***************************************************************** 02/27/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.48 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: US sees growing threats from Al-Qaeda, Iran - 2 UPI: Lavrov still fears U.S. attack on Iran 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Launches New Talks to Secure Iraq 4 Guardian Unlimited: Hezbollah Warns U.S. Against Iran Attack 5 AFP: Oil prices rise as Iran rhetoric heats up - 6 IRNA: Replacing nukes contrary to NPT obligations - England church - 7 Reuters: Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives 8 UPI: McConnell warns of threat posed by Iran 9 AFP: US intelligence chief warns on Iran, Russia, Venezuela - 10 AFP: US strategy change sees Iran, Syria in Iraq talks - 11 AFP: US military chief "categorically" denies plans for Iran air str 12 AFP: NKorea capable of building a missile that can hit the US - US i 13 Digital Chosunilbo: Bush Mooted Peace Treaty With N.Korea Last April 14 Korea Times: Roh Says N. Korea¡¯s Opening Will Succeed 15 US: ABC: Energy Department Secretary credits public outcry for Divin 16 US: TomPaine.com: The Justice Department Massacre 17 US: AFP: Hard Truths for Hard Times - Divine Strake bites the dust 18 UPI: Outside View: In defense of the INF 19 Ynetnews: Japan to host 4-way summit - Israel News 20 IRNA: Israel's nuclear arsenal only 'widely assumed,' UK again insis 21 ITAR-TASS: Russia's Nerpa shipyard scraps one more submarine NUCLEAR REACTORS 22 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet March 23 AU ABC: Backbenchers nervous about nuclear claims 24 The Australian: States reject plans for nuclear plant | Vic | 25 The Australian: Taxpayers to pay for nuke folly - Greens 26 The Australian: Nuclear plan prompts meltdown 27 The Australian: Garrett urges PM to explain nuke dealings 28 Herald Sun: State pledges nuke plebiscite 29 Herald Sun: State rushes in people power 30 Herald Sun: Libs to face scare tactics 31 AdelaideNow: Rann: No nuclear 32 AdelaideNow: Voters to get voice on nuclear power 33 NEWS.com.au: Port Augusta 'prime nuclear site' 34 NEWS.com.au: Howard denies nuclear inquiry 'benefit' | 35 NEWS.com.au: Reader's Comments: Nuclear power 'the logical next step 36 NEWS.com.au Business: Neat timing for nuke firm 37 Herald Sun: Nuclear power 'the logical next step' 38 US: FR: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings 39 The Australian: PM denies nuclear conspiracy 40 US: Guardian Unlimited: Crews Douse Fire at Pa. Nuclear Plant 41 The Australian: Nuke power 'linked to global warming' 42 Herald Sun: PM knew of nuclear plan 43 The Australian: Experts query nuclear power plant proposal 44 Sydney Morning Herald: PM on defensive over nuclear claim - 45 Sydney Morning Herald: Businessmen deny nuclear proposal - 46 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power 'a cleaner energy source' - 47 ForUm: Three nuclear power units to be built in Ukraine 48 AU ABC: Nuclear power debate worries Portland 49 AU ABC: PM chides Rudd over nuclear power 'conspiracy theory' 50 US: DAILY SOUTHTOWN: Stop utilities from buying legislators 51 US: Platts: Point Beach sale gets antitrust clearance 52 US: POAC: DEP suffers setback on Oyster Creek 53 Platts: Kansai Electric officals may face charges for 2004 Mihama mi 54 thewest.com.au: Nuclear power 'a cleaner energy source' 55 IHT: Japan presses Russia over pipeline, gas project - 56 DAILY YOMIURI: KEPCO's attitude questioned in probe 57 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah not a part of greenhouse pact 58 AU ABC: PM urged to answer nuclear plant questions. 59 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear panel rejects Yankee safety testing 60 US: Dallas Morning News: TXU deal: a good fit for all sides? 61 US: JOURNAL NEWS: NRC says Indian Point's plan to foster worker secu 62 US: BG: NRC gets earful from lawmakers on Vermont Yankee license ren 63 US: BG: NRC gets earful from lawmakers on Vermont Yankee license ren 64 Russia Newswire: International Seminar at Smolensk NPP 65 AFP: Russian premier in Japan for energy talks - 66 AU ABC: PM under pressure over nuclear plant claims 67 AU ABC: Labor not supporting any nuclear plans. 68 AU ABC: PM - Labor tries to link Govt to nuclear company 69 AU ABC: Govt under fire over nuclear reactor reports 70 AU ABC: Howard's nuclear plan 'more advanced than thought'. 71 AU ABC: Howard encouraging nuclear power development - ALP NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 72 US: NRC: NRC Announces Appointment of New Member to the Advisory Com 73 US: Deseret News: NRC fines Utah firm over incident 74 US: National Academies Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literat NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 75 AU ABC: Tennant Creek meeting to address nuclear waste fears. 76 Herald Sun: 'Billions' in nuke storage 77 NEWS.com.au: PM told to reveal waste dump talks 78 Nevada Appeal: Berkley briefs lawmakers on federal budget 79 AU ABC: Tennant Creek meeting to address nuclear waste fears 80 US: KCPW: Clock Running Out for Veto of EnergySolutions Bill - 81 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Legislative News: Foes of waste site expansio 82 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Exxon gets new hearing on $112 million award 83 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Low-level toxic waste landfill to be toured b 84 US: Tennessean: TAKING PART: Nuclear waste on the move - 85 US: Daily Herald: Veto nuclear waste bill 86 US: Deseret Nnews: Huntsman lets radioactive waste bill take effect 87 US: Press-Enterprise: Rialto officials report progress on perchlorat 88 US: Deseret News: Radioactive waste bill in balance 89 US: AU ABC: Toyne questions economic benefits of uranium mining. PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 90 KnoxNews: System detects threat levels 91 NewsBlaze : New Tritium Source On Line at DOE's Savannah River Site 92 KnoxNews: Y-12 plant taking apart W55 warheads 93 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Lab Operator Cited for Safety 94 DOE: DOE Requests Fast Track Rulemaking for Implementing Energy 95 Tri-City Herald: Hanford's dump untold treasures 96 Hanford News: PNNL ranks seventh among DOE's 10 national labs 97 Inside Bay Area: UC hit with $1 million fine they will not have to p 98 Inside Bay Area: UC hit with nuclear penalty 99 KRQE News 13: Lab manager escapes safety fine 100 NAS: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: US sees growing threats from Al-Qaeda, Iran - by Jim Mannion Tue Feb 27, 4:09 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States faces growing threats on multiple fronts with Al-Qaeda still the top danger, but Iran on the rise and on course to produce nuclear weapons early in the next decade, US intelligence chiefs said Tuesday. Their survey of global threats also found Iraq in a "precarious" condition and the Taliban gaining strength in Afghanistan despite suffering heavy combat losses in 2006. Some assessments such as those on Iraq had previously been aired in separate intelligence estimates, but taken together they formed a blunt appraisal of mounting threats faced by the United States on an array of fronts. "Terrorism remains the preeminent threat to the homeland, to our security interests globally, and to our allies. And Al-Qaeda continues to be the terrorist organization that poses the greatest threat," said retired admiral Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence. McConnell said core elements of Al-Qaeda's senior leader are "resilient" and continue to plot mass casualty attacks against the United States and other targets. "Indeed, Al-Qaeda, along with other terrorist groups, continues to seek chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons or materials," he said. McConnell confirmed that Al-Qaeda is reestablishing training camps in Pakistan in tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. US officials said small groups of operatives are being trained at the compounds for attacks in the west. "To the best of our knowledge the senior leadership, number one and number two, are there," he said referring to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri. "And they are attempting to re-establish and rebuild and they are establishing training camps," McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee. While not comparable to Al-Qaeda's network of training camps in Afghanistan before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, McConnell said "it's something we're very worried about and very concerned about." Vice President Dick Cheney, who met this week with Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad, made the case "that we have to be more aggressive in going after Al-Qaeda in Pakistan," he said. "The balancing act, of course, is the president's standing in that country with an election coming up this fall," he said, referring to Musharraf. McConnell said a major Al-Qaeda attack would most likely to come from Pakistan, but he said elements of the network in Iraq, Syria and Europe "also are planning." McConnell also expressed worry about Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group backed by Iran, which he said had grown in confidence since last summer's fighting to Israeli forces. In a statement that accompanied his testimony, the intelligence chief said Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons and is more interested in dragging out negotiations than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. "This is a very dangerous situation as a nuclear Iran could prompt destabilizing countermoves by other states in this volatile region," he said. "While our information is incomplete, we estimate that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid next decade," he said. Rising oil income and perceived successes of its surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah has extended Iran's influence in the Middle East, disturbing Arab states, he said. Iran is using ballistic missiles and naval power to project power in the Gulf, he said. "It seeks a capacity to disrupt the operations and reinforcement of US forces based in the region -- potentially intimidating regional allies into withholding support for US policy -- and raising the political, financial, and human costs to the US and our allies of our presence in Iraq," it said. Iranian influence in neighboring Iraq has increased "significantly" and it is "probable" -- but not proven -- that senior Iranian leaders are aware that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds have been arming and training Iraqi extremists, he said. McConnell said Iran regards its ability to conduct terrorist operations as a key element of its national security strategy, and that Hezbollah plays a central role in it. Though mainly focused on Lebanon, he said Hezbollah has made "contingency plans to conduct attacks against US interests in the event it feels its survival -- or that of Iran -- is threatened." The director cited key judgements from a separate intelligence estimate that security in the country is "moving in a negative direction" and that the term "civil war" aptly describes elements of the conflict there. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 2 UPI: Lavrov still fears U.S. attack on Iran United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 2/27/2007 5:08:00 PM -0500 NOVO OGARYOVO, Russia, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Russia's foreign minister said Monday he was still worried about the possibility of U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. "I am concerned that forecasts and predictions of strikes on Iran have become frequent. In particular, the U.S. vice president mentioned the possibility in his recent statements," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during discussions involving President Vladimir Putin and some of his senior officials, the RIA Novosti news agency said. Lavrov cited remarks by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney recently in Australia that Iran should not be permitted to defy the concerns of the world community over its nuclear program. However, Lavrov said Russia remained committed to peacefully resolving the dispute through negotiations. Lavrov's comments followed a new report on the Iranian nuclear program released Friday by Mohamed ElBaradei, secretary general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, that warned Tehran was pushing ahead with its efforts to get a full nuclear cycle operational that could produce weapons grade material, defying the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council Resolution, RIA Novosti noted. Lavrov said Russia, the United States, Britain, France, China and Germany, the so-called "Iran-Six" nations, would seek to revive negotiations with Tehran. But he warned that their prospect of success was poor if Iran still could not "provide satisfactory answers to IAEA questions," the Russian news agency said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Launches New Talks to Secure Iraq From the Associated Press Tuesday February 27, 2007 8:01 PM By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and the Iraqi government are launching a new diplomatic initiative to invite Iran and Syria to a ``neighbors meeting'' on stabilizing Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday. ``We hope that all governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region,'' Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery to a Senate committee. Excerpts were released in advance by the State Department. The move reflects a change of approach by the Bush administration, which previously had resisted calls by members of Congress and by a bipartisan Iraq review group to include Iran and Syria in diplomatic talks on stabilizing Iraq. ``I am pleased to announce that we are also supporting the Iraqis in a new diplomatic offensive: to build greater support, both within the region and beyond, for peace and prosperity in Iraq,'' Rice said, adding that U.S. and Iraqi officials agree that success in Iraq ``requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors.'' The announcement came even as the United States is engaged in its latest confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, which U.S. officials say is aimed at developing nuclear weapons but Tehran says is for new sources of energy. A U.N. Security Council deadline for Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment has just expired, and in response the U.S. wants the council to expand the limited sanctions the world body has imposed on Iran. Rice stressed that it was the Iraqi government inviting Iran and Syria to participate, with the United States in support. At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow told reporters the administration is ``happy that the government of Iraq is taking this step and engaging its neighbors. And we also hope and expect that Iran and Syria will play constructive roles in those talks.'' But Snow cautioned people to be patient, noting that ``this is one where the agenda is being set up by the government of Iraq. And the conditions, especially for bilateral conversations with the Iranians, are pretty clear.'' The administration in recent weeks had increased its public criticism of Iran's role in Iraq, charging it with supplying deadly weapons, including advanced technologies for the most lethal form of roadside bombs. The administration also has accused Syria of harboring anti-Iraqi government forces and allowing weapons to cross its border. Meanwhile, Democrats' ambitious plans to limit President Bush's war authority and force a change of course in Iraq are faltering amid party divisions over how quickly and aggressively they should act. A group of senior Senate Democrats is pushing to repeal the 2002 measure authorizing the war and pass a new resolution restricting the mission and ordering troop withdrawals to begin by this summer. In the House, a respected veteran wants to use Congress' spending power to essentially force Bush to scale back U.S. involvement in Iraq. Both plans appear to lack the support they would need to prevail, however, as Democratic leaders struggle to form party consensus on how to move forward. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he wants to put off votes on the new, narrower war authorization so the Senate can turn to a measure enacting the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission. ``Iraq is going to be there - it's just a question of when we get back to it,'' Reid said, predicting it would be ``days, not weeks'' before the Senate returned to the issue. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were testifying Tuesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the administration's budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iraqi government announced in Baghdad that it is preparing the meeting for mid-March, and that invitees include members of the Arab League and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia. Syria will be represented at the conference by Ahmed Arnous, an aide to the foreign minister, an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans had not yet been formally announced. Other Arab countries and Iran have not confirmed their attendance or the level of delegates they would send. Rice said the mid-March meeting will be held at the sub-ministerial level. That is to be followed, perhaps as early as the first half of April, by a full ministerial-level meeting with the same invited countries, plus members of the G-8 group of leading industrial powers. ``I would note that the Iraqi government has invited Syria and Iran to attend both of these regional meetings,'' Rice said. She also noted that the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, had recommended inviting Iran and Syria to such a neighbors meeting. At the time of that recommendation in December, President Bush rejected that diplomatic approach. --- AP Military Writer Robert Burns in Washington and Brian Murphy in Baghdad contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Hezbollah Warns U.S. Against Iran Attack From the Associated Press Tuesday February 27, 2007 10:31 PM By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI Associated Press Writer BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - The deputy chief of Hezbollah warned Tuesday that any ``military adventure'' by the United States and Israel against Iran would have dangerous consequences across the Mideast. Sheik Naim Kassem suggested his pro-Iranian group would not get involved if the U.S. attacks Iran, but he raised the possibility that Israel might attack Lebanon as part of such an assault - in which case, he said, Hezbollah would ``definitely'' respond. He said Hezbollah guerrillas were making plans in case Israel, like last summer, attacks Lebanon again. ``The resistance is taking all the necessary measures to be ready and prepared,'' Kassem said in an interview with the Associated Press. He would not elaborate but said Hezbollah is constantly changing its fighting tactics so the Israelis would not know its capabilities. ``We've evaluated the experience of the war and learned lessons from it and are taking steps to accommodate them with new realities,'' he said. ``We are making sure the enemy will be in the dark in the future. This is the strength of the resistance and the secret of its success.'' The United States insists it is not planning to attack Iran and is trying to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment, as demanded by the United Nations. But fear of a strike is growing throughout the Middle East. Kassem, a Shiite Muslim cleric, warned that an assault on Iran could expand across the region. ``It remains to be seen what the level of an American aggression on Iran would be,'' he said. ``Is it going to be limited or an all-out war? Will other countries become involved? Will it spread to the entire region?'' Asked if the U.S. attacked Iran, Hezbollah would retaliate by striking Israel, Kassem said Iran is capable of defending itself because it ``possesses the means, a tenacious populace and a wise leadership.'' Iran has threatened to attack the hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces based in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq if America launches a strike. Kassem warned, ``we will definitely respond and defend ourselves'' if Israel attacks Lebanon. Kassem's comments aimed to counter speculation that Hezbollah may stir up trouble in the region - including attacking Israel - if Iran is attacked: ``They have to know that any military adventure, if widened and involves several countries in the region, would have dangerous consequences for everyone.'' In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been locked in a power-struggle for months with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora. The Shiite group and its allies are demanding a new government in which they would have greater power. Washington has dramatically beefed up support for Saniora, who has rejected the opposition's demands. Kassem blamed the United States for the deadlock, saying it is pressuring Saniora to refuse a compromise. Washington's goal is to undermine Hezbollah's resistance against Israel, he said. Kassem, who is the deputy of Hezbollah's charismatic leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, dismissed Lebanese and American government charges that Hezbollah was a tool of Iran and Syria. In contrast, he said, ``the (Saniora) government is directly dictated by the Americans.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Oil prices rise as Iran rhetoric heats up - Tue Feb 27, 6:57 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Oil prices are on the increase as the United States and its allies maintain pressure for tougher sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear programme, dealers said Tuesday. Cold weather in the final stages of the northern hemisphere winter and tightening supplies also helped drive prices higher, they added. In London, the price of Brent North Sea crude for April delivery climbed 16 cents to 61.49 dollars per barrel in electronic trading. New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in April, advanced 13 cents to 61.52 dollars per barrel in electronic deals before the official opening of the US market. "The rhetoric over Iran is heating up," said Victor Shum, an analyst with energy consultancy Purvin and Gertz in Singapore. "Even though there is no real supply disruption associated with that, the increasing rhetoric between Iran and the West and the likelihood of the UN imposing sanctions has put geopolitical news back on the front pages. "That factor has put more of the investors back into the oil market." The US State Department said a meeting of six world powers in London on Monday had agreed on the need for a new sanctions resolution by the UN Security Council. The six powers are working together on how to curb Iran's nuclear programme which they believe is a cover to develop a nuclear bomb. Iran has said its research is meant for peaceful energy purposes. Oil market buyers are concerned that if Iran is punished with economic sanctions, the country might decide to disrupt its oil exports. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Replacing nukes contrary to NPT obligations - England church - London, Feb 27, IRNA UK Church-Nuclear Weapons The Church of England has declared that the British government's plan to replace its Trident nuclear weapons system is against the UK's commitment to disarm as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The proposed upgrading of Trident is contrary to the spirit of the United Kingdom's obligations in international law and the ethical principles underpinning them," the church said in an amendment to a resolution at its General Synod on Monday. The amendment to the resolution, questioning the government's nuclear plans, came after a passionate intervention by the spiritual leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. "I don't believe that there is a case for the moral acceptability of nuclear weapons that I could with integrity accept," the archbishop said. He told the synod, which acts as the church's virtual parliament, that the least a Christian body ought to do would be "to issue the strongest possible warnings and discouragements to our government." The amendment, passed by 206 votes to 38, also called on Christian people to make an informed contribution to the issues raised its report on 'The Future of Trident in the light of Christian teaching about Just War.' England's state church has a long history, challenging the retention of nuclear arms on moral grounds. Last July, 19 leading bishops warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that the country's possession was "evil" and "profoundly anti-God." "Trident and other nuclear arsenals threaten long-term and fatal damage to the global environment and its people. As such, their end is evil and both possession and use profoundly anti-God acts," the bishops said in an open letter to the 'Independent' newspaper. The Scottish Church general assembly has also accused the UK government of having double standards if it presses ahead with replacing its nuclear weapons while denying Iran any right. "It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy if the UK were to be arguing, for example, that Iran should not be developing a nuclear weapons capability, while at the same time we were extending in scope and in time our own," a Scottish church report said in May. Former environment secretary Michael Meacher, who is seeking to replace Blair when he steps down from office later this year, has the intervention by the bishops. "On non-proliferation grounds - it is impossible to say to countries like Iran you should not have nuclear weapons but we must have ours," Meacher said in House of Commons motion, signed by 122 MPs last year. News sent: 15:27 Tuesday February 27, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 7 Reuters: Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives 11:59PM EST, Tue 27 Feb 2007 By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is training anti-American Iraqi Shi'ites at sites inside Iran and Lebanon in the use of armor-piercing munitions blamed for the deaths of 170 U.S. troops in Iraq, the top U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, newly installed U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell said it was "probable" that Iranian leaders including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were aware that weapons known as explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, had been supplied to Iraqi Shi'ites. But he and other senior intelligence officials told a hearing on threats to the United States that al Qaeda remained the greatest threat facing the United States and had reestablished itself in Pakistan since being driven out of Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. "We inflicted a major blow. They retreated to another area. And they are going through a process to reestablish and rebuild, adapting to the seams, or the weak spots," McConnell said in his first congressional testimony as the U.S. director of national intelligence. McConnell, a retired Navy admiral and career military intelligence officer, took over the intelligence chief's job a week ago, replacing John Negroponte who was sworn in on Tuesday as the new deputy secretary of state. In describing Iran's role in Iraq, he stopped short of he stopped short of saying the Islamic Republic was directing EFP attacks on U.S. forces. "We know there are Iranian weapons manufactured in Iran. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 UPI: McConnell warns of threat posed by Iran United Press International - NewsTrack - Updated: 02/27/2007 2:39:29 PM -0500 UTC WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Director of National Intelligence Vice Adm. John McConnell has singled out Iran as one of the biggest threats to the United States. "Iran is of concern beyond the reasons of nuclear aspirations," McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday. Many factors have inflated Iran's influence in the Middle East, such as the fall of the Taliban and the execution of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, higher oil revenues and the increased power of the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, McConnell said. "Under the Ahmadinejad government, staffed largely by hardliners who are deeply distrustful of the United States, Iran is growing its ability to project military power with the goal of dominating the Gulf region." In addition to developing nuclear weapons and stockpiling ballistic missiles, Tehran is supporting terrorist activities abroad and helping Hezbollah fight Israel and disrupt the government in Lebanon, he said. McConnell warned Hezbollah could turn on U.S. interests "in the event it feels its survival is threatened or if Iran, its sponsor, is threatened." Syria is another threat, also supporting terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, while reinforcing its alliance with Iran, he said. © Copyright 2007United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: US intelligence chief warns on Iran, Russia, Venezuela - Tue Feb 27, 11:43 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons and could produce one by early to mid next decade, the head of US intelligence said Tuesday, calling it a "very dangerous situation." But retired admiral Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said Iran was a concern to the United States beyond its nuclear aspirations. Rising oil income and perceived successes of its surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah has extended Iran's influence in the Middle East, disturbing Arab states, and its military poses a challenge in the Gulf, he said. "We assess that Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons and has shown greater interest in drawing out the negotiations rather than reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution," he said. "This is a very dangerous situation as a nuclear Iran could prompt destabilizing countermoves by other states in this volatile region," he said. "While our information is incomplete, we estimate that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by early to mid next decade," he said. McConnell meanwhile characterized security in Iraq as "moving in a negative direction" and said that the term "civil war" aptly describes elements of the conflict there. "Unless efforts to reverse these conditions gain real traction during the 12-18 month time frame ... we assess that the security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter half of 2006," McConnell told lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee. McConnell said "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict" including the hardening of sectarian divisions and population "displacements." McConnell also criticized what he called a hardening in Russian policy that had led to "rivalry and antagonism" in Moscow's relations with the United States, warning that the Kremlin was becoming more anti-democratic and headstrong as it moves towards presidential elections next year. "Russian assertiveness will continue to inject elements of rivalry and antagonism into US dealings with Moscow, particularly our interactions in the former Soviet Union," McConnell said. Additionally, McConnell asserted that Venezuela's weapons purchases could spark an arms race in the region. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's moves to buy modern military equipment from Russia and to develop domestic weapons production "are increasingly worrisome to his neighbors," McConnell said. "These weapons purchases could fuel an arms race in the region," he said, while also accused the Venezuelan leader of trying to "politicize" the country's armed forces at a time when other states in the region were seeking "more professional and apolitical militaries." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: US strategy change sees Iran, Syria in Iraq talks - Tue Feb 27, 6:32 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a potential policy shift, the United States said Tuesday it would join a conference with Iraq's neighbors which could see senior US officials hold direct talks with foes Iran and Syria. The Bush administration previously had rebuffed calls from Congress, regional allies and the independent Iraq Study Group last year for a regional forum and discussions with its two arch foes on stabilizing chaotic Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said a landmark conference, expected in early April, will follow lower-level talks with regional powers plus the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in Baghdad in March. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack insisted there had been no change in US foreign policy towards Iran, but repeatedly refused to rule out direct talks with the Iranians on the sidelines of the regional talks. A senior State Department official added that if US envoys believed a discussion with the Islamic Republic could be useful, they would evaluate the situation. "I'm not going to lead you to a foregone conclusion that there's going to be such a discussion, I'm also not going to exclude that there's going to be such a discussion," the official said. Iraqi officials said the first gathering, in March, would focus on ending sectarian violence and foreign support for rival militia and insurgents. It will involve ambassadors and other envoys from Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey as well as Egypt, Bahrain, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference plus the five UN Security Council powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. "This initial meeting will be followed, perhaps as early as the first half of April, by a ministerial level meeting with the same invitees, plus the G-8," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. The G-8, or Group of Eight, includes Japan, Canada, Germany and Italy. "I would note that the Iraqi government has invited Syria and Iran to attend both of these regional meetings," she said. "We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq -- and to work for peace and stability in the region," she said. Analysts said that the tone and strategy of the Bush administration's regional diplomacy appeared to be shifting. "We have not been meeting with the Iranians to discuss regional issues," said Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is very clearly an effort to bring the Iranians and the Syrians into a regional security discussion ... obviously the discussion doesn't work unless the US is participating." Justin Logan, of the Cato Institute think-tank, said the regional conference proposal was a clear parallel to the Iraq Study Group recommendation. "It sounds like a lot like the ISG proposal, the sort of regional conference. It certainly is a move in the right direction," he said. President George W. Bush has in the past spelled out a tough line on the idea of even group talks with regional powers on Iraq including Iran and Syria. "They need to come understanding their responsibilities to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the country," he said in December. "If Syria and Iran (are) not committed to that concept, then they shouldn't bother to show up," Bush said. Washington did authorize US ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad to talk to Iran on Iraq in 2005, but talks have so far not materialized. The administration has also stressed they remain committed to using diplomacy to convince Iran to comply with a UN resolution calling on it to suspend uranium enrichment activities some believe are a precursor to producing atomic weapons. But they have refused to take any option off the table. Washington has accused Iran of providing weapons and other support to Shiite militia carrying out attacks on US and allied forces in Iraq. It also accuses Syria of permitting Sunni insurgents to cross its border with Iraq to battle US troops in the country. Separately on Tuesday, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace declared that the United States was "categorically" not planning airstrikes against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: US military chief "categorically" denies plans for Iran air strikes Tuesday February 27, 09:07 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - The head of the US military declared "categorically" Tuesday that the United States is not planning air strikes against Iran. "It is not true," said General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when asked during an appearance in Congress about suggestions that the US military was preparing to launch air strikes on Iran. Asked by Senator Robert Byrd if he was categorically denying the reports, Pace replied: "Categorically sir". US Vice President Dick Cheney fueled concerns about possible US military strikes against Iran over the weekend by saying that "all options are still on the table" to deal with Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. There have also been reports in the US media that the Pentagon has been doing contingency planning for military action, possibly including air strikes on nuclear sites around Iran. But senior officials have stressed publicly that Washington remains committed to using diplomacy to convince Iran to comply with a UN resolution calling on it to suspend uranium enrichment activities some believe are a precursor to producing atomic weapons. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: NKorea capable of building a missile that can hit the US - US intel - Tue Feb 27, 5:46 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - North Korea is technically capable of building a long-range missile that can hit the United States despite a test failure last year, a senior US military intelligence official said Tuesday. Lieutenant General Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said North Korea has probably learned from the failure of its Taepodong-2 missile during a test in July, and made changes to its other missiles. "I believe they have the technical capability, as we saw by the Taepodong, but they have not successfully tested it yet," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Asked how long before North Korea would have a missile capable of reaching the United States, he said, "I would probably estimate it's not a matter of years." Maples made the comments in testimony about global threats that singled out North Korea and Iran as the two states of greatest concern. In the case of North Korea it cited proliferation fears heightened by the July missile tests and North Korea's nuclear test in October. North Korea agreed on February 13 on steps toward disabling its nuclear program in return for US supplies of fuel oil or other economic assistance. Michael McConnell, the national director of intelligence, said US intelligence was unable to monitor North Korea compliance with the agreement "at the level we would like." "We can verify many of the conditions from external observation, but not at the level you're asking about in terms of detail," he said. "There's some open questions, but so far the indications are in the positive direction," he said. North Korea has a known nuclear reactor at Yongbyon but US intelligence also believes it was secretly pursuing a separate uranium enrichment program, which also would be covered by the agreement. Another intelligence official, Joseph Detrani, said US intelligence had high confidence in 2002 that North Korea was acquiring equipment for a uranium enrichment program. US intelligence still believes the program exists, but its confidence in that assessment is now "mid-level." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 13 Digital Chosunilbo: Bush Mooted Peace Treaty With N.Korea Last April Updated Feb.27,2007 12:34 KST U.S. President George W. Bush asked Chinese President Hu Jintao last April what he would think if the U.S. offered North Korea a peace treaty, former U.S. deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick said Monday. Zoellick made the revelation in an article in the Wall Street Journal on the recent conclusion of the six-nation nuclear talks entitled Long Division. Over lunch, Bush opened the conversation by asking the Chinese president whether North Korean leader Kim Jong-il might consider Deng Xiaoping-style reform, according to the former official. Hu replied he had no idea but thought Kim wanted a change. The Chinese president added that when Deng ventured into opening China in the late 1970s, he was reassured by ¡°non-threatening¡± external factors, Zoellick said. Hu said Kim might move more easily if he received a positive signal from the U.S. In reply, Bush asked Hu, ¡°What if we offered him a peace treaty?¡± The Chinese president¡¯s response is not known. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 14 Korea Times: Roh Says N. Korea¡¯s Opening Will Succeed Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter President Roh Moo-hyun predicted yesterday that North Korea would eventually come out of its shell and take to the path of ``reform and openness'' once the nuclear standoff is resolved peacefully. He also said that he would seek a summit with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il when it is deemed helpful for the peace on the Korean Peninsula, though he thinks that the ``time is not ripe yet'' at the moment. In a joint interview with a dozen Internet-based newspapers, Roh said the North would open up and reform itself in the end since it has no other choice but to. ``I think it could succeed in the policy,'' he said. ``The question is the speed.'' He gave the nuclear-ambitious North the benefit of the doubt, saying that the isolated country might have decided to have a nuclear deterrent due to security threats from outside. ``North Korea would try to keep its nuclear weapon if it sees bigger interests with the arsenal, while it would give up the ambition if it sees bigger interests without it,'' the president said in the forum aired live online. ``And that's why we should send positive signals to the North continuously,'' he added. ``What is important is the judgment of South Korea and the United States.'' In the two-hour discussion at Chong Wa Dae, Roh also displayed his firm determination to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) between South Korea and the U.S. ``Some say that the FTA would aggravate the socioeconomic polarization. But on what ground?'' he said. Roh insisted that South Korea could not succeed in the international competition in the future without opening door to the world. The joint interview was arranged at the request of the online news media to mark the fourth anniversary of Roh's inauguration. About 150 people attended the event at Chong Wa Dae including OhmyNews, Pressian, Money Today, E-Daily and other online news media and their readers. Roh, who celebrated the anniversary last Sunday without any fanfare events, focused on the proposal he made earlier this year for a constitutional revision aimed at introducing a four-year presidential system. On Jan. 9, Roh suggested that the current five-year, single-term presidential system be replaced with a four-year one, which allows the future presidents to seek reelection for another four years in office. Roh, a self-made man born to peasant farmers, was elected president in 2002 as a number of Internet-savvy youths joined forces with reform-minded voters in the South Korean politics, still predominated by Cold War sentiments. His notable preference of the online media to offline ones has gotten more conspicuous since his inauguration in early 2003 for a five-year tenure. He waged a war on some conventional newspapers, which he accused of ``ill-intended distortions.'' Widely regarded as the champion of the underprivileged, Roh also actively sought for alternative mass media in a society where the so-called big three newspapers _ Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo _ together account for over 70 percent of the nation's print press market. He launched an online news site of his own office, dubbed the ``Chong Wa Dae Briefing,'' as relations between the conservative dailies and the presidential office went from bad to worse in his first couple of years in office. In yesterday's forum, Roh once again expressed his frustration at the difficulties he experienced in communicating with the ordinary people unleashing his mistrust in the major news media. jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 02-27-2007 18:10 ***************************************************************** 15 ABC: Energy Department Secretary credits public outcry for Divine Strake cancellation - ABC4.com Last Update: Feb 26, 2007 10:05 PM Story by: Chris Vanocur chris@abc4.com Utahns are being credited with stopping the Divine Strake test and that credit comes from the man who oversees the bomb test. Monday, in Washington, Governor Jon Huntsman met with Sam Bodman, the Secretary of Energy. According to the Governor, Bodman says the public outcry over Divine Strake was the reason the test was canceled last week. Utahns spoke out by the thousands voicing their objection to the 700 ton bomb test. Governor Jon Huntsman said, "It had everything to do with the voices that spoke out very passionately and emotionally from our state. That absolutely carried the day and that shouldn't be forgotten by anybody." And when asked if he thinks Divine Strake will ever come back, the Governor says he is comfortable that it's over once and for all. ***************************************************************** 16 TomPaine.com: The Justice Department Massacre Linda Andros February 27, 2007 Linda Andros is a legislative counsel for  Public Citizen's Congress Watch . Once again, President Bush is showing how little respect he has for constitutional checks and balances—and at the same time, how much the country still needs them. Last December, the Department of Justice forced eight U.S. attorneys to resign without cause, firing six on a single December day. It used to be that a president could only make interim appointments for 120 days, and if a candidate was not presented for confirmation by the Senate in that time frame, a local district court appointment temporarily filled the position until a candidate was confirmed. Not anymore. A little-noticed provision in the USA PATRIOT Act revisions passed last year eliminated these checks and balances and gave the U.S. attorney general the authority to fill interim positions indefinitely. Now a president can appoint under-qualified partisans to serve out the remainder of the administration's term. Even more troubling, President Bush can now shield wrongdoers within the administration from independent-minded prosecutors, including those who were overseeing significant public corruption investigations at the time they were forced to resign.   A prime example is the purging of San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, a former judge and political independent best known for spearheading the successful bribery prosecution of Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Her dismissal came in the midst of a large-scale investigation that so far has uncovered a scandal-tainted trail from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Pentagon and Congress, and possibly to the White House. Just two days before Lam left the job, former CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo was indicted by a San Diego grand jury on 11 counts of corruption for his illegal award of covert CIA contracts to long-time friend Brent R. Wilkes. Wilkes, in turn, faces an additional 25-count indictment by the San Diego grand jury for bribing Cunningham with $700,000 to secure Defense Department contracts from 1995 to 2004. Wilkes was a Republican party "Pioneer" who raised more than $100,000 for Bush's 2004 reelection. Lam wasn't the only independent-minded prosecutor who apparently got too close for comfort for this administration. According to news reports, Nevada's U.S. Attorney, Daniel Bogden, was in the midst of overseeing an FBI investigation into the alleged bribing of Nevada's governor, Jim Gibbons, by a military contractor while Gibbons was in Congress. Another dismissed U.S. Attorney, Paul Charlton of Arizona, was investigating a current Republican member of Congress. Predictably, the response of the Justice Department has been to deny and conceal. At first, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is looking into the firings, that six of the eight U.S. attorneys were canned for "unspecified performance reasons." Yet now it has been disclosed that all but one of those U.S. attorneys had positive job evaluations. Carol Lam, for example, was praised by the head of the local FBI field office, who said that her firing appeared to be politically motivated. Indeed, several prosecutors in Lam's office and many defense lawyers expressed shock about her dismissal. A former U.S. attorney in San Diego, Peter Nunez, said that he had not seen anything like it in 35 years. President Bush's purge of Ms. Lam and others who honored their posts by pursuing political corruption sends a chilling message to all U.S. attorneys. When the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a bill on February 15th to restore checks and balances by restoring previous restrictions on the ability of the president to appoint U.S. attorneys, the Republican leadership prevented it from reaching the Senate floor at Bush's urging. This outrageous display of political muscle shows that the president's real priority is protecting corrupt partisans. It's time to block his dangerously partisan cudgel and restore what the Constitution demands—a legitimate check on presidential power. © 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's ***************************************************************** 17 AFP: Hard Truths for Hard Times - Divine Strake bites the dust Atlantic Free Press - Atlantic Free Press was launched in September 2006 by Dutch-Canadian Richard Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands and American Expatriate Chris Floyd of Oxford, UK. Click Name for Bio of Ed Kociela Tuesday, 27 February 2007 by Ed Kociela In the end, all it took was 10,000 voices in protest. That's 10,000 voices from mostly red-state Utah where residents were opposed to detonation of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in an attempt to gather data for the design, manufacture and deployment of nuclear bunker buster weapons. They called this travesty Divine Strake, one of those military code names that really makes no sense to anybody outside of The Pentagon. But, there was nothing divine about this test, planned to go off in some of the most highly radiated turf in the nation in the middle of the Nevada Test Site where, during the Cold War, the federal government exploded more than 1,000 nukes in pursuit of truth, justice and the American Way. At one point, the U.S. had 32,193 of these babies locked and loaded, ready to go at the push of a button if the Great Red Menace got out of hand. Now, there are nearly 10,000, more than half of them tipped and ready to go. But, this administration decided that wasn't enough and wanted to push for the bunker busters, soft-pedaling them as mini-nukes, as if that makes a difference. It caused the people of Utah, Nevada and Idaho to wage a nuclear jihad the moment the test was made public. The original paperwork described it as the first course of a menu that would eventually lead to the new nukes. And, as anybody with half a mind can tell you, if you build a bomb, you must test it before you deploy it. But now, at least for the time being, it is over, thanks to a cadre of residents who had the courage to stand up and say, "Not this time!" This was one of those truly rare bipartisan issues. Staunch, old-line Republicans stood shoulder-to-shoulder with progressives and members of the Democratic Party's left-leaning activists and demanded an end to this test, which they feared would toss tiny little microns of atomically charged dust 10,000 feet into the sky, only to land God knows where. They had been through this before when, during the Cold War, the government blew nasty nukes up in the desert and these people were hit with the fallout, causing many cancerous deaths and ailments. The feds told them they had nothing to fear, that the fallout was harmless. Many are gone. Some of those children, severely maimed by the cancer that fell from the sky, are still around, however, and they led the charge. And after the announcement they shed tears of joy for those who will be spared and tears of sorrow for the innocent victims of the worst attack ever on the citizens of this country. It's over. At least for now. the Atlantic Free Press Daily ***************************************************************** 18 UPI: Outside View: In defense of the INF United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 2/27/2007 3:24:00 PM -0500 By ANDREI KISLYAKOV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- In December 2007, the Russian-American treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, or INF Treaty, may celebrate its 20th anniversary. Or it may not. Considering the position of Poland and the Czech Republic, which are about to allow the Americans