenge culture" at the company.

The review said: "An underlying cause was the culture within the
plant that condoned the ignoring of alarms, the non-compliance with
some key operating instructions, and safety-related equipment, which
was not kept in effective working order for some time, so this
became the norm."

The first indication of a leak was on August 24, 2004 when 50 grams
of uranium was detected following a sample test.

But the full extent of the leak was finally uncovered on April 14
and Thorp was shut down four days later and remains closed.

A spokesman for British Nuclear Group said the company had
implemented a large number of improvements to its operating regime.

He added: "The incident was regrettable and clearly should not have
occurred in the first place.

"The company appreciates that mistakes were made which led to the
leak and enhancements to workforce training, operating instructions
and responses to alarms have been made."

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 84 thewest.com.au: Gillard backs expanding uranium mining

25th February 2007, 9:18 WST

Labor's left-wing deputy leader Julia Gillard has backed expansion
of the uranium mining industry, saying it will bring economic
prosperity to South Australia in particular.

But she maintains Australia does not need to go down the road of
nuclear electricity generation because of its renewable energy
advantages.

Her position puts her in step with Labor leader Kevin Rudd who will
seek to overturn his party's no-new uranium mines policy at the ALP
national conference in April.

Uranium is shaping as one of the most contentious issues of the
conference, amid bitter divisions in the party over a policy seen by
some as anachronistic.

Ms Gillard said she keenly supported SA Premier Mike Rann's view
that the further expansion of Olympic Dam was in the state's
interest.

"It will create more than 20,000 jobs," she told the Ten Network.

"Mike Rann is referring to it as one of the bedrocks of their
economic future.

"I agree with that and I think we should do what we can to help
Premier Rann make that development happen."

She said her preference for expanding uranium mining did not extend
to Australia building nuclear reactors for power generation.

"We don't need nuclear power for two reasons - one, the issue of
waste is unresolved and I think that would deeply concern the
Australia community," Ms Gillard said.

"Secondly, the economic case for nuclear power in this country
simply doesn't stack up. It's not going to be economic.

"The future for this country in energy, and we will still obviously
be big producers of coal, but we are well placed to be at the
forefront of developing renewables."

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Labor was still divided
on nuclear issues, singling out environment spokesman Peter Garrett.

"Mr Garrett's got a very different point of view but then he's been
changing his points of view lately so who knows where he will end
up," Mr Turnbull told ABC TV.

"The fact is Labor is very divided on uranium.

"They don't want to consider a nuclear option for Australia, which
is incredible really because they cite the problem, which we all
recognise, of greenhouse gas emissions.

"As far as nuclear power is concerned, notwithstanding it is a key
option that has to be available, Labor wants to take it off the
table for nothing other than ideological reasons." AAP

thewest.com.au

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 85 WA: Time to back off uranium sales: Greens

thewest.com.au

26th February 2007, 8:42 WST

Amid heightened world tensions, it was irresponsible for the federal
government to be exploring greater uranium sales, the Greens said.

Greens senator Christine Milne highlighted the issue as Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country had no reverse gear
in its nuclear program, and a deputy foreign minister vowed Tehran
was prepared for any eventuality, "even for war".

"Prime Minister (John) Howard should tell the people why it would
make the world much safer to be expanding uranium exports into
China, talking about uranium exports with Russia, speculating about
the US's push with uranium and nuclear technology into India, and
even the possibility of Australian uranium going to India," Senator
Milne told reporters.

"The world is braced for very serious conflict."

She said this was a time to back off with regard to uranium sales
proliferation.

"We've got to have diplomatic solutions but it's not going to help
with Australia fuelling the global nuclear cycle by selling uranium
at a faster and greater rate to more countries," Senator Milne said.

"Prime minister Howard says that security is an issue for him.

"Well, if it's an issue for him, he should immediately declare that
Australia will be leaving its uranium in the ground." AAP

thewest.com.au

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 86 Sunday Times: Uranium goes nuclear-

February 25, 2007

Dominic O'Connell

URANIUM prices rocketed to their highest-ever levels last week as 
hedge funds plunged into the market and took big bets on prices 
rising even further.

The spot price for uranium oxide shot up $10 a pound over the 
week to $85 as buyers fought for the limited amount of the metal 
up for auction.

Analysts at RBC Dominion Securities, the Canadian bank that 
tracks the uranium market, said they forecast the average price 
for 2007 to reach $100 a pound.

Market watchers say prices have been driven by three factors ? an
imbalance between supply and demand, an expected renaissance in the
nuclear power generation industry, and now the entry of speculative
buyers into the market.

Andrew Ferguson, manager of a quoted uranium investment fund, Geiger
Counter, said: “We have hedge funds competing in the market for the
very first time against the utility companies who are the normal
buyers.”

The world’s 442 operating nuclear plants require 180m pounds of
uranium a year, but mines supply only 100m.

The remainder has to date been supplied by releases from strategic
national stockpiles and from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons.

The latter two sources are expected to tail off as countries hold on
to their stockpiles, and as existing weapons-decommissioning
agreements expire.

Production from existing mines is also gradually declining, with the
opening of mines in Australia, one of the world’s biggest sources of
the metal, a subject of considerable political controversy.

Climate-change worries have triggered a renewed interest in building
nuclear power plants. China has plans to build 60, while America has
given outline permission for the construction of a new generation of
nuclear reactors.

The UK’s plans to resume building nuclear power stations stumbled
last week with the success of a judicial review brought by the
environmental group Greenpeace. Despite the delay, Whitehall sources
still expect a parliamentary vote on the issue in the autumn.

British Energy, the operator of most of Britain’s nuclear power
plants, recently signalled an interest in joining a consor-tium to
build more stations, and that it would contribute land at its sites.

This week’s sharp jump in prices was thought to be caused by hedge
funds scrambling to gain access to an auction on Tuesday by a US
provider of a source of fixed-price uranium.

“Hedge funds, in particular, are interested in securing material on
a fixed-price basis,” said UX Weekly, an industry newsletter. “They
are willing to bet on the future movement of price, but in order to
do this they need to first tie down price.”

Some analysts believe hedge funds and other nongovernmental or
utility companies now hold about 15m pounds of uranium in storage.

Geiger said: “We are really into a perfect storm in this market.
Prices have been high, but if you look at the fundamentals, I think
they still have a long way to go.”

Shares in uranium mining companies have also jumped this year,
pushed up by rising metal prices and by the expectation of
consolidation in the industry.

Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.
*****************************************************************
 87 Salt Lake Tribune: Retain oversight

Editorials

Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated: 02/24/2007 09:15:16 AM MST

Signing SB155 will weaken public oversight over expansion of the
West Desert landfill storage of some of the most dangerous materials
known to man.

    Doesn't anyone recognize the security risk of creating such an
enormous concentration of these relatively unprotected hazardous
materials? These materials represent a serious potential threat to
life for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Where is
the security going to be in 100 years when EnergySolutions' period
of corporate responsibility comes to an end? And who will take
responsibility, if they take out bankruptcy protection when the
operation is no longer economically feasible, or unanticipated
environmental problems arise?

