*****************************************************************
02/26/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.47
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Council to Consider Iran Sanctions 
2 AFP: Stand-off with Iran like 'height of the Cold War'
3 AFP: Russia 'worried' about talk of possible attack on Iran - 
4 Los Angeles Times: U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unrel
5 AFP: Tehran ready for US talks without preconditions - 
6 Guardian Unlimited: Top N. Korea Negotiator Plans U.S. Visit 
7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Deal May Lead to Summit 
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. in Macau to Discuss N. Korean Funds 
9 AFP: NKorea nuclear envoys softened weapons stance - 
10 Korea Herald: Talks to focus on confidence building
11 Digital Chosunilbo: We Must Learn to Do Without the U.S. by Kim Dae-
12 BBC NEWS: US hint on North Korea sanctions
13 Digital Chosunilbo: A Needless Gamble With Our Nation's Fate
14 UPI: Seoul allocates fund for N.Korea fuel
15 US: New York Times: Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations 
16 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bush budget contains many secrets
17 Reuters: U.S. sends strong message to Pakistan on Taliban 
18 US: Salon News: When Rummy tried to nuke Russia 
19 West Australian: Greens call for energy users audit
20 Jakarta Post: Building blocks of democracy
21 Shipping Times: Greenpeace ship still held at Faslane
22 UPI: Outside View:Russia's foggy nuclear future
23 UPI: Analysis: U.N. discusses anti-WMD efforts
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
24 Uk News: Conservative Council Leads The Way In  Opposing New Nuclear
25 The Hindu: India likely to export nuclear power technology
26 The Australian: Rann rules out nuclear plant 
27 The Australian: Nuclear plant 'funded by taxpayers' 
28 US: SLO Trib: NRC to study environmental impacts of a terrorist atta
29 Daily Yomiuri: Papers sent on 6 over Mihama N-plant accident 
30 US: Platts: NRC chairman Klein calls Palo Verde's problems 'signific
31 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $6,500 Fine for Universal Testing, LLC
32 West Australian: Labor surprised at nuclear plant plans
33 West Australian: Nuclear plant considered for Vic or SA
34 US: La Crosse Tribune: Concerned about nuclear plant sale
35 Slovak news: SE to complete Mochovce nuclear power plant
36 US: NRC: NRC Chairman Dale Klein Discusses Palo Verde Nuclear Plant
37 Manila Standard Today: Nuke power still an option
38 US: NRC: Statement of NRC Chairman Dale Klein Tucson, Arizona Februa
39 US: New London Day: (Snow says Greenpeace Supports Nuclear Power)
40 IHT: Japan and Russia agree to increase energy ties - 
41 Waterfront Online: Waterfront Debate: Nuclear Power
42 FPON: Russia eyes nuclear plant in Namibia
43 FPON: Eskom could pull plug on Namibia
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
44 Daily Times: Pakistan could become a failed state with nukes
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
45 US: Idaho: Daily Herald: Radioactive free speech
46 US: KESQ News: Report: Nuclear workers radiation claims panel beset 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
47 US: PRESS issues with the GNEP 
48 US: Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Nuclear waste could be routed thro
49 US: AP Wire: Legislators to tour low-level nuclear landfill
50 US: Seeking Alpha: Uranium: A Hot Button Issue - 
51 US: FR EPA: Change in Idaho's Waste Management Program
52 barrow in furness: N-waste trials started
53 barrow in furness: Report on Thorp leak
 
                           PEACE
 
54 AU ABC: Campaigners fail to get nuclear-free status for Alice
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
55 KnoxNews: Looking at our greenhouse future
56 FR DOE: Carbon Sequestration Program PEIS canceled
57 FR: DOE: Contract change on 700,000K of Uranium 
58 FR DOE: contract with 35,000 KG of Uranium
59 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab: Violations led to injuries 
60 National Academies Project: Review of DOE's Office of Nuclear
61 KnoxNews: Draft of a master science strategy
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Council to Consider Iran Sanctions 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 26, 2007 5:31 PM

By THOMAS WAGNER Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - Restrictions on trade and arms for Iran were likely 
to be considered by the five permanent U.N. Security Council 
members and Germany, as the world powers on Monday sought new 
ways to pressure the country to suspend parts of its nuclear 
program.

 Senior representatives of the six nations were in London to 
discuss how to respond to Iran's failure to respect a U.N. 
deadline to halt its uranium enrichment work.

 The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, confirmed Thursday that Iran had ignored a Security 
Council ultimatum to freeze enrichment - a possible pathway to 
nuclear arms - and had instead expanded its program.

 A senior British diplomat attending Monday's meeting at the 
Foreign Office said the representatives would examine options for 
further sanctions, including whittling away at export credits 
made available to companies that trade with Iran. Restrictions on 
arms exports to Iran also are likely to be discussed, said the 
diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the 
sensitivity of the subject.

  In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said 
any futher actions would likely be incremental: ``This is 
designed to proportionally increase pressure on Tehran.''

  McCormack said limited economic sanctions against Iran 
implemented in December had produced surprising results. ``It 
started a very public discussion in Iran about the wisdom of 
their current course of defying the international system,'' he 
said.

 After the meeting, the diplomats will return to their home 
capitals to report on their discussions.

    The U.S. and its European allies have been urging Iran to 
halt enrichment and re-enter negotiations meant to ease concerns 
that the country could be intending to use its civilian nuclear 
power program as a cover to produce weapons. Iran insists its 
only interest in the technology is for the production of fuel for 
nuclear power plants.

     In Russia, President Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister 
expressed concern Monday about talk of potential U.S. strikes 
against Iran in a televised exchange that underscored their 
demands for a negotiated solution.

     ``On the one hand, the Iranian leadership has not yet given 
satisfactory answers to well-known questions'' posed by the IAEA, 
which is trying to determine whether Iran may be seeking to 
develop nuclear weapons, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told 
Putin during a Cabinet meeting.

 ``On the other hand, prognoses and predictions that strikes will 
be conducted against Iran have become more common, and this 
causes concern,'' Lavrov said, adding that Vice President Dick 
Cheney ``allowed such a possibility in recent comments.''

 Cheney said last week that the United States believes ``it would 
be a serious mistake if a nation such as Iran became a nuclear 
power,'' and reaffirmed the Bush administration's policy that 
``all options are on the table'' to deter Iran.

    Putin, from offscreen in state TV video of the exchange at 
the meeting, asked Lavrov: ``What kind of strikes are we talking 
about - without U.N. Security Council sanctions?''

 Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said the IAEA 
report caused concern and that the London talks were aimed at 
gathering opinions on how to proceed.

  ``What Iran shouldn't in any way do is make any mistake about 
the unity of the international community in opposition to its 
continuing flaunting of what the U.N. has said its obligations 
are,'' said Blair's spokesman, who spoke on condition of 
anonymity in line with government rules.

   The Dec. 23 Security Council resolution against Iran ordered 
all countries to stop supplying the country with materials and 
technology that could contribute to its nuclear and missile 
programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies and 12 
individuals related to those programs.

    Besides a wider arms embargo and new economic penalties, 
other diplomats said last week that new, tougher measures could 
include a mandatory travel ban against individuals on the U.N. 
list and an expansion of the list to make more individuals and 
companies subject to sanctions.

 Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to 
Tehran, forced other council nations - the U.S., Britain and 
France - to drop a travel ban and other tougher measures from the 
December resolution and it is likely they will resist some of the 
harsher restrictions this time around as well.

    Still, the British diplomat said all participants in the 
talks supported an incremental tightening of sanctions.

   On the possibility of economic penalties, he noted that 
European agencies provide $20 billion in export credits to 
support trade with Iran and that some of those credits were 
already shrinking.

    Outside the Foreign Office, near Parliament, a small group of 
demonstrators chanted slogans denouncing Iranian President 
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

  On Sunday, Iranian state-run radio quoted Ahmadinejadas as 
saying that Iran would press ahead with uranium enrichment, 
describing Tehran's path as a train without brakes.

 Iran has said it plans to build as many as 20 nuclear reactors, 
part of a project to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity 
through nuclear power within the next two decades.

                                 ---

 Associated Press writers David Stringer and Tariq Panja 
contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 2 AFP: Stand-off with Iran like 'height of the Cold War'

: British naval officer - 

Sun Feb 25, 11:40 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - The West's stand-off with Iran over its contested 
nuclear programme is like "the height of the Cold War", Britain's 
most senior naval officer said in an interview with The Daily 
Telegraph published on Monday.

Commodore Keith Winstanley's comments come ahead of a meeting of the
UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany, who will
discuss more possible punitive measures against Iran, after imposing
sanctions on the country late last year.

"There are extra challenges facing us," Winstanley told the
newspaper.

"There have been a series of Iranian exercises in the northern Gulf
to the point that it's a bit like with the Russians at the height of
the Cold War.

"We just have to hope that's not a recipe for miscalculation," he
was quoted as saying by the Telegraph.

On Sunday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defied Western
threats to impose more sanctions, saying that Iran's atomic drive
was like a "train with no brakes".

Winstanley told the newspaper that Britain has nearly doubled its
naval deployments in the region since October, saying: "If you look
at the UK component we have almost doubled it ... Most of these
ships are here on training missions but there is no doubt that we
could use the warfighting capabilities they possess."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Russia 'worried' about talk of possible attack on Iran - 

Mon Feb 26, 7:39 AM ET

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday 
that Moscow is "worried" about the possibility of US military 
action against Iran.

"We are worried that the forecasts and suppositions of a possible
attack on Iran have become more frequent," Lavrov said during a
meeting with President Vladimir Putin that was shown on state
television.

Lavrov referred in particular to comments made last week by US Vice
President Dick Cheney, who said that "all options are still on the
table" for Washington to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"What attacks are they talking about, without sanctions from the UN
Security Council?" Putin asked during the meeting at his
Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow.

"No-one is talking about such sanctions," Lavrov responded.

Russia has relatively close ties with Iran and is building the
country's first nuclear power station at Bushehr, although Moscow
agreed to support limited UN sanctions in December against the
Islamic republic.

Washington suspects Iran of developing nuclear weapons under cover
of a nuclear energy programme. Iran denies this, saying its nuclear
programme is strictly for civilian energy generation.

Representatives of six key powers, including Russia, gathered in
London on Monday for talks on how to increase pressure on Tehran
amid mounting tension over the Islamic republic.

The United States, while insisting it has no military plans against
Iran, is beefing up its naval firepower in the Gulf: two US aircraft
carrier groups are now there, the highest concentration since the
2003 invasion of Iraq.

And the New Yorker magazine reported Sunday that the United States
is stepping up covert operations in Iran in a new strategy that
risks sparking an "open confrontation" and benefits Sunni radicals.

The weekly reported that the US Defence Department had formed a
special planning group to draw up possible attacks on Iran "that can
be implemented, upon orders from the president, within 24 hours."


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 4 Los Angeles Times: U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran's nuclear aims unreliable - 

Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile
designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.

By Bob Drogin and Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writers February 25, 2007

VIENNA — Although international concern is growing about Iran's
nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most
U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has
proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside
Iran.

The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had
provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International
Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran's long-secret
nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed
secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic
Republic was developing illicit weapons.

"Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has
proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another
official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very
cold now" because "so little panned out."

The reliability of U.S. information and assessments on Iran is
increasingly at issue as the Bush administration confronts the
emerging regional power on several fronts: its expanding nuclear
effort, its alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and its backing
of Middle East militant groups.

The CIA still faces harsh criticism for its prewar intelligence
errors on Iraq. No one here argues that U.S. intelligence officials
have fallen this time for crudely forged documents or pushed shoddy
analysis. IAEA officials, who openly challenged U.S. assessments
that Saddam Hussein was developing a nuclear bomb, say the Americans
are much more cautious in assessing Iran.

American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence
on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented
and difficult to prove.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran's nuclear program, although
agency officials say they have found no proof that nuclear material
has been diverted to a weapons program.

Iran's Islamist government began enriching uranium in small amounts
in August in a program it says will provide fuel only for civilian
power stations, not nuclear weapons.

Information withheld

On Thursday, the IAEA released a report declaring that Iran had
expanded uranium enrichment and defied a Security Council deadline
to suspend nuclear activities. In the meantime, the agency is locked
in a dispute with Tehran over additional information and access to
determine whether the program is peaceful.

In November 2005, U.N. inspectors leafing through papers in Tehran
discovered a 15-page document that showed how to form highly
enriched uranium into the configuration needed for the core of a
nuclear bomb. Iran said the paper came from Pakistan, but has
rebuffed IAEA requests to let inspectors take or copy it for further
analysis.

Diplomats here were less convinced by documents recovered by U.S.
intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran.
American analysts first briefed senior IAEA officials on the
contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission here in mid-2005.

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 on
uranium tetrafluoride, known as "green salt," which is used during
uranium enrichment. IAEA officials remain suspicious of the
information in part because most of the papers are in English rather
than Persian, the Iranian language.

"We don't know. Are they genuine, are they real?" asked a senior
U.N. official here. Another official who was briefed on the
documents said he was "very unconvinced."

Iran's representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed
the laptop documents as "fabricated information." Iran, he said, has
produced 170 tons of "green salt" at a uranium conversion facility
in Esfahan that is monitored by the IAEA.

"We are not hiding it," he said in an interview. "We make tons of
it. These documents are all nonsense."

Testy relations

The U.S. government is not required to share intelligence with the
IAEA, and relations between Washington and the U.N. agency are at
times testy. In March 2003, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei embarrassed
the White House when he told the U.N. Security Council that
documents indicating Hussein's government in Iraq had sought to
purchase uranium in Niger were forged. The Bush administration
subsequently opposed ElBaradei's reappointment to his post.

While it confronts Iran's nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration
also has tried to implicate Iran as a supplier of munitions and
training for insurgent groups in neighboring Iraq.

But the quality of its information has limited this effort too.

U.S. officials recently compiled evidence purporting to show that 
the Iranian Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard, 
had supplied Iranian-made weapons to Shiite militias that have 
attacked U.S. forces in Iraq.

After U.S. officials unveiled the evidence to reporters in 
Baghdad two weeks ago, however, Secretary of Defense Robert M. 
Gates and other Pentagon officials scrambled to retreat from the 
incendiary claim that the "highest levels" of the Tehran 
government were directly involved.

"I don't know if it goes to the highest levels of the 
government," Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the officer in 
charge of daily operations in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters 
Thursday. "What we do know is that the Quds Force has had 
involvement with some extremist groups in Iraq."

Washington has sought to pressure Tehran into halting the supply 
of "explosively formed projectiles" that are able to penetrate 
heavily armored vehicles. The projectiles represent only a small 
percentage of roadside bomb attacks in Iraq, but they are far 
more lethal than ordinary explosives.

Administration officials also cite a growing effort by the 
militant group Hezbollah, an Iranian protege and ally based in 
Lebanon, to aid anti-American Shiite forces in Iraq.

U.S. military officials contend that Hezbollah has provided 
training in Lebanon to hundreds of members of the Al Mahdi 
militia, which is controlled by radical anti-American cleric 
Muqtada Sadr. A smaller number of Hezbollah forces reportedly 
have entered Iraq through Syria to provide such training.

The administration has ordered a second aircraft carrier group 
into the Persian Gulf, a reminder that President Bush could order 
an airstrike on Iran's nuclear sites even while U.S. forces are 
tied down in Iraq. But White House officials have denied that an 
attack is imminent.

Given the lack of clear evidence, Iran's strategic goals in Iraq 
are a matter of debate, and concern has spread about its growing 
influence there. Although Iran is mostly Persian and Iraq is 
mostly Arab, both have majority Shiite populations that have kept 
close religious, economic and cultural ties for centuries. Iran's 
rulers view the U.S. as meddling in their backyard, or at least 
in their sphere of influence.

Some outside experts think the Islamic Republic seeks to keep the 
United States tied down indefinitely in Iraq and will actively 
resist a settlement there for fear that Washington will next turn 
its guns on Iran.

Ali Ansari, an expert on Iran at St. Andrews University in 
Scotland and author of "Confronting Iran," counters that Iran and 
America share some interests.

Iran is "looking for a stable Iraq," he said. "They want an Iraq 
that is not fragmented. But the difference would be that they 
don't want an Iraq that is militarily strong. They want an Iraqi 
government that is elected democratically, which means a Shia 
Iraq."

But Sunni-dominated governments in Egypt, Jordan and especially 
Saudi Arabia have pushed the U.S. to expand Sunni representation 
in Iraq's leadership as a way of countering Tehran. Some experts 
fear that a nuclear-armed Iran would spark a regional arms race.

John D. Negroponte, former director of national intelligence, 
told a House committee last month that Iran had extended its 
"shadow in the region" since the U.S. ousted hostile regimes on 
its borders: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's government 
in Baghdad.

Iran also has increased regional political leverage, he said, 
because of increased oil revenues, electoral victories by Hamas 
in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah's "perceived recent 
success in fighting Israel" in Lebanon.

Iran and Syria since have resupplied arms to Hezbollah, including 
stocks of long-range missiles that could reach deep into Israel, 
U.S. officials contend.

Washington lists both Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist 
organizations.

The administration has also become alarmed by Iran's increasing 
efforts to support Hamas after the group's victory in Palestinian 
elections in January 2006. That worry lies behind an $86-million 
U.S. plan to build up Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud 
Abbas' Presidential Guard and national security forces, rivals to 
Hamas.

Confrontation exploited

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has successfully exploited 
the growing confrontation with Washington to gain much needed 
political support at home. Nationalist sentiments run deep in 
Iran and the claim that Tehran has the same right to nuclear 
power as other nations has become a rallying cry that undermines 
the government's domestic critics.

"None of us can accept the suspension of these activities because 
people consider this our legal right," said Akbar Alami, an 
independent lawmaker. "All the political parties agree with this. 
We cannot stop."

Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric and defiance of the West also have 
burnished his credentials as a populist leader in other Islamic 
nations. That has raised alarms in Sunni governments around the 
region that Iran's brand of militant political Islam, potentially 
backed by the prestige of being a nuclear power, is on the march.

"The Americans are worried about enriched uranium, and the Arabs 
are worried about enriched Shiism," said Mamoun Fandy, senior 
fellow for Persian Gulf security at the London-based 
International Institute for Strategic Studies. Iran's growing 
power, he said, "threatens every existing political order in the 
region."

bob.drogin@latimes.com

Drogin reported from Vienna and Murphy from London. Times staff 
writers Paul Richter and Peter Spiegel in Washington contributed 
to this report.
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times      Privacy Policy | Terms of
*****************************************************************
 5 AFP: Tehran ready for US talks without preconditions - 

Monday February 26, 01:18 PM

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran would be ready to examine with a "positive eye"
a request by the United States for talks but would not halt
sensitive nuclear activities as a precondition, top nuclear
negotiator Ali Larijani said on Monday.

"If the United States presents a request for negotiations through
the official channels and it appears these negotiations are
constructive and logical, we are ready to examine this request with
a positive eye," he said in an interview with the state news agency
IRNA.

But he added: "Fixing preconditions means that you have already
determined the result of negotiations in advance and it is for this
reason that such policies have produced no result up to now."

Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since
Washington severed ties in 1980 in the wake of the seizure of its
embassy in Tehran by Islamist students.

AFP
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Top N. Korea Negotiator Plans U.S. Visit 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 26, 2007 7:31 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea's top nuclear negotiator plans to 
travel this week to the United States to meet with his U.S. 
counterpart, the Bush administration confirmed Monday.

    North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan is expected 
to arrive in San Francisco for talks with private organizations. 
He will also meet with Assistant Secretary of State Christopher 
Hill, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

  McCormack said the two sides were still working out the 
meeting's details and a date had not been set. The planned trip 
was first reported by South Korean media.

 It would be Kim's first U.S. visit since the international 
standoff over the North's nuclear ambitions flared in late 2002.

   The United States and North Korea are supposed to open 
bilateral talks on establishing diplomatic relations under an 
agreement reached at six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing earlier 
this month.

   The North, which tested a nuclear weapon last October, agreed 
to shut down its main nuclear reactor by mid-April as a step 
toward abandoning its nuclear program.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Nuclear Deal May Lead to Summit 

From the Associated Press

Monday February 26, 2007 6:01 PM

By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North and South Korea are restoring 
ties during talks this week following the communist country's 
pledge to shut down its nuclear reactor, paving the way for 
restoration of aid to the North and reunions for families split 
by the divided peninsula.

   The talks, scheduled to start Tuesday in Pyongyang, will be 
the first Cabinet-level meetings between the two nations since 
the North conducted a series of missile tests in July. Relations 
deteriorated further in October after North Korea tested a 
nuclear weapon.

   After the North agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor 
by April 14, the two nations almost immediately announced they 
would restart high-level talks.

 Both governments may feel pressure to improve relations quickly, 
in advance of South Korea's presidential contest. The leaders of 
the two Koreas last met in 2000 in Pyongyang and Tuesday's talks 
could herald the possibility of a second summit.

    At the inter-Korean talks this week, the sides are expected 
to discuss South Korea's humanitarian aid to its neighbor, 
including rice and fertilizer. South Korea will also seek to 
resume reunions of families split by the North-South border, 
which the North put on hold last year after aid was suspended.

 President Roh Moo-hyun, a liberal strongly supportive of 
engagement with the North, has seen his popularity plummet. 
Critics regard him as a bungling leader who has failed to improve 
the economy and isolated the country from key allies like the 
United States.

   Conservative candidates from the main opposition Grand 
National Party - which has called for a tougher line against the 
North - appear to have an unassailable lead in opinion polls, 
although the election is scheduled for Dec. 19.

   North Korea regularly denounces the GNP, urging South Koreans 
to keep them out of power.

 The rise of the GNP likely helped persuade North Korea to accept 
the disarmament-for-aid deal, said Kim Tae-woo of South's Korea 
Institute for Defense Analyses. South Korea's liberals, 
meanwhile, probably believe a summit could help them keep the 
presidency, he said.

       The North ``may try to create a good environment for the 
inter-Korean summit meeting,'' said Kim. But he warned that 
``after the presidential election, I'm afraid everything may go 
back to the original point.''