to install elements of an anti-missile defense system on their soil, the Russian leadership may well act on its recent threat to withdraw from that treaty. Such a step will certainly have many repercussions. In mid-February, Army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of Russia's General Staff, said that Russia might unilaterally pull out of the 1987 treaty. He directly linked the possibility of that step with plans for the implementation of an American anti-missile defense program for European countries. For several years now the Russian military and political leadership has been saying that it will give an asymmetrical, less expensive but very effective answer to Washington's anti-missile defense plans. It is no secret that the reference is to systems, both existing and under development, for penetrating anti-missile defenses with Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. In principle there is nothing radical about this, despite the fact it pits strategic offensive weapons against purely defensive armaments. Modernizing the existing nuclear missile arsenal is indeed quite an understandable asymmetrical answer to the appearance of global anti-missile systems. But adding intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles to such an answer in the future is not a very happy choice. By the mid-1980s, efforts by the Soviet Union and the United States to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles had reached their peak and posed a real threat to global security. In the middle of December 1985, the Americans completed the deployment in Germany of all 108 planned Pershing-2 ballistic missiles, with a range of 1,080 miles. With an impressive circular error probable of 20-40 meters, the missile could carry a nuclear warhead with a regulated TNT equivalent of 110 pounds to 220 pounds. The target approach time was about 14 minutes. In addition, Britain -- on two bases, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and West Germany deployed a total of about 500 GLCM/109G missiles with nuclear warheads. The range of these missiles was 1,500 miles. The Soviet Union could engage the probable enemy from several positioning areas on its territory by deploying its famous Pioneer mobile ground-based missile system, carrying an RSD-10, or SS-20, missile with a range of around 3,120 miles. Therefore the whole of Europe lay within its reach. There were also plans to deploy this system in the country's Far Eastern near-polar region. In that case, most of the U.S. western seaboard would have been vulnerable. And even that was not the whole story. In November 1983, a decision was made to develop a new advanced Skorost mobile missile system, which would be deployed in Czechoslovakia and East Germany. But even under these circumstances, the United States' tightening nuclear missile noose compelled the Soviet Union's leadership to hold negotiations on the limitation of intermediate-range missiles. In such a case it is hard to refrain from asking: why is the present situation any different than the past? It is not, to put it mildly. Should the Americans want to drop their rhetoric about the future of the INF Treaty in favor of practice, they will have all of Western Europe at their disposal. Speaking technically, an initial arrangement could be to replace destroyed ground-launched cruise missiles with similar, but not banned, ground-based SLCM/BGM-109A Tomahawk missiles -- only mothballed in 1991 -- equipped with nuclear warheads. For Russia, however, the second episode in the saga of intermediate-range missile deployment is one big question mark. Which plant will manufacture the required number of missiles? The existing facility east of the Urals chronically fails to cope even with the production of ICBMs ordered by the state. What must be the procedure for condemning land for positioning areas and where should they be located? How to provide the proper infrastructure and bring units up to the necessary strength? How to ensure uninterrupted command and control, including launching new communications and reconnaissance satellites into orbit? And last but not least: where is the war chest to help pay for all these things? If we recognize that no magic wand has been found yet, then we'll have to cut back on existing national projects, and no one will be able to choose which ones to axe. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's former defense minister, may have been right to describe the INF Treaty as a relic. But all things old are not always worse than what's new. (Andrei Kislyakov is a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti.) (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 Reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Ynetnews: Japan to host 4-way summit - Israel News Shimon Peres, representing Israel? Photo: Yaron Brener Taro Aso and Tzipi Livni in Tokyo Photo: AP Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian officials to meet next month in Tokyo in hopes of promoting peace Iris Georlette Published: 02.27.07, 17:35 / Israel News TOKYO - A four-way summit including Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian and Japanese representatives is set to take place next month in Tokyo, announced Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso on Tuesday. International Front Foreign minister meets with her Japanese counterpart Taro Aso. Livni to urge Tokyo to continue to actively oppose Tehran's nuclear program The summit will take place on March 14, one day after Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres is scheduled to arrive in Japan to meet with Aso. Official Israeli and Japanese sources refused to confirm whether the two events were related. Unofficial reports in Japan however, confirmed that Peres would indeed be representing Israel in the meeting. President Mahmoud Abbas' advisor Saeb Erekat will represent the Palestinians, and one of King Abdullah's senior advisors will represent Jordan. As host of the summit, Aso said he hopes the meeting will pave the way for reestablishing trust and opening communication channels between the parties. "Peace is necessary for stability in the Middle East, and Japan wants to play its part in international efforts to reach it," he said. In his visit to Israel last summer, former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi proposed the "Corridor for peace and prosperity", a joint Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian industrial project which Japan would help fund. The purpose of this endeavour was to promote cooperation in the region. Soon after the second Lebanon war broke out, and the plan was set aside, this upcoming summit hopes to revive such plans. Concerns over nuclear weapons Ending a two-day official visit in Tokyo on Tuesday, Israeli Foreign Ministry Director General Aaron Abramovich told Ynet that the main purpose of his visit was to strengthen strategic dialogue between Israel and Japan, as was decided in Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's visit to Tokyo last month. Abramovich said one of the topics addressed in his visit was the intensification of radical Islam in the Middle East and south-east Asia, and stressed that the most important topic on the agenda was the comparison between Iranian and North Korean nuclear activity. "They presented their concerns, and we presented ours," he said. Copyright © Yedioth Internet. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 IRNA: Israel's nuclear arsenal only 'widely assumed,' UK again insists - London, Feb 27, IRNA The British government is continuing to insist that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is only widely assumed, despite former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw admitting in November that its arsenal was not a secret. "We are aware of the widespread assumption that Israel possesses nuclear weapons," Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells said in response to what the government's policy was on whether the Zionist regime is a nuclear state. "But note that the Israeli Government have refused to confirm it," Howells said in a written parliamentary reply published Tuesday. He made no mention to prime minister Ehud Ohmert's recent admission about his regime's arsenal, but insisted the UK government have "on a number of occasions called on Israel to accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state." "We take appropriate opportunities to discuss all aspects of non- proliferation with representatives of the Israeli government," the minister told MPs. Straw, who is the current Leader of the House of Commons, became the first member of the British cabinet to go on public record last November and formally admit that Tel Aviv has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. "I don't think it is a secret. I have never pretended that they haven't got nuclear weapons, certainly they have got a nuclear arsenal and it is a working assumption," Straw said in an interview with the Muslims News. He made the admission after he was challenged about the government's failure to acknowledge yet alone deal with Israel's nuclear weapons. Last year, it was also revealed by the BBC, using classified documents, that the UK secretly helped the Zionist regime to develop nuclear weapons in the 1960s by supplying heavy water and plutonium to Israel. The focus of Israel's nuclear arsenal comes after the British government has been accused of double standards in raising concerns about Iran's civilian programme while adopting a 'conspiracy of silence' in not even acknowledging the Zionist regime's weapons. Challenged about the 'double standards' by western government while he was still foreign secretary last March, Straw suggested that the UK would deal with Israel's illegal stockpile of weapons only after it resolved the concern over Iran's civilian programme. Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, he said the UK wanted Israel to join the NPT and said that his government also signed a UN proposal in 1995 calling for the whole of the Middle East to be nuclear weapon free. News sent: 15:58 Tuesday February 27, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 21 ITAR-TASS: Russia's Nerpa shipyard scraps one more submarine 27.02.2007, 10.53 MURMANSK, February 27 (Itar-Tass) - The Nerpa shipyard in the Murmansk region has scrapped another multi-purpose nuclear submarine decommissioned from Russia’s Northern Fleet. The submarine’s reactor section has already been prepared for transportation and in summer it will be tugged to Russia’s first-ever coastal long-term storage facility in Saida Bay, the shipyard director, Alexander Gorbunov told Itar-Tass on Tuesday. The Norwegian government allocated funds for the submarine’s scrapping within the framework of the global partnership program. Gorbunov pointed out that Norwegian specialists who visited the shipyard highly assessed the work done by their Russian counterparts. Since 1994 when the Nerpa shipyard was made the main facility for scrapping submarines on the Kola Peninsula, it has utilized 40 nuclear submarines, 70 decommissioned surface vessels and diesel submarines. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards To Meet March 8-10 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2007-028 - 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 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting March 8-10 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the technical basis for proposed regulatory action relating to the dissimilar metal weld issue at nuclear power plants. Portions of this discussion may be closed to protect proprietary information. The committee will also discuss the final results of chemical effects tests in a pressurized water reactor sump pool environment, and guidance documents in support of new reactor licensing. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day and end at 7 p.m. on Thursday, 6:30 p.m. Friday and at 1 p.m. on Saturday. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2007/ . Anyone with questions or those wishing to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. To pursue videoconferencing services, contact Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. 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. Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer Tuesday, February 27, 2007 ***************************************************************** 23 AU ABC: Backbenchers nervous about nuclear claims AM - Wednesday, 28 February , 2007 08:08:00 Reporter: Alexandra Kirk TONY EASTLEY: The Prime Minister won't be drawn on where any nuclear power plants might be built, but some of his MPs are nervous about the political ramifications, and they're keen to rule out a nuclear power plant being built in their electorates. From Canberra, Alexandra Kirk reports. ALEXANDRA KIRK: It's an election year with many voters cautious about the prospect of nuclear power and, more particularly, a nuclear power plant near them. MPs are under no illusion about what voters think, and some would prefer to have the big debate after the election, not before. Liberal MP Mal Washer says people are spooked by the prospect of nuclear power, and it's up to the Government to convince them it's the way to go. MAL WASHER: We have a lot of work to do to allow our public to do that appropriately, and that's going to take some time. And I think we should be starting now, and let's not worry about the electoral cycle, let's start now. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Victorian Liberal Greg Hunt's seat is often suggested as a site for a nuclear plant. He's previously said it was unsuitable because the area's geologically unstable, one of the most unstable in Australia. His view is there are places in Australia which may be more suitable, both geologically and in terms of community support. But he stresses he's an in-principle supporter of a nuclear reactor. For fellow Victorian Russell Broadbent, from the La Trobe Valley, it's a case of, quote, "over his dead body" would an atomic plant be built in his neck of the woods. RUSSELL BROADBENT: We've got 700 years of opportunity for clean coal in Gippsland and McMillan, which is Peter McGauran's seat has the coal, I have the workers and those people around it. But, you know, quite seriously, why would you put a nuclear power plant that's 20 times dearer than clean coal right on top of the opportunities that we have in Victoria? Yes, there are other parts of Australia you might put a nuclear power plant, but you wouldn't put it in Gippsland. ALEXANDRA KIRK: So are you in favour of nuclear power per se? RUSSELL BROADBENT: I'm in favour of the debate, as the Prime Minister has said, great opportunity to have a debate about nuclear power, where does it fit into Australia's energy mix for the future. But at the moment we're nearly up to a new base-load power station. We're running out of power in Victoria, we're going to need base-load power. Somebody should be looking at a new gas power station, or a new coal-fired power station. We've put $50 million now into clean coal research, we've put $100 million across the nation, and of course I'd be interested in how we're going to use that resource and going to use it effectively on behalf of the nation. ALEXANDRA KIRK: So nuclear power's not on your agenda at all? RUSSELL BROADBENT: Not on my agenda, no. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you think that view is shared by a lot of other Coalition MPs? RUSSELL BROADBENT: There will be a need for a mix of energy, clean energy, into the future, and I think nuclear should be part of that debate. ALEXANDRA KIRK: But it's a case of not in your backyard? RUSSELL BROADBENT: I have good reasons not to have it in Gippsland, because I have a resource that can provide for the whole of the nation, let alone the whole of Victoria. ALEXANDRA KIRK: And you don't think that nuclear power is cleaner than coal power and therefore should be given a guernsey? RUSSELL BROADBENT: Um, that actually is not the debate, whether it's cleaner or not, it's about how we use the resources that we're given. If nuclear is an option into the future, I will support the Prime Minister 100 per cent on the debate that he wants to have about whether it should be part of the mix. But I would say to you, it's so expensive that you wouldn't even contemplate it in Gippsland. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you think other MPs are happy for it to be contemplated in their electorates? RUSSELL BROADBENT: There will be MPs who would accept it into their electorate ... I can't name you an MP who would accept it in their electorate, but as part of the mix there will be parts of Australia that actually could use a nuclear power plant rather than a coal-based power plant. TONY EASTLEY: Liberal backbencher Russell Broadbent. He was speaking with Alexandra Kirk. ***************************************************************** 24 The Australian: States reject plans for nuclear plant | Vic | * February 27, 2007 THE Victorian and South Australian governments have opposed any plan to build a nuclear power plant in their states. Video: 'Secret plan' Premiers Steve Bracks and Mike Rann were responding to a newspaper report today that claims three leading businessmen are examining the viability of setting up Australia's first nuclear power plant in either Victoria or South Australia. Business giants 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. Mr Bracks told Southern Cross Broadcasting nuclear power was not viable, feasible or safe. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste; number one," he said. "Number two; the general safety of the plan is questionable and number three the economics are just not there, it actually would require a doubling of the price of electricity in Victoria." Mr Rann ruled out the proposed plant, saying it would be an "all-round disaster". 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." Mr Bracks said that cost would either be passed on to consumers or shouldered by the federal Government in the form of a $1 billion subsidy to construct a nuclear power plant. "If you're going to put $1 billion extra in, put it into clean coal technology, into geosequestration where you bury some of the carbon; that would be a much better system and keeping power prices at a lower rate rather than putting in a subsidy for something which has questionable safety attributes." Mr Bracks said he was aware of Mr Walker's interest in nuclear power but had made it clear the government's position was not to support such a proposal. "We made it clear during the campaign ... in the policy speech that I announced when I released our policy details in Ballarat I indicated that not only were we against a nuclear power plant in Victoria but we would also have a plebescite, that is a vote of all Victorians if ever such a proposal was pushed by the federal government or by a private consortium and the people of Victoria would decide whether or not that proceeds." Plebescite legislation will be introduced into parliament this week, which, if passed, would effectively ban a nuclear power plant being built on any state land without public support. "My expectation is that there's other alternatives and people would oppose this," Mr Bracks said. Federal Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the public needed to know if the business trio pushing the nuclear plan had been given any tacit support by the coalition. "It seems that Mr Howard's plans for bringing nuclear reactors into this country are advanced," Mr Garrett told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I think it's important that the prime minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people of whether or not his government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals." Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said the nuclear plan must be stopped. "If we just went blindly down this path of producing nuclear power we would just end up with this massive waste problem which would become Australia's biggest waste problem ever and for an extremely long time," she told Southern Cross Broadcasting. - AAP © The Australian ***************************************************************** 25 The Australian: Taxpayers to pay for nuke folly - Greens * February 27, 2007 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 says. In any case, the cost of construction would be so great they would be forced to rely on taxpayers' funds. 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 told reporters. "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. - AAP © The Australian ***************************************************************** 26 The Australian: Nuclear plan prompts meltdown * February 27, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * By Denis Peters ENVIRONMENTAL groups and political leaders today rejected the idea of a company headed by three leading businessman setting up Australia's first nuclear power plant. Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd was today reported to be looking at sites in South Australia or Victoria, but issued a statement denying plans were under way for power plants. However the reports caused a political storm and provoked a strong reaction. South Australia and Victoria both quickly ruled out any possibility of such a plant in their backyards. SA Premier Mike Rann said no nuclear reactor would be contemplated in his state while he remained premier. “Nuclear power stations in SA are not economically viable, will be totally financially irresponsible and would also force up the wholesale price of electricity by 100 per cent,” he said. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said his Government would oppose any proposal to build a nuclear power plant in the state. “There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste, number one,” he said. “Number two, the general safety of the plan is questionable and number three the economics are just not there.” Federal Energy Minister Ian Macfarlane said the Government merely wanted a debate on the merits or otherwise of nuclear energy. “We need to have a debate, there needs to be a bipartisan position,” he told Parliament. “It doesn't make sense to me that some parts of the Labor Party say we can export uranium to our friends and they can use it to lower greenhouse gas emissions by using it in baseload nuclear power stations, but they don't want to have a debate here in Australia about nuclear energy.” Nuclear opponents say the question of location is one the fundamental difficulties of the government achieving support for nuclear power. Pro-renewable energy academic body the Australia Institute said Port Augusta in South Australia was the most likely first-choice location for a nuclear power plant in either SA or Victoria. The institute's deputy director Andrew Macintosh said Port Adelaide best suited the basic criteria for a reactor and that it could be co-located with a desalination plant. Government MP Barry Wakelin, whose seat of Grey encompasses Port Augusta, declined to respond to a request for comment on the institute's suggested location. Federal Employment Minister Kevin Andrews immediately ruled out his outer Melbourne electorate of Menzies as a possible site. “There's probably not much room for a nuclear power plant in my electorate,” he said. Australian Conservation Foundation director Don Henry described nuclear power as “the cane toad” of the energy sector. “You get it in thinking it's going to produce you some energy and it leaves you the poisonous legacy of nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years,” he said. Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven described the reactor proposal as an ill-advised plan to make money at the expense of the Australian public and the environment. “Further cracks are appearing in John Howard's closely guarded plans to create a nuclear industry and international waste dump in Australia,” she said. “The Australian public deserve to know what discussions the Federal Government has had with these three businessmen.” However, Prime Minister John Howard denied the Government was having secret discussions about such a plant. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 27 The Australian: Garrett urges PM to explain nuke dealings This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * February 28, 2007 LABOR has called for the Federal Government to explain exactly what it knew about a proposed nuclear power company set up by a key Liberal Party figure just days before Prime Minister John Howard set up a taskforce into nuclear energy. Ron Walker, a former treasurer of the Liberal Party and major party fundraiser, and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year. Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett said Mr Howard's reply to a question on a telephone conversation between himself and Mr Walker about his proposed nuclear energy company raised more questions than it answered. "Australians need to know to what extent the prime minister, his ministers or any senior staff or reps have had any discussions of any kind with Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) over that period of time," he told ABC radio. "There is a communication between the prime minister and Mr Walker concerning the development of an Australian nuclear energy industry proposal. "The posture of the Government in terms of initiating the Switkowski inquiry and going on is something there is huge public interest in." Mr Howard yesterday said he knew Mr Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time that he announced his review of uranium mining processing. But Mr Howard denied there was anything sinister about his discussions with Mr Walker. That taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, found that a network of 25 nuclear reactors built within kilometres of suburban homes could be supplying a third of Australia's power by 2050. Liberal backbencher Mal Washer said the Government had a lot of work to to convince the public of the merits of nuclear power. "That's going to take some time. I think we should be starting now. Let's not worry about the electoral cycle. Let's start now," Dr Washer said. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 28 Herald Sun: State pledges nuke plebiscite NEWS.com.au | February 27, 2007 12:00am THE Victorian government will give voters the final say on whether they want nuclear power. The government pledge follows reports of a strong business push for a plant in the state. State Energy and Resource Minister Peter Batchelor introduced legislation into parliament today that would force a plebiscite on a nuclear power station if the federal government moved to override the state's objection to it. The move comes after reports that three Australian businessmen were 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 (ANE), a private company behind the plan, News Limited newspapers reported today. But ANE today denied it had put forward any proposal for nuclear power plants. "The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country," a statement from the company said. "Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd is a private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs. "ANE company secretary Mr Bruce Fitzgerald says that contrary to today's media reports, the company has not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia." Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said he had not been approached by the businessmen with the plan but had a general idea of their intentions, and made it clear he did not support them. The Victorian government would oppose building a nuclear power plant in the state, he said. Mr Bracks told parliament today there was no safe way of having a nuclear power plant or storing its waste in Victoria. He said there was no assurance about the safety and operation of the plants and that nuclear power was not financially viable. "The economics of a nuclear power plant are just not there," Mr Bracks said. "It's twice the cost of a coal-fired power station ... and effectively would require in Victoria's case something like $1 billion in subsidies for that to occur," he said. "Why not invest in clean coal technology ... why not invest in renewables?" Mr Bracks asked. Opposition leader Ted Baillieu said the plebiscite was "more about politics than anything else". "I think it would be an overwhelming `No' at this stage. I don't think there's any surprises about that," Mr Baillieu said. However, the Liberal Party was willing to consider nuclear power, he said. "We've said that we support there being a study, we're happy to have a debate," Mr Baillieu said. AAP © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 29 Herald Sun: State rushes in people power NEWS.com.au | Ashley Gardiner February 28, 2007 12:00am NEW laws rushed into State Parliament yesterday are designed to give Victorians the chance to vote on nuclear power. The vote would be needed only if Canberra tried to override state laws banning nuclear power. Premier Steve Bracks said a plebiscite, promised during last year's election campaign, would strengthen anti-nuclear laws in place since 1983. Mr Bracks said he would change the policy if voters called for it. "The majority does rule, yes, the majority does rule," he said. Mr Bracks told Parliament Labor didn't believe there was a safe way to store nuclear waste. "There is still no absolute assurance on the safety and operation of the plants," he said. "The economics of a nuclear power plant are just not there." Mr Bracks said that if Victorians voted against nuclear power, no plants could be built on state or private land. "There would still be some open question about Federal Government land," he said. Future state governments would have to change the State Constitution to override the vote, Mr Bracks said. But the Federal Government could rely on its powers to beat it. "They would have to take a case (to court) and obviously that would be vigorously opposed by the State Government if that was to be," he said. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 30 Herald Sun: Libs to face scare tactics NEWS.com.au | February 28, 2007 12:00am Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus THE prospect of a seat-by-seat nuclear scare campaign has sent a shiver down the spines of Coalition MPs already concerned about flagging opinion polls. Coalition MPs at yesterday's joint party room meeting warned Prime Minister John Howard that Labor would capitalise on big business moves to build a nuclear reactor somewhere in Victoria or South Australia. The MPs were responding to yesterday's exclusive Herald Sun report that a trio of leading businessmen had formed a company and were looking at the viability of a plant. But their warnings failed to shake Mr Howard's belief Australia must fully consider going nuclear. In Parliament, a defiant Mr Howard said he held no fears about investigating Australia' nuclear future. "I think this nation, if it is serious about climate change, has to look at the nuclear option," he said. "I am not frightened of that. I am not ruling out power stations anywhere in this country." Later, several Liberal MPs repeated opposition to a nuclear plant being built in their electorates. Russell Broadbent, who holds McMillan in the Latrobe Valley, said it would happen "over my dead body". "We have just spent $50 million on brown coal research for a pilot plant at Hazelwood," Mr Broadbent said. "There are another 1000 years of clean coal if the changes are made. "Why would you put a nuclear power plant in that part of Victoria when you have the resources we have?" Flinders MHR Greg Hunt's electorate covers Hastings, which is regularly touted as a site for an atomic plant. "My view remains that Western Port is one of the most geologically unstable areas in Australia," Mr Hunt said. "It is crossed by the Tyabb, Lang Lang and Selwyn fault lines and is therefore not appropriate. "There are places in Australia which may be appropriate, to be both geologically stable and have community support. Neither is present here." Agriculture Minister and Gippsland MHR Peter McGauran said a nuclear reactor was not yet economically viable and may not be any time soon. "That shouldn't gag a debate on the merits of nuclear energy as one of the counter-measures to greenhouse gases," Mr McGauran said. "Siting options could only come after a full-scale debate, which Labor denies the community." Businessmen Ron Walker, Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan formed Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd on June 1 last year just five days before Mr Howard set up a prime ministerial taskforce on nuclear energy in Australia. The taskforce, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, gave its initial report late last year and found a network of 25 nuclear reactors could supply up to a third of Australia's power by 2050. Plant sites would be on the existing electricity grid, close to water and major population centres, Dr Switowski said. Geelong and the Latrobe Valley are considered two of the most likely sites in Victoria. Geelong Labor MP Gavan O'Connor described the plan as a "reactor by the rich" and said people in his electorate or in nearby Liberal-held Corangamite would be strongly opposed to it. "Nuclear reactors are expensive to build, produce toxic waste and are enormous consumers of scarce water resources," Mr O'Connor said. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane denied any discussions with ANE about nuclear power plants. But Mr Macfarlane said there was nothing unusual in him talking to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry. Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country," Mr Garrett said. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 31 AdelaideNow: Rann: No nuclear NEWS.com.au | NICK HENDERSON, POLITICAL REPORTER February 27, 2007 01:20pm PREMIER Mike Rann today repeated his position that no nuclear power plant would be built in South Australia under his government - going as far as telling people to "read my lips". Following revelations three of Australia's richest men have formed a private company to set up the first nuclear power plant in the country, with South Australia and Victoria identified as potential locations, Mr Rann said he had never discussed the proposal with the company and would not do so. "At the last election I ruled out any nuclear power plants being built in South Australia and I have recently reaffirmed that in Parliament so the good news is that this government will not allow a nuclear power plant to be built," he said. "The key thing is it won't be built in this state while I am the Premier or Labor is in power. "That's it, zero chance, read my lips, no nuclear power plant in South Australia." Mr Rann claimed the price of electricity would increase by 100 per cent if a nuclear power plant was built. "Nuclear power stations in South Australia would not be economically viable, would be totally financially irresponsible and also of course would force up the wholesale price of electricity by 100 per cent," he said. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times ACDT (GMT +10:30). ***************************************************************** 32 AdelaideNow: Voters to get voice on nuclear power NEWS.com.au | Article from: AAP By Kate Lahey February 27, 2007 05:23pm THE Victorian Government will give voters the final say on whether they want nuclear power, after reports of a strong business push for a plant in the state. State Energy and Resource Minister Peter Batchelor introduced legislation into Parliament today that would force a plebiscite on a nuclear power station if the Federal Government moved to override the state's objection to it. The move comes after reports that three Australian businessmen were 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 (ANE), a private company behind the plan, reports said today. But ANE today denied it had put forward any proposal for nuclear power plants. “The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country,” a statement from the company said. “Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd is a private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs. “ANE company secretary Mr Bruce Fitzgerald says that contrary to today's media reports, the company has not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia.” Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said he had not been approached by the businessmen with the plan but had a general idea of their intentions, and made it clear he did not support them. The Victorian Government would oppose building a nuclear power plant in the state, he said. Mr Bracks told Parliament today there was no safe way of having a nuclear power plant or storing its waste in Victoria. He said there was no assurance about the safety and operation of the plants and that nuclear power was not financially viable. “The economics of a nuclear power plant are just not there,” Mr Bracks said. “It's twice the cost of a coal-fired power station ... and effectively would require in Victoria's case something like $1 billion in subsidies for that to occur,” he said. “Why not invest in clean coal technology ... why not invest in renewables?” Mr Bracks asked. Opposition leader Ted Baillieu said the plebiscite was “more about politics than anything else”. “I think it would be an overwhelming `No' at this stage. I don't think there's any surprises about that,” Mr Baillieu said. However, the Liberal Party was willing to consider nuclear power, he said. “We've said that we support there being a study, we're happy to have a debate,” Mr Baillieu said. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times ACDT (GMT +10:30). ***************************************************************** 33 NEWS.com.au: Port Augusta 'prime nuclear site' By Cameron England and Mark Kenny February 28, 2007 12:00am AN AREA north of Port Augusta in South Australia has been identified as the preferred site for a nuclear power plant planned by a consortium of high-profile businessmen. As revealed in The Advertiser yesterday, Australian Nuclear Energy - owned by former SA Economic Development Board chairman Robert de Crespigny, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan - is examining the viability of building a nuclear power plant in South Australia or Victoria. A source has confirmed the consortium last year was examining the viability of building a 20-50 megawatt pilot plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf area, at a cost of $70 million-$150 million. Yesterday, the Australia Institute backed Port Augusta as the best site if SA and Victoria were being considered, and Prime Minister John Howard revealed he had lent his support to the business trio. Questioned in Parliament over any contact between the Government and the prospective company directors, Mr Howard said he had spoken to one of the businessmen before the company was registered and described it as "a great idea". "The only contact I had with the three very reputable Australian businessmen was in about the middle of last year, Mr (Ron) Walker in a telephone conversation I had with him," he said. Mr Walker - a prominent Melbourne businessman and former Liberal Party national treasurer - and Mr de Crespigny each own 40 per cent of the business. Mr Morgan, the former head of previous Olympic Dam uranium mine owner Western Mining, is chairman of the venture. Premier Mike Rann yesterday again ruled out a nuclear plant being built in SA under his government, saying he would not even consider a proposal. "The key thing is it won't be built in this state while I am the Premier or Labor is in power," Mr Rann said. "That's it, zero chance, read my lips, no nuclear power plant in South Australia." The company's secretary, Bruce Fitzgerald, said yesterday it had been formed to "examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs". But he denied any proposal to build a nuclear power plant had been put to Government. The company was registered on June 1 last year, just five days before the Federal Government established the Switkowski review into nuclear energy. A source close to the consortium this week said it had spoken to US firm GE about supplying a nuclear generating plant. GE's new-model nuclear power plants are designed to supply 1350-1600MW of power, enough for more than a million households, and take three years to build. Costs are project-specific, but it was likely to be $2 billion to $3 billion. South Australia's current electricity generating capacity is 3260MW, with daily usage about 1400MW. Power could be sold into the eastern states. If built in the Port Augusta area, a nuclear power plant could supply power to a $300 million desalination plant BHP Billiton is planning for Whyalla and the Olympic Dam mine site, which will use about 400MW of power a day if a proposed mine expansion goes ahead. BHP spokesman Richard Yeeles said yesterday the company had not had discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy. The Australia Institute, which has studied the most viable sites for nuclear plants in Australia, yesterday said Port Augusta was the most likely site. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 34 NEWS.com.au: Howard denies nuclear inquiry 'benefit' | By Maria Hawthorne February 28, 2007 12:58pm PRIME Minister John Howard has denied setting up his inquiry into nuclear power to benefit Liberal Party powerbroker Ron Walker. Mr Howard conceded that he called the inquiry into nuclear energy's feasibility about the same time that Mr Walker told him he had registered a nuclear energy company. But he said he had not been influenced by Mr Walker's decision to start Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd. "There was absolutely nothing riding on my conversation with Mr Walker," Mr Howard told Sky News. "I didn't decide to have an inquiry into nuclear power in Australia because Mr Walker told me that he and a couple of his business associates (were registering a company). "I decided to have the inquiry because I thought it was in the national interest to do so." Mr Howard told parliament yesterday that Mr Walker rang him one Saturday morning in the middle of last year to tell him he was planning to register a nuclear energy company. ANE was registered on June 1, 2006 - five days before Mr Howard announced his prime ministerial taskforce to review the feasibility of a nuclear energy industry. Today, Mr Howard said Mr Walker had phoned him to tell him the company had been registered. "I remember the conversation, it was very short. He indicated they had registered this company, I responded as I did, and then we pretty quickly moved on to something else," he said. Mr Howard pointed out that then science minister Brendan Nelson had proposed an inquiry in November 2005. "The idea that I thought gee, let's have an inquiry as a result of my conversation with Ron Walker is just ridiculous," he said. "They didn't seek any assistance. They don't need the permission of the Prime Minister to incorporate a company." Mr Howard denied discussing possible government subsidies to make nuclear power economical with Mr Walker. "No, no, of course not," he said. "We don't have any proposals to provide government subsidies, I haven't discussed any government subsidies. "Please, let's just calm down and let's be sensible and mature about this. It's a very important issue for the long-term future of the country and it deserves more than the trivial treatment it's receiving from Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd." Mr Howard said he would keep an open mind about a nuclear plant in his seat of Bennelong. "I am open-minded about where it might be, whether it's in Sydney or somewhere else," he said. "That is something some years into the future and something that will be determined by economic, environmental and regulatory considerations. "And if we are to have a genuine debate, a mature debate, a sensible debate, then we must be willing to avoid and set our faces against this silly game of will you rule it out here and there. "I'm not going to do that because it's irresponsible of somebody in my position to do that." Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 35 NEWS.com.au: Reader's Comments: Nuclear power 'the logical next step' - February 28, 2007 07:36am Article from: AAP EMBRACING nuclear power is the logical next step if Australians are serious about tackling global warming, the head of the Government's nuclear taskforce has said. Former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski said objections about nuclear power had shifted from being "deep emotionally held" to business considerations about cost and location. Dr Switkowski said nuclear was an obvious choice if Australians seriously believed in trying to use cleaner sources of energy. * Read full story It doesn't really matter what anyone says, Australia is one of the prime countries for nuclear power, we have massive resources for it, huge open spaces, and the technology for it. It's really only a matter of time before we start getting into the only really viable solution. Posted by: Daniel of Sydney 2:09pm today Comment 43 of 43 Australia has 1/4 the worlds peak Thorium reserves, about 300,000 tonnes, requiring no enrichment process. Once converted to Uranium 233 it is an excellent fuel, with low-half life waste not easily used for bombs. The waste from a 1000 MWe coal power station - 7 million tonnes of CO2 plus sulphides; the waste from the same size nuclear reactor, 25-30 tonnes of vitrefied waste. The nuclear power industry is the only one that takes account of and costs all wastes. Posted by: Tom McKibbin of Wagga 1:53pm today Comment 42 of 43 Has anyone wondered why powerplants are located close to large population centres contrary to the belief that coal power plants are built next to coal mines. It is because of the TLF and DLF. Thats the Transmission Loss Factor and Distribution Loss Factor for anyone not in the power industry. These two items demand that the power be generated close to where it is consumed. So the idea of covering the simpson desert in solar panels is not only environmentaly unsound but also technologicly unsound as well. Personally, I think we need to rely on non-emmision power generation. Every house should be solar hot water and suppliment electricity with solar photovoltic. For Peak bulk generation, Hydro, Solar-Thermal, Wind and Closed circuit geo-thermal. But for Base load generation we still need Thorium fission and the new Fussion reactors be developed. Posted by: Peter of Brisbane 1:50pm today Comment 41 of 43 If the government had done any research into alternative energy sources, they would have found that Fuel Cells would be the best thing to research. The money that would be needed for constructing, maintaining and demolishing nuclear power plant(s) could be poured into researching and maturing fuel cell technology. Fuel cells create electricity and only require hydrogen and oxygen to run. The hydrogen can be pure or created from natural gas and/or methanol. The only by product is water, which is something we are in need of as well. Groups of Large fuel cells (we're talking coal power plant size here) can generate enough electricity to run the country. They also run at around 1000 degrees celcius, so the water that is produced could also be converted to steam, which can generate electricity via large turbines, which is the same way electricity is created in nuclear power plants. Posted by: tec 1:49pm today Comment 40 of 43 Nuclear Power is the logical next step ONLY if you're a Billionaire who stands to make a Gazillion when the Government caves in to your generous "donations" to the election fund. There are quite a few other options, and conglomerations of same, with the same outcome and a cleaner, less radioactive, footprint. Posted by: Stephan Haberer of Brisbane 1:43pm today Comment 39 of 43 A Nuclear power station here in Australia would have to be built near the sea, why cause Nuclear power plants need copious amounts of cold water to cool the reactors, sounding attractive.........what would happen to the sea where this hot water from the reactors reaches.....Most of Australia¿s population lives by the sea....Still want Nuclear Power.......next question is where do we get this Uranium from, from the ground....where We need to use fossil fuels... Posted by: sarah 1:40pm today Comment 38 of 43 It's about time that some of the hysteria about nuclear power was removed from the publicit surrounding this energy source. Australia has vast uranium reserves ( and current reactors use less than 5% ( would YOU use two tablespoons per litre of precious petrol?! ), so reprocessing the rest increases reserves still further. Waste? A TINY volume, easily stored in our vast remote land. Greenhouse emissions? ZERO! Yes, I DO know what I'm talking about. The sooner we follow France's lead and go wholeheartedly for nuclear power the better our economy will be. Go for it, John!! Posted by: Stephen Winfield of Bedfordale, WA 1:40pm today Comment 37 of 43 To Mark Duffett of Hobart Energy sources are something that a government should get involved in. It should be a public resource as it's a utility and according to the UN it's something which everyone has a right to access. How would you feel if private companies came in and said there is no point suppling power to places outside the mainland (aka Tassie sprouting that it's too expensive etc) you'd be left in the dark (and no internet to complain on), and yet private companies would be well within their right to do so if it wasn't for government management of the utility. The problem happens when a group of businessmen set up a plan to start nuclear and the PM starts supporting nuclear out of the blue and without disclosing why 'allegedly'. It's here where you really have to wonder who is running this country as it certainly doesn't appear to be our PM. Posted by: Andrew of Canberra 12:56pm today Comment 36 of 43 any Australian with a brain will say no to nuclear power, and they will also say no to john howard staying prime minister who only thinks of he's pockets Posted by: Andrew Lagerstrom of Tamworth 12:44pm today Comment 35 of 43 It's time to turf John Howard and his corrupt government out! Not only is nuclear power unsafe and unviable - we only have 24 years supply of uranium if we wanted to use nuclear power the way Ziggy is suggesting, we also have no where safe to dump the waste (there is no where on earth that you could safely dispose of it), not only that - it takes massive amounts of fossil fuels to mine and process uranium - it's not a green solution - in fact we wouldn't even be processing it here - we would sell it to china and then buy it back (like every other commodity we have) for a substanially higher amount...NO nuke power is lining the pockets of three big wigs and John Howard will let them because he's the biggest looney we've had in government for sometime! Posted by: Mischa 12:01pm today Comment 34 of 43 Energy sources are not something our politicians should be making decisions on. Their role is to regulate to ensure safe energy production (note, Kevin Rudd especially, this does not exclude nuclear), tax carbon to give a price signal of its true long-term cost, then get the hell out of the way and let the market sort the energy mix out. Posted by: Mark Duffett of Hobart 11:40am today Comment 33 of 43 John Howard is intent on committing political suicide. The electrorate does not like what he is doing with David Hicks and Nuclear Power but little Johnnie now thinks that he is invincible. Bring on the elections and lets get this man out of our lives forever. Posted by: Sushil of Sydney 11:39am today Comment 32 of 43 It's not the use of nuclear power that's the problem. The waste has a half life of 100,000 years. I don't want Australia to be the worlds rubbish dump! Invest is reusable technology and it will become cheaper. Posted by: Mark of Brisbane 11:12am today Comment 31 of 43 There is nothing "logical" about Nuclear power. The only reason I can see for going down the nuclear path is that someone somewhere intends to make a lot of money out of it and they don't care if they stuff up the planet in the process. Clean alternatives are available, we just need a leader with some vision and creative thinking to implement them Posted by: Sharyn L Bradford of Brisbane, Australia 10:50am today Comment 30 of 43 Why are we listening to these people (like Ziggy) who have an obvious and massive bias towards economic considerations. The only reason why they are pushing for nuclear is because they believe they can make money off it. The environment does not come into their reasoning, no matter what they say in the media. If a nuclear taskforce was headed by someone with environmental credentials, then it might mean something. At the moment it's just propaganda orchestrated by the government Posted by: Adam of Wollongong 10:34am today Comment 29 of 43 There are several negatives about nuclear energy: 1) Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and operate. This cost will be passed on directly to consumers now and into the future. 2) Nuclear power plants use a finite and dwindling resource (uranium). 3) No safe way to dispose off the waste. Currently they are stored in concrete and lead canisters & will only last for 100 years. The waste its self will last for thousands of years. 