    We do not have to look far in our own community to see the havoc
wrought by a troubled mind, nor do we need a long memory to remember
the devastation brought to America by a determined terrorist. Is it
asking too much of the Utah Legislature and the governor to
represent the public interest and retain the additional oversight
over the expansion of these facilities provided under existing law?
Who knows, someone might one day decide that the storage of
radioactive waste in our backyard isn't such a good idea.
   
    Chad Mullins
    Salt Lake City

Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 88 Salt Lake Tribune: Oversight remains

Editorials

Public Forum Letter

Article Last Updated: 02/23/2007 10:01:04 PM MST

It is unfortunate when a lobbyist group such as HEAL Utah
misunderstands and/or misrepresents the facts about the impact of a
particular piece of legislation on Capitol Hill.

    SB155 does not remove legislative oversight of EnergySolutions.
If this business wishes to expand its geographical boundaries or
bring in higher level waste (which I oppose), it must still get the
approval of the Legislature and the governor. SB155 doesn't change
anything. It simply reaffirms current practice pertaining to the
scope of EnergySolutions' business license and clarifies that the
oversight and regulation of the day-to-day operations is the
responsibility of the Division of Radiation Control.

    In supporting SB155, I have not changed my position of
opposition to radioactive waste. I worked very hard to help enact a
successful state ban on B and C low-level radioactive waste, and I
have worked to keep high-level nuclear waste from being stored in,
or transported through, Utah.
   
    Rep. Karen Morgan
    Cottonwood Heights
  
Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 89 Carlsbad Current-Argus: With GNEP, it's deja vu all over again

The Current-Argus

Article Launched: 02/24/2007 09:04:10 PM MST

In just two days, Carlsbad will be host to an extremely important
meeting. Not only is the public invited, we are necessary. Why?
Because the Department of Energy needs our help again.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership promises to solve a number of
sobering problems. It hopes to increase energy security throughout
the world, significantly diminish the risk of nuclear weapons
proliferation, and make substantial steps in improving the
environment. It almost sounds too good to be true, but it isn't.

Here's the skinny: Assuming that creating clean electricity from
nuclear energy is a necessity for our planet and its people, GNEP
intends to reach out to the world with an incredible offer: Member
nations that already have advanced nuclear technologies will provide
to other member nations the fuel rods needed to operate a nuclear
power plant. In exchange, recipients would agree not to pursue
uranium enrichment or other activities that could lead to
proliferation. When the fuel rods reach end of life, you exchange
them for a new set. The old set is recycled for re-use.

The science and technology for recycling is proven France and the
U.K. have been recycling their fuel rods for decades. For the U.S.
specifically, recycling our own fuel rods will reduce the total 
amount of nuclear waste that was otherwise destined for Yucca 
Mountain a reduction of several orders of magnitude. In fact, 
most of the remaining waste coming out of the recycling process 
could actually be safely disposed right here, in the same salt 
bed formation that now entombs tru-waste at WIPP. Is a WIPP II in 
our future? Maybe so.

The DOE is currently considering about a dozen sites for the first
GNEP recycling plant, a research facility and a new generation
nuclear reactor. Locally, the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, a
partnership between Carlsbad, Hobbs, Eddy and Lea Counties, along
with Washington Group International and Areva, have selected a site
near the county line, just north of Highway 62-180. It's just about
halfway in between the two cities.

Where should the DOE put GNEP? We'll leave it to the experts to
argue about whether they should start with a clean slate, like the
site we offer, or use an existing DOE facility, like the one at
Savannah River, S.C. But everyone at the federal government, from
the president on down, should take note: the site just east of
Carlsbad offers two unique and particularly appealing attributes: 1)
a safe and proven adjacent location to dispose of much of the waste;
2) broad and deep community support for activities related to
nuclear technology.

Of course, Eddy County residents are well aware of the changes that
can come with a large-scale federal project. We've been through the
full cycle with the establishment of WIPP.

The new, good-paying jobs and demand for housing will create lots of
opportunities for growth in our region. With this growth, of course,
will come increasing demands for infrastructure and services, but
we've managed these kinds of challenges before.

Roughly 30 years ago, the government needed Carlsbad's help. They
needed a place to safely and responsibly dispose of the nation's
tru-waste, generated from years of nuclear weapons development.
Carlsbad stepped up to that challenge, and in partnership with the
DOE and private industry, WIPP has become a stellar success. In
fact, it has operated so safely and efficiently that it is way ahead
of schedule and will complete its primary mission many years ahead
of time.

The promise of a safer, cleaner world with abundant clean power may
well be within our reach. Carlsbad, along with the rest of
southeastern New Mexico, is ready to help make it happen.

The meeting is from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Pecos
River Conference Center. Let's make a strong showing, speak up, and
let Washington know we're all set to make our success story happen
all over again.

Copyright Â© 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group
*****************************************************************
 90 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Leaders want big turnout at GNEP meeting

By Stella Davis

Article Launched: 02/24/2007 09:03:31 PM MST

CARLSBAD Carlsbad and Eddy County leaders are hoping for a large 
community turnout at a public meeting Tuesday where federal and 
local officials will explain the current effort to bring a 
nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to the area.

The proposed facility is tied to President Bush's Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership initiative, and backers of the project hope that
GNEP will one day become as much a part of the local scene as WIPP.A
site between Hobbs and Carlsbad is one of 11 potential locations for
the proposed center, which could include an advanced burner reactor
in addition to the reprocessing center.

A period for public comment will follow the presentation. The public
scoping meeting is a requirement for developing an Environmental
Impact Statement. A similar meeting will be held in Hobbs Monday.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy called for proposals from
entities wanting to compete in a full-scale basis for site
consideration, and Carlsbad and Hobbs answered the call.

In order to better their chances to be one of the sites selected,
the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs and Eddy and Lea counties formed
the Eddy-Lea Alliance, a limited liability company. The alliance
filed an application suggesting a site located halfway between 
Carlsbad and Hobbs. The energy department selected the site as 
one of 11 potential locations. A site near Roswell was also 
selected.

The alliance found out Jan. 31 that it had received $1.59 million in
DOE funds and that it has 90 days to complete the suitability study.

The Alliance has secured an option for 960 acres of vacant land
midway between Carlsbad and Hobbs as the potential site for a
nuclear fuel recycling center, which would separate spent nuclear
fuel into reusable fuel and waste components, and then manufacture
new nuclear fast-reactor fuel from the reusable components. The
center could also include an advanced recycling reactor, which would
destroy long-lived radioactive elements in the new fuel while
generating electricity.

On Feb. 12, the Alliance met in Carlsbad and approved a memorandum
of understanding between the Alliance and its business partners,
Washington Group International, Areva ? a French company and world
leader in nuclear power ? and several subcontractors that include
Albuquerque communications company Shoats and Weaks, and Gordon
Environmental, also from Albuquerque, and two accounting firms from
Carlsbad and Hobbs that will provide financial oversight and audits.

"Washington Group International has provided general management and
oversight for the DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad
since 1985 and has expertise in construction of nuclear facilities,"
said Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest, who serves as vice chairman of the
Eddy-Lea Alliance. "The Washington Group and Areva are our two major
contractors for this project."

Forrest said he believes the Eddy-Lea Alliance has an advantage over
the other 10 sites competing for the facility in that it has already
maneuvered through the selection process when it successfully bid
for the WIPP site, a nuclear waste repository in salt beds located
about 27 miles east of Carlsbad.