  Song Min-soon, South Korea's foreign minister, said Monday that 
a second summit could lead to a peace deal between the two 
nations. North and South technically remain at war, because the 
1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean conflict was never replaced 
by a peace treaty.

   The resumption of talks, he said, give South Korea the chance 
to ``play an active and leading role in setting an order of peace 
for the entire northeast Asia region.''

  South Korean officials are preparing to give 50,000 tons of 
heavy fuel oil - valued at $21.3 million - to the North, said 
Yang Chang-seok, a spokesman for the Unification Ministry. The 
North will receive the oil for shutting down it's reactor.

    The oil is part of the 1 million tons promised North Korea 
for dismantling its entire nuclear program, under this month's 
agreement.

 Peter Beck, who studies northeast Asia for the International 
Crisis Group, warned that South Korea should be careful to tie 
aid to North Korean disarmament.

  If, Beck said, North Korea ``can get the assistance they need 
for doing virtually nothing, then why go through all the pain and 
the hassle of the whole denuclearization process?''

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. in Macau to Discuss N. Korean Funds 

From the Associated Press

February 26, 2007 5:46 AM

By MIN LEE Associated Press Writer

HONG KONG (AP) - A U.S. Treasury Department delegation was in 
Macau on Monday discussing with local officials how to resolve 
sanctions on a bank that allegedly was involved in North Korean 
money laundering and counterfeiting.

      The visit came about two weeks after North Korea agreed in 
six-nation talks to take initial steps to abandon its nuclear 
weapons program in return for aid. Washington agreed on the 
meeting's sidelines to settle the financial sanctions by 
mid-March.

 On Monday, Dale Kreisher, spokesman at the U.S. Consulate 
General in Hong Kong, declined to say whether Washington was 
ready to lift the sanctions on Banco Delta Asia, accused of 
helping North Korea's money laundering and counterfeiting.

    But Kreisher, whose office is responsible for Macau, told The 
Associated Press that ``discussions (with North Korea) along with 
the U.S. investigation have brought Treasury to the point where 
they think they can begin taking steps to resolve the BDA 
matter.''

 Washington slapped restrictions on Banco Delta Asia in 2005 and 
put it on a money-laundering blacklist. This prompted Macau to 
freeze about $24 million at the bank. Consequently, banks 
worldwide shunned North Korean business for fears of losing 
access to American markets.

  Banco Delta Asia has said that money might have been laundered 
at the bank, but it said there was no evidence the institution 
was aware it was being used for that purpose. It said it was a 
small, family-owned bank that didn't have the technology to check 
big batches of U.S. currency for fake bills.

    The bank also said it used a dated computer system and that 
it didn't pay enough attention to maintaining its own books. It 
also has said the bank didn't have adequate written 
anti-money-laundering policies for its staff.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: NKorea nuclear envoys softened weapons stance - 

Monday February 26, 02:01 PM

TOKYO (AFP) - Diplomats who reached a breakthrough agreement with
North Korea earlier this month backed down on demanding Pyongyang
give up nuclear weapons immediately, a Japanese press report said
Monday.

A first draft at the six-nation talks in Beijing had called on North
Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and the facilities which produce
them as "initial" steps in return for fuel aid, Kyodo News reported.

But after North Korea rejected the draft, the United States agreed
to put the onus on the communist state shutting down its main
nuclear reactor, the Japanese agency said, quoting unnamed
"negotiation sources."

Under the deal, energy-starved North Korea -- one of the most
impoverished regimes in the world -- stands to receive an eventual
one million tonnes of fuel oil if it permanently disables its
Yongbyon reactor.

The agreement has been unpopular in Japan and among some US
conservatives who wanted more forceful action on the nuclear arsenal
of North Korea, which tested an atom bomb in October for the first
time.

The lengthy negotiations two weeks ago showed that the focus of the
six-way talks "has apparently shifted from denuclearisation of the
Korean peninsula to nonproliferation of nuclear materials," Kyodo
News said.

Its report said Japan pressed for a tougher stance but had limited
influence due to its own tense relations with North Korea.

The final agreement referred to nuclear weapons by reiterating a
commitment to a September 2005 statement, under which North Korea
agreed in general terms to give up its nuclear arsenal in return for
aid and security guarantees.

The latest round also set up five working groups including one on
the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

The six-way talks include China, Japan, the two Koreas, Russia and
the United States.

 Copyright © 2007 AFP. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 10 Korea Herald: Talks to focus on confidence building
 
Ministerial talks between the two Koreas open today in Pyongyang, 
two weeks after the breakthrough nuclear deal in Beijing and 
seven months since the last round of high-level inter-Korean 
talks.

At the four-day Cabinet-level talks, South Korean Unification Lee
Jae-joung and North Korea's chief councilor of the Pyongyang Cabinet
Kwon Ho-ung have a number of immediate, as well as pending issues to
discuss.

North Korea is most likely to request a resumption of South Korea's
annual aid of some 500,000 tons of rice and 350,000 tons of
fertilizers, suspended since the communist regime's missile launches
last July.

The last round of ministerial talks in Busan in July ended on a sour
note, with South Korea announcing a halt of its scheduled aid
shipments. North Korea responded by saying it was "protecting" the
South with its military-first policy.

Another crucial point to watch for during this round is whether the
North will approach the South on the possibility of holding the
second inter-Korean summit this year.

The Seoul government has repeatedly expressed its willingness to
hold the summit after the negotiators to the six-party talks reached
an agreement on Feb. 13 on the first-step measures requiring North
Korea to shut down its nuclear facility in Yongbyon in return for
50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.

The South Korean government, while underscoring that inter-Korean
exchanges are separate from the nuclear negotiations, admitted it is
now willing to resume food and fertilizer aid to the impoverished
North.

Public sentiment here, however, is not yet fully supportive as
critics have raised concerns that the South Korean government is
bearing an unequal burden for denuclearizing North Korea.

The Unification Ministry has put aside 371.5 billion won for the
food and fertilizer aid this year.

"We cannot give food and fertilizer all at the same time. The aid
will be at a level that would be acceptable for the South Korean
public," a government source said on condition of anonymity.

About 100,000 tons of fertilizer is reportedly needed for the
Spring's sowing season in North Korea.

The South Korean government is also likely to propose regularizing
defense talks in order to discuss how to ease military tension and
build trust with the North as preparatory steps towards constructing
a peace regime on the Korean peninsula.

The two Koreas remain technically at war after ending the three-year
conflict in 1953 with a ceasefire treaty.

The 1992 agreement between the two Koreas specified the two sides
would implement arms controls that will include reduction of
armaments, but neither government is yet to make a move on it.

Among other pending issues to be raised by the South Korean side are
the resumption of separated family reunions and test operations for
the cross-border rail.

The two Koreas must also find a solution on the repatriation of
prisoners of war and South Koreans kidnapped by North Korea.

Seoul estimates that some 485 of 3,790 Koreans kidnapped after the
Korean War still remain alive in North Korea, along with about 550
soldiers taken prisoner during the war.

The North claims they voluntarily defected.

Following South Korea's suspension of aid last year, North Korea
called off the separated family reunions. The North has also been
refusing to test-run operations on cross border roads and railways
in an apparent attempt to leverage more economic aid.

Based on the 2005 economic exchange accord, South Korea is to
provide the North with $80 million worth of raw materials for
clothing, soap and footwear in return for a provision on North
Korea's zinc and magnesite mineral deposits.

North is also likely to bring up its customary demands during
ministerial talks, including the abolition of South Korea's National
Security Law, a lifting of the ban on South Koreans from visiting
symbolic sites in the North, and the redrawing of the Northern Limit
Line in the West Sea.

The two Koreas remain deadlocked over their sea boundaries. They
currently operate under the NLL unilaterally drawn by U.N. Army
chief Mark Wayne Clark immediately after the 1953 ceasefire treaty
was signed.

(angiely@heraldm.com)

By Lee Joo-hee

2007.02.27
*****************************************************************
 11 Digital Chosunilbo: We Must Learn to Do Without the U.S. by Kim Dae-joong

Home> Editorials/Columns Updated Feb.26,2007 12:47 KST

South Korea's security faces a potential crisis from a Feb. 13 pact
reached in six-nation denuclearization talks, because the U.S. is
moving in the direction of leaving South Korea under threat from
North Korea's existing nuclear weapons and materials. Our security
hangs in the balance. The U.S. may deny it, but we feel betrayed by
America.

What are North Korea¡¯s nuclear bombs to the U.S.? They are nothing
but toy guns because they are insufficient to threaten America in
terms of capacity and means of transport. The North claims it has
developed nuclear capabilities as a guarantee against a U.S. attack
or threat to its security. But the U.S. said many times it has no
such intention. Pyongyang, too, knows that Washington won't attack
it, nor has any intention to attack it. Why then did George W. Bush
hurry the Feb. 13 agreement and why does he attempt to dress up the
questionable result as a success? Bush, who lost in the November
mid-term elections, needed the agreement to shift his image from
bellicose to conciliatory while engrossing himself in the Iran
issue. It's for this reason that he had to cling to a visible
outcome, even if that meant scrapping only the nuclear program in
progress but leaving nuclear arms and materials from the past
untouched. The victims are South Korea and Japan.

American neoconservatives, Bush's ostensible political prop,
criticize the agreement because it sets a bad precedent for
countries who want to acquire nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat
against South Korea does not appear to interest them. Since the Roh
Moo-hyun administration begged for an agreement along such lines,
Bush will gladly have accepted it.

What do North Korea¡¯s capabilities mean for our republic? They are
directly related to our security. If they do not for now target
America, what would the North have developed nuclear bombs for, in
the face of world censure? Their aim, surely, is to threaten and
conquer the South. The North¡¯s repeated threats of war and
references to a "sea of fire" and "flames" openly suggest that they
can be either actual weapons or means to hold the South's security
hostage. Now it is implicitly understood that the North has nuclear
arms, amid tacit approval by the U.S. and other countries, North
Korea will never dismantle them. The media of the entire world
predict it.

Washington seems to regard the Feb. 13 agreement as a momentum for
realigning its relationship with South Korea. The U.S. is starting
to reveal that it is committed to the protection of South Korea in
form only, and that it does not wish to undertake any substantive
duties. This should be taken as a roundabout expression of the will
to deal with North Korea directly, with China serving as the ledger,
without any further need for the headache of going through South
Korea. Normalization of ties with the North is already being debated
in the U.S. The three-year postponement of the deadline for
transferring wartime operational control of our forces to us is only
a minor concession made to the South Koreans so the U.S. can leave
the existing North Korean nuclear arms and materials intact. The
central axis of the Korean problem is moving away from one
tripartite structure, of South Korea, the U.S. and Japan, to
another: the U.S., China and North Korea.

As far as its own security is concerned, South Korea must search for
a new path rather than trusting or relying on the U.S. Since America
has decided to seek its own interests and leave the North Korean
nuclear arms and materials intact -- or perhaps pretends to do so --
we have to wake up from our delusion. The only way for the Republic
of Korea to survive is to look for a way of confronting the North's
nuclear devices ourselves. We now stand naked before them. We must
accept that we have no genuine friends around us. We cannot be
content with the phantom of an American nuclear umbrella.

The presidential election in late December should be an occasion for
the people to debate the North's nuclear capabilities and our
security problem more seriously than at any time in the past. We
must avert a situation where the country, led by the president and
his associates without public debate or consensus, remains a sucker
that gives away money and goods to North Korea while our security
hangs in the balance. In this, the people are quite rudderless: no
presidential contender has yet recognized the seriousness of our
serious situation and raised our security crisis as their top
priority.
*****************************************************************
 12 BBC NEWS: US hint on North Korea sanctions

Last Updated: Monday, 26 February 2007, 11:24 GMT

Macau was a key banking centre for North Korea

A US Treasury delegation is in Macau to discuss lifting sanctions 
imposed on a bank in the Chinese territory accused of helping 
North Korea launder money.

An official said the treasury was ready to "begin taking steps" 
to settle the dispute over Banco Delta Asia.

The sanctions, imposed last year, led to the freezing of some 
$24m of North Korean funds.

Under the agreement, North Korea agreed to "shut down and seal" 
parts of its nuclear programme in exchange for aid, ahead of the 
programme's eventual abandonment.

South Korea said on Monday that preparations were under way to send
$20m worth of fuel oil shipments to the North, as one of the first
steps under the agreement.

The announcement came a day before the two Koreas resumed
ministerial talks in Pyongyang.

The talks were suspended after the North carried out missile and
nuclear tests last year.

In a further sign of renewed diplomatic activity, North Korea's
chief nuclear negotiator, Kim Kye-gwan, is reported to be flying to
the US at the end of this week to meet his American counterpart
Christopher Hill.

South Korean media said he would be attending the first meeting of a
working group to study the normalisation of diplomatic relations
between the US and North Korea, as also agreed under the 13 February
deal.

Talks boycott

The US Treasury team were meeting Macau financial authorities who
took control of Banco Delta Asia (BDA) after Washington blacklisted
it in September 2005.

The US accused the bank of being a primary conduit for money earned
by North Korea from counterfeit currency and drug smuggling.

The freeze on North Korea's financial assets led Pyongyang to
boycott the six-party talks on its nuclear programme from November
2005 until after it carried a nuclear test in October 2006.

The North insisted the issue of the sanctions be addressed as part
of the talks, which resumed in December.

Discussions between US and North Korean financial officials on the
issue had brought the US treasury "to the point where they can begin
taking steps to resolve the BDA matter", US consulate official Dale
Kreisher in Hong Kong said.

Shipment preparations

Under the 13 February agreement, Pyongyang pledged to shut down its
Yongbyon reactor within 60 days in return for 50,000 metric tons of
fuel aid.

A further 950,000 tonnes of fuel oil or an equivalent in economic
aid will be sent to the North once it permanently disables its
nuclear operations.

As part of the deal, the US also agreed to begin the process of
removing North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorist
and establish diplomatic relations.

South Korea's unification ministry said on Monday that the
government had started preparations to supply North Korea with
50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.

Ministry spokesperson Yang Chang-seok said the shipment would cost
around 20 billion won ($20m).

The cost of the 950,000 tonnes is set to be shared by all five
countries involved in the North Korean talks - South Korea, the US,
Japan, China and Russia.

Tokyo has said it will not contribute until the issue of its
citizens abducted to be trained as spies by North Korea in the 1970s
and 80s is addressed.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 13 Digital Chosunilbo: A Needless Gamble With Our Nation's Fate

Home> Editorials/Columns Updated Feb.26,2007 07:58 KST

Korea, U.S. Agree on Troop Control Transition by 2012
U.S. Says No More Troop Reductions after 2008

The defense chiefs of South Korea and the United States have 
agreed to dismantle the Combined Forces Command (CFC) on April 
17, 2012. On that day, wartime operational control will be handed 
over to South Korea. The world¡¯s fastest, most-efficient and 
powerful system of war deterrent will disappear, while the fate 
of the Korean Peninsula will be put to the test for no reason. 
Last year, when the leaders of the two countries agreed in 
principle to dismantle the CFC, former defense minister Chun 
Yong-taek said, ¡°The president has finally made a big mistake.¡± 
What else is one to call it now?

Former defense ministers, officers, generals, foreign ministers,
heads of police and other officials implored the government to stop
the move, pointing out the bad timing of the dismantling of the CFC,
saying, ¡°not now when North Korea has conducted a nuclear test.¡±
But this administration simply ignored such calls. The first defense
minister, foreign minister, ambassador to the United States and
national security advisor of this administration all voiced their
beliefs that the CFC should not be dismantled, but to no use. The
defense committee of the National Assembly passed a resolution
opposing the move, but the presidential office pushed through with
the move anyway. Two out of three Koreans (66 percent of all
respondents in a Gallup survey last September) opposed the move, but
this administration paid no attention. President Roh Moo-hyun even
criticized former high-ranking military officers for being
¡°pompous.¡± He scorned the Korean public for ¡°hiding behind
America¡¯s rear end¡± and for ¡°trembling in fear like the leaves on
a tree.¡±

Korea¡¯s national security faces two challenges. One is a North
Korea crisis that can erupt at any moment. Even Defense Minister Kim
Jang-soo said, ¡°North Korea¡¯s nuclear test poses the greatest
security threat since the Korean War.¡± What is the reason for
dismantling the CFC at such a dangerous time?

The reason the CFC has prevented war was the prospect of the sheer
volume of U.S. reinforcement troops that would be dispatched to the
Korean Peninsula in case of an emergency. Former South Korean
Defense Minister Chun estimated that deterrent effect to be worth
1,300 trillion won. The Korean public is concerned that if the CFC
is dismantled, then this reinforcement would become uncertain. This
administration said a guarantee on continued reinforcements would be
achieved during the South Korea-U.S. defense ministerial talks. But
in the joint statement following the meeting, there was not a single
mention of reinforcements. Various types of joint military plans
will also disappear. In the event of a North Korean emergency, all
of our channels to utilize the assistance of U.S. troops could be
blocked.

The other challenge facing South Korea¡¯s national security is the
change in America¡¯s global strategy. Since September 11, 2001, the
U.S. has been shifting its global military posture to a lighter and
more mobile force, capable of responding to any type of war. U.S.
forces in South Korea have already begun downsizing and are changing
to a structure where it can ship out of the Korean Peninsula at any
time. The reason the United States is aggressively pursuing the
transition of wartime military control is due to this change in
strategy. Once the South Korean military assumes complete wartime
military control, U.S. troop size may drop even further. At a time
when the last thing we need is a drop in U.S. troop strength, this
administration has been waving an outdated flag called ¡°self
sufficiency,¡± shouting out slogans calling for the dismantling of
the CFC.

After the South Korea-U.S. defense ministerial meeting, the
presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae issued a statement welcoming
the agreement. The South Korean government is just patting itself on
the back. But due to the success of this administration¡¯s protest,
the public will have to shoulder hundreds of trillions of won in
security costs, while having to live under a greater threat of North
Korean aggression.

The milk has been spilt. The symbolic value of the CFC has been
destroyed, while the chances of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il
making a serious mistake have shifted from an impossibility to a
possibility. The basic framework of South Korea¡¯s national security
has been shaken. Whoever it may be, the leader of the next
administration must again make military strategy a matter of
national security, rather than a political issue, and start from the
beginning to stabilize the situation.
*****************************************************************
 14 UPI: Seoul allocates fund for N.Korea fuel

United Press International - International Intelligence - 

Updated: 02/26/2007 7:48:23 AM -0500 UTC

SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- South Korea has allocated 
$21 million to provide 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil to North 
Korea under a recent nuclear deal, Seoul officials said Monday.

"The government is preparing to provide 50,000 tons of heavy fuel 
oil for North Korea in accordance with the Feb. 13 nuclear 
accord," Foreign Ministry spokesman Yang Chang-seok told 
reporters.

The oil shipment will cost an estimated 20 billion won ($21.3 
million), including delivery expenses, he said.

Under the deal reached in Beijing at the six-party talks, North 
Korea will receive 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil or equivalent 
assistance in return for its initial moves toward nuclear 
disarmament.

The energy-starved communist nation will also receive an 
additional 950,000 tons of heavy fuel oil or equivalent as soon 
as it completes "disabling all existing nuclear facilities, 
including graphite-moderated reactors and reprocessing plant."

© Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 New York Times: Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations - 

By DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: February 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Internal Justice Department performance
reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been
dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or
“very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows.

The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff
Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for
playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in
their jurisdictions.

The reviews, each of them 6 to 12 pages long, were carried out by
Justice Department officials from 2003 to 2006. Each report was
based on extensive interviews, conducted over several days with
judges, other federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in
each office.

It had been known that the reports were mostly favorable, but the
reports themselves had not been made public.

Over all, the evaluations, which were obtained from officials
authorized to have them, appear to raise new questions about the
rationale for the dismissals provided by senior Justice Department
officials. The officials have repeatedly cited poor job performance
to explain their decisions to oust the eight prosecutors, all of
them Republicans appointed by President Bush in his first term.

On Saturday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who
has led a Congressional investigation into the dismissals and has
been briefed on the evaluations, said the reports showed that new
legislation was needed to keep the Justice Department from
politically motivated firings.

“As we feared, the comprehensive evaluations show these U.S.
attorneys did not deserve to be fired,” Mr. Schumer said. “To the
contrary, they reveal they were effective, respected and set
appropriate priorities.”

In response, a senior Justice Department official said the reviews,
which focused on management practices within each United States
attorney’s office, did not provide a broad or complete picture of
the prosecutors’ performance.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the
confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews
don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out
departmental priorities.”

Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official
said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting
that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set
by the Justice Department in Washington.

However, each case report included a statement that each of the
ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the
Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism,
narcotics and gun violence.

Of the dismissed prosecutors who have spoken publicly, all have said
they were given no reason for their dismissal. At first, most
appeared willing to leave quietly with the understanding that they
were presidential appointees who could be replaced at any time.

But their willingness to step down without complaint changed
abruptly when Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, said at
a Senate hearing earlier this month that most of the dismissals were
carried out to correct performance problems, according to associates
of several prosecutors.

In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts
with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending
political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their
firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a
factor.

One of the most glowing evaluations was given to H. E. Cummins III
of Arkansas, who was asked to leave last summer. Mr. Cummins was
replaced temporarily by J. Timothy Griffin, a military and civilian
prosecutor who also had close ties to Karl Rove, the senior White
House political adviser. Mr. Griffin has since withdrawn his name
from consideration as Mr. Cummins’s permanent successor.

A report dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, said, “United States Attorney
Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal,
judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” It said Mr.
Cummins’s office had a “well-managed” antiterrorism program and
“very successful” counternarcotics efforts.

Another report, dated Feb. 7-11, 2005 evaluating the performance of
Carol C. Lam, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in San
Diego, concluded that she was “an effective manager and respected
leader in the district.”
More Articles in Washington &#x00bb;


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
*****************************************************************
 16 Las Vegas SUN: Bush budget contains many secrets

February 25, 2007

Gibbons-Trepp links of interest to FBI

By Lisa Mascaro, Sun Washington Bureau Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - President Bush's proposed 2008 defense budget reads as
you might expect, until you get to the creative writing.