4) Ever present danger of an accident. No mater how many procedures and checks and balances are present, humans and anything we create are susceptible to failure. Failure will be disastrous for the whole of Australia. Radio active particles travel with the wind and can contaminate large areas (radio active rain in UK due to Chernobyl). We have other alternatives. Wind, Solar and Geo etc.: 1) They might be expensive to setup (similar to nuclear) but they are free to run. The resource is endless and continuous. We all could be looking at zero electricity bills in the future! 2) There is no waste produced and can be located in remote areas where they are not an eye sore. I can't see how we will lose if we go Wind, Solar and Geo etc. Posted by: Devashi of Sydney 10:03am today Comment 28 of 43 Ohh... this news is just the icing on the cake. I don't even want to go into the green debate. Liberal mates ,DAYS BEFORE announcement of PM's newfound passion for nuclear power, setup a nuclear company intent on building the first reactor in Australia. It doesn't matter how you look at it, that is rotten. Did they hire a clarevoyent... maybe a little "nudge nudge wink wink" from the PM to his mates, or maybe some heavy lobbying from some businessmen looking to corner a market. In my experience... if it looks like a rotten fish, and stinks like a rotten fish... its probably a rotten fish! Posted by: Phil McCracken 9:59am today Comment 27 of 43 Solar,geothermal,wind and gas are the smart leaders choice. And they are ready now. RUDD for PM Posted by: Glen cuningham of Bennelong 9:51am today Comment 26 of 43 Why not go nuclear? It would surely cut our greenhouse gas emissions while we are searching for a better renewable options. We have the uranium reserves, enough space to locate the plants far enough from populated areas and possibly a ready-made waste disposal site at Maralinga. Posted by: greenfrog 9:16am today Comment 25 of 43 Why are all solutions so short-sighted? Why can't we spend money on researching or developing sustainable energy (geothermal energy anyone?( Also saw an interesting programme about something called quantum energy (can't remember the exact name but does it ring any bells) where basically micro particles are produced that harness IR and can produce more than enough power for everything we need - that sounded like where we should be going. The problem here is obviously politics; no government are going to spend what's needed because they don't want to shell out the money. In this respect, democracy as we know it, just doesn't work. Posted by: thingy of thingtown 9:09am today Comment 24 of 43 We don't need to go the nuclear option. In Australia we are blessed with some of the hottest rocks in the world. There's enough heat energy in the Cooper Basin alone to supply Australia with baseload energy for at least hundreds of years. Geothermal energy is 100% clean, does not emit any pollution, does not require mining or burning, has a very small environmental footprint, does not emit CO2, is available 24/7, and is estimated to be cheaper than nuclear. Perfect! Posted by: concerned of Sydney 9:09am today Comment 23 of 43 We have two great resources in this country, wide open spaces and lots of sunshine. How about making use of these together and going solar on a grand scale? There would be no waste and we're not exactly going to runout of it anytime soon!! Posted by: Greg of Melbourne 9:08am today Comment 22 of 43 I may be wrong .... but don't we only have 30 years of Uranium left? Why would you bother for only 15 years of power? Posted by: Michael 9:05am today Comment 21 of 43 I think the events in the media of the last few days are cleverly orchestrated government spin. There will be no debate. Nuclear is going to happen and anyone who has an opinion to the contrary who thinks they can affect the outcome is fooling themselves. Posted by: ASB of Melbourne 8:57am today Comment 20 of 43 Its an excellent option - For years foreign countries were encouraging us to set up a nuclear waste facility underground as Australia has some of the most geologically stable areas in the world - we of course rejected the idea because it risked radioactive materials been transported from overseas. WE have the Uranium, WE have the safest place to store the small amount of waste product produced and WE have the space to locate a N plant far from large populations. And we can get Lara Bingle: "Nuclear power, where the bloody hell are ya?" Posted by: Ryan of Perth 8:55am today Comment 19 of 43 We have plenty of reserves. As of the beginning of 2005 World Uranium reserves were Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) = 4.7 million tU . Additional recoverable Uranium is estimated to be 35 million tU. The provable uranium reserves amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves. Around 24% of the proven reserves are in Australia Posted by: W T Evans of Sydney 8:51am today Comment 18 of 43 The thing thats worrying me is these people (those in power) don't really have all the information when they make this sort of decision. The fact of the matter is Nuclear Energy isn't going to last long enough to justify spending billions of dollars on new 'high tech' power plants. Uranium reserves just aren't big enough for it to be feasible. And all this aside cleaner and more effecient technologies are literally just around the corner. When someone finally comes up with a really effecient solar panel or even fusion technology we won't have a need for nuclear energy and all that money we spent wil be wasted. These 3 business honchos are better of investing their interest and resources in research for cleaner, greener and eventually cheaper technologies Posted by: Shane Lamond of brisbane 8:50am today Comment 17 of 43 Estelle Asmodelle of Gosford Ok lets place the plants in Gosford unless your are a hyprocrite!! Posted by: Juilan Thomas of Concord 8:44am today Comment 16 of 43 Why must those in power always lack forsight? Yes, nuclear power will help solve the problem of carbon emissions and dependence on coal, but what are we going to do with all the nuclear waste? It takes thousands of years to break down, it's just going to pile up and become another problem for future generations to try and fix. There's already nowhere to put it, is the US still dumping theirs into the Kermadic Trench (ie. our backyard)? They can put a man on the moon but can't figure out how to harness the natural power of sun, wind and water? Try again. Posted by: Walker 8:40am today Comment 15 of 43 Ed. The head of the taskforce has sent out to Australians, a interesting and clear statement. However, considering the questioning of the Federal Government re what it knew of three business people forming a company that would love to have Australia's first nuclear power-station, Australians are entitled to all information which assists them in deciding whether they support a industry. Judging by the response from the Prime Minister, I don't have any problem with a public debate, but considering the pain that is facing us all thanks to incompetent governments, I wouldn't like the federal government playing with the truth. The responses from readers are also shared by me and let's wait and see if the Howard government takes a nuclear policy to the next election Posted by: Atomic Kid of Queensland 8:34am today Comment 14 of 43 Have standards in this country slipped so far that people see nothing improper about what has been going on here? There is a serious perceived conflict of interest here. Private business men planning to set up nuclear power plants and suddenly the PM is a passionate advocate of the idea of nuclear power. Walker is a former bagman for the Libs Morgan a supporter of the party as no doubt is Crespigny. Give me a break. Some people would be entitled to think the PM is spruiking for the company. This stinks to high heaven. A number of years ago a Government Minister resigned because he fudged a customs declaration about a colour television set. These days it seems standards are so low that you get away with whatever you can get away with. No doubt the PM will be saying sometime today nobody told him. Well maybe it is about time somebody told him this is unacceptable behaviour. Our friend sin the pacific region who have to endure lectures from the Pm and his buffoonish sidekick Downer on good governance must be chuckling. Posted by: Guy Romeril of Eltham 8:34am today Comment 13 of 43 Has anyone thought about the children? Posted by: Mrs Lovejoy of Qld 8:33am today Comment 12 of 43 No one is saying what will be happening to the nuclear waste. No one is saying that we only have 15 years worth of nuclear resources and will then have to find another source of power anyway. Isn't it better to find a renewable source of power.........one without lethal side effects. Posted by: Carol W of Adelaide 8:30am today Comment 11 of 43 This is nonsense. Nuclear power is not a feasible solution, both financially and environmentally, to a nation of our population density. Posted by: Peter of Melbourne 8:30am today Comment 10 of 43 It is difficult for me to accept that Mr Switkowski has looked at all the options with an open mind and big picture view when he is an acknowledged expert on one form of power generation alone. Has he compared all forms of energy production and fully discounted solar, wind, deep heat, wave and water generation systems as being too revolutionary or just out of his field of expertise? Has he looked at the self sustaioning suburbs that the government has been promoting and discounted this technology? Has he figured out what to do with the waste yet? Will it be stored in his back yard? Just wondered. Posted by: Robert James of Ryde 8:27am today Comment 9 of 43 what is really left to say ? we have over such a short period of time buggered the planet and its environment and now we are rushing to try and fix it , there is no going back ....there are too many people , and dwindling resources,and increasing waste and pollution . lets face it nukes or not we are stuffed . Posted by: andi of sydney 8:26am today Comment 8 of 43 Nuclear option is a sensible one provided: The plants are far from populated areas, They are very modern with the highest safety standards and they are monitored by government controls Posted by: Estelle Asmodelle of Gosford 8:26am today Comment 7 of 43 Yesterdays technology for yesterdays Prime Minister. What would happen if everyone who owned a house were to put solar panels (subsidised by the fed govt) on their roofs and had them as part of the electricity grid. I wonder how much reduction in green house omissions ther would be. Posted by: Tony M of Melb 8:23am today Comment 6 of 43 Of course he wants us to embrace it. It's dirty, unsustainable, dangerous and the US have them. The sun is the logical step, more money into feeding the grid from individual houses and industry I say! Let's show that we do care about our world. Posted by: Suzy Green of NSW 8:19am today Comment 5 of 43 Im all in favour in Nuclear power, I am sorry that we have'nt been using it years ago. Posted by: Paul Mallia of Penrith 8:19am today Comment 4 of 43 nuke is not joke if somebody do it not rich people always they get rich . Now let community decide where and when. Ali Posted by: Ali S of Sydney 8:17am today Comment 3 of 43 " Head of Nucke Taskforce Thinks Nukes are Good Idea " - Well, he would think that, wouldn't he . . . . ! Posted by: tokenpom of Sunny Bundy 8:16am today Comment 2 of 43 Concerned about PM's role Posted by: john landers 7:58am today Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 36 NEWS.com.au Business: Neat timing for nuke firm By Samantha Maiden and Richard Gluyas February 28, 2007 12:00am LIBERAL Party heavyweight Ron Walker set up a company to explore options in the nuclear sector just five days before John Howard announced his parliamentary inquiry into the future of the industry. Documents reveal that Australian Nuclear Energy, whose shareholders include Mr Walker and fellow prominent businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan, was created on June 1 last year. The Prime Minister, who admitted holding talks with Mr Walker on the company about "mid-year", unveiled the nuclear inquiry on June 6. While revelations of Mr Howard's talks with the Melbourne businessman sparked a storm in parliament yesterday, a study carried out by ANE has raised questions over the economic feasibility of nuclear energy. Mr Howard, who has championed the nuclear option since last year, also faced warnings in the Coalition partyroom from Liberal senator Marise Payne that the Government was vulnerable to a scare campaign over the issue in an election year. The Labor Party seized on reports yesterday that the shareholders of ANE were considering options for a nuclear power plant in Victoria or South Australia. After Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane stonewalled in parliament on the issue of his discussions or knowledge of ANE's plans yesterday, Mr Howard went on the offensive, challenging the Labor Party to consider the option. However, ANE's own feasibility study, undertaken last year, raised serious questions about the economic viability of such a project. It concluded that construction of a nuclear power plant would be uneconomic, mainly because of the nation's abundant supplies of cheap coal. The company yesterday denied examining the viability of setting up a nuclear power plant at sites in South Australia and Victoria. And sources close to the company said preliminary investigations also revealed there was a long list of orders for the necessary plant and equipment from suppliers such as General Electric and Westinghouse. One source estimated it would take up to 10 years to get a nuclear facility up and running. The businessmen involved in the company have impeccable Liberal Party links. Mr Walker, 68, the chairman of Fairfax Media, is a former Liberal Party federal treasurer. Mr Champion de Crespigny is the chairman of market research firm Crosby-Textor, which was established by former Liberal Party director Lynton Crosby and pollster Mark Textor. Mr Howard confirmed he held talks with Mr Walker about the company in mid-2006, but said there was nothing conspiratorial about that. "I am not ruling out power stations anywhere in this country. That is a juvenile, idiotic game to play," Mr Howard told parliament. Mr Macfarlane sidestepped the question of whether he had had talks on the issue, but said: "It would be very odd for the Minister for Resources not to talk to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry in Australia." South Australian Premier Mike Rann, an opponent of nuclear power, questioned whether the project would get off the ground. "A nuclear power station costing a couple of billion dollars would not be either financially or economically viable, given our population size," he said. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 37 Herald Sun: Nuclear power 'the logical next step' February 28, 2007 07:36am Article from: AAP EMBRACING nuclear power is the logical next step if Australians are serious about tackling global warming, the head of the Government's nuclear taskforce has said. Former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski said objections about nuclear power had shifted from being "deep emotionally held" to business considerations about cost and location. Dr Switkowski said nuclear was an obvious choice if Australians seriously believed in trying to use cleaner sources of energy. "There's a really big decision in front of us this year and that's to make a judgement about how seriously we as a nation are going to take climate change," he said. "If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternatives for clean energy generation. "At the top of the list is nuclear." Prime Minister John Howard yesterday admitted knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by Dr Switkowski. But he denied there was anything sinister about the connection. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was yesterday forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia. Dr Switkowski said on ABC television last night that the newspaper claims were news to him. But he said it was a logical initiative following the implementation of a nuclear energy strategy. He said there were a lot of steps to take before any nuclear power business could get off the ground in Australia. "It would require changes to the regulations, to the law, certainly getting community support. "But it was predictable that ... people (such as this) ... would all have a look at the business case in support of making this kind of investment in the first reactor." Latest Comments: There are several negatives about nuclear energy: 1) Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and operate. This cost will be passed on directly to consumers now and into the future. 2) Nuclear power plants use a finite and dwindling resource (uranium). 3) No safe way to dispose off the waste. Currently they are stored in concrete and lead canisters & will only last for 100 years. The waste its self will last for thousands of years. 4) Ever present danger of an accident. No mater how many procedures and checks and balances are present, humans and anything we create are susceptible to failure. Failure will be disastrous for the whole of Australia. Radio active particles travel with the wind and can contaminate large areas (radio active rain in UK due to Chernobyl). We have other alternatives. Wind, Solar and Geo etc.: 1) They might be expensive to setup (similar to nuclear) but they are free to run. The resource is endless and continuous. We all could be looking at zero electricity bills in the future! 2) There is no waste produced and can be located in remote areas where they are not an eye sore. I can't see how we will lose if we go Wind, Solar and Geo etc. Posted by: Devashi of Sydney 10:03am today Ohh... this news is just the icing on the cake. I don't even want to go into the green debate. Liberal mates ,DAYS BEFORE announcement of PM's newfound passion for nuclear power, setup a nuclear company intent on building the first reactor in Australia. It doesn't matter how you look at it, that is rotten. Did they hire a clarevoyent... maybe a little "nudge nudge wink wink" from the PM to his mates, or maybe some heavy lobbying from some businessmen looking to corner a market. In my experience... if it looks like a rotten fish, and stinks like a rotten fish... its probably a rotten fish! Posted by: Phil McCracken of 9:59am today Solar,geothermal,wind and gas are the smart leaders choice. And they are ready now. RUDD for PM Posted by: Glen cuningham of Bennelong 9:51am today Read all 28 comments We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional. Read our publication guidelines © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 38 FR: NRC: Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings Doc 07-896 [Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)] [Notices] [Page 8799-8800] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27fe07-140] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATES: Weeks of February 26; March 5, 12, 19, 26; April 2, 2007. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of February 26, 2007 Monday, February 26, 2007 1:05 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP) (Tentative). Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) (Tentative). Wednesday, February 28, 2007. 9:30 a.m. Periodic Briefing on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: Donna Williams, 301 415-1322). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 5, 2007--Tentative Monday, March, 5, 2007 1 p.m. Meeting with Department of Energy on New Reactor Issues (Public Meeting). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . Wednesday, March 7, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Miriam Cohen, 301 415-0260). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . 1 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 and 3). Thursday, March 8, 2007 10 a.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Gene Peters, 301 415-5248). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . 1 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Reginald Mitchell, 301 415-1275). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address-- http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 12, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of March 12, 2007. Week of March 19, 2007--Tentative Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Information Services (OIS) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Edward Baker, 301 415-8700). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov . Week of March 26, 2007--Tentative Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1, 3, & 9). Week of April 2, 2007--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 2, 2007. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662. Additional Information The Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2) previously scheduled on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 1 p.m. has been rescheduled on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. The Briefing on Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management (FSME) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Tentative) previously scheduled on Thursday, March 29, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. has been postponed and will be rescheduled. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, [[Page 8800]] Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: February 22, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-896 Filed 2-23-07; 12:03 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 The Australian: PM denies nuclear conspiracy NEWS.com.au | * February 27, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * By Maria Hawthorne and Denis Peters PRIME Minister John Howard has admitted knowing that a Liberal powerbroker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced his review of uranium mining processing. But Mr Howard denied there was anything sinister about his discussions with Melbourne businessman Ron Walker, a former treasurer of the Liberal Party and major party fundraiser. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. That taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, found that a network of 25 nuclear reactors built within kilometres of suburban homes could be supplying a third of Australia's power by 2050. ANE today was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia. The reports said ANE had discussed its plans with the Federal Government, leading nervous backbenchers to warn Mr Howard in their partyroom meeting that the debate over reactor sites could hurt the Coalition in this year's election. Under sustained questioning from Labor, Mr Howard and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane denied any discussions with ANE about nuclear power plants. Mr Howard told Parliament that Mr Walker told him in the middle of last year that the three businessmen had decided to register the company. But he said there was nothing unusual in the conversation. "There is something conspiratorial in John Howard talking to Ron Walker – you have got to be kidding," Mr Howard said. "Heavens above, I saw the leader of the opposition with Ron Walker at the soccer! I will tell you what, that is only the half of it – (Victorian Premier) Steve Bracks was there too." Both Mr Bracks and his South Australian counterpart Mike Rann immediately ruled out allowing a nuclear reactor in their states. ANE released a carefully worded statement denying that any plans for power plants were under way. "The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country," it said. Mr Macfarlane denied having had any discussions with the three businessmen about the proposals, but said there was nothing unusual in him talking to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry. "Can I just say again, as I thought I'd already said but perhaps I've got to make it crystal clear, I have not met with the company, I have not met with representatives of the company about this issue and I've not seen a proposal on a nuclear power station from them," Mr Macfarlane said. Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country," Mr Garrett said. But South Australian Liberal backbencher Patrick Secker said it was hypocritical for Mr Rann to sell uranium produced in his state overseas, but not use it in his own backyard. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 40 Guardian Unlimited: Crews Douse Fire at Pa. Nuclear Plant From the Associated Press Tuesday February 27, 2007 4:46 PM DELTA, Pa. (AP) - A transformer at a nuclear plant caught fire Tuesday morning, but the smoky blaze was confined to the non-nuclear side of the plant, company officials said. The fire, reported at 9:40 a.m., did not pose a threat to the public, said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for Exelon Nuclear in Warrenville, Ill., which shares ownership of the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant with New Jersey-based PSE&G. ``The fire itself was very small,'' Nesbit said. ``It was mostly smoke.'' Power from one of the plant's generating units was reduced following the fire, but it remained online, Nesbit said. Delta is in south-central Pennsylvania. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 41 The Australian: Nuke power 'linked to global warming' * February 28, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * February 27, 2007 IF Australians were serious about tackling global warming then embracing nuclear power was a logical next step, the man who headed the government's nuclear taskforce said tonight. Prime Minister John Howard today admitted knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski. But he denied there was anything sinister about the connection. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE today was forced to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia. Dr Switkowski told ABC Television that the newspaper report today was news to him. But he said it was a logical initiative following the implementation of a nuclear energy strategy. However, he said there were a lot of steps to take before any nuclear power business could get off the ground in Australia. “It would require changes to the regulations, to the law, certainly getting community support,” Dr Switkowski said. “But it was predictable that ... people (such as this) ... would all have a look at the business case in support of making this kind of investment in the first reactor.” Since starting on the taskforce, Dr Switkowski said objections about nuclear power had shifted from being “deep emotionally held” to business considerations about cost and location. Dr Switkowski said nuclear was an obvious choice if Australians seriously believed in trying to use cleaner sources of energy. “There's a really big decision in front of us this year and that's to make a judgement about how seriously we as a nation are going to take climate change,” he said. “If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternative for clean energy generation,” he said. “At the top of the list is nuclear.” © The Australian ***************************************************************** 42 Herald Sun: PM knew of nuclear plan NEWS.com.au | Michael Harvey February 28, 2007 12:00am JOHN Howard has admitted he had known of a private bid by a Liberal powerbroker to build Australia's first nuclear power station since the middle of last year. Mr Howard received a phone call from businessman Ron Walker about the time the Federal Government established its expert investigation into the viability of nuclear power. Mr Walker told the Prime Minister he was registering a private company interested in nuclear power. "I said: 'That's a great idea, Ron, because you know my view on it'," Mr Howard told Parliament yesterday. The PM said that was his only contact on the matter. And he ridiculed Labor suggestions of a secret deal. "I would have thought that instead of alleging in a childish, juvenile fashion that there was something sinister in my having had a discussion, that they would have had a serious debate," Mr Howard said. The Herald Sun revealed yesterday that Mr Walker joined forces with fellow business chiefs Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny to establish a private company called Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd. Nervous Coalition backbenchers yesterday warned of an electoral backlash over nuclear power. They fear Labor will wage a seat-by-seat scare campaign about potential sites for atomic power plants. The Switkowski report on the nation's energy options said last year Australia could have 25 reactors operating by 2050 if nuclear energy became commercially viable. Mr Howard yesterday reaffirmed his belief in the "clean and green" nuclear option. "I think this nation, if it is serious about climate change, has to look at the nuclear option," he said. "I am not frightened of that," Mr Howard said. In State Parliament, legislation was rushed in to force a plebiscite if the Federal Government moved to override the Bracks Government's objection to having a nuclear power station. "There is still no absolute assurance on the safety and operation of the plants themselves," Premier Steve Bracks said. Amid heavy questioning from Labor, Mr Howard and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane denied having specific discussions with ANE about nuclear power plants. While Government MPs fretted about possible locations for nuclear reactors, a source close to the deal told online magazine smartcompany.com.au. the three entrepreneurs were already scouring the nation for suitable sites. The trio had been working on plans for a power plant for 12 months, it was claimed. "We have been holding informal discussions but nothing is concrete," the source said. ANE issued a brief and carefully worded statement saying the Australian community would ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for the nation. Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd repeatedly asked Mr Macfarlane what meetings he had had with ANE representatives. "What does the minister have to hide about the Government's nuclear reactor plans for Australia?" Mr Rudd said. Mr Macfarlane repeatedly failed to give a straight answer. Eventually, he denied having had any discussions with the three businessmen about proposals to build a power station. "I have not met with the company, I have not met with representatives of the company about this issue and I've not seen a proposal on a nuclear power station from them," Mr Macfarlane said. After his minister struggled under repeated questioning, Mr Howard revealed his telephone call from Mr Walker. It was "unexceptional" for the businessmen to contact the Government, the PM said. "There is something conspiratorial in John Howard talking to Ron Walker? You have got to be kidding," he said. "Heavens above, I saw the Leader of the Opposition with Ron Walker at the soccer! I will tell you what, that is only the half of it -- Steve Bracks was there too." Mr Howard announced on May 31 last year his intention to commission an expert task force to look into the viability of nuclear power. ANE was registered as a business on June 1, while the members of the Switkowski review were announced on June 6. The Prime Minister denied any suggestion of inside information. "The Government is not having any secret discussions," he said. Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said he was surprised plans to build a nuclear plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country," Mr Garrett said. Victoria's Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said a nuclear plant was unlikely to happen in Victoria. "We have extraordinary energy reserves in Victoria, gas, coal and oil," Mr Baillieu said. Most local state MPs around Western Port, a potential N-plant site, declared their opposition. Hastings Liberal MP Neale Burgess said he was totally opposed to nuclear power. "I don't know why we would even consider it. We've just got so many other options," Mr Burgess said. Mornington Liberal MP David Morris said it was out of the question. But Bass Liberal MP Ken Smith said he had an open mind. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 43 The Australian: Experts query nuclear power plant proposal | Mining & Energy | NEWS.com.au | * February 28, 2007 * Nigel Wilson, Energy writer ENERGY experts yesterday used the Switkowski report into nuclear energy to question whether a private company could build a nuclear power station in Australia in the near future. Australian Nuclear Energy - which includes Victorian political heavyweight, Ron Walker, former WMC chief Hugh Morgan and South Australian corporate identity Robert Champion de Crespigny on its board - was reported yesterday as proposing a nuclear power station for Victoria or South Australia. But the company subsequently denied that any plans for power plants were under way. "The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country," the company said. "Australian Nuclear Energy is a private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs." ANE company secretary Bruce Fitzgerald said that contrary to media reports, the company had not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia. State governments, which are all Labor controlled, are united in opposing nuclear power, even if some, particularly South Australia, support uranium mining for export to power-starved less developed countries. In November the report of the Switkowski review set up by the Prime Minister said nuclear would be 20-50 per cent more costly than coal or gas-fired power. "This gap may close in the decades ahead, but nuclear power, and renewable energy sources, will only become competitive in Australia in a system where the costs of greenhouse gas emissions are explicitly recognised," the report said. The report said the challenge to contain and reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be considerably eased by nuclear plants. But it added: "Australia's greenhouse challenge requires a full spectrum of initiatives and its goals cannot be met by nuclear power alone." While maintaining the greenhouse gas emission reductions from nuclear power could reach 8-18 per cent of national emissions by 2050, it painted a scenario that 25 nuclear reactors could be built in Australia between 2020 and 2050, producing more than a third of the nation's electricity. But implicit in the Switkowski report is the need for nuclear power to be introduced as a part of a concerted national energy policy, not just as an ad hoc addition to Australia's current electricity generation system. No electricity utility in Australia in recent years has endorsed nuclear, primarily because the whole electricity generation and transmission system would have to be re-engineered to accommodate a nuclear station. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 44 Sydney Morning Herald: PM on defensive over nuclear claim - www.smh.com.au Stephanie Peatling February 28, 2007 SUPPORT from the public and both main political parties was essential before Australia adopted nuclear power generation, the Federal Government said yesterday. The statement came as the Prime Minister came under attack in Parliament after reports that a group of businessmen planned to build a nuclear plant in Victoria or South Australia. John Howard, and the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, were subjected to sustained attacks from the Opposition, which alleged they had been consulted on a proposal to build nuclear power plants by three of the country's most powerful businessmen - the former mining bosses Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny, and Ron Walker, the chairman of Fairfax Media, publisher of the Herald. The three registered Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, the day after Mr Howard announced he would hold an inquiry into nuclear power. Reports in News Ltd newspapers yesterday said Australian Nuclear Energy was considering building nuclear power plants in Victoria or South Australia. Mr Howard told Parliament that Mr Walker, a former lord mayor of Melbourne and federal treasurer of the Liberal Party, had called him to tell him the company was being established but denied there had been any conspiracy. "My views in relation to nuclear power were well known before June 1," he said. "They have been well known for some time. I am not the least bit embarrassed about the fact that I have revealed to the world that Ron Walker had a conversation with me about this. Any suggestion of impropriety in that is ludicrous." Mr Macfarlane said he had not had meetings with any representatives of the company but that "it would be very odd for the minister for resources not to talk to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry". He had not seen any proposals for the construction of nuclear power plants from the company. "Any proponent of a nuclear power station in Australia would need bipartisan support from both sides of this House before they would invest their money in a power station." The Federal Government has not yet responded to the report delivered by its taskforce on nuclear energy, which found that a network of 25 nuclear power plants could supply a third of the nation's power by 2050. It warned that a nuclear industry would be cost-effective only if a price was put on carbon dioxide emissions, forcing up the cost of electricity produced from coal. Australian Nuclear Energy issued a statement saying it was a "private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs" and denied it had proposed to build nuclear power plants. The Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, said he would hold a plebiscite if the Federal Government tried to override state laws and build a plant in Victoria. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste, No. 1," he said. "No. 2, the general safety of the plan is questionable, and No. 3, the economics are just not there." The South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, said no reactor would be contemplated while he was premier. Labor's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, said he was surprised the plans to build a plant were so advanced. "Australians are very clear that they don't want nuclear energy and nuclear power in this country." with AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 45 Sydney Morning Herald: Businessmen deny nuclear proposal - www.smh.com.au February 27, 2007 * Video: Protesters target ALP head office Three businessmen behind Australian Nuclear Energy say they have not put forward proposals for nuclear power plants in Australia. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks and South Australian Premier Mike Rann both said that nuclear power plants would not be welcome in their states, while Federal Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said there was no room for a nuclear power plant in his Melbourne electorate. Newspapers today reported that leading businessmen Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny were examining the viability of setting up Australia's first nuclear power plant, in either Victoria or South Australia. Their company, Australian Nuclear Energy, has put out a short statement denying that any plans for power plants were under way. "The Australian community will ultimately decide the best way to provide sustainable energy for our country," it said. "Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd is a private company established to examine potential commercial responses to future energy needs. "ANE company secretary Mr Bruce Fitzgerald says that contrary to today's media reports, the company has not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia." The company would make no further comment, the statement said. Mr Walker is chairman of Fairfax Media, publisher of smh.com.au. No secret discussions: Howard Prime Minister John Howard says Mr Walker told him last year about his plan to start a nuclear energy company. But Mr Howard denies that Mr Walker, Mr Morgan and Mr de Crespigny had told him of any proposals for a nuclear power plant in Australia. "The Government is not having any secret discussions," Mr Howard told Parliament. The only contact I've had with these three very reputable businessmen is in about the middle of last year, Mr Walker in a telephone conversation I had with him ... he said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power. "And I said 'That's a great idea, Ron, you know my view on it.' "My view and the view of the Government about nuclear being an option has been well known. "The question of whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial opinion." Mr Howard said there was nothing conspiratorial about him speaking to Mr Walker, a former Liberal Party honorary treasurer and friend for the past 20 years. "There's something conspiratorial in John Howard talking to Ron Walker? You have got to be kidding," Mr Howard said. "I mean, heavens above, I saw the Leader of the Opposition with Ron Walker at the soccer. That's only the half of it - Steve Bracks was there too." No nod and wink: Macfarlane Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane denied giving the three businessmen a "nod and wink" to go ahead with preliminary work. "It would be very odd for the minister for resources not to talk to three prominent people in the investment and resource industry in Australia," Mr Macfarlane told Parliament after repeated questions from Labor. "Can I just say again, as I thought I'd already said but perhaps I've got to make it crystal clear - I have not met with the company, I have not met with representatives of the company about this issue and I've not seen a proposal on a nuclear power station from them." The minister, a keen proponent of nuclear generation of electricity, had earlier taken the extraordinary step of quoting from his office diary to say there was no record of his meeting with the group. When asked by Labor leader Kevin Rudd if he had had discussions with the group, Mr Macfarlane said only that he would welcome talks with the group. "Has the minister had discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy Ltd or not?" Mr Rudd asked. "I've not seen the proposal but I'd certainly welcome a debate on nuclear energy from those who sit opposite," he said. Mr Rudd then asked: "When did the minister meet with ANE Ltd and given the minister has now been asked this question four times and has refused to answer, what does the minister have to hide about the Government's nuclear reactor plans for Australia?" In response, Mr Macfarlane replied that the Government had absolutely nothing to hide about its nuclear policies. "I'm the business portfolio and people come and see me all the time and talk to me about a whole range of issues," he said. "I do not disclose my diary usually. But today I will say that this morning, my [personal assistant] did a search of my diary for Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd to see if they'd met with me, and the search revealed nothing. "Can I also say that I don't recall discussing this proposal with these three genetlemen. If someone is able to remind me of when I did, I will correct the record." We'll block private nuclear plan: Bracks The Victorian Government would oppose any proposal to build a nuclear power plant in the state, Mr Bracks said today. Mr Bracks told Southern Cross Broadcasting nuclear power was not viable, feasible or safe. "There's no safe way of storing radioactive waste; No. 1," he said. "No. 2, the general safety of the plan is questionable, and, No. 3, the economics are just not there; it actually would require a doubling of the price of electricity in Victoria." Mr Bracks said that cost would either be passed on to consumers or shouldered by the Federal Government in the form of a $1 billion subsidy to construct a nuclear power plant. "If you're going to put $1 billion extra in, put it into clean coal technology, into geosequestration where you bury some of the carbon; that would be a much better system and keeping power prices at a lower rate rather than putting in a subsidy for something which has questionable safety attributes." Mr Bracks said he was aware of Mr Walker's interest in nuclear power but had made it clear the Government's position was not to support such a proposal. "We made it clear during the campaign ... in the policy speech that I announced when I released our policy details in Ballarat I indicated that not only were we against a nuclear power plant in Victoria but we would also have a plebescite, that is a vote of all Victorians if ever such a proposal was pushed by the Federal Government or by a private consortium and the people of Victoria would decide whether or not that proceeds." Plebescite legislation will be introduced into Parliament this week, which, if passed, would effectively ban a nuclear power plant being built on any state land without public support. "My expectation is that there's other alternatives and people would oppose this," Mr Bracks said. Federal Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said the public needed to know if the business trio pushing the nuclear plan had been given any tacit support by the Coalition. "It seems that Mr Howard's plans for bringing nuclear reactors into this country are advanced," Mr Garrett told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I think it's important that the Prime Minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people of whether or not his Government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals." Wilderness Society spokeswoman Imogen Zethoven said the nuclear plan must be stopped. "If we just went blindly down this path of producing nuclear power we would just end up with this massive waste problem which would become Australia's biggest waste problem ever and for an extremely long time," she told Southern Cross Broadcasting. Rann rejects plan for South Australia Mr Rann said there would not be a nuclear power station in his state while he was Premier. "I have to say I was somewhat amused when I picked up the paper this morning," Mr Rann told ABC Radio. "We have a very strong and clear policy in South Australia that we don't intend to embrace a nuclear power plant because it would just be economically irresponsible, financially unviable and of course also force up the wholesale price of electricity by about  100 per cent." "They won't be building a nuclear power plant in South Australia while Labor is in office." Mr Rann said Mr Champion de Crespigny, who holds a 40 per cent stake in the company, has not raised the issue with him. "Robert's a terrific person and I know him incredibly well and he's not raised building a nuclear power plant or setting up a nuclear power plant company with me. "I sat next to Ron Walker ... a week or so ago for a couple of hours and he didn't mention building a nuclear power plant in South Australia." Not in my backyard: Andrews Mr Andrews said there was no room for a nuclear power plant in his Melbourne electorate, but Australia should still consider the nuclear option.   But Mr Andrews says the company can rule out his outer Melbourne electorate of Menzies. "There's probably not much room for a nuclear power plant in my electorate," Mr Andrews told reporters. However, the broader question of nuclear power should not be ignored, he said.  "Nuclear power should remain one of the options in the discussion about the broader issue of climate change in Australia, it should be an option on the table." Nuclear businessmen will have to rely on taxpayers: Greens  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 says. In any case, the cost of construction would be so great they would be forced to rely on taxpayers' funds. Senator Brown said the cost of a reactor would be greater than even the wealthy businessmen could handle. "The nuclear reactors around the world depend on public largesse. They are impossibly expensive," he told reporters. "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 was 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.  AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 46 Sydney Morning Herald: Nuclear power 'a cleaner energy source' - www.smh.com.au February 28, 2007 - 12:14AM If Australians were serious about tackling global warming then embracing nuclear power was a logical next step, the man who headed the government's nuclear taskforce said. Prime Minister John Howard admitted on Tuesday knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski. But he denied there was anything sinister about the connection. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was forced Tuesday to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia. Dr Switkowski told ABC Television that the newspaper report was news to him. But he said it was a logical initiative following the implementation of a nuclear energy strategy. However, he said there were a lot of steps to take before any nuclear power business could get off the ground in Australia. "It would require changes to the regulations, to the law, certainly getting community support," Dr Switkowski said. "But it was predictable that ... people (such as this) ... would all have a look at the business case in support of making this kind of investment in the first reactor." Since starting on the taskforce, Dr Switkowski said objections about nuclear power had shifted from being "deep emotionally held" to business considerations about cost and location. Dr Switkowski said nuclear was an obvious choice if Australians seriously believed in trying to use cleaner sources of energy. "There's a really big decision in front of us this year and that's to make a judgement about how seriously we as a nation are going to take climate change," he said. "If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternative for clean energy generation," he said. "At the top of the list is nuclear." © 2007 AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 47 ForUm: Three nuclear power units to be built in Ukraine News / 27 February 2007 | 15:33 On February 26 the Government of Ukraine made a resolution to prepare for construction new nuclear power units at Khmelnystky nuclear power station. According to Olexander Bilichenko the director on construction of “Energoatom”, except constructions of two power units at Khmelnystky nuclear power station, documentation is being developed on construction of one more power unit at South-Ukrainian nuclear power station. According to him, this year the second unit of Tashlitskaya hydro-accumulating power station should start working. According to the Power strategy of Ukraine, by 2020 five new nuclear power units are planned to be put into operation and seven units to be built up to 2030. ForUm All rights are reserved by © LTD. Inter-Media, ForUm 2001-2007 ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Nuclear power debate worries Portland ABC Ballarat | Local News February 2007. 14:06 (ACDT)Tuesday, 27 February 2007. 12:06 (AWDT) Glenelg Mayor Gilbert Wilson says talk of a nuclear plant in Victoria is worrying the Portland community. It is reported a company part owned by businessmen Ron Walker is looking at building a plant in Victoria, or South Australia. Portland has been pinpointed as a possible location for a nuclear power plant. But councillor Gilbert Wilson says he doubts the community would support a plant. "You have to look at the broad picture, the people would be voting on a planned proposal, but if it's said it is going to go in your backyard they would say no. I believe our community or any community in Victoria would go against it," he said. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks says Mr Walker has spoken to him about nuclear energy. "It was in passing, I think it was before the election he indicated that he had a general interest in the nuclear power industry, but nothing specific," he said. "I indicated we have a policy of opposition to nuclear power, there was legislation that existed in the Victorian Parliament - of course we reinforced that in a stronger way during the campaign." ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: PM chides Rudd over nuclear power 'conspiracy theory' ABC Australian Capital Territory | Local News Tuesday, 27 February 2007. 18:11 (AEDT)Tuesday, 27 February 2007. John Howard says his position on nuclear power is well known. Reuters The Prime Minister has told Parliament he has nothing to hide in relation to the possibility of nuclear power in Australia. Labor Leader Kevin Rudd says the company Australian Nuclear Energy was registered on the June 1 last year and six days later the Prime Minister announced an inquiry to examine the future of nuclear power. Mr Howard says that is a conspiracy theory. He has told Parliament he spoke to one of the businessmen involved in the company, Ron Walker, in the middle of last year about the idea, but his views were already common knowledge. "He said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power and I said 'Well that's a great idea Ron, because you know my view on it'," he said. "I don't know what this is all about, my view and the view of the Government about nuclear being an option is well known. "The question of whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial decision." ***************************************************************** 50 DAILY SOUTHTOWN: Stop utilities from buying legislators Phil Kadner :: dailysouthtown.