He said WIPP's proximity to the site proposed for the nuclear fuel
reprocessing facility is a plus. He also pointed out that the
community demonstrated 30 years ago that it is willing to partner
with the DOE when it welcomed it to build WIPP in Eddy County.

Forrest said although location is important in the DOE's
consideration of a site for the nuclear reprocessing site, he
strongly believes community support is a key factor.

"You hear realtors say location, location,' but I say community,
community.' I don't care how much money you put into a project. It
won't work unless you have community support," Forrest said.

David Moody, DOE Carlsbad Field Office manager, said he applauds the
DOE leap into the next generation of recycling nuclear fuel.

"I clearly support the department's position. My message to the
department is, don't wait so long.' It's important that they find a
site quickly and start recycling nuclear fuel," Moody said. "As a
private citizen, I believe the site chosen by the Eddy-Lea Alliance
is ideal. It has rail availability, and it has the advantage of
being a commercial site. Having WIPP here, we have already
established a nuclear corridor."

The U.S. is considering a new approach to the recycling of spent
nuclear fuel with advanced technologies to increase proliferation
resistance and recover waste materials that require permanent
geological disposal.

Moody said GNEP will build on recent administration accomplishments
to encourage more nuclear power in the United States.

These include the Nuclear Power 2010 program, a public-private
partnership aimed at demonstrating the streamlined regulatory
processes associated with licensing new plants, and the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, which included federal risk insurance for the
new nuclear power plants to be built.

Moody noted that the United States is pursuing the transition from a
once-through fuel cycle to a new approach that includes recycling of
spent nuclear fuel without separating out pure plutonium.
Specifically, recycling would be comprised of uranium extraction
plus.

He explained that research has shown it is possible to separate
uranium from the spent fuel at a very high level of purification
that would allow it to be recycled for re-enrichment, stored in an
unshielded facility, or simply buried as a low-level waste.

"The geology at the site chosen by the Eddy-Lea Alliance is well
suited. It has the same salt as in WIPP. It has the same
characteristics. There were lessons learned from WIPP. We know we
could move next door if we needed a potential site to bury the
low-level waste after it is separated," Moody said.

Moody said the choice of the Eddy-Lea site for the recycling
facility would not affect WIPP operation.

"WIPP is WIPP. It has its mission and that mission will not change."

He said recycling spent fuel rods is not new. Britain and France
have been doing it since the early 1970s. However, the United States
chose not to do it until now.

He said the process is safe, and the facility would be designed to
avoid critical accidents.

According to the DOE, a basic goal of GNEP is to make it nearly
impossible to divert nuclear materials or modify systems without
immediate detection, thus, a program of international safeguards is
key to every element of its implementation.

Having a nuclear fuel-recycling center in the region will also bring
benefits to Hobbs and Carlsbad, Moody noted.

Employment aside, GNEP would call for a program to design, build and
export nuclear reactors that are cost-effective, well-suited to
conditions in developing nations and scaled for small electricity
grids. Moody said a benefit to the region would be that the
communities with next-generation reactors would be given some energy
from the facility for their power grid.

A new concept to the DOE is commercialization. The recycled and
reprocessed fuel rods will probably be sold to foreign markets,
putting this area on the world map.

Addressing the issue of water and whether Eddy and Lea Counties have
enough fresh water to fulfill the needs of reprocessing spent fuel,
Moody said, "We have more water availability than one might think."

Ned Elkins, who heads Los Alamos National Laboratory's Carlsbad
Field Office, said rapidly changing technology needs less water in
the cooling process.

"The next generation and design may not even require water cooling,"
Elkins said.

Although the proposals for site selection were fast-tracked by the
DOE, it could take 10 years before the proposed facility is
operational once the site has been chosen.

Site studies are underway in 11 locations around the country. The
DOE will narrow the field to three and from those three select the
one it believes most suitable.

"The site selection alone will take two years. That's the easy
part," Moody said. "Then the facility has to be built, which is a
minimum of three years, and it has to go through the regulatory and
permitting process."

Copyright Â© 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group
*****************************************************************
 91 Salt Lake Tribune: Opponents call for governor to veto EnergySolutions Bill

About 60 gather outside the state mansion to condemn expansion of
radioactive waste site

Article Last Updated: 02/25/2007 01:19:03 AM MST


Jareth McCarey, right, the president and spiritual leader of the
Oklevueha Native American Church, protests SB155 that would allow
EnergySolutions to expand their dumping of nuclear waste in the west
desert.

Shaking a sign outside the governor's mansion in Salt Lake City,
Megan Evans joined picketers condemning a bill that would allow
EnergySolutions to more easily expand its radioactive waste landfill
in Utah.

    There, amid signs calling for Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s veto, the
sophomore at Juan Diego Catholic High School added her voice.

    "They shouldn't turn to Utah to dump their waste," she said.
"We're not their garbage can."

    About 60 protestors gathered outside the mansion Saturday to
oppose a bill that has sailed through the House and Senate with
enough votes to override a Huntsman veto.

    The bill would eliminate the role of the governor, Legislature
and local elected officials in deciding on major expansions at the
EnergySolutions landfill in Tooele County.

    While opponents fear EnergySolutions will escalate dumping on
the mile-square site without proper oversight, supporters say the
measure simply clarifies the Legislature's view that politicians
shouldn't get involved in changes at the current site as long as the
waste is no hotter than the low-level material currently permitted.

    Oversight of such expansions would rest with the state's
Division of Radiation Control.

    Salt Lake City resident Peter VanDuser - whose sign stated
flatly "Veto SB155" in red block letters - said radioactive waste 
disposal deserves the safeguard of an additional review by 
elected officials.

    "There is no such thing as being too careful when it comes to
nuclear waste," he said.

    Huntsman has until Tuesday to decide whether to veto the
so-called EnergySolutions bill.

    He did not announce his intentions last week, but said he is
reviewing the bill.

    Opponents hope to sway both the governor and several members of
the House or Senate to make a veto hold up.

    Smoke swirled skyward Saturday as members of the Oklevueha
Native American Church of Utah offered a prayer in front of the
governor's mansion. The protesters smoked a prayer pipe outside the
fenceline, hoping to summon support to defeat the bill.

    Linda Mooney, founder of the Native American church, believes
the bill could have a profound negative impact on generations to
come.

    "This is all about what we are doing to our earth, especially
our land here in Utah," she said.

    jstettler@sltrib.com
   
Â© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 92 Chillicothe Gazette: Public input sought on new nuke facility in Pike

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Sunday, February 25, 2007   

By LORI McNELLY Gazette City Editor

PIKETON - A series of public meetings will give locals the 
opportunity to voice opinions on the siting process for a 
proposed GNEP facility in Pike County.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership site is being considered 
for one of 11 sites in the United States, and would reprocess 
spent nuclear fuel rods for use in the energy industry. A group 
representing the Piketon site has received a grant to pay for a 
siting study to determine regulatory, legal and permit 
impediments and to seek public comment.
 
Greg Simonton, executive director of the Southern Ohio
Diversification Initiative, said the four meetings will be conducted
at The Ohio State University South Centers in Piketon. The first of
these meetings will be Tuesday, March 20. The first three meetings
will provide information and a forum in which to learn about and
discuss GNEP. The last will be after the siting analysis is
finished, and will be a report to the community of what was
discovered.