That's the section of the $715 billion budget for defense and the
Iraq war that has no numbers, no zeroes. Just a few simple
sentences, including this one: "Robust funding of the intelligence
community."

It is the portion of the budget known as the "black budget," filled
with spending few Americans will ever see, and only in recent years
have even heard about. It's also the part of the budget of interest
to the FBI, which is conducting a preliminary investigation into
allegations that Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, when serving in Congress,
took favors from longtime friend Warren Trepp in exchange for
securing Defense Department funds for Trepp's company.

Secrecy surrounding the black budget has shrouded the nature of the
Gibbons-Trepp relationship.

As military spending has come to dominate the Bush budget since the
9/11 attacks, the amount of money being funneled to the black budget
has risen sharply. Experts believe that $45 billion will flow this
year into the secret budget, to pay for, among other things, secret
weapons systems and some of the U.S. intelligence community's 16
agencies.

That is a reversal of trends after the Cold War ended quietly nearly
two decades ago. Secret spending began to fall out of fashion for a
brief time, hitting a low of $11.7 billion in 1995, according to the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, a Washington think
tank.

But the 2001 terrorist attacks changed all that, and military
spending has been a priority for the Bush administration. The
president's $481 billion defense budget for fiscal 2008 is 60
percent higher than the one rolled out for 2001, not counting
supplemental war spending.

The black budget has similarly soared, tripling from 2001 levels.

What troubles defense analysts is more than just the sheer size of
the secret budget. The classified spending has exploded in an era
when Congress has been lax in its historical watchdog role over the
executive branch and has not policed itself adequately, either.

With so much money and so little oversight, the black budget has
become a potential playground for political favors.

Case in point: imprisoned former California Rep. Randy "Duke"
Cunningham, who siphoned as much as $80 million in classified
earmarks to defense contractors in return for bribes.

"Its pretty basic stuff: Secrecy invites corruption," said Steven
Aftergood, a veteran black budget expert who directs the Project on
Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. His
1997 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit led the CIA to disclose
secret spending for the first time in 50 years.

"What Congressman Cunningham did should not have been possible. He
was able to push through what amounted to personal favors in the
national intelligence budget. And whoever was supposed to supervise
the process failed completely.

"How many red flags do we need to understand the current system is
broken?" Aftergood said.

Instead of becoming more diligent about the black budget, Congress
became more tolerant.

"After 9/11 there was a great sense of urgency and that the war
can't be conducted effectively unless it's secret," said Loren
Thompson, defense expert at the Lexington Institute, a policy center
in Washington.

"This is an area where earmarking is fraught with peril," said Steve
Ellis, vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog
group in Washington. "It's one thing to take road money and steer it
to the road that goes right in front of your house. It's another
thing to take money that's supposed to make the country secure."

Cunningham, a former Navy pilot, knew how to use his muscle at the
House Intelligence Committee, according to a report by a special
investigator hired by the committee to see just how things went so
wrong.

His abuses should have been caught by overseers on the House and
Senate intelligence and defense committees, which review the black
budget behind closed doors. But Congress under the Republican-led
majority did a poor job of policing itself, as demonstrated by a
stream of scandals in recent years, some of which involved Democrats.

The practice of earmarking was high on the list of abuses. Earmarks
allow individual lawmakers to fund pet projects without undergoing
the customary congressional scrutiny. Over the last decade, the
number of earmarks grew from 3,000 a year to 15,000.

Black budget earmarks, including those Cunningham secured, were a
double-whammy. Unlike earmarks in the regular budget, which
eventually can be exposed, black budget earmarks are permanently
secret.

Questions about Gibbons' actions while in Congress date to Feb. 13,
2004, when the Pentagon's Special Operations Command announced that
it awarded a $30 million, five-year contract to his friend Trepp's
Reno-based company, eTreppid Technologies LLC. That contract
apparently did not stem from an earmark. Gibbons has said he merely
put Trepp in touch with Defense Department authorities and that the
company won the contract on its own merits.

But The Wall Street Journal reported last fall that Gibbons had
secured black budget funds for the company, including a $1.17
million boost to an existing contract in 2005.

Gibbons had touted previously a $3 million earmark he secured for
the company in a 2004 press release.

Federal investigators are looking into whether Trepp's gifts to
Gibbons, including a 2005 cruise Trepp hosted for the congressman,
his wife and others, was payback for favorable treatment. Trepp
contributed $90,000 to Gibbons' campaign for governor.

Under the $30 million contract, eTreppid is to provide compression
and automatic target recognition software, which defense experts say
the military needs to improve its ability to handle the massive
amount of information it is collecting from technological sources in
the field.

Gibbons has denied doing anything improper. He said he has known
Trepp for at least 20 years.

Aftergood and other secrecy experts are looking to the new Congress
to rein in classified spending, but they say there's a culture in
Washington that values the mysterious process. As one expert put it,
an intelligent project is scoffed at unless it's labeled classified.

"I think a lot of people in Congress and elsewhere are seduced by
secrecy - they are reluctant to challenge the need for
classification," Aftergood said. "I think some members find the
whole system intriguing if not glamorous and romantic."

He said: "Under the political circumstances of the last decade the
Republicans have had more opportunities to play these kinds of
games. It's an open question as to whether the Democrats will be
better." Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at
lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 17 Reuters: U.S. sends strong message to Pakistan on Taliban 

Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:46PM EST

By Caren Bohan

BAGRAM AIRBASE (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney flew into
Pakistan and Afghanistan on Monday to press for a united front in
the war against the resurgent Taliban, with media reports saying he
would tell Islamabad only results count.

Cheney asked Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to take tougher
action against Taliban militants and sympathizers on his side of the
largely lawless and porous border, where U.S. commanders say the
rebels are sheltering and training.

"He asked President Musharraf that Pakistan should do more," a
Pakistani official said after the meeting between Cheney and
Musharraf at the presidential palace.

The visit came as the New York Times said President Bush had decided
to send "an unusually tough message" to a major ally in the war on
terror by reminding Musharraf the new Democrat-led Congress would
cut aid if he did not do more to combat the Taliban.

"(Musharraf has) ... made a number of assurances over the past few
months, but the bottom line is that what they are doing now is not
working," the Times quoted an unnamed senior administration official
as saying. "The message that we are sending him now is that the only
thing that matters is results."

With elections due in Pakistan this year, and U.S. pressure building
on neighboring Iran over its nuclear program, analysts say
Washington will be careful not to say anything publicly that could
hurt Musharraf domestically.

A senior U.S. official recently said pressure was better applied
quietly than publicly.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 Salon News: When Rummy tried to nuke Russia 

Excerpt

In an excerpt from his new biography of the former secretary of 
defense, Andrew Cockburn explains how the true Donald Rumsfeld 
emerged during secret war games.

Editor's note: This passage from Andrew Cockburn's book 

Feb. 26, 2007 | 

After George H.W. Bush won the 1988 presidential election, there 
was, as usual, ill-informed speculation that Donald Rumsfeld 
would be offered a senior cabinet post. One of those who paid 
attention to the rumors was Milt Pitts, the longtime presidential 
barber, who was summoned to give the president-elect a trim soon 
after the victory. "Pitts had always liked Rumsfeld," a former 
White House official explained in recounting the ensuing 
conversation.

"I've heard that Don Rumsfeld might be secretary of defense," 
said Pitts brightly as he snipped away. "Have you heard that, Mr. 
Vice President?"

"No, Milt," said Bush in a low, chilly voice. "I haven't heard 
that."

Rumsfeld himself was ready to settle for something less. Writing 
to congratulate Bush on his victory, he stated that he would 
"like to be your Ambassador to Japan." An official in the Bush 
transition office processing such requests found that the letter 
had already been reviewed at a high level. Scrawled across it 
were the words "NO! THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!! GB."

Rumsfeld was offered no position in the administration of George 
H.W. Bush.

A few months after the inauguration, Donald Rumsfeld was invited 
to play the role of president of the United States in an exercise 
devised by a Washington think tank. In this scenario, "President" 
Rumsfeld was intent on securing congressional approval to go to 
war. "I don't care what you tell them," he barked at White House 
chief of staff Ed Markey, "just get over to Capitol Hill and make 
them do it, and make sure there are no constraints."

"It was an exercise devised by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies [CSIS] to study the functioning of the War 
Powers Act," remembers Markey, a liberal Democratic congressman 
from Massachusetts. "We acted out roles. I accepted the role of 
Chief of Staff because I figured that was my only shot at the 
job." Rumsfeld may have felt the same way. At the age of 
fifty-seven he appears to have concluded that if he could no 
longer realistically aspire to be president, he could at least 
act the part.

By all accounts "President" Rumsfeld played his role in that 1989 
exercise for CSIS with great gusto, raging at the obdurate 
Congress and deploying the "White House spokesman" (played by the 
venerable broadcast journalist Daniel Schorr) to maneuver the 
press into supporting his martial position. But this Washington 
exercise was a comparatively lighthearted affair compared to 
Rumsfeld's role in games that were far more elaborate, and deeply 
secret. Well away from journalists and others lacking highly 
restricted security clearances, he could perform not merely as a 
chief executive, but one faced with the awesome responsibility of 
waging nuclear war.

The games were designed to test a program known as COG, 
Continuity of Government, and they concerned the ability of the 
government to continue to function during and after a nuclear 
attack. Everything about these exercises was secret. "There are 
seven levels of classification used in the government," one 
former senior Pentagon official told me when I raised the 
subject. "You are asking about the most secret level of all." 
Plans to enable the government to survive a nuclear attack dated 
back to the early days of the cold war, when vast bunkers were 
excavated in the countryside around Washington in which the 
various organs of government could take shelter. At least one of 
these, in the rural Virginia town of Culpeper, was even supplied 
with Barbie dolls for the diversion of officials' children 
sitting out the war underground. Over the years these efforts 
became ever more elaborate, and of course vastly more expensive. 
A major development occurred in the early 1980s, when Ronald 
Reagan was sold not only on the notion of a missile defense 
shield, but also on the practicality of fighting a prolonged 
strategic nuclear war, lasting up to six months. This decision 
lent added emphasis to the need for keeping the machinery of 
government going amid the radioactive ruins.

In consequence, the money allocated for COG began to soar to 
previously undreamed-of heights. A prime architect of the revised 
system has disclosed to me that the budget hit $1 billion a year 
by the end of Reagan's first term. Lending intellectual weight to 
this costly initiative was Andrew Marshall, an influential 
defense intellectual who had first crossed paths with Rumsfeld 
when he was secretary of defense. Early in the Reagan years, 
Marshall predicted that a "weakening" Soviet Union might lash out 
in a surprise nuclear attack, thus necessitating the extensive 
facilities in which Rumsfeld was invited to exercise his 
post-apocalypse leadership skills.

Marshall and others had long maintained that the Soviet strategy 
involved "decapitation" of the US leadership and that therefore 
some of the first warheads would land on Washington, very 
possibly obliterating the president and other senior officials. 
COG planners therefore began training teams of individuals 
experienced in national security matters who would be ready to 
take over and resurrect some sort of government. The teams were 
divided up by function, one for the Defense Department, one for 
the State Department, a third for the White House and so on.

This highly secret program was known as Project 908, and among 
the individuals earmarked to take power when disaster struck was 
Donald Rumsfeld. Every so often he would disappear from his 
Chicago office, leaving no word of where he was headed, or why. 
Once off the map, he would be moved on a military transport to 
one of the secret headquarters created as part of the COG 
network. There, for several days, he would be immured in 
artificial caverns, staring at electronic displays streaming data 
of disaster and confusion, sleeping on cots and subsisting on the 
most austere rations. As often as not, players who had been 
brought to the locations on planes with blacked-out windows had 
no idea where they were. A participant in one exercise recalled 
that "we knew we were in the South, because the people serving 
the food had Southern accents, but that was all." 

 Rumsfeld loved these games. There were others who were frequent 
players in the exercises, notably Dick Cheney. "Cheney and the 
others often had other priorities," recalls the former Pentagon 
official. "Rumsfeld always came." He wasn't just trying to 
organize a devastated country. He was fighting World War III, or 
at least simulating what nuclear theory suggested such a conflict 
would be like.

Herein lies an aspect of Rumsfeld's career -- and character -- 
that remained deeply buried even after word of his participation 
in the COG exercises leaked out. Faced with the most awesome 
choices a simulated environment could present, placed in a 
situation that was designed and advertised as a rehearsal for 
what might one day be terrifyingly real, Rumsfeld had one primary 
response. He always tried to unleash the maximum amount of 
nuclear firepower possible.

The teams taking part in the game were presented with two main 
tasks: reconstitution of some sort of working government, and 
retaliation against whomever had inflicted the disaster. The 
first of these, reconstruction, was generally considered the most 
urgent. But this part, according to fellow players, did not 
interest Rumsfeld. "He always wanted to move on to retaliation as 
quickly as possible," recalls a former senior official in the 
office of the secretary of defense, "he was one who always went 
for the extreme option."

A former participant, enlisted to take the role of a senior 
national security official, described how his "war" began with a 
limited Soviet attack in Europe. "It seemed quite possible to 
defuse the crisis," he recalled, stressing that the State 
Department "team," was working to avoid an all-out thermonuclear 
exchange. Rumsfeld, however, had a different agenda. From the 
outset, this participant remembers, the once and future defense 
secretary was determined to "launch everything we had left" at 
the entire communist bloc, Russians and Chinese together.

The individual playing the part of secretary of state, however, a 
canny retired diplomat, was no less determined to stop Rumsfeld 
obliterating several million people. Using every tactic and 
stratagem he had learned over the course of a long career, the 
diplomat waged bureaucratic warfare over the postnuclear 
communications system linking the secret hideouts. As an added 
note of realism, the State Department official playing the role 
of deputy to the "secretary" evidently thought that his real-life 
career would be enhanced by supporting Rumsfeld, and therefore 
did his best surreptitiously to undermine his notional superior. 
Even so, the diplomat ultimately prevailed. The northern 
hemisphere survived. Rumsfeld, deeply chagrined at having lost 
the argument, never forgave his antagonist.

Of course, immured in the COG bunkers, Rumsfeld and his fellow 
players were not enacting anything based on real experience 
(apart from familiar routines of bureaucratic backstabbing). 
Nuclear conflict existed only as a game. In fact the theorists 
who worked on nuclear strategy were fond of quoting what they 
called game theory. No one had the slightest idea of what might 
actually happen in a nuclear war. Even the known "facts" were 
anything but. Plans based on tidy predictions of the explosive 
power or "yield" of various weapons, for example, were belied by 
tests in which the results often varied wildly from forecasts, as 
did the accuracy and reliability of intercontinental missiles, 
which were never tested in operational conditions. Such awkward 
realities never featured in nuclear war planning, let alone the 
scenarios concocted by the nuclear theoreticians for the games.

Hopefully, we will never know how any politician, let alone 
Rumsfeld, would act when presented with the option of launching 
nuclear weapons in real life. Unfortunately, we do know how 
Rumsfeld reacted to the option of attacking a country with 
conventional forces and overthrowing its government. We shall be 
examining the invasion and occupation of Iraq in later chapters, 
but it is worth comparing Rumsfeld's behavior in the COG games 
with his performance in a real war. As we shall see, the casual, 
maybe even irresponsible decisions taken in that war reflect 
attitudes and reactions better suited to an elaborate game, from 
which real-life costs and consequences are excluded.

Insofar as the COG games gave the illusion of reality, they 
taught Rumsfeld and his fellow players some dangerous lessons, 
particularly when the fall of the Soviet Union induced some 
changes in the usual scenarios. Although the exercises continued, 
still budgeted at over $200 million a year in the Clinton era, 
the vanished Soviets were now customarily replaced by terrorists. 
The terrorism envisaged, however, was almost always 
state-sponsored. Terrorists were never autonomous, but invariably 
acted on behalf of a government. "That was the conventional 
wisdom," recalled retired air force colonel Sam Gardner, who has 
designed dozens of war games for the Pentagon and related 
entities. "Behind the terrorist, there was always something 
bigger, and the games reflected that."

There were other changes too. In earlier times the specialists 
selected to run the "shadow government" had been drawn from 
across the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans alike. 
But now, down in the bunkers, Rumsfeld found himself in 
politically congenial company, the players' roster being filled 
almost exclusively with Republican hawks.

"It was one way for these people to stay in touch. They'd meet, 
do the exercise but also sit around and castigate the Clinton 
administration in the most extreme way," a former Pentagon 
official with direct knowledge of the phenomenon told me. "You 
could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton 
administration was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no 
idea what was going on."

Excerpted from "Rumsfeld" by Andrew Cockburn. Copyright c 2007 by 
Andrew Cockburn. Reprinted by permission from Scribner, an 
imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group, Inc. Reproduction of material
*****************************************************************
 19 West Australian: Greens call for energy users audit

thewest.com.au

27th February 2007, 8:09 WST

The Greens have devised a test to determine how serious the
government is about energy efficiency, and will put it to a vote in
the Senate.

Greens senator Christine Milne said she would seek a vote to allow
an audit on the 250 biggest energy users in the country and to
follow up on findings to cut their energy expenditure.

"The government is going to have an opportunity today to really
demonstrate whether it's committed to energy efficiency or not,"
Senator Milne said.

"(Environment Minister) Malcolm Turnbull says that he's prepared to
change the nation in relation to light bulbs.

"What we know is one of these large 250 users is equivalent to the
energy use of 10,000 households.

"Imagine the energy savings by simply requiring them to implement
the audits that they are now required to carry out.

"We'll see today how serious the government is on energy
efficiency." AAP

thewest.com.au

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 Jakarta Post: Building blocks of democracy

 Opinion February 27, 2007

Chief economics minister Boediono's observation over the weekend
about the linkage between the per capita income level and the
sustainability of democracy is not a choice between India's
democracy and China's authoritarian path, nor an issue of
development first, democracy later.

Rather, the essence of his speech Saturday during his inauguration
as professor of economics at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta
was a strong warning that without significant improvement in the
living conditions of the people, the democratic process in the
country will not be sustainable.

With decades of experience in political and economic issues,
Boediono is highly competent in analyzing the links between poverty
and the sustainability of democracy. He supported the conclusions of
several economic studies that the country should reach some sort of
middle-income threshold to be able to sustain democracy, citing a
per capita income of more than US$6,000 on a purchasing power parity
basis (PPP), as a strong foundation.

Since Indonesia's per capita income is still $4,000 on a PPP basis,
the democratic process in the country could be highly vulnerable to
political and social instability.

How does poverty threaten representative government in Indonesia,
the world's third-largest democracy?

Democracy means little to the 40 million unemployed and
underemployed people, and the 110 million who live on less than $2 a
day. It means little to poor people such as unemployed university
graduates who have nothing to lose. They are instead ripe for being
exploited by radicals for causes they think would dramatically
change the condition for their own good.

Mass poverty, income inequities are fertile soils for radical
groups, whether religious- or secular-based ones. Democracy
therefore must be supported by a broad-based social-economic
development to make the process sustainable.

Chronic, absolute poverty, which increased last year by almost 11
percent, means an increasing number of people have become
increasingly impatient about what they think as the failure of
democracy to deliver better living conditions.

Economic hardships could play into the hands of religious and
political extremists, as disillusioned people get more and more
desperate, and radical ideas and solutions they used to reject sound
more acceptable. Poverty and unemployment make people frustrated and
make them highly vulnerable to being manipulated by extremists or
radicals eager to organize the people's anger into a force that can
sabotage the democratic system.

Hence, productive employment is key to reducing threats to
democracy, because as long as people are content, there will not be
the kind of dissatisfaction that can breed violence or militant
extremists. If young people have work then they are busy and less
likely to fall in with extremist groups.

Boediono's message warns that the failure to cope with poverty and
unemployment could strengthen radical movements in Indonesia,
thereby threatening its nine-year-old democracy and the path toward
a market-based economy. Worsening living conditions also could foil
military reform, which is a central component of the democratic
process.

However, as Boediono also asserted, democracy is only one of the
prerequisites for equitable economic development. The rule of law is
another key factor, especially in a country such as Indonesia, which
is still in a transition from three decades of authoritarian rule
into a nascent democracy. The fact that the masses are accustomed to
following authority has thus far left room for politicians to escape
accountability.

The chief economic minister's observation should prompt the
government to focus on equitable growth, the kind that generates a
lot of jobs, because inequitable income distribution also threatens
democracy.

The government has acknowledged that the quality of growth over the
past five years has declined, in that one unit of growth produced a
smaller number of jobs because investors tried to avoid
labor-intensive businesses, citing the high costs of what they see
as overly rigid labor regulations.

If this trend continues it will require an annual economic growth of
more than 7 percent to absorb the unemployed and new job seekers
entering the labor market annually. This is rather a bleak outlook
because the economy grew only 5.5 percent last year, down slightly
from 5.6 percent in 2005. It is projected to expand by only 6.3
percent this year. Even that target has been seen by most analysts
as too optimistic, due to the slower-than-expected pace of economic
reforms.

The strongest message of Boediono's observation about the link
between per capita income and democracy is for the government to
demonstrate stronger leadership in speeding up reforms, not only in
the economy but also in basic infrastructure and public
administration.

*****************************************************************
 21 Shipping Times: Greenpeace ship still held at Faslane

Shipping & Shipbuilding News - 26 February 2007

 It has been 3 days now since the Greenpeace ship ARCTIC SUNRISE 
was seized by British military authorities and detained at the 
Faslane naval base on the Clyde.

 The ship had sailed from Greenock to the base along with a 
flotilla of small craft, intent on raising awareness of Britain's 
plans to renew the UK's nuclear deterrent.

  Protestors were arrested after they breached the security zone 
and hung banners on the protective boom that surrounds the dock 
area where Britain's nuclear submarines are berthed.

 After a stand off where the ARCTIC SUNRISE refused to leave the 
area despite requests from Mod police, she was hustled by naval 
tugs and then boarded by a team from the base, who stormed her 
bridge. The ship's anchor chain was cut and she was seized and 
taken into the base. All aboard were arrested.

          Three days later and the ship is still held there.



   Meanwhile Greenpeace report that a motion has been lodged at 
the Scottish parliament "congratulating Greenpeace on its recent 
blockade".