"We want to provide answers to the questions that are raised,"
Simonton said.

The reprocessing would allow for use of the remaining energy in used
fuel rods, sometimes up to 90 percent, and would extend the life of
Yucca Mountain Repository, a nuclear storage facility in Nevada.

The nuclear fuel would be sold to Third World or other nations with
electricity needs.

"The NRC will regulate the facility, and the DOE will own it,"
Simonton said. The Department of Transportation would regulate
transport of any materials.

"These laws are there to protect so you don't release into the
atmosphere, so you don't release into the water."

Simonton said supporters of a Pike County project have sent 8,000
letters to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He said that speaks to
the community's willingness to have a GNEP facility in the
neighborhood, and also to the awareness and knowledge of the locals
as far as nuclear energy.

Simonton also referred to a reprocessing facility in France, which
has a dairy farm next to it, saying the thousands of tests there
over the years have shown no adverse affect to the environment.

He also pointed to a facility in Japan that cost $15 billion to
bring online. If brought to the Buckeye State, such a project would
be the largest ever in Ohio, and could bring thousands of jobs.

"You would have to assume it would be large," Simonton said.

But for Simonton, it's also a question of the United States being at
the top when it comes to nuclear energy and keeping arms out of the
hands of terrorists. Selling fuel to Third World nations through
GNEP would keep them from selling to terrorist organizations.

"Is the United States of America going to be a leader on the world
stage? ... Are we going to be a part of the solution? That's the
goal, that we would do something beneficial."

The project, if located in Piketon, also would provide jobs for the
future, Simonton said. Southern Ohio students wouldn't have to
relocate to be able to support themselves.

"My goal is to create opportunity," he said.

(McNelly can be reached at 772-9366 or via e-mail at
lmcnelly@nncogannett.com)

Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette
*****************************************************************
 93 Chillicothe Gazette: Southern Ohio Neighbors Group opposes nuke partnership site

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Sunday, February 25, 2007   

By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer

PIKETON - If there's one thing Geoffrey Sea and the Southern Ohio 
Neigbors Group detest, it's the idea Piketon could be a home to 
nuclear and radioactive waste.

The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, located in Piketon, 
recently was selected to receive a study grant by the U.S. 
Department of Energy to measure its suitability for the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, proposed by President George Bush.
 
The partnership aims to "recycle nuclear fuel using new
proliferating-resistant technologies to recover more energy and
reduce waste," according to the DOE's Web site. One of GNEP's
aspirations is to use nations that have nuclear capacities, such as
the U.S., to furnish services to other nations that would consent to
use the "nuclear energy for power- generation purposes only."

As a result of the program, the community has been promised jobs.

However, what Sea and the other members of SONG believe is a
reprocessing facility never would make it to Piketon - it would just
be a dump for radioactive material, resulting in no jobs.

"I'm really frightened about the prospect of a dump," said Lorry
Swain, member of SONG, at a gathering of the members Saturday near
Piketon. "It ups the ante so high in terms of health. It won't
provide jobs; it was sold as it would. It's a lie."

Swain, a Greenup County, Ky. resident, said she's been concerned
about the issue for years. She and her husband, Eric O'Neil, own
property in Pike County.

"The reprocessing is a diversion," said Sea, noting that
reprocessing is very dangerous.

He said the DOE has been calling the reprocessing "recycling,"
because it sounds "green" and safer.

Sea said there are two reprocessing centers in Europe that were
built on peninsulas for two reasons: so water current could disperse
the radioactive material and so people wouldn't be living nearby.

"There are residences right around here," he said, pointing out that
the other sites selected are in more deserted places like Roswell,
N.M. "We are challenging even the DOE's designation of this site for
the study."

Sea said he believes the DOE fraudulently claimed there was
community support to get funding for the study.

"Most realize it will never come here. They'll be doing site
characterizations studies until 2030," he said.

Despite what Sea said were dangers of reprocessing, the members of
SONG said they're sure Piketon will just end up storing the waste,
even after the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative board, which
aims to create jobs in the region, said it would only support
interim storage. However, Sea said there isn't any long-term storage
for the waste available right now.

"They said they wouldn't support it unless the storage was only
interim," he said. "The Department of Interior passed a ruling
banning the site in Utah for interim storage. So the problem is
they're moving all the waste here and calling it interim storage
without long-term storage available."

The members of SONG have been circulating a petition and collecting
signatures to "stop the importation and storage of nuclear and
radioactive waste and to ban nuclear reprocessing in Pike County."

"No one wants waste storage," said Sea. "It gives no jobs and drives
away business."

In the petition, the group states that Piketon shouldn't be studied
because, among other reasons, the site has many prehistoric
earthworks and is still recovering from the "illegal dumping of
toxic materials."

The members have gathered more than 1,000 signatures.

"One thousand signatures in a rural county like this is a lot," said
Sea. "We are all volunteers, and it's been done completely ad hoc."

O'Neil, also a member of SONG, said he'd like to see cleanup of
current waste take place. He worked on the clean-up of another site
in Ross, Ohio.

"It provided good jobs for 10 to 12 years," he said. "We were doing
something to benefit the community and society in general. They've
lost sight of the clean-up in Piketon of waste that's been here for
years."

Furthermore, O'Neil said he sees nothing but more waste with the
current plan.

"All the possibilities I see lead to more waste instead of less," he
said. "Piketon has become a sacrifice zone. It's a poor and rural
area."

Sea expressed the need for community members to attend a hearing at
6 p.m. Thursday, March 8, at the Endeavor Center in Piketon to voice
their thoughts on the project.

"We need to have as many people as possible. The community needs to
show up in full force," he said.

(Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at
anlykins@nncogannett.com)

Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette
*****************************************************************
 94 Reporter online.com: How temporary will storage be?

EVAN BRANDT, For The Reporter

02/25/2007

“Interim and temporary may be synonyms but when it comes to the 
storage of spent nuclear fuel‚ they mean very different things to 
Don Read.

Read is the chairman of Pottstown's environmental advisory committee.

He told the borough council this week that a change in language by
Exelon Nuclear – from calling its project to store spent nuclear
fuel in dry casks outside the reactor building in Limerick an
“interim solution” to a “temporary solution” – is something to watch.

Had the project been permanent‚ it might have drawn more scrutiny
from local officials and residents‚ Read said.

But calling it a “temporary solution” probably convinced many people
that it was not something they needed to worry about‚ said Read.

The recent change in the party controlling Congress has led to a new
Senate Majority Leader‚ Harry Reid‚ D-Nev.‚ who has long opposed the
federal government’s plan to permanently store the nation’s spent
nuclear fuel beneath Yucca Mountain in his home state.

That combined with the cost overruns‚ scientific conflicts and
delays associated with the project have led many to theorize that
the repository at Yucca Mountain will never open.

When these elements are considered in light of the fact that “Exelon
has changed the official designation of this project to an ‘interim
solution‚’” the project deserves new scrutiny‚ Read said.

“For all intents and purposes‚ at least for our lifetimes‚ this is
going to be a permanent storage facility‚” Read said of the project‚
approved in July by the Limerick supervisors.

“If we can’t ship this fuel to Nevada‚ where is it likely to end
up?” Borough Council President Jack Wolf asked Read.

“Most likely we’ll end up with regional depositories around the
country; hopefully Limerick doesn’t end up as one of those‚” Read
said.

Beth Rapczynski‚ a spokeswoman for Exelon‚ disputed that conclusion.

“Our ultimate goal is to have all our spent fuel taken to the
federal repository at Yucca Mountain‚” she said.

“Our (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) permit does not allow us to
take fuel from other facilities‚” Rapczynski added.

Those permits‚ one for each of the two nuclear reactors‚ expire in
2024 and 2029.

Also important to consider‚ Read said‚ “if this project has been
designed as a ’temporary solution‚’ what happens when it becomes the
permanent solution?

“Nothing man has ever built is 100 percent reliable‚ particularly
not something that was designed to be temporary. What we should be
doing now is prepare for the time when it fails‚” Read said.

Which is why Read said his committee is so disappointed Exelon
rebuffed Pottstown’s request for additional radiation and
temperature monitoring outside the casks. The fuel inside them will
remain radioactive for thousands of years.

Read said his group is also “disappointed other municipalities near
the plant didn’t have some concerns. You know‚ it seems that until
someone bangs the gong‚ there isn’t always a lot of support for
people who are trying to make a difference.”

©Reporter online.com 2007

     ©2006 The Reporter - a Journal Register Property. All Rights 
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 95 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Protesters make Bin the Bomb plea

Last Updated: Saturday, 24 February 2007, 15:47 GMT

Protesters marched through Glasgow city centre

About 2,000 people joined a march in Glasgow to show their
opposition to the Trident nuclear deterrent and its planned
replacement, police said.

The Bin the Bomb event ended with a rally in George Square.

Senior church figures, politicians and union leaders were addressing
marchers. A similar protest was also taking place in London.

Reverend Alan McDonald, moderator of the general assembly of the
Church of Scotland, said that for the past 25 years the assembly had
argued that nuclear weapons were morally and theologically wrong.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St Andrews
and Edinburgh, said his church was speaking out because Trident was
"immoral".

He said: "Over a year ago we said Make Poverty History. Now we are
saying Make Trident History. Make nuclear war history. That is what
is uniting so many people today."

The majority of people in Scotland oppose nuclear weapons

Chris Ballance
Scottish Greens

Unlikely allies united over Trident

SNP leader Alex Salmond said: "The people of Scotland have shown
their opposition to Trident time and again.

"Instead of wasting billions on a weapons system that cannot protect
us from terrorism, people would rather see that money spent on
schools, hospitals and fighting crime."

Chris Ballance, the Scottish Green Party speaker on nuclear issues,
said: "The majority of people in Scotland oppose nuclear weapons.

"When Westminster votes on the issue, Labour MPs should remember
that they represent the Scottish people and are not elected to
simply nod through Tony Blair's policies."

New generation

Another speaker, Scottish Trades Union Congress president Katrina
Purcell, said: "The STUC is opposed to all nuclear weapons and
believes the most logical way of avoiding conflict is by getting rid
of nuclear weapons, rather than escalating the arms race."

In December, Prime Minister Tony Blair outlined plans to spend up to
£20bn on a new generation of submarines for Trident missiles, which
are currently based at Faslane on the Clyde.

A total of 45 people were arrested when Greenpeace held a protest at
the naval base on Friday.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 96 lamonitor.com: Hearings this week on DOE reactor plan

The Online News Source for Los Alamos

MONITOR STAFF REPORT

A public hearing to discuss the Department of Energy's plan to begin
reprocessing the spent fuel from U.S. power reactors will be held at
6 p.m. Thursday at the Hilltop House Best Western, 400 Trinity
Drive, in the La Vista Room.

The meeting is one of three to be held in New Mexico, along with a
meeting in Hobbs on Feb. 26 and in Roswell, Feb. 27. GNEP is
considering 13 national sites for one or more of the proposed Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiatives

The plan proposes that the advanced fuel cycle research facility be
located at a DOE site. Los Alamos National Laboratory is among the
sites under consideration, along with the Savannah River Site, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and the Hanford Site. Other locations,
including Hobbs and Roswell, are under consideration as a location
for a nuclear fuel recycling center and/or an advanced recycling
center.

As DOE describes the GNEP recycling plan, spent fuel would be
received from commercial nuclear reactors and processed in a
nuclear-fuel recycling center. Reprocessing separates plutonium and
uranium from the other types of nuclear materials which would become
waste. The reusable material would be mostly consumed in an advanced
recycling reactor, and the reduced volume of non-reusable
constituents would be converted to waste forms for eventual storage
in a geologic repository or some other long-term storage facility.

Along with the national programmatic activities, the way the whole
program fits together, and site-specific consideration about where
to locate the main facilities, the environmental impact statement
would examine the impact of two complementary international
initiatives.

Via a "reliable fuel services program," the U.S. would cooperate
with countries that have advanced nuclear programs to supply nuclear
fuel services to other countries that refrain from pursuing
enrichment or recycling facilities to make their own nuclear fuel. A
second initiative would develop "proliferation-resistant" nuclear
power reactors suitable for use in developing economies.

The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a press release today
calling DOE's plan misguided and urging local citizens to attend the
local scoping meetings to express their concerns.

The Bush administration is requesting a FY 2008 budget of $405
million for the GNEP program, a large fraction of which will be
directed toward reprocessing the spent fuel from nuclear power
reactors.

"Any community hosting a reprocessing facility will by necessity
become a long-term dump for spent fuel shipped from nuclear plants
around the country," said Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at
UCS. "Even if this spent fuel is eventually reprocessed, the
residual highly radioactive wastes will have to stay where they are
generated unless another site can be found to take them - an
unlikely prospect."

The comment period runs through April 4, 2007.

            © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 97 NB: Energy Secretary to Tour Savannah River Site Tritium Extraction Facility

NewsBlazeWire 

SRS Facility Producing Tritium After 18 Year Hiatus

On Tuesday, February 27, 2007, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W.
Bodman will tour the Department's the Tritium Extraction Facility at
the Savannah River Site (SRS) and deliver remarks at a ceremony to
mark its opening. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Acting Administrator Thomas P. D'Agostino will also address
employees and local officials at the event.

NOTE: Media should confirm attendance with Fran Poda (803) 952-8671
by COB Monday, February 26, 2007 and provide name, organization, and
social security number for badging purposes. Access to the tritium
area is limited to U.S. citizens. Participants will meet at 1 PM on
February 27, at the SRS badge office, building 703-46A, and will be
transported to H Area. Media will be returned to the badge office by
3:30 PM.

WHO: U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman

WHAT: Remarks at Tritium Extraction Facility Startup Celebration

Media Availability to immediately follow

WHEN: Tuesday, February 27, 2007

2:00 PM ET


WHERE: Savannah River Site

H-Area Tritium Facility

Aiken, SC 29802

SOURCE: DOE
Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News

Copyright © 2004-2007 NewsBlaze LLC
*****************************************************************
 98 Seattle Times: Latest Hanford retirement means both top jobs are open

Saturday, February 24, 2007 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

By SHANNON DININNY The Associated Press

The man who oversees cleanup on half of the Hanford nuclear
reservation announced his retirement Friday, creating a second
vacancy among the top two jobs charged with steering cleanup of the
nation's most contaminated nuclear site.