 Crew aboard the ship were detained under by-laws regarding the 
entry of the vessel to the restricted area in the Gareloch and 
were expected to appear at Dumbarton Sheriff Court today.

   The two pictures on this page were received by Shipping Times 
UK from Lesley Wild who watched the events from the shoreline as 
the drama unfolded at the base on Friday.

Editorial contact: news@shippingtimes.co.uk Postal Address: 

Shipping Times UK, Fullarton House, Ayr, UK KA7 1UB
*****************************************************************
 22 UPI: Outside View:Russia's foggy nuclear future

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

2/26/2007 10:51:00 AM -0500

By PYOTR GONCHAROV UPI Outside View Commentator

MOSCOW, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The head of the international nuclear
watchdog is to deliver a report to the U.N. Security Council on
Iran's nuclear program this week, which could decide the fate of the
controversial Bushehr nuclear project.

Since Tehran and Moscow signed a contract on completing construction
of its first power unit on Jan. 8, 1995, the nuclear power plant in
southern Iran has been a source of international concern that Iran
could use the project as part of a covert weapons program.

The project was originally started by Germany's Siemens in 1975, and
also involved France and the United States. But work on it stopped
with the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Many people in Russia have heard of Bushehr. Some view it as a sign
of Iran's confidence in Russia, while others consider it a soap
opera with an inevitable happy ending to follow, although not
without headaches for Moscow. Russian state nuclear equipment export
monopoly Atomstroyexport is providing technical assistance to the
construction, but the project itself has long ceased to be a simple
bilateral or purely business matter.

When the Security Council was drafting Resolution 1737, Russia was
accused of resisting the efforts of other major U.N. powers to
impose punitive measures against Iran, allegedly to protect its
interests in Bushehr. The resolution was adopted in December 2006
and provides for sanctions against Iran, banning activities
involving uranium enrichment, chemical reprocessing, heavy
water-based projects, and the production of nuclear weapons delivery
systems.

It now appears that it would be better for Russia, both in terms of
pure profit and considering Iran's questionable reliability, to sell
on the contract. The U.S., the European Union and Iran have been
trying to use the Bushehr project to their advantage, and it would
be naïve to think that Russia is not doing the same.

French daily Le Monde earlier wrote that Tehran was using the
project to blackmail Moscow into acting in its interests, and that
Moscow allegedly complied for fear of losing a lucrative contract.

How did Moscow respond? When the issue of nuclear waste became a
problem (there is an agreement obliging Iran to return to Russia
spent fuel which could potentially be used for a nuclear weapons
program), the Kremlin said the power plant was being built under the
control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.
nuclear watchdog. That assuaged international fears, for some time.

But the situation has changed since then. During a visit to Tehran
in December 2006, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's Federal Nuclear
Power Agency, bluntly warned Iran that the completion of the project
directly depended on financing.

As of mid-February 2007, Iran had not made payments under the $1
billion project in Bushehr for over a month. Difficulties emerged
after Iran abolished payments in U.S. dollars and made a transition
to payments in euros.

The project has entered the final stage. According to
Atomstroyexport, the deliveries of nuclear fuel for the power plant
should start in March 2007, and the plant is to be put into
operation in September and start producing electricity in November.

The planned delivery of nuclear fuel has again drawn the world's
attention to Bushehr. Moscow has not changed its stance on the
Iranian nuclear problem, saying that the IAEA is the top authority
on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

IAEA head Mohammed El-Baradei is to report to the Security Council
in the next few days on Iran's compliance with the U.N. resolution.
If Tehran does not suspend uranium enrichment by that time, the U.N.
may approve harsher sanctions, including severance of economic
relations.

It stands to reason that Moscow has nothing to gain from hurrying to
deliver nuclear fuel to Bushehr, as there is no guarantee that this
soap opera will have a happy ending.

(Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator with RIA Novosti. The
opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may
not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.)

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an
open forum, original submissions are invited.)


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 23 UPI: Analysis: U.N. discusses anti-WMD efforts

United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 

2/26/2007 7:40:00 AM -0500

By WILLIAM M. REILLY UPI U.N. Correspondent

UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The U.N. Security Council Friday
discussed cooperation among the panel of 15, other U.N. member
states and international organizations in implementing resolutions
to rein in the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

It came in a week when most of the attention was focused on the
capabilities of Iran and North Korea to produce the most
destructive: nuclear weapons.

The debate in the council was sought by Slovakia, this month's
president of the panel and chair of what is known at U.N. World
Headquarters in New York as the 1540 Committee, named after the
number of the 2004 council resolution establishing it.

Ambassador Peter Burian of Slovakia said in a Feb. 12 letter the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of
delivery and related materials constitute a threat to international
peace and security, the council's mandate.

He said results so far indicate Resolution 1540 will not be fully
and universally implemented when the existing mandate expires in
April 2008.

The ambassador pointed out the threat has been addressed by the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

But, Burian also wants an exchange of information on adherence to,
as well as the national implementation of, such instruments.

The Bratislava envoy said they were far from providing a universal
and fool-proof net aimed at preventing WMDs and their delivery. So
he asked for what is called a debate on WMDs, the alleged existence
of which in Iraq was one of the excuses proffered by Washington for
the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent war.

The council debate in reality was a parade of envoys telling what
their country had done to comply with the various measures.

Resolution 1540 was adopted as the first international instrument
that deals with the issue in an integrated and comprehensive manner,
Burian said.

The ambassador said the resolution's binding obligations were for
all states and were aimed at preventing and deterring illicit access
to such weapons and weapon-related materials. It asked all states to
report on measures they have taken or intend to take to implement
the resolution.

So far, 135 U.N. countries and one organization have submitted their
first national reports to Burian's committee, he said. Out of that
total 85 have provided additional information at the request of the
panel, but there are still 58 countries that have yet to submit
their first report.

Some have not been able to do so because of a lack of resources; it
has long been understood, rather than willfully ignoring the measure

After the mandate was extended in April 2006 under Resolution 1673,
the 1540 Committee substantially widened and intensified its
regional and sub-regional outreach activities. The main purpose was
to provide guidance to states for preparing and submitting national
reports and fully implementing their obligations, Burian said.

However, Slovakia's ambassador said there were limits to the
committee since it does not have a mandate to provide assistance
directly to member states other than by offering the help of an
expert group regarding some of the tasks related to implementation
of Resolution 1540, such as on reporting to the panel.

The 1540 Committee is trying to assist those that could benefit from
such help.

The International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have taken on heavy responsibility
in helping implementation of the resolution's provisions, Burian
said.

The chairman of the committee said he also met with representatives
of Interpol, the World Customs Organization and the U.N.
Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute and discussed
possible ways of interaction and cooperation between those
organizations and his panel to aid in implementation.

A phase of promotion of the aims of the two resolutions noted as
"outreach" must be followed by the phase of "assistance" in
implementation of all aspects of the two resolutions he said.

"This task is too complex to be fulfilled by a single U.N. Security
Council subsidiary body," he said, adding: "Therefore, cooperation
among, and even coordination of, some activities of various
international, regional and sub-regional bodies should be put into
practice."

Admitting his motivation in seeking the debate, Burian said it was
to share experience and lessons learned with an eye to providing
assistance to those states which have not yet submitted their
national reports.

It was also for those with the most serious gaps in their national
legislation, to discuss the areas of cooperation with those
organizations that are directly involved in the resolution and
regularly participate in outreach activities of the committee, he
said.

"We had a very useful and productive discussion," Burian told
reporters afterward. "This was the first debate of this kind."

He added the discussion means, "We are opening the door for
constructive and more concrete cooperation and maybe even a division
of labor and synergy between the" organizations involved.


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 24 Uk News: Conservative Council Leads The Way In  Opposing New Nuclear
 
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:46:31 -0800


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Conservative Council Leads The Way In Opposing New Nuclear 
Station
Date: 	Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:45:48 -0700
From: 	Felice & Jack Cohen-Joppa <nukeresister@igc.org>
To: 	Roger Herried <rogerh@energy-net.org>



Status:  U

From: Stewart Kemp <skemp@nuclearpolicy.info>
Subject: Press Information: Conservative Council Leads The Way In
  Opposing New Nuclear Station


For immediate release

26 February 2007

CONSERVATIVE COUNCIL LEADS THE WAY IN OPPOSING NEW NUCLEAR STATIONS

Conservative controlled West Somerset District Council has cemented opposition to nuclear power in its Local Development Plan.  It says it will "...resist the development of further nuclear power generation capacity at Hinkley Point" (1).  The move reflects scepticism in some quarters of Conservative Central Office about the role of nuclear power in meeting future energy needs and cutting carbon emissions. 

The decision will be a set back to British Energy which is now in talks with EoN (PowerGen), RWE (nPower) and EDF Energy about sharing the £2billion construction cost for a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point on the north Somerset coast.  Bipartisan political support between Labour and Conservatives is essential for such large scale and risky projects.  Currently Government do not expect any new station to be operating before 2020.  At least 3 general elections will be called before then and with public support for nuclear running at about 34% (2) many politicians see nuclear as a vote loser.

Supporting the West Somerset decision, Fife Councillor Mike Rumney, Chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities (3), said:  "Councils across the UK and Ireland of all political persuasions are opposing the development of further nuclear generation capacity.  I urge even more to join us and reject the nuclear waste and nuclear risks imposed by nuclear power.

Government is increasingly out of touch with voters on this issue.  Earlier this month the High Court censured Government for failing to undertake proper public consultation on whether to support nuclear power.  When it consults again, as required by the High Court, then it must do so comprehensively and in a way that genuinely involves the public.  I am confident that the public's message to Government will then be that nuclear has no place on the centre ground of British energy policy."

END

More information:  Stewart Kemp 0161 234 3244 or 0777 193 0196

Notes

1.	West Somerset District Council approved in April 2006, at the close of the Government's Energy Review consultation, its Local Plan (Policy EN/5) opposing new nuclear development.  The Plan is valid until April 2009 and states:  "...the local planning authority will resist the development of further nuclear power generation capacity at Hinkley Point over and above that already approved."  The Council's composition is: Conservative 18, Independent 7, Labour 2, Liberal Democrat 2, Democratic Alliance 2.

2.	An opinion poll commissioned by the Financial Times showed 34% support for new nuclear reactors in the UK.  Only 21% supported new reactor construction within 65 miles of their home.  (Financial Times 20 November 2006)

3.	Nuclear Free Local Authorities is a growing network of councils across, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland campaigning to reduce nuclear hazards and increase public and environmental protection. For more information visit: <http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/>http://www.nuclearpolicy.info


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 25 The Hindu: India likely to export nuclear power technology

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 : 0230 Hrs

Kaiga (Karnataka), Feb 27. (PTI): India may soon become an exporter
of nuclear power technology with at least two south Asian countries
having approached the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL)
to develop plants for them.

According to NPCIL Chairman and Managing Director S K Jain, two
countries have approached them to develop 220 MW plants and to train
the personnel necessary to man the plants.

Refusing to name the countries, Jain said their delegations had
already met him and were shown existing plants, designs, schedules,
costing and safety parts - all of which had met with their approval.

"However, since we at present do not have the sanction to export
nuclear technology, we will have to wait until it is granted by the
international community," Jain said.

He was speaking to reporters after unit 3 of Kaiga Atomic Power
Station achieved criticality on Monday after its first
self-sustained thermo-nuclear reaction.

Jain said, NPCIL plans to construct eight 700 MW units and ten 1,000
MW units in five years.

"Construction of these projects matches the progress made in mining
of uranium in the country, whose supply is expected to double. By
the time the construction of the plants is completed, there will be
sufficient fuel for them," Jain said.

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 26 The Australian: Rann rules out nuclear plant 

        NEWS.com.au |

* February 27, 2007

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP

SOUTH Australian Premier Mike Rann has ruled out allowing a 
nuclear power plant to be built in his state, saying it would be 
an "all-round disaster".

Newspaper reports said three leading businessmen are examining 
the viability of setting up Australia's first nuclear power 
plant, in either Victoria or South Australia.

Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny are the 
key shareholders in Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, a private 
company reportedly behind the plan.

Mr Rann said his Government had not had any discussions with the 
group.

"We've already ruled it out - it's not economically viable, it 
would be a financial disaster," he told ABC radio.

"We've already told parliament that a nuclear power plant for
Adelaide would force up the wholesale price of power by 100 per cent.

"So it would be an all-round disaster, like the Liberals'
privatisation of electricity."

Mr Rann said his Government was opposed to building a nuclear power
plant.

"My message to this company is you've got zero chance of building a
nuclear power plant in South Australia; you'll have to look
elsewhere."

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 27 The Australian: Nuclear plant 'funded by taxpayers' 

NEWS.com.au |

* February 27, 2007

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP

ANY businessmen planning to build a nuclear reactor in Australia 
should be required to sign up for financial responsibility for 
decommissioning and waste storage, Greens leader Bob Brown said.

In any case, the cost of construction would be so great they would
be forced to rely on taxpayers' funds.

Newspaper reports said three leading businessmen are examining the
viability of setting up Australia's first nuclear power plant, in
either Victoria or South Australia. Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan and
Robert Champion de Crespigny are the key shareholders in Australian
Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, a private company reportedly behind the plan.

Senator Brown said the cost of a reactor would be greater than even
these wealthy men could handle.

"The nuclear reactors around the world depend on public largesse.
They are impossibly expensive," he said.

"In Britain, Maggie Thatcher couldn't sell them. She could sell all
the rest of the energy grid but she couldn't sell the reactors.

"They're looking now at something like £200 billion ($497 billion)
to decommission those reactors and that's going to come out of the
public purse.

"What the Melbourne business investors, if they're really serious
about this, need to do at the outset is sign on the dotted line for
that decommissioning bill and the waste storage bill.

"The taxpayers, the ordinary families of Australia will end up
paying for the folly of these people who apparently have got more
money than sense."

Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said the report indicated
the business community is being encouraged to think there is a
nuclear future in Australia by Prime Minister John Howard.

"(He) seems to think this is an answer to climate change," she said.

"But it isn't because it will take us 15 years or more to construct
a nuclear reactor and the costs, as I understand it, are going to be
very high indeed.

"They may well be exploring this but at the end of the day, we're
far better off with the technology that works, that is wind and
solar."

Senator Allison said Australia's efforts were better spent on
cleaner forms of energy and the country should not wait for
so-called clean coal and nuclear generation of electricity.

"If we are to go down this path, the prime minister should have a
plebiscite, particularly in those areas most likely to have a
nuclear reactor and see what people think," she said.

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 28 SLO Trib: NRC to study environmental impacts of a terrorist attack at Diablo 
Canyon

San Luis Obispo Tribune | 02/26/2007 | 

David Sneed The Tribune

In a ruling issued today, the federal Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has given its staff 90 days to prepare an analysis of 
the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack on Diablo Canyon 
nuclear power plant?s dry cask storage facility for high 
radioactive used reactor fuel.

The ruling settles a lawsuit by a local nuclear watchdog group 
that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, a 
federal appeals court ruled that the agency erred in its 
"categorical refusal to consider the environmental effects of a 
terrorist attack" when it issued a license to Pacific Gas and 
Electric to build the facility near the power plant.

The agency expects to have the whole process wrapped up in a 
year.



*****************************************************************
 29 Daily Yomiuri: Papers sent on 6 over Mihama N-plant accident 

Papers were sent to prosecutors Monday on five Kansai Electric 
Power Co. employees and an employee of a subsidiary involved in a 
fatal August 2004 accident at the Mihama No. 3 reactor in 
Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture, on suspicion of professional 
negligence resulting in deaths and injuries, police said.

The accident killed five people and injured six.

According to the police, the six suspects failed to take measures to
prevent the accident, although it could have been predicted as the
hot water pipe that burst in the accident had never been checked in
the 28 years the reactor had been in operation and had corroded.

The Fukui District Public Prosecutors Office will decide whether to
indict the six by the end of March.

The KEPCO employees are Yasuo Idoura, 47, who at the time of the
accident was the chief manager of maintenance and repair at KEPCO's
former Wakasa branch, which supervised the firm's 11 nuclear power
plants; Naoya Koike, 45, the then manager at the Mihama plant's
machine maintenance and repair division; and a 52-year-old then
subsection chief; a 44-year-old then foreman, and a 43-year-old
employee formerly in charge of pipes at the division. The
subsidiary, Nihon Network Support Co.'s 58-year-old then manager at
the power plant is also included in the papers.

The subsidiary had been contracted to inspect the reactor's pipes.

According to the police, in early July 2004, three sections of a
secondary system pipe at the firm's Ooi No.1 reactor were found to
have worn thinner than allowed by government standards. The Wakasa
branch, which was later integrated into KEPCO's Nuclear Power
Division, set up a panel to investigate the 11 reactors to find out
the condition of the pipes.

At Mihama power plant, the foreman and the employee in charge of the
pipes confirmed on July 28 of the same year that the worn section,
which later would burst causing the worst nuclear accident in the
nation's history, had not been inspected in 28 years. The two,
however, failed to follow the firm's guidelines and check the
durability of the secondary system's pipe.

As the regular inspection on the No. 3 reactor was scheduled for two
weeks later, Koike and the subsection chief also neglected to
instruct the two to check the pipe's durability, although they had
received reports that several pipes at the plant, including the one
that would later burst, had never been checked.

The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun
  
*****************************************************************
 30 Platts: NRC chairman Klein calls Palo Verde's problems 'significant'

Washington (Platts)--23Feb2007

Arizona Public Service's Palo Verde nuclear plant has 
"significant performance problems" that must be addressed, 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein said Friday 
after touring the plant. 

     Klein said in a written statement issued Friday by the 
agency that NRC inspectors have found a "tendency at Palo Verde 
to address symptoms rather than get to the heart of why a problem 
arose," adding that "this must change."

     He said status quo at the station, the largest nuclear plant 
in the US, "is not acceptable." 

     Klein issued the statement a day after NRC downgraded the 
Arizona Public Service station's performance rating, classifying 
the once-stellar nuclear power plant as one of the poorer 
performing nuclear stations in the US.

     NRC Spokesman Victor Dricks said Friday that all three Palo 
Verde reactors were downgraded, subjecting them to increased NRC 
oversight. During the past two years, the station has grappled 
with forced outages and equipment problems. 

     Klein said APS has not been completely successful 
implementing the station's existing performance improvement plan. 
APS will have to re-examine the plan, he said, and NRC "will have 
to give our approval to it as they go forward."    

		--Elaine Hiruo, elaine_hiruo@platts.com

Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: NRC Proposes $6,500 Fine for Universal Testing, LLC

News Release - Region IV - 2007-004 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 
www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of 
$6,500 against Universal Testing, LLC, of Clearfield, Utah, for 
violating NRC requirements.

 In a Feb. 23 letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, 
Administrator of the NRC&rsquo;s Region IV office in Arlington, 
Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection, the agency 
determined that the company violated NRC requirements for the 
possession and use of radioactive materials. The violations 
involved failure to control and maintain constant surveillance of 
radioactive material stemming from an incident that occurred on 
Feb. 18 and 19, 2006, in which a radiographer left an industrial 
radiography device in the open bed of a pickup truck after 
stopping to drink at a bar in Casper, Wyo.

  The device was left unattended and unsecured in the open bed of 
a pickup truck for about 1 ½ hours when the radiographer was 
inside the bar. Later that evening, the radiographer was involved 
in a traffic accident, resulting in his arrest and impoundment of 
the truck.

 The driver was released the next day and recovered the truck and 
the device. But Mallett said, the violation was significant 
because the material was vulnerable to unauthorized access or 
removal and the radiographer engaged in deliberate misconduct 
because he knew he should have maintained better control over the 
device.

 NRC discussed the violations, their significance, the root cause 
and the company&rsquo;s corrective actions during an enforcement 
conference with the company on Feb. 8. The company has taken 
steps to prevent recurrence, and disciplined the radiographer. 
The NRC issued a Notice of Violation to the radiographer.

 The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed fine or 
challenge it and 10 days in which to request alternate dispute 
resolution. The NRCs letter, its enclosures, and the 
company&rsquo;s response will be made available to interested 
members of the public through the agency&rsquo;s public 
electronic reading room at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html

      NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

February 26, 2007
*****************************************************************
 32 West Australian: Labor surprised at nuclear plant plans

thewest.com.au

27th February 2007, 7:51 WST

Labor is demanding Prime Minister John Howard say whether his
government has held discussions with a powerful group wanting to
build Australia's first nuclear power plant.

News Limited newspapers reported that top businessmen Ron Walker,
Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny have formed a private
company and are examining the viability of building a nuclear plant
in Victoria or South Australia.

The company is said to have raised its plans with the federal
government and with the Victorian and South Australian governments.

Mr Walker is a former federal treasurer of the Liberal Party and a
close acquaintance of Mr Howard.

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett told reporters in
Canberra he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so
advanced.

"The Prime Minister must make clear whether or not Mr Walker has had
discussions with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, any senior
cabinet ministers or their staff in relation to these proposed
plans," Mr Garrett said.

"Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and
nuclear power in this country."

Mr Garrett denied Labor's opposition to the building of nuclear
power plants in Australia was fraying at the edges.

"Our position on nuclear power in Australia is clear, we are opposed
to it, we think it's too expensive, too dangerous and it's not the
right climate change solution for Australia."

A number of Labor MPs from both South Australia and Victoria fronted
reporters on Tuesday morning to repeat the call for Mr Howard to
make clear if the federal government had been aware of the plan.

Labor frontbencher Jenny Macklin denied the party was running a
scare campaign on the nuclear issue.

South Australian Liberal backbencher Patrick Secker said it was
hypocritical for South Australia's Premier Mike Rann to sell uranium
produced in his state overseas, but not use it in his own backyard.

"I find that rather strange, that he's prepared to sell uranium but
not use it," Mr Secker said.

He said he was unaware of any plans to build a nuclear plant in
Australia. AAP

thewest.com.au

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 West Australian: Nuclear plant considered for Vic or SA

thewest.com.au

27th February 2007, 3:41 WST

Three leading businessmen are examining the viability of setting up
Australia's first nuclear power plant, in either Victoria or South
Australia.

Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny are the key
shareholders in Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, a private company
behind the plan, News Limited newspapers reported.