Keith Klein, who has managed the Department of Energy's Richland
Operations office since 1999, said he has accomplished many of his
goals and is ready to move on. Klein said he had planned to retire a
year ago, but was persuaded to stay longer. He expects to leave by
the end of May.

Last fall, the Energy Department announced it was transferring the
manager of its Office of River Protection, Roy Schepens, to
Washington, D.C., amid escalating costs and construction delays of a
new waste-treatment plant. In a news release Friday, the Energy
Department announced that Schepens was instead retiring, effective
Wednesday.

Together, Klein and Schepens have managed 10,000 employees
responsible for cleaning up waste and contamination left from
decades of plutonium production at the 586-square-mile site. Their
retirements open up two of the most high-profile positions in the
Energy Department's program to clean up former weapons complexes.

The federal government established Hanford in the 1940s as part of
the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. The site
produced the plutonium for the Fat Man bomb that was dropped on
Nagasaki, Japan, and continued to produce plutonium for the nation's
nuclear-weapons arsenal through the Cold War.

Cleanup is expected to top $50 billion.

Two of three cleanup tasks identified as urgent risks to public
safety and the environment fell under Klein's purview. Both were
completed during his tenure.

In 2004, workers completed the removal of 2,100 tons of spent
nuclear fuel from leak-prone basins just yards from the Columbia
River. Workers also stabilized and packaged 12 tons of plutonium in
preparation for long-term storage off the Hanford site.

The public seems to have the perception that no work ever gets done
at Hanford, Klein said, but that ongoing criticism is unfair given
workers' successes.

The third urgent cleanup task, managed by Schepens, involves
construction of a plant to treat 53 million gallons of waste stored
in 177 underground tanks.

Escalating costs, delays and construction problems have pushed the
operating date to November ', far beyond the original 1999 deadline.

However, during Schepens' five-year tenure, workers emptied the
first six tanks of waste.

Tribes have long complained that the federal government has failed
to fully catalog all of the contamination at the site. Environmental
groups have long complained about the slow pace of work, and others
have raised concerns about worker safety.

Tom Carpenter, executive director of the watchdog group Government
Accountability Project, expressed concerns about the waste-treatment
plant, as well as having new people assume Hanford's two leadership
posts.

"We can't afford to just coast for six, seven months and then get
somebody new who needs a year to get up to speed," he said. "This
project is too big and too important to not take it seriously."

Copyright © The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
 99 Aiken Today: Energy Secretary coming to SRS

AikenStandard.com

Sun, Feb 25, 2007

** FILE ** Samuel Bodman appears before the Senate Energy and 
Nautural Resources Committee on Capitol Hill, Jan. 19, 2005, for 
his confirmation hearing. Energy Secretary Bodman told lawmakers 
Wednesday Feb. 9, 2005, that while progress on a nuclear waste 
project in Nevada will be delayed, the government is "very 
focused and committed" to building the facility. (AP Photo/Dennis 
Cook, File)

By TONY BAUGHMAN Staff writer

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman has rescheduled a visit to
the Savannah River Site to tour the Department of Energy's newly
reopened tritium production facility.

Bodman and Thomas D'Agostino, acting administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration, will be in town on Tuesday
afternoon for ceremonies at the Tritium Extraction Facility, inside
H-Area at SRS. They will speak to an invited audience of local
officials and SRS employees.

Bodman was scheduled to visit Aiken in late January, but DOE
officials canceled the trip because of inclement weather.

The $506 million Tritium Extraction Facility began operations in
December to extract tritium from irradiated rods for the first time
in 18 years.

The radioactive form of hydrogen gas is "an integral component in
America's nuclear weapons stockpile" and has to be replenished
periodically because of its half-life of 12.3 years, according to
the NNSA.

Most of the weapons in the current U.S. stockpile were built during
the Cold War, and the NNSA has the responsibility for maintaining
and refurbishing the weapons ? including replacing the tritium gas.

The Tritium Extraction Facility was opened after a five-year, $142
million upgrade of an existing SRS facility.

That upgrade "will satisfy the nation's tritium needs indefinitely,"
D'Agostino said in a release announcing the startup.

© 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 100 Epoch Times: Manhattan Project II: the Path Forward

Home > Opinion By Jack Goldman and James Ottar Grundvig

 Feb 25, 2007

For the fourth time since 1945, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
has moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight by two minutes. The
new time of 11:55 pm reflects scientists' concern over the inability
to contain the nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea.
This was a grim start to 2007.

Add to those dangerous regimes the expansion of radical Islamic
militants in and out of the al-Qaeda network and the easy movement
of militants in and out of Western cities, and we are facing the
greatest threat to civilization since World War II.

The Cold War had the counterweights of mutually assured destruction
to keep Russia and the United States in check. Beyond spying and
military posturing, neither superpower did anything foolish enough
to trigger a nuclear war.

Today the enemy is different. They are willing to die en masse for
their beliefs in order to setup their ideology for future
generations. Notes found at al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan
stated such goals: "Establish the rule of God on earth; to attain
martyrdom in the cause of God;" and, most tellingly, "the
purification of the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity."
We have seen examples of this over and over with documented tales of
the horrors committed in the name of Islam, even against other
Muslims who didn't share their views.

Like the myriad issues that arise from global warming, the war
against terrorism is a long-term battle. The answer to this ongoing
struggle doesn't have to be a military one. Science and technology
might hold the key to this and other challenges.

In the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush vowed to cut
off the roots of al-Qaeda financing. The US froze bank accounts to a
host of Islamic charities that funneled money back to the terrorist
training camps and a growing fraternity of suicide bombers. Even
today the White House has asked international banks to cease lending
money to the oil industry in Iran. Add to this latest chess move
Saudi Arabia announcing its intent to keep the price of oil hovering
at $50 per barrel and one can see the squeeze play aimed at Iran's
wallet: Deprive the regime from spending money on their terrorist
activities and nuclear ambitions.

Unfortunately, these late maneuvers don't go far enough to prevent
Teheran from making the bomb. It might slow progress a little or
force Iran to make a dozen warheads instead of a baker's dozen, but
it won't stop them. The impending showdown will still be waiting on
the horizon. The best example of this is Iran's deep involvement in
the Iraq War: delivering and detonating the explosively formed
penetrator (EFP) roadside bomb. This nasty missile-in-a-can device
has wreaked havoc with its destructive force and brutal success rate
of killing American troops in once impervious armored vehicles,
including tanks.

MPII

Enter Manhattan Project II.

The time to fix the future is now. Not with "energy independence,"
but with a major paradigm shift. Call it energy deliverance. If
science has pushed us into this uncertain corner of human history,
then we need it to pull us out. We have to champion science in such
a way that it will have a chance to succeed. We have to do it today,
rather than wait for trouble to mount and become too hot to manage.
America has done this before in time of international crisis, when
the future was in doubt and the world on the brink.

In the State of the Union address, President Bush called to
"Diversify America's energy supply," and then glossed over ethanol
and hard caps on CO2 emissions. Too bad he didn't put two disparate
items together. Come up with a true energy mandate, one that will
replace oil once and for all, and by doing so cut off the black gold
that funds the radical Islamic movement. In short order, Iran's
economy would collapse, its backing of Hezbollah would recede, and
the evil regime behind the nuclear arms race and targeting of U.S.
forces in Iraq would fall from power. Saudi Arabia's financing of
madrassas schools would vanish as well.