A source close to the group said the company had raised its plans
with the federal government and the Victorian and SA governments,
the report said.

Mr Morgan, a former head of uranium producer Western Mining, holds
20 per cent of the company, while Mr Walker and Mr de Crespigny each
own 40 per cent.

The report said the company was in talks with US-based General
Electric, the world's largest nuclear generation equipment supplier.

"The company was formed to investigate the feasibility of setting up
a nuclear plant in Victoria," the source said.

"Informal discussions have been held with the federal government and
the South Australian and Victorian state governments."

The plan comes as the federal government considers the Switkowski
report on Australia's nuclear future.

Prime Minister John Howard - a close friend of Mr Walker - is a
supporter of nuclear energy.

The Switkowski report says up to 25 nuclear reactors could be
operating in Australia within a decade.

But late last year Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said he would put
any nuclear power proposal for his state to a referendum, while in
2004 SA Premier Mike Rann saw off a federal plan to establish a
low-level nuclear waste dump in the outback region of his state. AAP


'thewest.com.au'

'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers
Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 34 La Crosse Tribune: Concerned about nuclear plant sale

Published - Monday, February 26, 2007

By ED WEST | La Crosse

Dear Gov. Doyle:

I am very concerned about the sale of Point Beach nuclear power 
plant to Florida Power and Light. The citizens of Wisconsin paid 
for that plant through their power bills. Now that the plant is 
fully depreciated and can no longer benefit the shareholders of 
We Energies, the plant is being sold.

What does this mean for Wisconsin’s citizens? It means higher 
rates to again pay for the plant as well as the increased value 
of the “carbon-free” energy that it produces. This sale will not 
benefit Wisconsin.

If the sale of this plant is allowed to proceed, Wisconsin will 
have been ill served by you and the Wisconsin Public Utilities 
Commission. .

The Tribune encourages letters to the editor on current issues. 
Please limit letters to 250 words or less.

We reserve the right to edit all letters and require that all 
letters include the name, address and phone number of the writer 
for verification purposes.

Letter writers will be limited to no more than one letter a 
month. Please do not send poetry, or items taken from other 
publication or from the Internet.

Send letters to the editor to letters@lacrossetribune.com.

 Copyright © 1997 - 2007 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 35 Slovak news: SE to complete Mochovce nuclear power plant

Volume 13, Number 07 February 19 - February 25, 2007

SLOVAKIA’S dominant power producer, Slovenské Elektrárne (SE), is to
complete the third and fourth blocks of the Mochovce nuclear power
plant (EMO).

The Italian firm Enel, which holds a 66-percent stake in SE, made
the decision 10 months after entering SE.

"Construction at Mochovce should begin in the second half of this
year," Prime Minister Robert Fico said on February 23 following a
meeting with the head of Enel, Fulvio Conti.

EMO's third and fourth blocks could begin producing electricity in
2012. SE is to invest Sk62-63 billion in completing Mochovce, Conti
said.

Fico said the government would not participate in the project
financially.

[2/26/2007 6:49:26 PM]

 Copyright © 1998-2007 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 NRC: NRC Chairman Dale Klein Discusses Palo Verde Nuclear Plant

News Release - 2007-026 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein said Friday he 
is not satisfied with the performance of the Palo Verde nuclear 
generating station and plant operations will be even more closely 
scrutinized in coming years because of the agency&rsquo;s 
responsibility to ensure existing reactors are operated safely.

    Klein, who toured the plant Friday morning and met with plant 
managers to discuss two years of declining performance, said at a 
press conference that he had &ldquo;very frank discussions with 
the management&rdquo; at the plant.

 &ldquo;The message I took to them is simple: the number one 
priority is to maintain the safety of the fleet of existing 
reactors,&rdquo; said Klein.

   &ldquo;At the NRC we set very high standards for safety, and 
the Palo Verde plant is meeting them. However, if we see the 
large margins of safety that we require in jeopardy, we have to 
act firmly &ndash; and we have,&rdquo; he said. &ldquo;There are 
significant performance problems at Palo Verde that must be 
addressed. To put it bluntly: The status quo at Palo Verde is not 
acceptable.&rdquo;

  Klein said that NRC inspectors have found that when problems 
arise at the plant there has been a tendency to address symptoms 
&ldquo;rather than get to the heart of why a problem arose. This 
must change.&rdquo;

  He said that over the past two years Palo Verde&rsquo;s 
management has sought to change course at the plant, but they 
have not been successful. As a result, the plant will now receive 
the NRC&rsquo;s highest level of scrutiny.

   Klein said he met Friday with the plant&rsquo;s new senior 
vice president, Randy Edington, to discuss the situation.

    He said Edington &ldquo;told me he intends to turn around 
this decline. I told him we are going to be watching closely. He 
has a good reputation for setting things straight, and I believe 
he will give this the hard work, dedication and commitment it 
requires. It will not be an overnight job. The NRC will continue 
to closely monitor operations at Palo Verde to ensure performance 
improves.&rdquo;

   Klein also said he will visit a regional electric grid 
oversight facility in Phoenix, noting that one of the issues of 
the growth of nuclear generation is the ability of the electrical 
grid to convey new power sources to consumers.

    &ldquo;The grid is one of the pinch points in the expansion 
of nuclear generation. Our agency is working closely with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on transmission 
issues,&rdquo; he said.

   Owned and operated by the Arizona Public Service Co., the 
three pressurized water reactors at the site 55 miles west of 
Phoenix are capable of generating up to 3,804 megawatts of 
electricity. A megawatt is enough to power about 1,000 homes. The 
first unit went on line in January of 1986, and the second unit 
followed in September of that year. The third unit became 
operational in January of 1988.

  Palo Verde has been under increased NRC oversight since the 
fourth quarter of 2004 following a &ldquo;yellow&rdquo; finding 
for a substantial safety issue. Inspectors found that APS had 
incorrectly left air pockets in portions of the emergency core 
cooling system at each reactor that could have hindered the 
system&rsquo;s operation during certain types of accidents. The 
yellow finding remains open because APS has not effectively 
addressed weaknesses contributing to the violation.

   Those weaknesses include a lack of questioning attitude, lack 
of technical rigor and poor operability determinations by workers 
- factors which contributed to the &ldquo;white&rdquo; finding 
issued by the NRC earlier this week for problems with the diesel 
generators at Unit 3. With the issuance of the white finding Palo 
Verde automatically goes into the NRC&rsquo;s highest level of 
oversight.

      Two substantive cross-cutting issues in the areas of human 
performance and problem identification and resolution have also 
remained open since the NRC&rsquo;s 2004 end-of-cycle assessment. 
APS has also had numerous operational challenges since 2004, 
including 11 reactor trips and 18 unplanned shutdowns.

      NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

February 26, 2007
*****************************************************************
 37 Manila Standard Today: Nuke power still an option

Monday, February 26, 2007

By Alena Mae S. Flores

The Department of Energy is looking at efforts to cooperate with
Tokyo Electric Power Corp. of Japan on nuclear power technology,
saying the alternative energy remains an option for the Philippines.

?We can have more information sharing and training,? Energy
Secretary Raphael Lotilla told reporters. The Philippines
constructed one nuclear power plant, the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant,
which has been mothballed by the Aquino administration following the
Chernobyl accident in Ukraine 20 years ago. The government spends
P50 million annually to preserve the facility.

Tokyo Electric owns 17 of 55 nuclear power reactors in Japan.

Lotilla said while reviving the Bataan nuclear plant might not be in
the government?s near-term agenda, there was a need to conduct more
studies on the use of nuclear technology in the country.

?We [the government] cannot make decisions [on nuclear power
development] now because of the historical baggage and it is a
highly emotional issue,? he said.

?[But] based on a 25-year or long-term plan of the Ramos
administration, the country may consider [nuclear power] by 2022. We
still have 15 years to make a decision to whether put up a nuclear
power or not and this is an opportune time to look at these things,?
he said.

Lotilla said the Philippines needed the academe, technicians and
scientists from the Department of Science and Technology to conduct
further studies on nuclear power.

?We need to have the right people now to arrive at the right
decision,? Lotilla said.

Power experts said the mothballing of the 620-megawatt nuclear power
plant caused the power crisis in the 1990s due to the absence of an
installed capacity to handle increased electricity demand. The power
crisis pushed the Ramos administration to enter into costly ?take or
pay? contracts to address the crisis that crippled the economy.

Former President Fidel Ramos issued Executive Order No. 243 in May
1995 creating the Nuclear Power Steering Committee. The body aimed
to ?provide policies, directions, evaluation, and other functions
necessary and appropriate to attain the objectives of the overall
nuclear power program, and to prepare action plans, work programs
and proposed timetables.?

In November 1997, the government approved the Bataan nucler plant?s
?integrated conversion into alternative utilization for power
generation using natural gas. The mothballed facility is also being
considered for conversion into a hydrogen-fired power plant.


Philippine News & Views Online

*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: Statement of NRC Chairman Dale Klein Tucson, Arizona February 23, 2007

News Release - 2007-027 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

 Good afternoon. I have a short statement and then I&rsquo;ll be 
glad to take your questions.

  As you know, I have just finished a tour of the Palo Verde 
nuclear plant. While I was there I spoke with the NRC employees 
who work there day in and day out keeping an eye on plant 
operations as part of our job to protect people and the 
environment.

      I had a good tour of the plant. And I had some very frank 
discussions with the management of Palo Verde.

 The message I took to them is simple: the number one priority is 
to maintain the safety of the fleet of existing reactors.

 At the NRC we set very high standards for safety, and the Palo 
Verde plant is meeting them. However, if we see the large margins 
of safety that we require in jeopardy, we have to act firmly 
&ndash; and we have.

  There are significant performance problems at Palo Verde that 
must be addressed. To put it bluntly: the status quo at Palo 
Verde is not acceptable.

    To summarize what our inspectors have found, there has been a 
tendency at Palo Verde to address symptoms rather than get to the 
heart of why a problem arose. This must change.

  Over the past two years, management has attempted to change 
course at Palo Verde. They have a get well plan, but they have 
not been completely successful at implementing it. That plan has 
to be re-examined by the company and we will have to give our 
approval to it as they go forward.

 Randy Edington, the new senior vice president at Palo Verde, 
told me this morning he intends to turn around this decline. I 
told him we are going to be watching closely. He has a good 
reputation for setting things straight, and I believe he will 
give this the hard work, dedication and commitment it requires. 
It will not be an overnight job.

 The NRC will continue to closely monitor operations at Palo 
Verde to ensure performance improves.

      NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

February 26, 2007
*****************************************************************
 39 New London Day: (Snow says Greenpeace Supports Nuclear Power)

(Real title to hide this major event was)

Snow The Most Useless Press Secretary? 

theday.com ]

Published on 2/26/2007 in Home Â»Editorial Â»Perspective


White House spokesman Tony Snow made a startling claim earlier this
month, one that shed some light on changing perceptions about the
job he's doing.

During a briefing, Snow responded to a question about climate change
by noting that, “We're talking about nuclear development, which is
now championed by, among others, Greenpeace.”

Beg your pardon?

“I think there's some Greenpeace people who are certainly advocates
of nuclear power,” Snow said.

As whoppers go, that was a good one. Certainly, it was news to
Greenpeace.

“Golly, you know, I can't believe the White House would get that
wrong,” said Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear policy analyst.
“Greenpeace was founded as an anti-nuclear organization, and we have
been fighting nuclear weapons and their evil offspring, nuclear
power, ever since.”

White House reporters don't expect much from Snow, which goes part
of the way toward explaining why his claim about Greenpeace went
largely unremarked.

It's been less than a year since Snow started the job amid a clamor
of hype — including claims by Snow and others at the White House
that he would be in the room for the heavy policy stuff, with a
voice and a role to play.

The former Fox News personality quickly established himself as a
glib and energetic adversary for the press, sometimes short on
information but strong with a comeback. He learned everyone's name
and all their peccadillos.

These days, whatever honeymoon he had has largely worn off — and if
Snow sticks around, he still has two years to go.

Reporters complain that Snow is frequently unprepared and that he
personalizes encounters — Snow recently told CNN's Ed Henry to “calm
down” during an exchange over White House claims the Iranian
government was behind explosives seized in Iraq.

Most damningly, by Washington standards, many reporters covering the
White House don't believe Snow has the inner-circle role and the
access he was promised.

A late-comer to the administration, Snow is an outsider in a
famously insular operation. He is not one of the Texans, like Dan
Bartlett, counselor to the president, that Bush turns to in meetings.

For his part, Snow says that he is in the room when it's
appropriate, and that his evasions and tap-dancing are sometimes
intentional.

“There are going to be times when for various reasons — national
security, or sometimes even the propriety of dealing with other
individuals in Washington and around the world — you are, in fact,
going to clam up for a little while until others have had their
chance to speak,” Snow said.

At a forum this week at the National Press Club featuring Snow and a
group of White House correspondents, a New York Times reporter
half-jokingly called Snow “the most useless press secretary ever.”

Snow says he's not sweating it, and waves off suggestions that there
is animosity on either side.

“What you see quite often at the briefings are sharp exchanges,”
Snow said. “It's not personal.”

Either way, Snow has redefined the role of White House press
secretary, probably forever. During last year's campaigns, Snow was
in demand as a speaker at Republican events — raising money for
candidates and pushing the White House message.

He has also addressed Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill — a task
usually reserved for high-ranking administration officials. He said
he loves the job.

“It's not only a privilege, it's a whole lot of fun,” he said.

After the forum at the National Press Club, Snow stood on the edge
of the stage, signing autographs for members of the public.

Julie Mason is a syndicated columnist.

Region

Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  New London, CT
 |  Â© 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
 40 IHT: Japan and Russia agree to increase energy ties - 

International Herald Tribune

Published: February 26, 2007

TOKYO: Japan and Russia have pledged to strengthen reciprocal
relations in oil and natural gas development and increase trade at a
ministerial meeting in Tokyo.

Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko of Russia and Foreign Minister
Taro Aso of Japan discussed two oil and gas projects on Russia's
Sakhalin Island and an East Siberian oil pipeline project, a
Japanese Foreign Ministry official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity. The two ministers met for two hours Monday.

Japan, which imports 89 percent of its oil from the Middle East, is
increasing its reliance on Russian energy assets such as oil, gas
and uranium enrichment processes to strengthen its supply security.
That contrasts with Europe, Russia's largest energy market, where
nations have discussed cutting reliance on Russian oil and gas after
a series of supply disruptions.

"Japan should expand oil and gas imports from Russia," Hidetoshi
Shioda, senior energy analyst at Mizuho Securities in Tokyo, said by
telephone. "Cutting dependence on the Middle East means mitigating
risks of any supply disruption in the region in the years ahead."

Khristenko told Aso that Russia had completed a 700-kilometer
section of its proposed 4,300-kilometer, or 2,670- mile, oil
pipeline from Taishet in eastern Siberia to Perevoznaya on Russia's
Pacific coast, the official said.

In the first phase of the project, Russia will build a pipeline to
Skovorodino by the end of 2008 and construct an extension line to
Perevoznaya in the second phase. Japan has lobbied for the
construction of the pipeline to Perevoznaya to boost imports of
crude oil produced in eastern Siberian fields.


Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
*****************************************************************
 41 Waterfront Online: Waterfront Debate: Nuclear Power

Issue 153

Nuclear Power - Should we sustain it?

26th February 2007 

In this fortnights Waterfront debate we discuss whether nuclear 
power should be a part of the UK national energy strategy. As per 
usual we have two contrasting views on the subject, this time 
with Melissa Cathcart, and Kerrie Scholefield.

Here are our different views:

For Nuclear Power - Melissa Cathcart

As controversial today as it was in 1945, when it was used to 
effectively end the Second World War, the uses of nuclear energy 
have come under the scrutiny of people across the globe.

Lewis Strauss, chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, 
predicted in the mid-1950s that the electricity produced through 
nuclear power would soon be "too cheap to meter." The fifty years 
that followed did not fulfil his promise, nuclear power has never 
accounted for more than 20% of the total electrical use in the US 
- less than 10% of the total needs. However, the US situation is 
not universal.

Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter 
of their electricity.

The largest users are France and Lithuania, dependent on nuclear 
energy for around 75% of their power; Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, 
Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine 
are dependent for 33% or more; Japan, Germany and Finland for 
more than 25%; and even the US for 20%.

Critics of the use of nuclear power as an energy source have 
highlighted the possibility of countries with such a nuclear 
ability using it as a means for developing a nuclear weapons 
capacity.

However, it should be pointed out that whilst there are eight 
countries with a confirmed nuclear weapons capability, there are 
56 which operate civil research reactors and 30 have 435 
commercial nuclear power reactors.

Nuclear power ability does not go hand in hand with nuclear 
weapon capability. Nuclear generated energy can be regarded as 
efficient and clean under the correct circumstances. As long as 
the power plants are well constructed, they will be extremely 
clean and will release less radioactive material into the 
atmosphere than coal fired power plants.

The use of radioactive materials also produces a great deal more 
energy than the use of the equivalent amount of fossil fuels. One 
nuclear fuel pellet about two centimetres long produces the same 
amount of electricity as one and a half tonnes of coal.

However, a large number of the nuclear power stations are too old 
to operate efficiently and are being closed down - the idea being 
that alternative renewable resources will replace nuclear power 
and allow a movement away from the use of fossil fuels.

The British government has been advised that the alternative 
renewable resources are not an option; increased use of nuclear 
power is the only way in which to meet emission targets. Recent 
developments, however, have led to a High Court judge overruling 
the Government in favour of Greenpeace, that the government's 
nuclear dealings have been unlawful.

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, has told BBC 
Radio 4's 'The World at One' that "the thing that concerns [him] 
more than anything else is that we are in a race against time... 
climate change is a major problem for us, we cannot become overly 
dependent on oil and gas for generating our energy."

Other countries remain active in developing nuclear power, 
proving their confidence in the future of nuclear power. Finland 
has recently approved the construction of a new nuclear power 
plant station, which will be the first to be built in Western 
Europe since 1991, and it was announced on September 22, 2005, 
that two sites in the US had been selected to receive new power 
reactors.

Despite accidents, such as Three Mile Island in 1979 and 
Chernobyl disaster in 1986, it seems that the EFN's often quoted 
view - that nuclear energy is "the only ecological solution" is 
being reexamined in depth. EFN, Environmentalists for Nuclear 
Power, is a not-forprofit organisation and is a founding member 
of the World Nuclear Association. It seems even the opposition to 
nuclear power can change its mind. Not only Governments, but 
environmentalists also, are giving their support.

Melissa Cathcart

Against Nuclear Power - Kerrie Scholefield

Currently nuclear power stations produce about a quarter of 
Britain's electricity. The majority of the UK's power stations 
are now too old to operate efficiently and safely; as a result 
they are in the process of being closed down. Only 4% of 
Britain's electricity will come from nuclear power by 2023 unless 
further power stations are built to replace the old ones.

Recently the controversial issue of nuclear power has once again 
hit the headlines after Greenpeace won its case against the 
government following the government's decision to back a new 
generation of nuclear power stations. Greenpeace emphasised that 
the government's review had failed to resolve important issues 
such as dealing with radioactive waste, costs and reactor 
designs. The High Court stated that the government's public 
consultation process was "seriously flawed" and "procedurally 
unfair." The government has been forced to carry out another 
public consultation that could delay new nuclear plants stations 
being built to replace old ones.

The prime minister declared that he would still push on to build 
a new generation of nuclear power stations regardless because 
failure to do so would "betray the long-term future of the 
country." Blair told Sky News that "if we don't replace our 
existing nuclear power stations, which are coming to an end, we 
will find it virtually impossible to meet our climate change 
targets (and) we'll end up importing even larger amounts of 
foreign gas."

The nuclear industry has seized on the issue of global warming to 
try and revive the industry and it argues that nuclear power can 
reduce carbon emissions. In response it has been suggested that 
even if the government does conduct a further review, nuclear 
power is not the solution to fight global warming because, in 
reality, nuclear power only provides 3.6 per cent of our total 
energy needs. Nuclear power is also too expensive and would 
undermine the renewable energy revolution that could provide a 
better, cleaner alternative solution to global warming.

In addition to this, there are many other disadvantages to 
nuclear power plants. Mining uranium is dirty and nuclear waste 
from power plants continues to be toxic for thousands of years 
with no safe way to store it or dispose of it.

Nuclear power stations are also extremely expensive - the 
decommissioning and clean up costs for the UK's existing nuclear 
industry have been estimated to be between œ56bn - œ70bn, with a 
further œ20bn - œ30bn needed for long-term management of the 
nuclear waste we currently have; approximately equivalent to 
œ1600 in taxes for each person in the UK. In today's political 
climate, nuclear power stations are also potential terrorist 
targets. Imagine that terrorists take control of a reactor, or if 
a plane were to be flown into Sellafield, the fallout from any 
attack would have the potential to kill several million people. 
Accidents are a major problem too - nuclear power plants that are 
not constructed or maintained properly can create major disasters 
such as the horrific accident that occurred in 1986 when a 
reactor exploded at Chernobyl and released 100 times more 
radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The accident killed more than 30 people immediately, either as a 
result of the blast or through radiation sickness and as a result 
of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 
135,000 people had to be evacuated. For years to come there was 
expected to be an increase in cancer and other illnesses in the 
nearby population due to radiation exposure.

Renewable sources of energy, such as wind, wave, solar and 
hydroelectric power are the only way to ensure the environmental 
impact of nuclear power does not help to destroy the planet.

Kerrie Scholefield

Written By James Gawn Web Editor


 © 2007 Dafydd Vaughan & James Gawn
*****************************************************************
 42 FPON: Russia eyes nuclear plant in Namibia

Free Press of Namibia

Monday, February 26, 2007 - Web posted at 6:49:36 GMT

WINDHOEK - Russia's Techsnabexport, Renova and Vneshtorgbank have 
established a joint venture to produce uranium in Namibia, the 
head of the Russian nuclear agency said on Friday.

 "Our enterprises - Renova and Vneshtorgbank - already hold 
licences to produce uranium in Namibia.