Like the first Manhattan Project, which began less than a year after
the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and concluded at the end of WW
II, we are at war in a world populated by extremists. Why do we
continue to allow foreign governments—whether an increasingly
hostile Russia or unstable Mid-East nations—to hold sway over our
economy and lives? The United States has to remove the yoke of oil
from around our neck. In doing so, we will end our dependence on an
energy source we are destined to exhaust that contributes to global
warming. America must write a new manifest destiny. Then American
science and ingenuity, backed by its enormous technological
resources and a bigger will can deliver us from these burdens.

Green Energy

MPII would be erected to discover and develop the energy technology
to replace oil. Doing so would have a profound impact on the world.
Once developed, this Green Energy would devalue the price of crude
oil so dramatically that dictators in rogue nations, such as
Venezuela, would be toppled by their own citizens. Russia would be
put on notice. And the imbalance of Chinese imports would be turned
upside-down as we export the new technology to Beijing, slaking
China's thirst for fuel. More importantly, Green Energy would erase
our national debt and help curb greenhouse gases that blanket the
earth.

What Manhattan Project II needs is the political fortitude to see it
from germ through fruition, whether it be five, ten or fifteen
years. Our government leaders have to put down their differences and
come together in a shared vision of the future. Oil conglomerates,
which only see oil on the horizon for the next century, would be
invited to invest in MPII, since they would have the most to lose.
Gone would be their protectionist attitudes and actions. Our best
scientists, engineers, and creative minds from an array of
industries and disciplines would be housed in regional, high
security think tanks and incubators across the country.

Yes, sugar cane can be grown in Mexico; corn harvested here and
south of the border. But neither fuel is as efficient as oil.
Nuclear energy, although clean, is a long-term liability: costly,
littered with security risks, while nuclear waste disposal poses
major environmental issues. Precisely what the warming world doesn't
need.

Every year we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on big budget
expenditures, including a sprawled out war on terror. Why not
earmark some of that money on a project that can transform the world
for the better and provide real security and prosperity to America?

When Green Energy hits the market, we can fulfill Osama bin Laden's
wish and pull our troops out of Arab lands, since the price of oil
wouldn't be worth fighting over anymore.

Jack Goldman and James Ottar Grundvig live and work in New York City.

 
Copyright 2000 - 2007 Epoch Times International
*****************************************************************
 101 KnoxNews: REACTS key in nuclear threat

Oak Ridge facility a global leader in guarding against effects of
radiation release

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 25, 2007

OAK RIDGE - In a back room at Oak Ridge's radiation emergency 
center is a shiny metal suitcase that's packed and ready for 
travel.

Should terrorists strike, that little suitcase could be a 
lifesaver. It's loaded with capsules of Prussian blue, the drug 
of choice for people who've inhaled or ingested radioactive 
cesium - a likely source material for a dirty bomb.

Prussian blue is a chelating agent that can help the body shed 
its radioactive burden, minimize the radiation dose and reduce 
the long-term risk of developing cancer.

"If you gave Prussian blue promptly and properly, you might cut the
risk in half," said Dr. Albert Wiley, director of the Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site.

Up until a couple of years ago, the Oak Ridge facility was the only
place in the United States that stockpiled Prussian blue and DTPA -
an injectable drug that is effective against plutonium, americium
and other so-called transuranic elements.

Because of the emerging threat of terrorism, the government has
added the drugs to the Strategic National Stockpile and now
maintains supplies at a series of undisclosed regional locations.

REACTS, a key responder for radiation emergencies, keeps a sizable
amount of those drugs on hand. It also has potassium iodide tablets
- to block the effects of radioactive iodine - and other things that
could prove useful in a crisis or a catastrophe.

In the event of domestic emergency, an Oak Ridge team is obligated
to be "wheels up" within four hours. If it's an international
radiation incident, they must be airborne within six hours.

Nuclear terrorism is a global threat, and experts say it's only a
matter of time before it disrupts life in the United States.

A radiation dispersal device - also known as a dirty bomb - could be
put together fairly easily, using conventional explosives to
distribute radioactive materials and scare large populations.

The worst case would be the detonation of a nuclear bomb. Despite
increased security efforts and intelligence that tracks terrorist
groups, that's not inconceivable.

"We know a third-rate university physics lab could make a nuclear
device in a year if you gave them some fissile material," Gen. Barry
McCaffrey, a retired four-star general and terrorism expert, said
during an Oak Ridge visit last year.

Wiley said: "You hope and pray it will never happen in this country.
But we can't put our heads in the sand. We have to develop some
response. I think we're obligated to, and it's our mission to do
that."

REACTS was created in 1976 as part of the federal programs managed
by Oak Ridge Associated Universities, but its roots go back even
further. The emergency response capabilities evolved in stages after
a 1958 criticality accident at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, where
eight workers were exposed to high doses of radiation.

The current REACTS facility is adjacent to the Methodist Medical
Center of Oak Ridge. Its funding comes mostly from the National
Nuclear Security Administration - the nuclear defense arm of the
U.S. Department of Energy.

Wiley, a radiation oncologist by training, joined REACTS in 2002 and
became director two years later. He holds two degrees in nuclear
engineering, as well as his medical degree from the University of
Rochester and a Ph.D. in radiological sciences from the University
of Wisconsin.

He and his 12-member staff, including two other physicians,
paramedics and health physicists, are available to provide
assistance for all types of radiation accidents.

Sometimes that requires on-the-scene advice, such as a notable trip
to Brazil in 1987 to help with the medical treatment of people
exposed to a glowing source of cesium-137. Hundreds of people at
Goiania were contaminated, and four people eventually died of
radiation poisoning.

In addition to its other duties, REACTS maintains a registry of
radiation accidents around the world, especially those with doses of
25 rem or more - the equivalent of 2,500 chest X-rays.

According to the unofficial registry, there have been 126 deaths
from accidents involving acute radiation exposures since 1946. The
fatalities are underreported, however, because of secrecy during the
Cold War, particularly from the Soviet bloc.

The Oak Ridge facility provides support to the World Health
Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. More often
than not, staff members provide assistance by phone or computer,
offering technical support and advice.

The most important mission of REACTS may be its training, teaching
classes for medical personnel and other emergency responders on how
to deal with radiation accidents.

Last year, they conducted classes and drills for 1,000 people at 20
different locations worldwide and had 14 hands-on courses in Oak
Ridge. Interest has grown dramatically in the post-9/11 era.

In addition to its national and international responsibilities,
REACTS stands ready to help with local emergencies. The Oak Ridge
unit includes specialized equipment, including various types of
radiation detectors, and even a rarely used autopsy table with
shielding to protect physicians while examining contaminated bodies.

Fortunately, most days at REACTS are pretty quiet, and terrorism is
just part of the training manual.

If the Big One comes, though, the Oak Ridge operations would become
part of the overall emergency response of the National Nuclear
Security Administration - probably deploying two teams to the scene
of the incident and maintaining a support group here.

The initial role of a REACTS team would be to treat the emergency
responders, Wiley said.

"In the field, that's anything from a headache to plutonium
exposures," he said.

If a dirty bomb is exploded, the short-term challenge may be dealing
with people's fears, because the actual radiation doses would likely
be non-life threatening, Wiley said.