 We agreed to found a joint venture to prospect and produce 
uranium," Sergei Kiriyenko said after a meeting with Namibian 
President Hifikepunye Pohamba.

 Russian Natural Resources Minister Yury Trutnev said Renova had 
won a tender to develop two uranium deposits in Namibia, whereas 
Russia's state-run foreign-trade bank Vneshtorgbank had received 
its licence earlier.

  According to a Reuters report, Russia has also offered to build 
a nuclear power plant in Namibia.

  Kiriyenko told reporters on a visit to Namibia that Russian 
firms would also form a joint venture to mine uranium.

  "Today Russia is present on all continents in the sphere of 
atomic energy but we had left out Africa," Kiriyenko said.

  "Here there is a big potential market and we must be successful 
in this market."

   He said Russia was looking at building a floating nuclear 
power plant for Namibia: "We are ready to build one," Kiriyenko 
said, according to Russian news agency Interfax."We are ready to 
produce electric power together and sell it together."

  Prime Minister Nahas Angula said Namibia and Russia are 
discussing the possible use of Russian nuclear technology to make 
up for Namibia's energy deficit.

 Namibia expects a reduction in energy supplies from South Africa 
in the next three years and forecasts an energy deficit of 300 
megawatts.

 "The Russian side said there are a number of available 
technologies, one of them being nuclear," Angula told journalists 
after a meeting with the Russian delegation.

    Angula said the environmental and economic expediency of 
using nuclear technology in bilateral cooperation should be 
assessed, adding that Namibia produces uranium.

   Angula said he discussed co-operation prospects with Trutnev 
and Kiriyenko.

 The Namibian Prime Minister also said one of the urgent problems 
was to help southern African countries, including Namibia, 
satisfy their energy needs.

 In January, Renova Group, a management company, and 
Techsnabexport, Russia's state-run nuclear exporter, signed a 
cooperation agreement to set up joint ventures as part of a joint 
investment project to prospect and develop uranium deposits in 
Africa and Asia.

 Techsnabexport and Russia's leading asset management company, 
headed by tycoon Viktor Vekselberg, plan to set up joint ventures 
in South Africa, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
the company said in a statement.

      Minister of Mines and Energy Erkki Nghimtina said Namibian 
authorities hope Russia will assist in developing a state policy 
in the uranium sphere, which would make it possible to cancel a 
moratorium on uranium production licensing in the country.

 "It would be good if our friends could help us form a policy in 
this sphere, as this could speed up the cancellation of the 
moratorium," he said.

 The moratorium on uranium production was imposed in Namibia 
several weeks ago for security reasons, the minister said.

     "There are countries that behave not seriously: they receive 
licenses, make money and leave," he said.

  Nghimtina said the uranium industry is very important for 
Namibia, and that his country needs a national policy dealing 
with nuclear fuel issues.

  Anna Belova, a Techsnabexport representative, said her company 
and Renova are ready to start geological prospecting work in 
Namibia, and that licenses could be formalised later.

Material on this site copyright The Free Press Of Namibia (Pty) 
Ltd PO Box 20783 - Windhoek - 42 John Meinert Street Tel: +264 
(61) 279600 - Fax: +264 (61) 279602
*****************************************************************
 43 FPON: Eskom could pull plug on Namibia

Free Press of Namibia

Monday, February 26, 2007 - Web posted at 6:50:44 GMT

ELECTRICITY imports from South Africa could be cut whenever power 
shortages are experienced in that country from August onwards, 
according to Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina.

    Responding to questions from DTA politician McHenry Venaani 
in Parliament on Thursday, Nghimtina said the existing power 
supply contract with South African power utility Eskom would 
expire in July and did not contain a clause that power could be 
cut to Namibia and other neighbours, should South Africa face a 
shortage.

    "From August 2007 onwards Eskom can suspend power supplies to 
Namibia, should their internal electricity demands exceed 
supply," Minister Nghimtina told the House.

 "My Ministry has established a task force to deal with this 
issue in the short, medium and long term.

   The task force has nearly completed its work and a submission 
to Cabinet will be made soon."

   Nghimtina said Eskom experienced power problems in 2005 and 
last year after a turbine at the Koeberg nuclear plant in the 
Cape Province broke down, and earlier this year, when another 
problem occurred at the same plant.

  NamPower had to reactivate the coal-fired Van Eck power station 
in Windhoek on both occasions.

 Namibia imports about 50 per cent of its electricity, coming 
mainly from Koeberg.

      South Africa is experiencing an increased local demand for 
electricity and Eskom has stated on several occasions that it 
cannot continue supplying electricity to other countries at the 
same scale.

  Nghimtina said negotiations on the envisaged Kudu gas-fired 
power plant were entering the "final round".

  However, the developers of the offshore gas field have 
indicated a high selling price of gas to the power station and it 
would be partially fixed in US dollars.

                "This brings a huge burden to Namibia.

 If not managed correctly, it [the resulting electricity tariff] 
will burden future generations to come, as these prices have to 
be passed on to the customers for the next 22 years," Nghimtina 
said.

  Making the Kudu power station a regional project by 
incorporating other potential buyers of the excess electricity 
would make the project more feasible, he said.

    "If a final investment decision can be taken within this 
year, construction of the Kudu project can proceed in 2008 and 
the power station could become operational by the end of 2010, 
beginning of 2011," Nghimtina told the House. 

Material on this site copyright The Free Press Of Namibia (Pty) 
Ltd PO Box 20783 - Windhoek - 42 John Meinert Street Tel: +264 
(61) 279600 - Fax: +264 (61) 279602
*****************************************************************
 44 Daily Times: Pakistan could become a failed state with nukes

Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 Tuesday, February 27, 2007 

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: Normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan
and Pakistan’s return to democracy is most likely the key to the
withdrawal of the military from the political arena as well as to
Pakistan’s long term stability, but if Pakistan does not transcend
the dynamic created by an ideology defined by the mosque and an
overly dominant military, it runs the risk of becoming a failed
state with nuclear weapons, according to Pakistani academic and
journalist Husain Haqqani.

Writing in a foreign affairs journal published by the McGill
University, Montreal, Canada, Haqqani, who teaches at Boston
University, writes that the US response to 9/11 left Pakistan with
little choice but to turn more drastically toward the US. Confronted
with an ultimatum to choose between being with the US or against it,
Pakistan’s generals opted to revive their alliance with the US. But
at every stage since then, Pakistan has proven to be a difficult US
ally seeking specific rewards for specific actions.

He points out that Pakistan’s military has historically been willing
to adjust its priorities to fit within the parameters of immediate
US global concerns. The purpose has been to ensure the flow of
military and economic aid from the United States, which Pakistan
considers necessary for its struggle for survival and its
competition with India. Pakistan’s relations with the US have been
part of the Pakistani military’s policy tripod that emphasises Islam
as a national unifier, rivalry with India as the principal objective
of the state’s foreign policy, and an alliance with the United
States as a means to defray the costs of Pakistan’s massive military
expenditures.

Haqqani believes that America’s alliance with Pakistan, or rather
with the Pakistani military, has had three significant consequences
for Pakistan. First, because the US military sees Pakistan in the
context of its Middle East strategy, Pakistan has become more
oriented toward the Middle East even though it is geographically and
historically a part of South Asia.

Second, the intermittent flow of US military and economic assistance
has encouraged Pakistan’s military leaders to over-estimate their
power potential. This, in turn, has contributed to their reluctance
to accept normal relations with India even after learning through
repeated misadventures that Pakistan can, at best, hold India to a
draw in military conflict and cannot defeat it.

Third, the ability to secure military and economic aid by fitting
into the current paradigm of American policy has made Pakistan a
“rentier state,” using its strategic location. “These policies have,
however, served to encourage extremist Islamism in Pakistan, which
in the last few years has been the source of threats to both US
interests and global security. It is also the greatest threat to
Pakistan’s own long-term viability and national cohesion. The US can
perhaps deal better with Pakistan in the long-term by using American
influence to reshape the Pakistani military’s ideologically limited
view of the national interest,” he adds.

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 45 Idaho: Daily Herald: Radioactive free speech

Monday, February 26, 2007

Gov. Huntsman was asked why the state would bother conducting its 
own public hearings on Divine Strake, since Utah had no authority 
over the test.

"Because nothing stops the power of the people, my friend," Huntsman
responded during the January hearing in Salt Lake City.

It turns out that not even a 700-ton bomb could stop the power of
Utahns united against the proposed blast at the Nevada Test site.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency announced it was canceling
Divine Strake and would look for a way to get the data without
setting off a massive explosion on the irradiated test site.

The announcement followed two emotional state-sponsored public
hearings conducted in Salt Lake City and St. George, where residents
could express their concerns about the project and have them
included in the state's formal objection to the test. More than 100
people gave oral comments at the hearings, and thousands of others
submitted e-mail and written comments objecting to Divine Strake.

Divine Strake's purpose was to help the Defense Department develop
bombs that can destroy hardened underground bunkers. The plan was to
detonate 700 tons of ammonium nitrate-fuel oil over an underground
tunnel and measure the effects the blast.

However, the experiment was being done on the Nevada Test Site,
where the federal government has detonated hundreds of nuclear
weapons in the past half-century. Utahns rightfully feared that the
blast would send irradiated soil into the air, coming down on them.

The government's assurances that the test was safe were not
comforting for those who remember all the government's promises that
above-ground nuclear tests were safe and that fallout from the bombs
was harmless.

Nobody mentioned that radioactive debris would be carried by air
currents to virtually every corner of the nation. Today, the results
can be measured. Across America, for example, dairy cows now feed on
grass from irradiated soil. Radiactive iodine ends up in the milk.
So now, if you drink milk at home but fail to get enough iodine from
other sources -- say by using iodized salt -- radioactive iodine
will be absorbed into your body. All milk-drinkers thus have an
increased risk of developing thyroid cancer.

When the government refused to conduct a proper public hearing on
Divine Strake (instead it hosted a so-called "open house" to present
its case without having to listen to any objections), many Utahns
did not sit still. Instead, they made sure their voices were heard
loud and clear.

The most powerful of the comments at the state's hearing came
ordinary Utahns, many of whom were downwinders.

"They would never think of putting us at risk again. Well, those of
us who lived downwind, and upwind, and who have managed to survive a
number of cancers, are here to tell you that we have been lied to by
the experts," said Darlene Phillips, a Utah downwinder.

Others told of watching the nuclear fireballs in the desert as
children, assured that they were perfectly safe, or being told it
was all right to play in the "vitamin-laced" sand that came after
the tests. They then told of losing loved ones to cancer, or having
to go through painful cancer treatments themselves.

The message from these people was clear: Utahns would not be fooled
again.

Faced with that overwhelming outcry, the government wisely chose to
find another way. Computer models can be used to develop a bunker
buster. By doing this, the government is taking a step toward
rebuilding its credibility with Utahns who have paid too high a
price for past lies.

This episode is also an important reminder of the power people have
when they exercise their right to speak out. This story appeared in
The Daily Herald on page A5.
 
Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
 46 KESQ News: Report: Nuclear workers radiation claims panel beset by conflicts

Channel 3 Palm Springs, CA: 


2-26-07

LAS VEGAS A government watchdog says a panel set up to review 
payments to ailing nuclear weapons workers lacks credibility and 
is beset by conflicts of interest.
That's what the head of the Nuclear Oversight Program for the 
Government Accountability Project is telling the Las Vegas 
Review-Journal.

He says panelists on the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 
Health have too many ties to past employers and associates at the 
Energy Department.

A proposal by Democratic Senator Harry Reid could correct some 
problems by giving claimants so-called "Special Cohort Status" 
and lowering their burden of proof to collect payments.

Reid introduced a bill this month to expand coverage to everyone 
who worked at the Nevada Test Site between 1951 and 1993 -- 
regardless of how many days or hours they were there.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This 
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or 
redistributed.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


 All content © Copyright 2002 - 2007 WorldNow and KESQ. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 47 PRESS issues with the GNEP 
 
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:14 -0800



 Urges the community to attend the Ohio EPA Public Hearing regarding 
contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
 6:30 p.m. at Piketon High School
1414 Piketon Road in Piketon


( PRESS)  P.O. Box 136 Portsmouth, Ohio 45662

PO Box 669
Piketon, OH 45661
February 26, 2007
Lancaster District Office
212 S. Broad St. Room 55
Lancaster, OH 43130
740.654.5149 Phone
740.654.7825 Fax

Dear Representative Hobson: 

The people of Southern Ohio need your immediate assistance in helping us to
stop what will be a horrible decision by the DOE. Given your current
standing as the Chair of the Appropriation Committee over DOE and the
timeframe in which this decision is going to be made we feel YOU are the
most appropriate person to intervene on our behalf. 

As you are aware USEC in conjunction with SONIC and GNEP are currently
exploring the possibility of "awarding" the Piketon site with a grant to
explore the possibility of determining if the site is fit for a nuclear
reprocessing facility. In no unclear terms we speak for 1000's of residents
in the area when we state: NOT IN OUR BACKYARD! 

USEC and members of its Board have made a number of campaign contributions
to both you and our current Congresswoman Jean Schmidt. We obviously
realize that these contributions may have an impact on the final decision
that is made. 

We are a group of concerned citizens from both sides of the political
aisle. Our group Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environment Safety and
Security or PRESS was formed in the late 1980’s by a group of concerned
area residents. We have been active in getting our story out to the
community. In fact the Dayton Daily News  recently did an exposé of the
issues surrounding the plant. 

We realize that the U.S. House is about to undergo a number of leadership
changes and you will no longer hold the chair of this critical committee.
However, there is still time for you to avoid the creation of a nuclear
reprocessing facility in Southern Ohio as YOUR lasting legacy. Your
immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated as time is
most certainly of the essence. 

Sincerely, 

Vina Colley
President PRESS

  Nathan J. Noy, Esq.
 
Press Release: December 1, 2006
From: PRESS (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety &
Security)
            National Nuclear Workers for Justice
Contact:  Vina Colley, email vcolley@earthlink.net, (740) 353 2275, (606)
932 2383, (740) 947 9162


Local Group Joins National Opposition to Nuclear Waste Dump and Plutonium
Reprocessing Plans for Piketon

With the DOE announcement this week that the PGDP is one step closer to
becoming a high-level nuclear waste dump and a plutonium-reprocessing
center, a local watchdog group, PRESS, along with 35 other national
organizations issued a strong condemnation to this proposal.  (The DOE
proposal is part of a Bush administration plan to jump-start the ailing
nuclear industry and is being referred to as GNEP or Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership).  PRESS (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety
and Security) is a member of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, an
umbrella group of community organizations that are downwind and downstream
from nuclear facilities that have already suffered first-hand effects of
environmental degradation from nuclear weapons production.  PRESS is also
affiliated with the Military Toxic Project.    

“As PRESS members, we have often spoken out about worker illnesses and
deaths attributed to chemical and radiological contamination from the
Piketon facility, but these new GNEP proposals are guaranteed to take us
even deeper into environmental, economic, national security and nuclear
proliferation disasters,” says Vina Colley, President of PRESS.

The Piketon site was named as one of the eleven “finalists” that will now
be considered for storing large amounts of highly radioactive spent fuel
rods that will be shipped in from the 103 nuclear reactors around the
country.  Each shipping container that would bring the waste to Piketon by
truck, train and barge will hold 40 or more times the radioactivity
released by the Hiroshima bomb.

Another aspect of the GNEP plan is to resume reprocessing plutonium from
the spent fuel, a practice that was abandoned in this nation over 30 years
ago due to the unprecedented disasters it brought to areas in which it was
practiced.  Decades later all of these sites remain dangerously
contaminated.   Of all the steps in the nuclear chain, reprocessing is the
most perilous to human life and has the highest routine discharge of
emissions.  The process also leaves enormous quantities of highly
radioactive, acidic, liquid waste that ends up buried in tanks that
eventually leak threatening crucial water supplies.  While the DOE is
trying to claim that reprocessing is a sound alternative based on
“recycling” principles, nothing could be further from the truth.  Rather
than reducing the amount of poisonous waste requiring long-term isolation
from the human biosphere, the waste left from reprocessing is actually
hotter than the original spent fuel, and additional large quantities of
other contaminants are created in the process.

The DOE is calling their plan for reprocessing plutonium and uranium into a
mixed oxide fuel “consolidated fuel treatment.”  However, according to
Piketon area resident, Nathan Noy, the technology for the creation of this
experimental fuel is yet to be proven and developed.  “The Nuclear
Information Resource Service points out that one of the many problems with
mixed oxide is that as a reactor fuel it is known to be harder to control. 
If control is lost, it is twice as deadly as uranium fuel and at least 20
times more expensive to produce,” says Noy.  None of the 103 nuclear power
plants in the U.S. are equipped to operate on a mixed oxide fuel that would
be produced under GNEP.  Therefore the DOE plan calls for building a pilot
fast reactor that might or might not work with the mixed oxide fuel.  The
National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists have
both gone on record stating that the entire GNEP plan is totally
indefensible.

PRESS member, Lorry Swain, warns “the greatest lie in the GNEP proposal is
that it will make us safer from the threat of nuclear weapons.  North Korea
recently tested a nuclear weapon it produced from plutonium obtained
through reprocessing.  The necessary step between a nuclear reactor and a
nuclear bomb is reprocessing plutonium.  This step makes the weapons-grade
plutonium available for sabotage and terrorist weaponry.  That’s the other
reason that plutonium reprocessing was banned in the U.S. in the 1970s.”

The DOE has yet to explain where the billions of dollars will come from
that would be needed to enact this ill-advised GNEP proposal.  Meantime,
funding and work on the long-ago, promised clean-up of the contamination
already present at Piketon remains stalled and uncertain. And dying workers
from Piketon, Hanford, Savannah River and other nuclear sites are still
getting the run-around from the EEOICPA, the program that was supposed to
compensate them for their nuclear-related illnesses.  

January 25, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

PRESS (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security)

Vina Colley, vcolley@earthlink.net phone  740-35-2275 cell 740- 357 8916

PRESS (Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security)
and more than 20 COMMUNITY GROUPS AROUND "VOLUNTEER" GNEP SITES ASK
CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE AND STOP THE SITING PROGRAM!

PRESS and other local groups around all the 11 "Volunteer" sites targeted
for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) today asked congressional
leaders of the Appropriations and Energy committees to "investigate the
waste of taxpayer funds by GNEP, and take action to prevent the siting
program and grants from moving forward."

The sites are targeted to receive multi-million-dollar grants from the
Department of Energy (DOE) to provide more detailed information about the
11 sites, which would be used in the programmatic environmental impact
statement (PEIS) that is scheduled for release later in 2007.

In the letter, the groups state that they have a "total lack of confidence
with the GNEP siting process" and oppose it. They further say: "DOE has
shown that it does not comply with legal public processes, and it does not
follow Congressional directives or even its own siting requirements."

Vina Colley, from PRESS states, "We’ve tried to be involved in the process
but DOE and SODI and their semi-secret corporate partners at SONIC and
ePIFNI has kept the public out. We strongly oppose bringing all the
nation’s commercial spent fuel rods to Piketon so that we would be the
nation’s nuclear waste dump."

Among problems cited in the letter to congress: "Not only at Piketon but at
several of the 11 sites where the public knew a proposal was in process, we
were unable to be involved in the process or to get adequate information
about the proposal." The groups’ letter to Congress concludes: "We cannot
imagine that such a closed, callous and arguable illegal process was what
Congress had in mind when it appropriated $20 million in the 2006 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Bill" for the siting grants.

The letter is available at: vcolley@earthlink.net 

 
 
Vina Colley
vcolley@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
 
 

 




Vina Colley
 



*****************************************************************
 48 Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Nuclear waste could be routed through Ga.

ajc.com By STACY SHELTON Published on: 02/26/07

North Augusta, S.C. &mdash; Two South Carolina sites are in the 
running for a federal initiative that could send thousands of 
truckloads of nuclear waste through metro Atlanta.

BEN GRAY/Staff

A truck carrying silos of nuclear trash rolls through metro 
Atlanta on its way to South Carolina in 2001. Truck transport of 
nuclear materials, in Georgia and elsewhere, has a good safety 
record. But critics fear the region could become a nuclear 
dumping ground.

But transport is the least of the concerns of environmentalists 
and anti-nuclear activists who oppose President Bush's Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership.

They are more concerned about what will happen if Savannah River
Site, a federal facility near Augusta that made nuclear weapons
materials during the Cold War, or a landfill for low-level
radioactive waste next door in Barnwell, S.C., are chosen for the
nuclear initiative.

If the U.S. Department of Energy selects one or both, opponents fear
they will become the de facto Yucca Mountain. The Nevada depository
is the only long-term solution for the country's nuclear waste, but
it's at least 10 years away from opening and is gaining opposition.

Robert Guild of the South Carolina chapter of the Sierra Club warned
that his state "will become the world's nuclear waste dumping
ground."

But backers of moving the materials to South Carolina say the
concerns are overblown. Many are people who have lived close to SRS
and its nuclear materials for decades, and they say there have been
comparatively few problems.

Local supporters also estimate the initiative could bring 7,000 jobs.

"The nuclear industry is the most highly regulated industry in the
world and is one of the safest," said Carl Gooding, a council member
from nearby Allendale County, S.C.

The Energy Department is considering 13 locations nationwide for one
or more components of the president's global nuclear initiative,
which is still years from reality.

Details of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership still need to be
worked out &mdash; including taxpayers' cost &mdash; but the first
phase of the plan calls for collecting used nuclear fuel, or spent
nuclear rods, from commercial reactors and shipping it to a
reprocessing facility where it would be converted into fuel for a
commercial reactor.

The spent fuel, which would be shipped in stainless steel and lead
casks, could come from any of the 65 nuclear reactor sites in the
United States. most of them east of the Mississippi River.

Eventually the program would help U.S. companies sell the
reprocessed nuclear fuel abroad for electricity.

The Department of Energy is scheduled to narrow its choices of sites
for the program, and which companies could run it, by the summer of
2008.

Radioactive tanks leak

Savannah River Site already has about 37 million gallons of
radioactive liquid waste in large tanks, some of which are more than
50 years old and leaking. Every year, the federal government spends
more than $1 billion a year on cleanup at SRS.

But at a Department of Energy public hearing this month, federal
officials heard many positive comments about the proposal for the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership from elected representatives and
business leaders eager for the economic boost. Jobs and the tax base
in the region have eroded since SRS started ramping down in the
1980s.

Scott MacGregor, vice president of the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce, said the partnership is "the type of forward-thinking
Augusta is proud of ... together we can meet the needs of the
future."

Residents of Augusta and, just over the state line, the South
Carolina communities of Aiken, North Augusta and Jackson, are
accustomed to the 198,000-acre nuclear facility, which has operated
in their backyard for more than 50 years.

Several generations of families have gotten their paychecks from SRS
and no major accident has occurred. A report by the Atlanta-based
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently predicted a
minimal risk of cancer for people living nearby.

Proponents and opponents of Bush's plan agree the adjacent South
Carolina sites both have a good chance for two reasons. The location
is close to many of the nation's nuclear reactors that will provide
the waste for reprocessing, and to major ports. Second, a
reprocessing facility was built in Barnwell, near SRS, in the 1970s,
but never opened.

Much will depend on congressional support. Congress sliced this
year's proposed funding from $380 million to $120 million.

Jim Hardeman, manager of the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division's Environmental Radiation Program, said if a South Carolina
site is chosen, there's a good possibility most of the shipments of
spent nuclear rods would either be trucked around I-285 or railed
through downtown Atlanta, winding past Philips Arena and the state
Capitol.

"Some of the maps they've put together to show nuclear waste
transportation to Yucca, flip around and show them going to Savannah
River Site," Hardeman said. "That's kind of what it would look like."

Government officials say the transportation of spent nuclear rods
poses minimal risks to the public. According to the Department of
Energy, a person standing 6 feet from a truck carrying casks full of
spent nuclear fuel for one hour would receive a radiation dose
equivalent to a chest x-ray.

They also say terrorism risks are minimized by keeping shipment
routes and schedules secret. Only a designee in the governor's
office of each state on the route is notified, officials said. Some
shipments get law enforcement escorts.

Train and traffic accidents are always possible, but in 50 years of
shipping radioactive material in the United States, there have been
fewer than a dozen traffic accidents and no release of radioactive
material, said James Giusti, spokesman for the Department of Energy.

When the Department of Energy studied transportation routes for
Yucca Mountain, it concluded a release of radioactive material is
likely to occur twice in 10 million years. Such an event would not
cause even one cancer death, the government said.

Hardeman, with Georgia's EPD, said his office is monitoring the
latest proposal for the Savannah River Site.

The plutonium route

If the South Carolina sites are chosen, it won't be the first time
radioactive material has traveled over Georgia roads and rails.

Starting in 2002, about six tons of bomb-grade plutonium was trucked
through Georgia from a Colorado nuclear weapons plant to Savannah
River Site. South Carolina's governor at the time, Jim Hodges,
protested the shipments. He unsuccessfully sued the federal
government over concerns that it did not have a plan for permanently
storing the material.

In a separate plan already approved and in the works at Savannah
River Site, many more plutonium shipments are slated to begin once
the government completes construction of a new plant there: the fuel
facility.

The plant will convert weapons-grade plutonium into commercial
reactor fuel to produce electricity. The $1 billion facility will
bring thousands of radioactive truck shipments to and from SRS and
over Georgia roads.

Among the proponents of South Carolina's sites are Sens. Saxby
Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). In a joint letter read
at a February hearing before the DOE, they said nuclear energy is
"safe, affordable and environmentally friendly."

By cjc

Feb 26, 2007 4:12 PM | Link to this

Brendan: are you from the lovely "Garden City?" Or have you ever
been there? If you answer yes to any of the above, you would know
why Augusta's nickname is "Disgusta." The town is more than the
pretty azaleas that everyone sees at the Masters. While parts of it
are pretty, it is a town with incredible poverty and pollution.

And have you ever read these forums? This one is polite compared to
some of the nastiness I've seen on here--especially when the blog
deals with MARTA.

By Zonya

Feb 26, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

Now wait a minute! The proponents of nuclear power have told us for
years that the nuclear waste issue has been resolved. Apparently
someone has been less than stratight forward about this issue.

Nuclear power reactors systematically produce the most toxic
substances known to mankind. Everything that comes into contact with
nuclear material becomes "waste". Class A; Class B; or Class C.
Tansuranic materials are teated as a separate category.

All of the "waste" is hazardous, but the nuclear industry uses a
classification system that is based on volume of material in which
the nuclear contaminant is contained. Take something "nasty" and mix
it with enough trash, and it is ok in their eyes. All of the nuclear
"waste" has to be 100% isolated from water for extended amounts of
time. Barnwell has been burying "waste" for years.

Much more "waste" will follow since no existing nuclear reactors
have been decommissioned and if an accident occurs at a facility or
it is attacked by terrorists, tremendous volumes of "waste" will be
generated.

The "waste" is also shipped via railroad.

Medical facilities also generate radioactive "wastes" in relatively
small volumes as compared to the nuclear power industry. A
substantial amount of the medical "wastes" are relatively
short-lived radioactive isotopes.

The more you learn, the more you will fear.

By Brendan

© 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 
*****************************************************************
 49 AP Wire: Legislators to tour low-level nuclear landfill

02/26/2007 | 

SEANNA ADCOX Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - The public will be allowed to tour a low-level
radioactive waste landfill in Barnwell County with South Carolina
lawmakers who are considering whether to keep the facility open to
companies nationwide.

The 235-acre site is set to close next year to waste from all but
three states - South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. A bill
introduced by Rep. Billy Witherspoon would allow the facility to
continue through 2023 accepting low-level radioactive waste,
including lab coats, coveralls and control rods from commercial
nuclear power plants, from companies nationwide.

EnergySolutions had invited the 18-member committee on a private
tour and denied a request by an environmentalist to attend, raising
questions about whether the trip violated the state's Freedom of
Information Act.

"It's important everybody get the same information. Most things that
are environmentally damaging are not done in public," said Dell
Isham, director of the Sierra Club's South Carolina chapter.

The environmental group opposes the site staying open to the
nation's waste. The three-state compact was compromise enough, Isham
said.

A spokesman for EnergySolutions said there was "a natural, built-in
fear for people" regarding radioactive waste.

"It's our experience that when people see the operation and
understand what we do, the fear factor goes way down," spokesman
Greg Hopkins said.

The Utah-based company bought the site's previous operator,
Chem-Nuclear, and its parent company last June. The company wants to
remain open to more than just three states.

Rep. Lonnie Hosey, a Barnwell Democrat and a co-sponsor of the bill,
said the county's three rural school districts, which split $1
million from the site yearly, and the county will be thrown into an
economic crisis if the site closes to all but three states.

About 10 percent of the county's budget is funded by the facility,
said treasurer Wendall Gibson.

The site, still referred to as Chem-Nuclear, contributes $1 million
for county operations and also paid nearly $1 million additional
last year in property taxes and a business license fee tied to waste
volume.

A portion of the disposal fees also helps fund school building
projects statewide. Over the last 10 years, the total allocated
yearly to school districts has ranged from $89.4 million to $8.2
million, said Susan Flanagan, a special project manager at the state
Education Department.

Copyright | About the McClatchy Company
*****************************************************************
 50 Seeking Alpha: Uranium: A Hot Button Issue - 

SeekingAlpha

Posted on Feb 26th, 2007 with stocks: CCJ, EMU

Kelvin Chan submits: As the spot price of uranium continued a 
frenzied ascent to $85/lb last week, it has become apparent that 
at least, north of the border in Canada, uranium has become a hot 
button issue. Where uranium stock investing was just beginning to 
attract mainstream attention in 2006, scores of analysts and 
investors alike have jumped on its bandwagon this year.

An illustration of such is shown below, which is a graph of the 
total number of subscribers to my uranium stock blog. Also shown 
for comparison is a 1-year chart of $15.9 billion Cdn uranium 
giant Cameco Corporation (CCJ) and $1.1 billion Cdn upstart 
Energy Metals (EMU), one of several promising mid-tier uranium 
junior companies.

A number of observations worth noting include:

A broad market correction beginning May 2006 in both American and
Canadian exchanges stalled momentum as speculative money went out of
uranium; notice the flattish slope from May until the beginning of
October in my subscription rate as people were less enthused after
the market correction

Whereas Cameco was fairly resilient during this time, the uranium
explorer Energy Metals experienced a much more severe pullback.

A dramatic turnaround occurred when Cameco announced the flooding of
Cigar Lake on October 23rd. In a month my subscriber rate doubled
from 300 to 600, with the steepness of the slope correlated to the
price action of Energy Metals and inversely correlated with Cameco's
stock.

After the announcement, there seems to be a period of
"consolidation" wherein the market tried to digest the possibility
that the mine that was to supply 10% of the world's uranium in the
near future could be out commission for quite some time

As 2007 came into focus, investors continued to rally into uranium,
seemingly anticipating that the upcoming announcement by Cameco in
early March will confirm that Cigar Lake would not be producing for
a number of years; thus, the favorable supply-demand imbalance would
continue to be bullish.

It is important to note that Energy Metals is not the only junior
uranium company to exhibit this type of stock pattern; one can take
a look at Fronteer Development Group Inc. (FRG) and Uranerz Energy
Corp. (URZ), as well as any number of companies listed on the
Canadian exchanges (comprehensive list here) to confirm this point.

Free Seeking Alpha Email Alerts

Receive articles on Cameco Corp. (CCJ), EMU and Energy Stocks, sent

*****************************************************************
 51 FR EPA: Change in Idaho's Waste Management Program

Doc E7-3207

[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)] 
[Rules and Regulations] [Page 8283-8287] From the Federal 
Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] 
[DOCID:fr26fe07-14]                         

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-8281-3]

 
Idaho: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Idaho applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). On November 9, 2006, EPA 
published a proposed rule to authorize the changes and opened a public 
comment period under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0830. The comment 
period closed on December 11, 2006. EPA has decided that these 
revisions to the Idaho hazardous waste management program satisfy all 
of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization and is 
authorizing these revisions to Idaho's authorized hazardous waste 
management program in this final rule.

DATES: Effective Date: Final authorization for the revisions to the 
hazardous waste program in Idaho shall be effective at 1 p.m. e.s.t on 
February 26, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Mail Stop AWT-122, U.S. EPA 
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington 98101, phone (206) 553-0256. E-mail: 
hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA 
Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste 
program that is equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program. 
States are required to have enforcement authority which is adequate to 
enforce compliance with the requirements of the hazardous waste 
program. Under RCRA Section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any 
requirements which are less stringent than the Federal program. Changes 
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or 
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. 
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to 
EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
    Idaho's hazardous waste management program received final 
authorization effective on April 9, 1990 (55 FR 11015, March 29, 1990). 
EPA also granted authorization for revisions to Idaho's program 
effective on June 5, 1992 (57 FR 11580, April 6, 1992), on August 10, 
1992 (57 FR 24757, June 11, 1992), on June 11, 1995 (60 FR 18549, April 
12, 1995), on January 19, 1999 (63 FR 56086, October 21, 1998), on July 
1, 2002 (67 FR 44069, July 1, 2002), on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11322, 
March 10, 2004), and on July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273, July 22, 2005).
    Today's final rule addresses a program revision application that 
Idaho submitted to EPA in June 2006, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21, 
seeking authorization of changes to the State program. On November 9, 
2006, EPA published a proposed rule announcing its intent to grant 
Idaho final authorization for revisions to Idaho's hazardous waste 
program and provided a period of time for the receipt of public 
comments. The proposed rule can be found at 71 FR 65765.

B. What Were the Comments to EPA's Proposed Rule?

    EPA received one comment letter, dated December 4, 2006, from Mr. 
Chuck Broscious on behalf of the Environmental Defense Institute, Keep 
Yellowstone Nuclear Free, and David B. McCoy, collectively, ``the 
commenters.'' The comment letter focused on the Idaho Department of 
Environmental Quality's (DEQ) permitting and oversight of the Idaho 
National Laboratory (INL) facility located near Idaho Falls, Idaho. In 
short, the commenters question whether continued authorization of the 
revised hazardous waste program in Idaho is appropriate given concerns 
the commenters previously raised with EPA and its Office of the 
Inspector General (OIG) with respect to the permitting of the INL 
facility. Specifically, the commenters question whether Idaho's program 
provides adequate enforcement of compliance with the requirements of 
Subchapter C of RCRA given the application of the program at the INL 
facility.
    The comment letter focuses on recent permitting activities 
conducted by DEQ at the INL facility. In a petition submitted to OIG on 
April 28, 2006, the commenters requested that OIG review DEQ's 
permitting activities at the INL facility. Similar questions were 
raised in petitions submitted to EPA on August 8, 2000, on September 
13, 2001, and in follow-up letters and correspondence in 2003, 2004, 
and 2006 related to the 2000 and 2001 petitions.
    In the 2001 petition, the commenters sought EPA's withdrawal of 
Idaho's authorization to implement the hazardous waste program under 
RCRA after citing permitting concerns at the INL facility. EPA, in 
response to that petition, conducted an informal investigation and 
determined that sufficient evidence did not exist to initiate formal 
withdrawal proceedings. EPA's determination was issued on March 20, 
2002, with a follow-up response on June 20, 2002. The supporting 
documentation was provided to the commenters at that time and the 
documentation is currently available to the public under the Freedom of 
Information Act.
    In 2003, the OIG requested that Region 10 conduct a second 
investigation to answer a series of follow-up questions related to the 
2001 petition. EPA conducted this second investigation and issued its 
findings in 2003. These investigation results were also provided to Mr. 
David McCoy, one of the current commenters, as part of an October 13, 
2004 Freedom of

[[Page 8284]]

Information Act response. On February 5, 2004, after conducting 
independent field work, OIG issued a final evaluation report which 
concluded, ``Region 10 generally relied on appropriate regulatory 
requirements and standards in reaching its conclusion that evidence did 
not exist to commence proceedings to withdraw the State of Idaho's 
authority to run its RCRA Hazardous Waste program.'' The evaluation 
report concluded that evidence did not exist to commence withdrawal 
proceedings. The OIG did identify areas of concern for further Regional 
and State follow-up. As detailed in the Evaluation Report, OIG and 
Region 10 agreed to specific follow-up actions. To document resolution 
of these action items, Region 10 submitted quarterly progress reports 
to the OIG Audit Liaison on January 13, 2004, April 16, 2004, July 15, 
2004, October 12, 2004, February 9, 2005, and April 8, 2005. These 
reports documented the steps taken by EPA and DEQ to meet the specific 
actions recommended by OIG. Hard copies of all the quarterly reports 
were made available to the public as part of EPA's last authorization 
action effective July 22, 2005 (70 FR 42273). In response to a request 
by Mr. Chuck Broscious, one of the current commenters, EPA made a 
hardcopy version of the 2005 authorization docket available at the 
University of Idaho Library in Moscow, Idaho. As EPA stated in the 2005 
authorization action (70 FR 42273), EPA considers its response to the 
September 13, 2001 withdrawal petition and recommendations in the 
February 5, 2004 OIG Evaluation Report complete.
    In the current December 4, 2006 comment letter, the commenters 
contend that permitting the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit using a 
Class 3 permit modification to the existing Volume 14 INL permit 
results in inappropriate and abbreviated public participation. EPA 
addressed the issue of Class 3 permit modifications in the March 20, 
2002 petition response. Page 26 of that EPA response states that:

    * * *[I]t should be noted that the Class 3 permit modification 
public participation requirements are as stringent as those under 
initial permit submissions. Under the authorized program in Idaho at 
IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR Part 270.42(c), Class 3 permit 
modifications fully incorporate public participation through both 
pre-submission and draft issuance public comment periods. Including 
the High-level Liquid Waste Evaporator as a Class 3 permit 
modification to the permit is a reasonable means of addressing 
complex, interrelated units in accordance with legally allowable 
partial permitting under IDAPA 16.01.05.012; 40 CFR 270.1(c)(4), and 
ensuring public participation.

    The commenters also contend that DEQ's regulation of radiological 
wastes, and enforcement of those requirements, are not adequate. With 
respect to radiological issues, EPA addressed this same comment in the 
2004 revision to Idaho's authorized program (69 FR 11322), concerning 
closure of the INL Tank Farm Facility. EPA stated, ``[t]he commenters 
failed to distinguish the RCRA `mixed waste' authority and its 
application to the tanks from those radioactive solid waste issues 
which may be the subject of the NWPA [Nuclear Waste Policy Act] or the 
AEA [Atomic Energy Act].'' Under the authorized hazardous waste 
program, DEQ has authority to regulate the hazardous components of 
mixed waste; however, regulation of the radiological component is 
outside the scope of the RCRA program and not within the scope of the 
program EPA has authority to authorize. This same point was made in the 
2005 revision to Idaho's authorized program (70 FR 42273). EPA stated, 
``* * * EPA observes that defense activities related to nuclear 
production and propulsion programs will generally not meet the 
definition of solid waste under the RCRA regulations and may be 
regulated by other federal authorities.''
    In publishing the Radioactive Mixed Waste Rule, EPA recognized that 
wastes containing both hazardous waste and radioactive waste are 
subject to regulation under RCRA. (See 51 FR 24505, July 3, 1986.) EPA 
considers radioactive mixed waste to be a solid waste under the Federal 
RCRA program and requires states to demonstrate regulation of the 
hazardous components of radioactive mixed wastes. However, Section 1006 
of RCRA precludes EPA or a State from regulating the radioactive 
components where such regulation would be inconsistent with the Atomic 
Energy Act, as amended (AEA). Specifically, RCRA excludes from the 
definition of solid waste of ``source, special nuclear, or byproduct 
material'' as defined by the AEA. Consequently, ``source, special 
nuclear and byproduct material'' is exempt from the definition of 
hazardous waste and therefore from Subtitle C of RCRA. Idaho's 
authorized hazardous waste program is constrained by the limitations of 
RCRA statutory authority and by EPA's findings and interpretations. EPA 
cannot find Idaho's program to be inadequate when that authorized 
hazardous waste program is addressing mixed waste to the extent 
permitted by the RCRA program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additional information regarding radioactive mixed waste is 
located on EPA's webpage at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed 

waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters also reference an April 28, 2006 petition to the EPA 
Office of Inspector General citing concerns with the INL Advanced Test 
Reactor. Most of the concerns pertain to radiological issues outside 
the scope of the authorized RCRA program as described above. However, 
in addition to the radiological concerns, the commenters argue that 
this facility is in violation of RCRA Subtitle C because it disposes of 
hazardous waste, specifically beryllium reflector blocks from the 
Advanced Test Reactor, without a permit. Since beryllium powder is 
listed as a P-waste under 40 CFR 261.33, the commenters argue that both 
EPA and IDEQ have neglected their enforcement responsibility under RCRA 
Subtitle C. As described on page III-20 of the 2006 RCRA Orientation 
Manual (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat/), P and U listed 

hazardous waste determinations apply specifically to the disposal, 
spillage, or container residue of unused, 100% pure or technical grade 
chemical commercial products. Under 40 CFR 261.33, EPA and authorized 
states have the authority to regulate the disposal of unused chemical 
products such as beryllium powder; however, this provision does not 
provide unlimited authority to regulate all beryllium-containing wastes 
or discarded products, unless they are defined as a hazardous waste 
under a different section of 40 CFR Part 261. Inspections of the 
Advanced Test Reactor, as documented by inspection reports submitted to 
the Office of Inspector General Liaison on July 15, 2004 and February 
9, 2005, found no treatment, storage, or disposal activities that would 
require a RCRA permit. At the time of the inspections, all identified 
hazardous wastes were being handled within the regulatory criteria for 
large quantity generators. Copies of these inspection reports were made 
available as part of the docket for the 2005 authorization action and 
are currently available to the public under the Freedom of Information 
Act.
    Lastly, the commenters cite concerns over the ``applicable or 
relevant and appropriate requirements'' (ARARs) for the INL CERCLA 
Disposal Facility under EPA's Superfund Program (CERCLA). Unlike it 
does in the RCRA hazardous waste program, EPA does not authorize states 
to act in lieu of EPA under CERCLA authority. Therefore, the question 
of whether a particular requirement is an ``applicable or relevant and 
appropriate requirement'' is a question for EPA's CERCLA program and is 
outside the scope of EPA's evaluation of the authorized

[[Page 8285]]

hazardous waste program in Idaho. For the above reasons, EPA has 
determined that the comments included in the current comment letter do 
not provide a basis to deny Idaho's application for program revision.

C. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    EPA has made a final determination that Idaho's revisions to the 
Idaho authorized hazardous waste program meet all of the statutory and 
regulatory requirements established by RCRA for authorization. 
Therefore, EPA is authorizing the revisions to the Idaho hazardous 
waste program and authorizing the State of Idaho to operate its 
hazardous waste program as described in the revision authorization 
application. Idaho's authorized program will be responsible for 
carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised 
program application, subject to the limitations of RCRA, including the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal 
regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA are 
implemented by EPA and take effect in States with authorized programs 
before such programs are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA 
will implement those HSWA requirements and prohibitions in Idaho, 
including issuing permits or portions of permits, until the State is 
authorized to do so.

D. What Will Be the Effect of This Action?

    The effect of today's action is that a facility in Idaho subject to 
RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and 
with any applicable Federally-issued requirement, such as, for example, 
the federal HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized, and 
RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued 
requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Idaho has enforcement 
responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations 
of its currently authorized program and will have enforcement 
responsibilities for the revisions which are the subject of this final 
rule. EPA continues to have independent enforcement authority under 
RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, 
authority to:

--Conduct inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
--Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements that 
are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes and 
regulations; suspend, modify or revoke permits; and
--Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken 
its own actions. This final action approving these revisions will not 
impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the 
regulations for which Idaho's program is being authorized are already 
effective under State law.

E. What Rules Are We Authorizing With This Action?

    In June 2006, Idaho submitted a complete program revision 
application, seeking authorization for all delegable federal hazardous 
waste regulations codified as of July 1, 2005, as incorporated by 
reference in IDAPA 58.01.05(002)-(016).