"We don't expect people to experience symptoms," he said. "The
hazards there are generally the psychological disturbances."

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 102 Tri-City Herald: DOE's Hanford managers plan retirement

Published Saturday, February 24th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

Both of the Department of Energy's Hanford managers announced plans
to retire Friday.

Keith Klein, 55, has been manager of the Hanford Richland Operations
Office since 1999 and plans to leave federal service at the end of
May.

DOE announced plans in September to transfer Roy Schepens, manager
of the Hanford Office of River Protection, to Washington, D.C., when
a Hanford replacement was found.

Instead, Schepens, 53, said he will retire from the federal
government at the end of this month.

The two managers jointly oversee all cleanup work at the Hanford
nuclear reservation.

Their retirement leaves DOE searching for top leaders for all three
of its Tri-City offices, since Paul Kruger retired in September as
the manager of the DOE office that oversees Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and a replacement has yet to be named.

The change in local DOE leadership comes as the contracts for two of
Hanford's four large contractors are expiring, leading to more
turnover at the nuclear reservation.

"As new contracts are awarded and construction of the vit plant
moves forward, it is critical that selecting new managers be a top
priority for the Office of Environmental Management and DOE," said
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in a statement.

Klein said he began talking with DOE headquarters about retiring
last year as he approached eligibility, but was persuaded to stay
longer.

Now he wants to spend time with his family this summer before his
oldest child leaves home for college. Then he will be looking for a
new career challenge after finishing 34 years as a federal employee.
DOE plans to begin searching for a replacement immediately.

"Keith's strong management, visionary thinking and ability to get
things done have been invaluable to me and to DOE's senior
leadership over the years," James Rispoli, assistant secretary of
energy for environmental management, said in a statement.

He also will be missed by the Environmental Protection Agency and by
the Washington governor's office, both of which keep a close watch
on Hanford progress.

"I've always found him to be of the highest integrity and a great
problem solver," said Tom Fitzsimmons, chief of staff for Gov. Chris
Gregoire and the former director of the Washington State Department
of Ecology.

Klein has been a good partner to the EPA, said Nick Ceto, Hanford
project manager for EPA, one of Hanford's regulators.

"We have always been able to get an honest answer from him and he's
been very straight forward with us," Ceto said.

Hastings praised Klein as exemplifying the best qualities of a DOE
cleanup manager: "Someone with both a vision and the technical
abilities to make that vision a reality."

Hastings remembered the day Klein came into his office and described
the idea of cleaning up Hanford along the Columbia River to shrink
the contaminated area to central Hanford.

"He was the architect and the engineer that made it happen,"
Hastings said.

Klein's key accomplishment was alleviating two of the site's must
urgent risks to the environment.

He completed the removal of 2,300 metric tons of irradiated nuclear
fuel stranded in the leak-prone K Basins since fuel reprocessing
stopped in the 1980s and also the removal of most of the radioactive
sludge left behind in the most contaminated basin.

He also oversaw the stabilization of 12 tons of plutonium-bearing
materials left when processing stopped at the Plutonium Finishing
Plant. It's been converted into 4.4 tons of plutonium that can be
safely stored until it is moved off Hanford.

Klein believes he was able to overcome the reputation Hanford had
when he started for spending lots of money but getting little
cleanup done. Now the talk is not of how to start cleanup but how
the site should look when it ends, he said.

He worked previously at DOE's Carlsbad Office to help open the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant, was deputy manager of the Rocky Flats Field
Office helping accelerate cleanup plans there and worked at DOE
headquarters on advanced reactor programs.

But the years at Hanford were "the toughest and most rewarding of my
life," he said. "I have accomplished what I intended and it's time
to move on, grateful to have had the opportunity to make a
difference."

Klein and Schepens made huge strides toward cleaning up Hanford,
despite the daily challenges of the complex project, said Carl
Adrian, chief executive of the Tri-City Development Council, in a
statement. Both served on the TRIDEC board of directors.

Schepens said he plans to spend some time with family, including his
expected first grandchild, after 30 years doing nuclear-related work
for private industry and government. The last years spent at Hanford
have been "very intense," he said.

He's uncertain of his long-term career plans, saying only that he
plans to remain flexible and will remain in the Tri-Cities for the
near future.

The Office of River Protection was formed in 1999 when work to empty
and treat the radioactive waste in 177 underground tanks was split
off from DOE's Richland Operations Office, a project that DOE calls
its most complex environmental cleanup project nationwide.

Schepens spent five years in the job, longer than two predecessors
who clashed with DOE headquarters officials over how the contract
for Hanford's massive vitrification plant should be set up and then
the cost of the project. DOE announced Schepens' transfer in
September amidst schedule delays and a rapidly rising price tag for
the vitrification plant being built to treat the tank waste.

"Despite the magnitude of the challenges we faced, and those still
ahead, I am proud of what this team has accomplished," Schepens
wrote Friday in a message to staff.

When he came to Hanford, people questioned whether waste could be
removed from even the first single-shell tank. Under his leadership,
the pumpable liquid was removed from all 149 of Hanford's leak-prone
single-shell tanks into 28 newer, double-shelled tanks.

In addition, six of the tanks have been emptied of all but residual
amounts of solid waste and work is under way on more.

He also got construction started on the vitrification plant after
years of delays and false starts to the project.

"We made some difficult choices on the (vitrification plant), worked
through world-class technical issues" and ended up with a
strengthened technical basis, cost and schedule for the project, he
said in the message to staff.

Shirley Olinger, the Office of River Protection deputy manager, will
become acting manager in March. DOE is evaluating candidates for the
permanent position and plans to name a new manager in the coming
months.

The depth of skill in the staff under Klein and also Schepens should
provide stability as management changes, Hastings said.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 103 Tri-City Herald: Radiation warning sign gets makeover

Published Saturday, February 24th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

The traditional propeller-shaped symbol used to warn of radiation is
due for a makeover.

To come up with a better sign for the public, the International
Atomic Energy Agency consulted preschoolers, among others, to find a
message that translated into "danger -- stay away" in any language.

The agency and the International Organization for Standardization
are recommending a new companion sign that uses more vivid pictures
than the traditional trefoil: Radiation waves raining down on a
skull and crossbones and a person running away.

But don't expect to see the additional signs going up soon at
Hanford.

For now it's sticking with just the trefoil symbol, which Hanford
nuclear reservation workers know well.

However, photos of the new symbol have been distributed to some
Fluor Hanford workers in case they see it on any radioactive
materials coming into the site, particularly from overseas.

The symbol is intended only for very large sources of radiation,
particularly if they could at some time leave the possession of
people who understand their potential danger.

For instance, it is recommended for use on radiation sources within
devices such as food irradiators and teletherapy machines for cancer
treatment to warn people not to dismantle the equipment.

The public usually won't see the symbol because it's not being
recommended for shipping containers, for example.

"We can't teach the world about radiation, but we can warn people
about dangerous sources for the price of a sticker," said Carolyn
MacKenzie, an IAEA radiation specialist.

The new symbol is the result of a five-year project conducted in 11
countries and tested on people of different ages and educational
backgrounds.

The message from the preschoolers?

That yellow meant caution and red meant danger.

The new symbol has a red background.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************