F. Who Handles Permits After This Authorization Takes Effect?

    Idaho will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is 
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits or 
portions of permits issued by EPA prior to final authorization of this 
revision will continue to be administered by EPA until the effective 
date of the issuance, re-issuance after modification, or denial of a 
State RCRA permit or until the permit otherwise expires or is revoked, 
and until EPA takes action on its permit or portion of permit. HSWA 
provisions for which the State is not authorized will continue in 
effect under the EPA-issued permit or portion of permit. EPA will 
continue to issue permits or portions of permits for HSWA requirements 
for which Idaho is not yet authorized.

G. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Idaho's Hazardous Waste 
Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and 
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste 
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by 
referencing the authorized State's authorized rules in 40 CFR Part 272. 
EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR Part 272, Subpart F for 
codification of Idaho's program at a later date.

H. How Does This Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Idaho?

    EPA's decision to authorize the Idaho hazardous waste program does 
not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this 
authorization, ``Indian Country,'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This 
includes: (1) All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian 
reservations within or abutting the State of Idaho; (2) Any land held 
in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) Any other land, 
whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian 
country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA 
retains jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 
1151.

I. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

1. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a 
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined 
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to 
minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated 
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information 
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that 
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or 
more non-Federal respondents be approved by OPM. Since this final rule 
does not establish or modify any information or record-keeping 
requirements for the regulated community, it is not subject to the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

[[Page 8286]]

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires federal agencies to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: 
(1) A small business, as codified in the Small Business Size 
Regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 ; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA 
has determined that this action will not have a significant impact on 
small entities because the final rule will only have the effect of 
authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law. After 
considering the economic impacts of today's rule, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is 
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why the 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal 
governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty 
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 
Similarly, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small government entities. Thus, the requirements of Section 203 of the 
UMRA do not apply to this rule.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. This rule addresses the authorization of pre-
existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this rule.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined 
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and 
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental 
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 
12866.

9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable

[[Page 8287]]

voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve ``technical 
standards'' as defined by the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA is not considering 
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and 
consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National 
Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving 
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions, the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
Mariana Islands. Because this rule addresses authorizing pre-existing 
State rules and there are no anticipated significant adverse human 
health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive 
Order 12898.

11. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on the date the rule is published 
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste 
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Sections 
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: February 12, 2007.
Julie Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. .
 [FR Doc. E7-3207 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


*****************************************************************
 52 barrow in furness: N-waste trials started

Published on 26/02/2007

HEAVY METAL: A high-level waste flask being loaded at Barrow docks


PREPARATIONS for a decade of high level nuclear waste shipments from
Barrow docks to Japan and Europe are intensifying.

A new king size steel waste flask was loaded onto a ship in the town
as part of a test for the future voyages.

The ship Pacific Sandpiper sailed from Barrow on February 2 to take
a consignment of high level nuclear waste from France to Japan.

The new Sellafield flask, though empty, was aboard for handling
trials in Japan.

The British Nuclear Fuels group confirmed that the cycle of at least
19 high-level waste shipments from Sellafield back to Japan and to
several European countries, is expected to start in the financial
year April 2008 to March 2009.

The shipments are part of a waste substitution agreement with Japan
and with European countries whose spent nuclear fuel from their
power stations is reprocessed at Sellafieldâ€™s Thorp and Magnox
plants including Germany, Switzerland and Holland.

Under the deal the intermediate level waste will stay in Britain for
permanent store, but the countries will take back high level waste
instead.

The liquid waste is encapsulated into glass blocks in a process
called vitrification.

A BNG spokesman said: â€œThe transport flask was transported by road
to Barrow on Tuesday January 23 and loaded on to a PNTL ship as part
of the operational testing and commissioning process.â€

Martin Forwood of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment,
said: â€œThe new flask was made by Corus at Workington and is 117
tons and will hold 21 canisters of high level waste.

â€œIt is slightly bigger than the spent fuel flasks but nothing
exceptional.â€

Core is against the traffic taking place.

It claims the trade between the different countries is dangerous.

The new flasks are built to the same specifications as French
nuclear industry flasks to meet International Atomic Energy
Authority standards.

The Pacific Sandpiper, which like all the BNG ships is part owned by
the French and Japanese, is making the 12th return shipment of high
level waste from France to Japan for the French state nuclear firm
Areva NC.

Defending the consignment the French said BNG ships which are based
at Barrow had safely covered more than five million miles without a
single incident resulting in the release of radioactivity.


*****************************************************************
 53 barrow in furness: Report on Thorp leak

Published on 26/02/2007

A HEALTH and Safety Executive report has been published into a leak
of radioactive liquid within the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
facility, part of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant.

The investigation ended in a prosecution of site licensee, British
Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd.

The report describes in detail how the leak occurred, how it was
discovered and why it was not detected earlier, together with
background information on the plant. It outlines 55 recommendations
and actions arising from the probe.

The report is on HSEâ€™s website at: http://www.
hse.gov.uk/nuclear/thorp.htm






*****************************************************************
 54 AU ABC: Campaigners fail to get nuclear-free status for Alice

ABC Northern Territory  

Tuesday, 27 February 2007. 07:37 (AWDT)

Campaigners are setting their sights on new targets after failing to
convince the Alice Springs Town Council to declare the town a
nuclear-free zone.

About 200 supporters of a nuclear-free town turned up for last
night's symbolic vote, in a last-ditch attempt to reverse the
outcome foreshadowed by a previous committee meeting.

But the Alice Springs Town Council acted on the committee's
recommendation and quashed the motion to declare Alice Springs a
"nuclear free zone", five votes to four.

Campaign organiser Nat Wasley says despite the setback, her group
now wants to shed light on possible nuclear-related accidents.

"The community obviously wants reassurance that there is a plan to
deal with this," she said.

Ms Wasley says the community wants to know how local authorities
would respond.


*****************************************************************
 55 KnoxNews: Looking at our greenhouse future

Oak Ridge results help feed climate models

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 26, 2007

For the better part of a decade, researchers have been piping 
carbon dioxide into a deciduous forest near Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory and studying the effects -- information that helps 
validate the models for a future planet with higher greenhouse 
gases.

The controlled experiment will likely draw to a close within the 
next couple of years, perhaps even at the end of this year's 
growing season, but there's still a lot to be learned.

In fact, once the gas is turned off for good, researchers will be 
able to dig up the soil, chop down trees and evaluate the effects 
of elevated CO2 in ways that heretofore have been impossible, 
according to the project's top scientist.

"It's an excellent way to confirm the response that you saw," 
said Rich Norby, a 56-year-old physiological ecologist at ORNL. 
"Hopefully, the response will go away (after the carbon-dioxide 
levels drop)."

Generally speaking, researchers have found that the infusion of 
carbon dioxide increased the forest's "net productivity," which 
is the amount of carbon converted into organic matter. That 
involves a range of tree measurements, including the trunk and 
root growth, as well as the mass of the leaves in the canopy.

The results of the Oak Ridge work are still being evaluated, but 
the study of how carbon is cycled through the forest system can 
help tweak other models that eventually are used to predict 
climate change and its effects.

Norby's team is gearing up for another season of research at the 
project known as FACE (free-air CO2 enrichment), which is funded 
by the U.S. Department of Energy. The carbon dioxide system will 
be activated in mid-April.

The five stands of sweet-gum trees are equipped with lots of 
technology to monitor everything from nutrient levels to tree 
growth -- trunk and roots -- to carbon allocation and retention 
in the soil. Only two of the plots are "fertilized" with the 
added CO2. The others are used for comparison purposes.

The sweet gums were planted in 1988 as part of another ecological 
experiment at ORNL. Scientists began planning the CO2 studies in 
1996, installed equipment the next year and began pumping carbon 
dioxide into the forest in 1998.

About 2,500 tons of carbon dioxide are added to the system 
annually.

During operations, that raises the concentration in the forest to 
about 550 parts per million -- the predicted level for 2070 or 
thereabouts -- compared to today's atmospheric standard of about 
370 ppm and nearly double the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm.

Scientists are evaluating one part of the so-called greenhouse 
effect that occurs as carbon dioxide and other gases accumulate 
and alter global climate conditions.

Rainfall and temperature changes are predicted to accompany the 
carbon buildup, and Norby said future experiments at Oak Ridge 
may address the other factors. The next project being planned 
would control precipitation as well as the carbon levels, he 
said.

For the time being, however, the team wants to finish the carbon 
studies, with an increasing emphasis on what's taking place 
underground with the system of fine roots, he said.

"We've seen a big increase in the production of fine roots -- 
roots that are less than a millimeter in diameter," Norby said. 
"These are the ones that really important for taking up water and 
nitrogen from the soil."

These tiny roots don't live very long. They tend to die and then 
release their absorbed carbon back into the soil. Some of that 
carbon is respired by microorganisms and comes back into the air 
as carbon dioxide, continuing the cycling of carbon in nature.

But, according to Norby, some of that carbon is retained in the 
soil. "It's a small percentage, but it's an important 
percentage," he said.

If that carbon stays in the soil for decades and isn't released 
into the atmosphere, that means there is less to contribute to 
greenhouse effects, the scientist said.

The Oak Ridge researchers are still evaluating the data.

There's a lot of carbon already in the soil, so determining the 
additional amount that's attributable to increased carbon-dioxide 
levels in the atmosphere is a hard task, Norby said.

"Soil is extremely variable," he said. "It's a tough detection 
problem."

Information from experiments, such as the one in Oak Ridge, is 
used to develop better cause-and-effect models, which in turn can 
be used to improve the data that's available for computer-driven 
studies of global climate change.

Some models already have been adjusted based on the previously 
published studies of carbon cycling at the Oak Ridge experiment, 
Norby said. Another research paper will likely be released later 
this year, he said.

Although increased carbon emissions are linked to global warming, 
which is obviously a bad thing, not every effect is necessarily 
negative.

For instance, the Oak Ridge experiment showed that higher carbon 
levels boosted the process of photosynthesis and increased tree 
growth, even though the rate of increase for the above ground 
trunk tapered off after a few years.

"There are people who don't want to admit there are positive 
aspects," Norby said. "But my attitude on that is if we're going 
to have confidence in the predictions that come out of carbon 
models and global climate change, you've got to have confidence 
in every element. ... I try to stay away from this 
black-and-white picture. That's just not the way the world 
works."

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 56 FR DOE: Carbon Sequestration Program PEIS canceled

Doc E7-3178

[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)] 
[Notices] [Page 8363] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26fe07-64]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Cancellation of Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement for Implementation of the Carbon Sequestration Program

AGENCY: National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement 
Process.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has decided to cancel the 
preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for 
the assessment of potential environmental impacts from DOE's Carbon 
Sequestration Program, as described in a Notice of Intent published in 
the Federal Register on April 21, 2004 (69 FR 21514). DOE had intended 
to prepare the PEIS, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), to address the potential environmental impacts of carbon 
sequestration technologies and potential future demonstration 
activities under the Carbon Sequestration Program, which is being 
implemented by the DOE Office of Fossil Energy through its National 
Energy Technology Laboratory. DOE conducted public scoping meetings in 
May and June 2004 in eight cities, and began preparation of the PEIS.

    However, upon further consideration, DOE has determined that the 
continuation of the PEIS did not warrant its effort and expense since 
the research from the Regional Partnerships and other Program 
activities in carbon sequestration are enhancing our understanding of 
the area and the PEIS would not direct any programmatic decisions at 
this time. DOE will continue to perform project-specific NEPA reviews 
of its carbon sequestration research, development and demonstration 
activities.

    In order to facilitate future project-specific NEPA reviews, DOE 
will make available to the public a Carbon Sequestration Reference 
Document, based on the data and analyses developed in conjunction with 
the PEIS preparation effort. DOE believes this approach would best 
enable the Department to meet its Carbon Sequestration Program 
objectives and continue to provide pertinent environmental data and 
analyses for future project- and site-specific NEPA reviews under the 
Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heino Beckert, National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 880, 
Morgantown, WV 26507-0880, by telephone (304) 285-4132, or electronic 
mail at heino.beckert@netl.doe.gov.

    Issued in Pittsburgh, PA, on this 9th day of February, 2007.
Carl O. Bauer,
Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
 [FR Doc. E7-3178 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
 57 FR: DOE: Contract change on 700,000K of Uranium 

Doc E7-3180

[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)] 
[Notices] [Page 8362] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26fe07-62]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement.

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada.

    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 846,126 kg 
of Natural UO3 (82.7% U), containing 700,000 kg of Uranium. 
This material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Canada, to 
Springfields Fuels Ltd., United Kingdom for ultimate use as nuclear 
power reactor fuel by Electric Power Development Company Ltd., Japan. 
Springfields Fuels Ltd. is authorized to receive nuclear material 
pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation.

    In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.

    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 20, 2007.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anatoli Welihozkiy,
Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
 [FR Doc. E7-3180 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 58 FR DOE: contract with 35,000 KG of Uranium

Doc E7-3181

[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)] 
[Notices] [Page 8363] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26fe07-63]                         

[[Page 8363]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

 
Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed subsequent arrangement.

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy 
Community (Euratom) and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and Canada.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 51,775.1 kg 
of Natural UF6 (67.6% U), containing 35,000 kg of Uranium. This 
material will be retransferred from Cameco Corporation, Canada, to 
Urenco Ltd., Netherlands for enrichment and return to the United States 
for use as fuel in nuclear power reactors by STP Nuclear Operating 
Company, Texas. Urenco Ltd. is authorized to receive nuclear material 
pursuant to the U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation.
    In accordance with section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: February 20, 2007.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anatoli Welihozkiy,
Acting Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. E7-3181 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 59 Albuquerque Tribune: Lab: Violations led to injuries 

Associated Press

Monday, February 26, 2007

Subcontractors for Los Alamos National Laboratory did not follow lab
safety procedures before a construction accident last year that
injured two lab workers, an internal lab investigation found.

The June 28 accident could have been prevented, but lab officials
failed to correct unsafe working conditions, did not effectively
enforce safety requirements and failed to consider the history of
one of its subcontractors, Magnum Steel Constructors, the report
said.

In 2003, a Magnum worker died in a work-related accident in
Bernalillo, and the company was cited by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration for six serious violations, investigators said.

Magnum workers were using a crane to move a 1,500-pound metal
staircase at the lab's Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility
last summer when the structure slipped from its rigging, fell more
than 50 feet and struck two men.

One of the workers received leg injuries and the other suffered
multiple leg fractures and a broken pelvis, the report says.

Representatives with Magnum and Pace Iron Works - a lab
subcontractor that hired Magnum to help on the project - said Friday
they hadn't seen the report but insisted the accident was
unavoidable.

"They worked like they normally work at a job site, as far as I'm
concerned," said Shaun Myers, a quality control officer with Pace.
"Nobody wants to get hurt. They deal with steel all day long. They
don't want to do it in an unsafe manner."

Investigators, however, found that a "poor rigging technique" was
directly responsible for the accident, which "very easily could have
resulted in two fatalities."

In the past, federal oversight officials in the Department of Energy
and National Nuclear Security Administration have investigated
serious lab accidents.

But NNSA, which is giving more oversight responsibilities to the
lab's new corporate manager, opted last summer to let the lab take
the lead on last summer's investigation.

Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said the report should demonstrate that
the lab's internal investigations are as rigorous, if not more so,
than the government's.

"We're harder on ourselves than the DOE is," Roark said.


© 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune
*****************************************************************
 60 National Academies Project: Review of DOE's Office of Nuclear
Energy, Science & Technology Research & Development Program

PIN: BEES-J-05-01-A        

Project Scope

The committee will undertake a comprehensive, independent evaluation
of DOE's nuclear energy (NE) program's goals and plans, and validate
the process of establishing program priorities and oversight
(including the method for determining the relative distribution of
budgetary resources). The evaluation will result in a comprehensive
and detailed set of policy and research recommendations and
associated priorities (including performance targets and metrics)
for an integrated agenda of research activities that can best
advance NE's fundamental mission of securing nuclear energy as a
viable, long-term commercial energy option to provide diversity in
energy supply. The review will also include the relationship of the
research program to the Idaho Facilities Management program. In
conducting the evaluation of the R&D program, the committee will:

(1) Review the technical goals and timetables for government and
industry R&D efforts in the various technical areas (e.g., Nuclear
Power 2010; Generation IV; Hydrogen Initiative; Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative);
(2) Review the R&D directions and progress in various parts of the
program and their relevance to meeting the goals of the R&D program;
(3) Review the overall balance and adequacy of the R&D program in
light of the objectives and schedules in the major technology areas,
and whether efforts in various technical areas are at an appropriate
level, should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated;
(4) Identify, if appropriate, new and promising technologies not
included in the DOE portfolio that the DOE could meaningfully
advance to meet the goals of the program;
(5) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate federal
role in the various technical areas;
(6) Examine and comment on the commercial implications of each major
part of the R&D portfolio and what each element needs to contribute
to the commercial adoption of the technology;
(7) Examine and comment on NE's strategy for accomplishing its
goals, which would include such issues as:
(a) program management and organization;
(b) the process of setting milestones, research directions and
making Go/No Go decisions;
(c) collaborative activities with other parts of the government or
private sector;
(d) the integration of major activities in each program into a plan
and associated schedule;
(e) integration and associated schedule and milestones of the
various major programs across
DOE-NE;
(f) consistency of the budget, schedule and scope for selected major
activities;
(g) risk identification and assessment and mitigation activities; and
(h) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on
related to the success of the
program to meet its technical goals.
(8) Comment on the relationship of the R&D program to the Idaho
Facilities Management program.

The committee will write a report documenting its findings and
recommendations.

The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The approximate start date for the project is April 24, 2006.
A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately
18 months.

Project Duration: 18 months    

Provide FEEDBACK on this project.

Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.

Committee Membership

Meetings
 Meeting 1 - 08/24/2006
 Meeting 2 - 10/17/2006
 Meeting 3 - 11/08/2006
 Meeting 4 - 01/09/2007
 Meeting 5 - 03/08/2007


Reports
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office

 Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
 61 KnoxNews: Draft of a master science strategy

As chair of House committee, Gordon has state, ET plans

By RICHARD POWELSON, powelsonr@shns.com

February 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Bunsen burner flame suddenly flared up during 
high school junior Bart Gordon's chemistry experiment in the 
mid-1960s and burned off his eyebrows. He learned to be more 
careful.

Last month, veteran U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., was promoted 
to chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. Now he 
is a watchdog over federal government experiments in addressing 
global warming, alternative energy supplies, global 
competitiveness in math and science education and careers, and 
new technology that creates many well-paying jobs.

On his current mission, he is seeking success by working with U.S.
and world science experts, including those at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the University of Tennessee.

"I've always had an interest in science," Gordon, 58, said in an
interview, "but an interest more in terms of figuring out things,
how things work. I've always thought that the Science Committee is a
committee of the future."

First elected in 1984, Gordon, a former state Democratic chairman
from Murfreesboro, succeeded Al Gore Jr. when he ran for and won the
U.S. Senate seat of retiring Sen. Howard Baker Jr.

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, while a Republican, for years has worked often
with Democrat Gordon because both share a strong interest in
science, in the future of ORNL, and projects that improve the
state's economy and job creation. Wamp's district includes Oak Ridge.

"I think Bart Gordon is smart, fair and effective," Wamp said. "He
promotes cooperation and bipartisanship, and he has been an
extraordinarily effective partner for ORNL over the 12 years that
I've been in the House."

Part of Gordon's master plan includes more linkage of expertise
between the state's learning, research and technology centers.

"A real goal of mine is try to create - for lack of a better term -
a 'technological corridor' between Knoxville, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Tech, Middle Tennessee State University and Vanderbilt, as well as
Arnold Engineering (Development Center in Middle Tennessee) and the
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. Working together,
hopefully all (can be) hooked up to the advanced computer that they
have at Oak Ridge. It's the most powerful nonclassified computer in
the world."

He promises to take good ideas, seek bipartisan support and move
quickly to address national problems.

In the past two months, at Gordon's urging, the science committee
has:

Approved a bill to improve the infrastructure for alternative fuels.
Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel cannot be tested accurately for sulfur
content throughout the distribution system.

Passed legislation requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to
set national guidelines for environmental cleanup of former
methamphetamine labs.

Started hearings on the best ways to reduce global warming.

Among his career battles of East Tennessee interest was working with
others to successfully oppose a Department of Energy plan in the
late 1980s and early 1990s to haul the nation's radioactive nuclear
waste into Tennessee and store it indefinitely in Oak Ridge.

In 1999, a previous chairman of the Science Committee, James
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., had major concerns about the management and
cost plans for the proposed $1.3 billion neutron research facility
in Oak Ridge. Sensenbrenner planned zero funding for the proposal.

But Gordon knew of the project's importance for ORNL and the country
and helped work out a compromise that started seven years of federal
funding and completed the Spallation Neutron Source, which is known
as the largest research facility in the country for materials
science.

"Bart was the one who really championed the issue," said Thom Mason,
director of the SNS facility. "He was a key broker in negotiating
the compromise" that met Sensenbrenner's major concerns.

ORNL Director Jeff Wadsworth called Gordon's rise to the top
leadership of the science committee "a big deal for the state as
well as Oak Ridge. It's a very prestigious position. I'm very
impressed with him as an individual."

Gordon and U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., have been working
together on ways to improve U.S. education in math and science so
this country can better compete globally. First they requested a
study by the National Academies, a private group of various experts
that regularly advises the federal government.

That study showed glaring deficiencies in math and science
education. More than half of the math teachers in Tennessee and
other states had neither a major nor a certificate to qualify them
to teach math.

"Obviously it's very difficult to be able to teach and inspire kids
if you aren't familiar with your subject," Gordon said.

Both Gordon and Alexander have pledged to keep pressing for passage
of bills that include the National Academies' recommendations for
scholarships tied to teaching contracts and payments for math and
science teachers who get additional training in the summer that
could include certification to teach advanced placement classes.

Without steady advances in math and science and engineering
expertise, the country faces gloomy days, Gordon warns.

"If we don't do this, I really fear that my daughter's generation
will be the first generation of Americans that will inherit a
national standard of living lower than their parents." His daughter
is 5.

Richard Powelson may be contacted at 202-408-2727.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************