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group February 27, 2007 A reader called to suggest a way to curb the political influence of utility companies in Illinois. "Since they're regulated by the state," the man said, "simply prohibit them from giving campaign contributions." Absolutely. I didn't get the fellow's name, but that's a brilliant idea. "I've already got a bill like that ready to go," said Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn. "The only problem is finding a sponsor in the Legislature." You see, to pass a bill restricting campaign contributions, you have to get politicians to pass such a law. And since politicians benefit from the contributions of utility companies ... Well, you see the problem. In response to my columns about ComEd's 22 percent rate increase, several people have called to complain that I'm being unfair to the utility company. They contend that after a state-negotiated 10-year rate freeze, it is only fair for ComEd to get an increase now that the deal has run its course. The problem is that in the meantime, the Illinois Commerce Commission, the state agency that regulates the utility industry, since has signed off on a deal that allowed ComEd to sell its nuclear generators to its parent company, Exelon. State Rep. George Scully (D-Flossmoor), the chairman of the House Utility Committee, has said ComEd didn't get fair value for its nuclear reactors. ComEd disagrees. In addition, since the rate freeze went into effect, the ICC signed off on a deal for ComEd to purchase power through a reverse auction. Some of the power purchased by ComEd came from Exelon, which uses those nuclear reactors to generate some of the cheapest electricity in the nation. The ICC also expected that there would be a competitive market for electricity in Illinois, meaning that ComEd no longer would be the only supplier of electricity for residential customers. That hasn't happened. ComEd contends that's because electricity is so cheap in Illinois that competitors don't want to enter the market. Well, there's some truth to all of this. But here's something else that's true. The ICC, the five-member state agency that signed off on all these deals, is appointed by the governor with the approval of the Illinois Senate. All those campaign contributions ComEd makes to political campaigns in Illinois may have influenced those appointments. A few years ago, for example, Gov. Rod Blagojevich actually tried to appoint Marty Cohen -- the former director of Citizens Utility Board, a consumer watchdog agency -- as chairman of the ICC. State Sen. President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) killed that appointment. Jones now stands like a stone wall in opposition to extending the ComEd rate freeze. He claims the contributions he and other politicians received from ComEd have no influence on his position. I find that hard to believe. But now that the electric rate freeze bill is once again a hot topic in Springfield, Jones has an opportunity to demonstrate his fairness. He can sponsor legislation that forbids campaign contributions from the utility industry. He might also want to include the horse racing and casino industry in the legislation. If Jones wants the public to trust him, if he wants to get rid of the unjustified perception that he's influenced by political donations, a bill like that would go a long way in changing the minds of skeptics. Quinn claims the Illinois Supreme Court in the past has ruled that First Amendment guarantees do not stand in the way of such laws. "If allowing political contributions would appear to corrupt the election process, they can be restricted," Quinn said. "Obviously, in the case of regulated industries, they would stand to gain by electing people who would fail to impose or enforce regulations on the industry." Of course, since the process already is corrupted, in my view, there are no legislators willing to pass such legislation. ComEd not only spends money on political campaigns, it also has spent millions funding a group that poses as a consumer organization. Remember those TV commercials last fall that warned, "We don't need a California-style energy crisis in Illinois"? Those commercials were sponsored by Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE). CORE gets most of its funding from ComEd. Citizens must rely on the ICC to make honest decisions based on hard evidence when it comes to utility companies. I don't think the ICC can be trusted because legislators influence its decisions. You want to convince me otherwise? Pass a law restricting utility company campaign contributions. Phil Kadner may be reached at pkadner@dailysouthtown.com or (708) 633-6787. dailysouthtown.com: Feedback | Contact Us | About Us | Advertise Daily Southtown: Subscribe | Online Photo Store © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy ***************************************************************** 51 Platts: Point Beach sale gets antitrust clearance Washington (Platts)--26Feb2007 FPL Energy's proposed purchase of Point Beach presents no antitrust concerns, US antitrust authorities said February 26. FPL Energy, an FPL Group subsidiary, announced in December 2006 it would buy the two-unit station from Wisconsin Electric Power Co. for $998 million. In an early termination notice under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, the US Federal Trade Commission said neither it nor the Justice Department's Antitrust Division plans to take enforcement action on the acquisition. The Point Beach-1 and -2 PWRs are rated at 530 MW each. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 52 POAC: DEP suffers setback on Oyster Creek Press of Atlantic City By DAVID BENSON Staff Writer, (609) 272-7206 Published: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made it clear: What happens in California, stays in California. On Monday, the NRC rejected the state's contention that the commission must consider the environmental consequences of a terrorist attack on the Oyster Creek nuclear generating station as part of that station's license renewal. This is a big step forward for the plant, located in Lacey Township, unless the state decides to file suit against the NRC with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Although an appeal from New Jersey is a possibility, lawyers for the state Department of Environmental Protection haven't had time to review the rejection, a spokeswoman said Monday. “The DEP is disappointed with this ruling,†said Elaine Makatura, director of public relations for the DEP. “Especially in light of the 9th Circuit Court's decision. We are consulting with our attorneys to determine a venue for an appeal, if it's decided to appeal.†Last June, in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the federal agency must, under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA, consider the consequences of a terrorist attack against a spent fuel storage facility on the Diablo Canyon reactor site in California. New Jersey, in its contention, points to that decision for its challenge of the current license-renewal proceeding for the Oyster Creek facility. Last year, the NRC appealed the Ninth Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, the Supreme Court let the decision stand, but chose not hear the case. “We continue to believe that the 9th Court's decision was improper and incorrect,†said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC. “It should not apply there, and it should not apply — in our view — in the case of license renewal applications, like Oyster Creek.†The NRC rejection of the state's challenge to the relicensing of the Oyster Creek facility foreshadows an expected suit against the federal agency. “The NRC is not obliged to adhere, in all of its proceedings, to the first court of appeals decision to address a controversial question. Such an obligation would defeat any possibility of a conflict between the Circuits on important issues.†Sheehan said that another court of appeals may have a different viewpoint concerning NEPA and the possibility of a terrorist attack. Conflicting decisions from circuit courts could force a decision from the Supreme Court, one the NRC hopes would go in its favor. Richard Webster, a staff attorney with the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, said he wasn't surprised by the rejection. “I think this fits in with the pattern of the NRC,†Webster said. “They're doing the absolute minimum that they can get away with rather than addressing the concerns of the public or the state.†Webster represents a coalition of environmentalists that oppose the relicensing of the Oyster Creek facility. “I think the state has a very good claim to bring this before the 3rd Court of Appeals,†Webster said. “I hope it's going to happen.†The Oyster Creek facility is the nation's oldest operating nuclear reactor. Its original 40-year license expires in April 2009. AmerGen, owner of the plant, seeks a 20-year extension. A decision from the NRC could come as early as May. The NRC's rejection is not unexpected. Last month, Sheehan said the 9th Court's decision was limited to that circuit. “If the Supreme Court took the case up and came down with a ruling, it could have had a broader effect,†Sheehan said. There are five presidentially appointed commissioners heading the NRC. Four of the five rejected the state's contention that a terrorist attack must be part of the license renewal under NEPA. Rachelle Benson, a spokeswoman for the Oyster Creek facility, said AmerGen examines security issues every day, not just during license renewal. “We work closely with the NRC and the Office of Homeland Security to make sure that nuclear plants have the most robust security around the plant to protect the public and the environment.†Editor's note: Rachelle Benson and staff writer David Benson are not related. To e-mail Dave Benson at The Press: DBenson@pressofac.com ***************************************************************** 53 Platts: Kansai Electric officals may face charges for 2004 Mihama mishap Tokyo (Platts)--27Feb2007 Investigations by the Fukui prefectural police into a fatal accident at Kansai Electric's Mihama nuclear power plant in western Japan in 2004 have raised suspicion of professional negligence by six company officials. The results of the investigation were handed over to prosecutors Monday, the Japanese media reported. The six officials from Kansai Electric's Wakasa branch were aware that the pipe at the 826 MW Mihama No. 3 reactor, which ruptured in August 2004, killing five and injuring six, had never been checked for corrosion since the reactor started up in 1976, according to the police report. The police said that in early July 2004, three sections of a pipe at the company's Ooi No. 1 reactor were found to have worn thinner than allowed by government standards. Kansai's Wakasa branch set up a panel to inspect all 11 of the company's reactors in Japan and determine the condition of the pipes, The Daily Yomiuri reported. The police initially sought to hold the head of the Wakasa branch liable for the Mihama accident. However, their investigations determined that his subordinates had not kept him informed about the situation at the plant, Kyodo News reported. The Fukui District Public Prosecutor's Office will decide whether to indict the six by the end of March, The Daily Yomiuri reported. Kansai Electric restarted the No. 3 reactor on January 10. The company currently has eight nuclear units with a combined capacity of 8.253 GW in operation, accounting for 84.5% of its total capacity of 9.77 GW over 11 units across Japan Nuclear power outages in Japan are closely watched in the oil and gas markets as they can lead to higher demand for alternative power generation feedstocks such as fuel oil, crude and LNG. The power companies usually boost thermal power generation to compensate for nuclear power outages. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 54 thewest.com.au: Nuclear power 'a cleaner energy source' 27th February 2007, 22:07 WST If Australians were serious about tackling global warming then embracing nuclear power was a logical next step, the man who headed the government's nuclear taskforce said. Prime Minister John Howard admitted on Tuesday knowing that Liberal powerbroker Ron Walker was setting up a nuclear energy company around the same time he announced the taskforce, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski. But he denied there was anything sinister about the connection. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan registered Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up his prime ministerial taskforce. ANE was forced Tuesday to deny newspaper reports that it was planning to build Australia's first nuclear power station in either Victoria or South Australia. Dr Switkowski told ABC Television that the newspaper report was news to him. But he said it was a logical initiative following the implementation of a nuclear energy strategy. However, he said there were a lot of steps to take before any nuclear power business could get off the ground in Australia. "It would require changes to the regulations, to the law, certainly getting community support," Dr Switkowski said. "But it was predictable that ... people (such as this) ... would all have a look at the business case in support of making this kind of investment in the first reactor." Since starting on the taskforce, Dr Switkowski said objections about nuclear power had shifted from being "deep emotionally held" to business considerations about cost and location. Dr Switkowski said nuclear was an obvious choice if Australians seriously believed in trying to use cleaner sources of energy. "There's a really big decision in front of us this year and that's to make a judgement about how seriously we as a nation are going to take climate change," he said. "If as the direction of the mood is at the moment and we decide that global warming is a serious international and local matter and we in Australia are going to do something about it and therefore progressively deploy cleaner and cleaner source sources of energy ... then it's a very small step to accept there are very few other alternative for clean energy generation," he said. "At the top of the list is nuclear." AAP thewest.com.au 'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 IHT: Japan presses Russia over pipeline, gas project - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: February 27, 2007 TOKYO: Japanese ministers urged Russia on Tuesday to push ahead with a proposed trans-Siberian pipeline that will carry oil and gas to the Pacific coast to feed energy-hungry Japan, saying Tokyo is prepared to shoulder part of the construction cost. Finance Minister Koji Omi also urged a visiting Russian delegation including Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov to supply energy from a major project in Siberia recently taken over by Russia's state-controlled natural gas monopoly. Japan, which is almost entirely dependent on imports for its oil and gas, has been scrambling to secure access to Russia's reserves to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But a decision by Russia to run the proposed oil pipeline close to its border with China has stoked Japanese fears that Moscow will favor Beijing and not extend the pipeline to the Pacific coast as quickly as planned. During a meeting between Japanese and Russian ministers on Tuesday, Trade Minister Akira Amari said he welcomed the planned 4,300-kilometer (2,670-mile) pipeline from inner Siberia to the Pacific coast, according to a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity. He also said that Japan may help fund later stages of the project. "Japan welcomes Russia's pledge to build the pipeline to the Pacific," the official quoted Amari as saying. "Japan and Russia will work in the future on the assumption that we will cooperate in funding of the project." Finance Minister Omi pushed for assurances from Russia that Japan would receive oil and gas from Sakhalin-2. "The project is extremely important for securing a steady supply of energy to Japan," Omi was quoted as saying. Russian Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko assured the Japanese the proposed oil pipeline would run to the Pacific coast village of Kozmino near Nakhodka, and that Moscow would build a terminal there, according to the Foreign Ministry official. Khristenko said construction of the first phase of the planned 4,300-kilometer (2,670-mile) pipeline from inner Siberia to the Pacific coast was going smoothly, and about half of the total distance would be covered by 2008. Earlier Tuesday, Amari said Russia must allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency if Tokyo is to cooperate with Moscow on nuclear energy. Recent media reports have said that Tokyo is considering outsourcing the enrichment of uranium to Russia for Japanese nuclear power plants. Amari declined to comment on the reports. Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 56 DAILY YOMIURI: KEPCO's attitude questioned in probe (The Daily Yomiuri) The investigation into the nation's worst fatal nuclear accident, which occurred at the No. 3 reactor of Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Mihama Nuclear Plant in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture, has shed light on the firm's irresponsible attitude toward the safety of its secondary piping system, which was not seen as a major concern because it was not directly involved with radioactive material. On Monday, papers were sent to prosecutors on five KEPCO employees and an employee of a subsidiary involved in the August 2004 accident on suspicion of professional negligence resulting in deaths and injuries. Five people were killed and six were injured in the accident. According to the police, the six suspects failed to take measures to prevent the accident, which occurred because the corroded steam pipe that burst had never been checked in the 28 years the reactor had been in operation. As most of the six suspects were directly in charge of the reactor, families of the victims criticized the investigating authorities, saying the firm's management should be charged because the accident was caused by its problematic corporate culture. The Fukui prefectural police investigating the case intended to recommend criminal charges against KEPCO executives, including those at the firm's former Wakasa branch that managed the reactor's safety. The police questioned about 400 people and searched about 50 locations, including the Wakasa branch, the plant and an electronic system control center in Hyogo Prefecture. They seized about 15 tons of documents and analyzed them. As a result, the police learned that KEPCO had left most of the plant management work to a subsidiary, even to the extent that if a KEPCO employee in charge heard about corroded pipes, there was no rule requiring the employee to report it to the branch. However, the police could not clarify the involvement of KEPCO executives in the accident and ended up sending papers on six workers in charge to prosecutors. A senior investigator said it was not clear who was responsible, and that KEPCO had discouraged the police from bringing criminal charges against the executives. The above actions lead one to believe the branch did not have any concerns about the secondary piping system. The central government's accident investigation commission harshly criticized KEPCO's lax safety management in its final report compiled seven months after the accident. An internal report drawn up by KEPCO's then nuclear facility security department, shows the firm's emphasis on the bottom line. The report was written when KEPCO's management guidelines on the secondary piping system were approved by the central government in 1990. The report stressed cost reductions with such descriptions as, "It's possible to cut more than 400 million yen per regular inspection at all nuclear power plants." KEPCO made the guidelines prior to those made by other electric power companies based on a lesson learned from the 1986 accident at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia that killed four people following a rupture in its secondary piping system. However, the internal report, "Operational Guidelines for Management," ignored safety to focus on provisional estimates that 436 million yen could be saved by cutting nearly 80 percent of about 30,000 areas of inspection at nine reactors. A senior investigator pointed out that the document illustrates how KEPCO's corporate culture put cutting costs ahead of safety. KEPCO President Shosuke Mori said at a press conference Monday that the firm had tried to prevent similar accidents, stressing its awareness of the accident as a problem of the entire corporate organization. KEPCO must build a convincing safety management system and present it to the public. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 57 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah not a part of greenhouse pact Regional emissions goal But Huntsman says he is interested in exploring the initiative further The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 02/27/2007 01:48:58 AM MST WASHINGTON - Governors from five Western states signed an agreement Monday aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions within their borders, and while Utah is not a partner to the pact, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is interested in expanding the idea regionally. The governors of California, Arizona, Washington, New Mexico and Oregon agreed to develop a regional target to lower greenhouse gases, those believed to be contributing to global warming, over the next six months. The governors also plan to create incentives to help businesses reach the goal. Huntsman, attending the National Governors Association's winter meetings, said he is intrigued by the partnership, and he would like to expand it further. He plans to explore the initiative during an energy summit he has scheduled in Utah in mid-April. Huntsman said a dichotomy exists between states, like Utah, that produce the energy and those in the Western partnership that are consumers. The challenge, he said, will be to ?get those that are producers to view the world analogously.? California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the five-state agreement, called the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, could ultimately allow for a cap-and-trade program, where companies can buy pollution credits from those that are below their pollution allowance. Schwarzenegger said President Bush has proposed an initiative to reduce greenhouse gas, but, he said, ?I think this is a much stronger program, so therefore I would encourage governors of other states to sign on.? ?The more we sign partnerships with other states, the more effective it is,? Schwarzenegger said. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said that ?there is a gap federally? in addressing global warming, so states like Arizona are trying to take on the issue. Arizona is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by the state's centennial in 2020. ?We can lead by example. I think Arizona is a pretty good example,? Napolitano said. In Utah, Huntsman has appointed a Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change that is studying the issue. Huntsman also met Monday with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, where they discussed long delays in the target date for moving 16.5 million tons of uranium tailings from the banks of the Colorado River near Moab. The project was supposed to be done by 2012, but Bodman said earlier this month the goal is now 2028. Huntsman said Bodman assured him the department is committed to the project, but other major environmental projects are sapping the department's resources. As part of the governors' conference, Huntsman also met with President Bush and other senior officials, to discuss topics including the use of the National Guard in the Iraq war and the administration's support for providing health care to uninsured children. © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 58 AU ABC: PM urged to answer nuclear plant questions. 27/02/2007. ABC News Online Mr Walker will only say the firm has made an investment in the clean fuel business. (Melbourne Commonwealth Games) Labor is demanding the Prime Minister reveal if he has had any discussions with a company reportedly planning to build a nuclear plant. It has been reported a group of businessmen including former Liberal Party national treasurer Ron Walker has approached the Federal Government about building a plant in Victoria or South Australia. South Australia's Premier Mike Rann says his government has not had discussions with the group. The ALP's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, says John Howard must say if his Government has been in talks. "It seems that Mr Howard's plans for bringing nuclear reactors are advanced," he said. "I think it's important that the Prime Minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people on whether or not his government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals." Mr Walker is refusing to confirm that a consortium he is involved with is examining the possibility of building a nuclear power plant. Australian Nuclear Energy Limited was registered last year, and is part-owned by Mr Walker. Mr Walker says the company is an investment in the clean fuel business and its owners have had discussions with some governments. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks says he has spoken to Mr Walker about nuclear power in Victoria. "He only indicated, I think, to myself and the Treasurer in passing, that he may be looking at the nuclear industry in the future," he said. "He didn't have any proposals. "We indicated that we did not support nuclear power plants in Victoria. "At that time, I think it was before the election, we had a legislative capacity to prevent a nuclear power plant." The Federal Government says it has no knowledge of a plan by to build a nuclear power plant, either in Victoria or South Australia. Federal Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he has no recollection of a meeting with the company. "I meet with a lot of people and I've certainly met with those people on individual occasions but I must admit I don't recall meeting with the three of them together," he said. In other developments: * South Australian Premier Mike Rann is rejecting a proposal for a nuclear power plant to be built in his state. (Full Story) ***************************************************************** 59 Rutland Herald: Nuclear panel rejects Yankee safety testing Rutland Vermont News & Information February 27, 2007 Staff Report The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has rejected a request from an anti-nuclear group that Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant undergo a staged emergency shutdown to prove the reactor's safety systems could withstand an emergency in its new, increased power status. The board, which hears appeals from Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulators, sided with Entergy Nuclear that such testing wasn't necessary to prove the plant's safety systems would work. The ruling, released Monday, is the last legal challenge to the so-called power uprate that was completed last May, according to Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC. But Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor to the New England Coalition, said it was possible that the coalition would appeal the ASLB's decision to the full NRC. Shadis said the coalition got the idea for the emergency shutdown testing from General Electric, the original designer of Vermont Yankee and of the nuclear industry uprate process. Robert Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said the company's power boost was "grounded in the regulations." "Our power ascension testing involved all the tests required by the NRC," Williams said, referring any questions about the GE tests to GE. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 60 Dallas Morning News: TXU deal: a good fit for all sides? Despite buyers' promises, critics not convinced 12:00 AM CST on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 By ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News esouder@dallasnews.com Commitments by the buyers of TXU Corp. to operate in a more environmentally conscious way and to cut retail prices didn't silence the utility's critics Monday. Observers say regulators and lawmakers were already poised to force TXU to do just about everything the buyers agreed to do voluntarily. Skeptical lawmakers said Monday that they aren't ready to step back from legislation aimed at cutting the utility's market share to push power prices lower. "TXU's board and management were in the process of reshaping our development program to focus on a smaller number of plants when we were approached by the new private investor group," company chief executive John Wilder said Monday. And TXU's official announcement of an offer by Texas Pacific Group, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group to buy the Dallas power company for $45 billion didn't end speculation about how the investors could make money after committing to build three coal-fired plants rather than 11, and to cut retail prices 10 percent. The investors recognized that "if they invested in TXU overall, then they would have the ongoing conduit to put investment capital to work on projects," Mr. Wilder said. The TXU board agreed late Sunday to sell the company for $69.25 a share, plus debt. As part of the deal, executives will spend the next couple of months looking for better offers. The buyers plan to separate TXU into three distinct companies: a generation company called Luminant Energy; a transmission and distribution company called Oncor Electric Delivery; and a retail electricity company called TXU Energy. Each company will have its own board and management. The buyers also would cut retail prices by 10 percent and hold the new prices steady until 2008. Most customers would get a 6 percent reduction in about 30 days and a 4 percent reduction when the deal closes during the second half of the year. Buyers said they intend to market across the state to reverse TXU's declining count of 2.4 million retail customers. But officials with Texas Pacific Group and KKR wouldn't say how exactly they intend to improve the value of the company in the long term. "We think when we step back and look at a vibrant company in Texas, we'll have an even better company five or 10 years from now, and that's how we make money," said Marc Lipschultz, a partner with KKR. He added the commitments could be costly in the short term. Analysts said the buyers aren't likely to forgo profits because demand for power in Texas continues to grow. Still, the deal didn't dissuade key lawmakers from their plans to force TXU to break apart and to push electricity prices down. Both of those ideas are part of the TXU buyers' commitments. "The devil's in the details," said Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, who filed several of those bills. "We'll have to look at this sale and we'll have to say, does that accomplish some of the things we were trying to accomplish or not? ... I think our legislation may still occur." He added that TXU should cut prices 20 percent, rather than just 10 percent, but he's pleased to see the company build fewer coal plants. And Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, who also filed electricity legislation, said he worries that the public won't get much information about TXU once it is a private company. TXU wouldn't have to publish financial information or quarterly results. "Over the last 12 months, all my work has been towards looking at concerns about the competitive market," Mr. Fraser said. "This sale of TXU to a private equity firm actually heightens those concerns." Gov. Rick Perry, who publicly supported TXU's plans to build 11 coal plants, praised the buyout offer and environmental deal. His order to fast-track new power plant permits was shot down last week when a state district judge said it was probably unconstitutional. "There's pretty substantial environmental hurrah coming out of this. I think there's some good economics here," Mr. Perry said Monday. "It's not a change of heart. We had long discussions about capacity, and they assured us the capacity is going to be there." As recently as last week, TXU said the state could face widespread blackouts if the company isn't allowed to build the 11 coal plants. The company pointed to reports by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. But ERCOT technically predicts that if more plants aren't built, Texas' power supply could become uncomfortably tight in 2009 in the few days each year when Texans use the most power. Plus, since TXU announced its building plan, rival power companies have proposed their own coal, nuclear, natural gas and wind plants. The buyout deal also includes a unique pact between the buyers and two national environmental groups, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council, to scale back TXU's plans to build 11 coal-fired power plants to three plants; to keep TXU's promise to cut emissions 20 percent from current levels; to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and to invest in renewable power and energy efficiency programs. Yet, environmental advocates say, it was unlikely that TXU was going to get permission to build all 11 plants. And with the prospect of carbon dioxide regulation by Congress, the company may have to address greenhouse gas emissions, like it or not. TXU's Mr. Wilder said managers were already considering ways to cut the number of plants the company would build because of delayed permits and increased costs. He pointed out that working out how to transport Wyoming coal to Texas was getting complicated, labor costs have risen and community opposition was an issue. The buyers "bring a reach in political and community influencing that certainly I don't have, nor do I think broadly our management or our company has at TXU," Mr. Wilder said. The buyers said they named former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to the board of the new company, as well as former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and William Reilly, a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator. "It wasn't that big of a sacrifice after all," said Trammell S. Crow, one of the founders of Texas Business for Clean Air, an exclusive circle of influential Texas business leaders who oppose coal plant pollution. "I think that it was heading this way anyway," said David Litman, another founder of the business group and of Hotels.com. But David Hawkins, director of NRDC's climate center, who negotiated the environmental pact with the buyers, said he chose a sure bet rather than the uncertainty that regulators and lawmakers would have limited TXU's environmental impact. "We can put these commitments in the bank," he said. TXU said the deal requires approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission. TXU officials said they don't need the Texas Public Utility Commission to sign off on the deal, though they will communicate with the commissioners. PUC officials begged to differ. Spokesman Terry Hadley said the law requires TXU to report the deal "within a reasonable time" and requires commissioners to review the buyout to ensure that it is in the public interest. Staff writers Christy Hoppe in Austin and Todd J. Gillman in Washington contributed to this report. © 2007 The Dallas Morning News Co. ***************************************************************** 61 JOURNAL NEWS: NRC says Indian Point's plan to foster worker security is "reasonable" By GREG CLARY (Original publication: February 27, 2007) Federal regulators say a 19-page Indian Point plan to ensure that nuclear workers feel secure enough to point out safety concerns at the plants is "reasonable" and won't require further modification. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded yesterday to a plan Indian Point presented earlier this month to solve concerns of workers who complained of the potential "chilling effect" of retaliation by management. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point, sent NRC the improvement plans earlier this month, laying out some of the company's following strategies to change the workplace culture: - More meetings between management and union officials. - Keeping supervisors free early in the day from meetings so they can spend more time with their staffs. - Using an outside facilitator to run meetings and strengthen communication between staff and management - Newsletters focusing on improving employee understanding of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to pointing out safety problems. "Based on our review of your response and specific action plans, we found that Entergy's proposed actions appear to be reasonable to address the apparent causes of the work environment issues," David Lew, the regional director of reactor projects for the agency, wrote to Indian Point site vice president Fred Dacimo. "We will continue to monitor the results of your ongoing and proposed actions," Lew wrote in yesterday's letter, obtained by The Journal News. Workers in the "Instrument and Controls" department of the plant complained to the NRC last year of the potential for retaliation by management for citing safety problems, a "chilling effect" that regulators say is crucial to overcome to maintain safety standards for the nuclear complex. The agency routinely investigates all worker complaints and in December gave the company 30 days to come up with a detailed proposal that would allay workers' fears. Dacimo at the time the plan was required said the company would not tolerate "any weakness in this area," and would work aggressively to correct it. Union officials have said in recent months that communication at the plant is improving, citing more direct access to top level executives. Dacimo has been conducting small-group meetings with employees in an effort to remind employees of their right and responsibility to point out safety and other operational concerns. Indian Point spokesman Larry Gottlieb said the company will continue to try to improve worker-management communication. "Ultimately, it's the site employees who will decide whether or not Entergy has kept its commitment to improving Indian Point's work environment," said Gottlieb, the company's director of communications. "Anything we can do to strengthen those lines of communication between the employees and senior management is paramount to the site's continued operational success." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and ***************************************************************** 62 BG: NRC gets earful from lawmakers on Vermont Yankee license renewal - Boston.com By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | February 27, 2007 MONTPELIER, Vt. --Vermont lawmakers asked pointed questions and voiced strong criticism Tuesday in a meeting with regulators reviewing Vermont Yankee's request for a 20-year license extension. The legislators, mostly from Windham County where the plant is located, voiced frustration that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license renewal process is limited to making sure components at the 35-year-old Vernon reactor can withstand 20 years of operation beyond the plant's scheduled 2012 license expiration, and the environmental impacts of that continued operation. Not up for consideration are issues ranging from the possibility and consequences of a terrorist attack on the plant to the wisdom of generating highly radioactive waste for an extra 20 years when the federal government has yet to open a site to dispose of it. "We've had promises for years from the federal government that we were going to have a site of permanent storage (of high-level waste)," said state Rep. Virginia Milkey, D-Brattleboro, "and I think that date has gone by." Richard Emch, the NRC's environmental project manager for the Vermont Yankee review, repeatedly said the agency was looking for "new and significant information" relating to the safety of Vermont Yankee's electrical, mechanical and other systems, and environmental impacts, for example, to fish species in the Connecticut River. Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, said the failure of the federal government to come up with a long-promised site for high-level waste was a new development since Vermont Yankee was last up for license review in 1972. "Isn't this new and significant information?" she asked. Vermont passed a law last year giving the Legislature veto power over relicensing Vermont Yankee; it must decide by July 2008. The law spells out a process that is to include three public hearings. It's unclear what would happen if the NRC approves the license extension -- officials said it had approved about 50 at plants around the country and denied none -- and Vermont decides against it. In an interview, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said if Vermont tried to block the license extension, it could risk litigation because federal law puts the NRC solely in charge of nuclear plant safety. In another development, an NRC panel has ruled that Vermont Yankee doesn't need test its ability to shut down from full power despite a 20 percent increase in output. Monday's ruling from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected a formal contention about the power boost brought by the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition. It ends the last outstanding bit of regulatory business connected with the increase, which Vermont Yankee completed last spring. The coalition cited recommendations from NRC staff that as a general rule, plants contemplating such an increase in power output conduct one or both of two types of reactor "scram" -- or immediate shutdown -- from full power. The NRC panel said Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear had provided enough information based on experience at other nuclear plants around the country to avoid the need for either type of test at the Vernon reactor. © Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This © The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 63 BG: NRC gets earful from lawmakers on Vermont Yankee license renewal - Boston.com By David Gram, Associated Press Writer | February 27, 2007 MONTPELIER, Vt. --Vermont lawmakers asked pointed questions and voiced strong criticism Tuesday in a meeting with regulators reviewing Vermont Yankee's request for a 20-year license extension. The legislators, mostly from Windham County where the plant is located, voiced frustration that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license renewal process is limited to making sure components at the 35-year-old Vernon reactor can withstand 20 years of operation beyond the plant's scheduled 2012 license expiration, and the environmental impacts of that continued operation. Not up for consideration are issues ranging from the possibility and consequences of a terrorist attack on the plant to the wisdom of generating highly radioactive waste for an extra 20 years when the federal government has yet to open a site to dispose of it. "We've had promises for years from the federal government that we were going to have a site of permanent storage (of high-level waste)," said state Rep. Virginia Milkey, D-Brattleboro, "and I think that date has gone by." Richard Emch, the NRC's environmental project manager for the Vermont Yankee review, repeatedly said the agency was looking for "new and significant information" relating to the safety of Vermont Yankee's electrical, mechanical and other systems, and environmental impacts, for example, to fish species in the Connecticut River. Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, said the failure of the federal government to come up with a long-promised site for high-level waste was a new development since Vermont Yankee was last up for license review in 1972. "Isn't this new and significant information?" she asked. Vermont passed a law last year giving the Legislature veto power over relicensing Vermont Yankee; it must decide by July 2008. The law spells out a process that is to include three public hearings. It's unclear what would happen if the NRC approves the license extension -- officials said it had approved about 50 at plants around the country and denied none -- and Vermont decides against it. In an interview, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said if Vermont tried to block the license extension, it could risk litigation because federal law puts the NRC solely in charge of nuclear plant safety. In another development, an NRC panel has ruled that Vermont Yankee doesn't need test its ability to shut down from full power despite a 20 percent increase in output. Monday's ruling from the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected a formal contention about the power boost brought by the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition. It ends the last outstanding bit of regulatory business connected with the increase, which Vermont Yankee completed last spring. The coalition cited recommendations from NRC staff that as a general rule, plants contemplating such an increase in power output conduct one or both of two types of reactor "scram" -- or immediate shutdown -- from full power. The NRC panel said Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear had provided enough information based on experience at other nuclear plants around the country to avoid the need for either type of test at the Vernon reactor. © Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This © The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 64 Russia Newswire: International Seminar at Smolensk NPP Your PR support in Russia - Newsmaker: Rosenergoatom Headquarters: Moscow Date: 27/02/2007 Length: Approx. 181 words MOSCOW (RNWire) – International seminar organized by WANO Moscow Office set off at Smolensk NPP Feb 26 The topic is equipment operation in two-phase environment. Attending the seminar are representatives of Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Czech Republic. The Russian energy sector is represented by specialists of Smolensk, Leningrad and Balakovo NPPs as well as scientists from VNIIAES, Moscow Energy Institute, Electrogorsk Research and Engineering Center for Safety of NPPs. Ukraine is represented by Energoatom company and Zaporizhya NPP, Bulgaria by specialists of Kozloduy NPP, Czech Republic – Temelin NPP. The participants are expected to exchange views, experience and scientific information on a wide spectrum of problems. The objective of the seminar is to elaborate common optimal approach to the management of equipment metal degradation in two-phase environments, mostly, steam-water and water-steam mixtures. While opening the seminar, deputy chief engineer for safety of SNPP Alenxader Parshin noted: "Such a wide representation shows the importance of equipment safety and efficiency for all NPPs. The big experience of specialists and specific scientific information will allow us to find effective solutions to these problems." The seminar will last till Feb 28 © 2004-2007 Russia Newswire ***************************************************************** 65 AFP: Russian premier in Japan for energy talks - Tuesday February 27, 08:12 AM TOKYO (AFP) - Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov on Tuesday met with Japan's emperor at the start of a visit expected to focus on Tokyo's push to secure Russian gas. Fradkov came here one day after Russia's energy minister, Viktor Khristenko, who reassured Japan that Russia will continue to supply gas, even though the Kremlim took control of a major project in Siberia. Fradkov had an audience Tuesday afternoon with Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko before talks with Yohei Kono, speaker of the lower house, officials said. He will meet his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe on Wednesday and will also take part in a forum on investment in Russia. Japan is almost entirely dependent on imports for its oil and gas needs and is set to be the main market for the giant Sakhalin-2 gas project, of which Russian monopoly Gazprom took majority control in December. The Sakhalin project was originally led by British-Dutch group Shell in a consortium with Japan's Mitsui and Mitsubishi trading houses. The three companies remain minority shareholders. Japan and Russia have yet to sign a peace treaty formally ending World War II due to a dispute over four islands seized by Soviet troops days after Tokyo surrendered in 1945. The Nikkei business daily said Tuesday the two prime ministers were expected to sign a nuclear energy accord in which Russia will enrich uranium for Japan to use in power generation. Japan relies on nuclear power for 30 percent of its energy needs but enriches little uranium due to public concerns about safety. Russia would become the third country after Britain and France to which Japan sends spent nuclear fuel for uranium enrichment. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 66 AU ABC: PM under pressure over nuclear plant claims The World Today - Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 12:10:00 Reporter: Alison Caldwell ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister is under pressure today over claims that his government has already begun the process for Australia to go nuclear. The Labor Party's Environment Spokesman, Peter Garrett, is challenging the Prime Minister to reveal whether his government has been in discussions with a business consortium about building Australia's first nuclear power plant in South Australia or Victoria. Former Liberal Party treasurer, Ron Walker, will not say whether his company, Australian Nuclear Energy, is looking at building a nuclear power plant. But he has confirmed that he has had discussions with some people in government. The Premier of Victoria though, says he will insist on a referendum before any nuclear facility is built in his State. And South Australia's Premier has also restated his opposition to a nuclear power plant. In Melbourne, Alison Caldwell reports. ALISON CALDWELL: Business identity Ron Walker describes his company, Australian Nuclear Energy, as an investment in the clean fuel business. He says the company has had discussions with government but he won't confirm or deny reports that the company is examining the viability of building a nuclear power plant in Victoria or South Australia. Ron Walker, along with his business colleague, Robert Champion de Crespigny, and the former uranium mining chief, Hugh Morgan, registered the company Australian Nuclear Energy on the first of June last year. According to a newspaper report, the company is examining the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in Victoria or South Australia. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks confirmed his government did indeed have discussions with the company, but not about a nuclear power plant. STEVE BRACKS: I think Ron Walker has mentioned to myself and the Treasurer that he had an interest in nuclear power generation, and we made it clear our position is not to support that. So, I haven't heard of any proposal for a plant as such, only a general interest. ALISON CALDWELL: Speaking to 3AW's Neil Mitchell in Melbourne, Steve Bracks said his government will not allow a nuclear power plant to be built in Victoria. He said legislation would soon be introduced requiring a referendum to be held before any nuclear power plant could be built. STEVE BRACKS: This week we'll be proposing that legislation to come into law. That is, a plebiscite of all Victorians who will decide this matter. And that means effectively, it would prohibit nuclear power at any state facility, any state land. NEIL MITCHELL: Presuming the plebiscite voted your way? STEVE BRACKS: Yes that's right, assuming that a plebiscite did in fact vote to oppose nuclear power. ALISON CALDWELL: Like Victoria, the South Australian Premier Mike Rann said his State would remain nuclear-free so long as Labor was in power. Stepping up the pressure, Labor's Federal Environment Spokesman, Peter Garrett, called on the Prime Minister to say if his government had been involved in talks with the company. PETER GARRETT: It seems that Mr Howard's plans for bringing nuclear reactors into this country are advanced and I think it's important that the Prime Minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people of whether or not his government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals. ALISON CALDWELL: But the Federal Government says it has no knowledge of any plans to build a nuclear power plant, either in Victoria or South Australia. Federal Industry and Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane has met with the individuals concerned, who he describes as very experienced resource people, but he says he has no recollection of a meeting with the company. IAN MACFARLANE: I meet with a lot of people and I've certainly met with those people on individual occasions. But I must admit I don't recall meeting with the three of them together. ALISON CALDWELL: And as for what an individual may have told him: IAN MACFARLANE: I don't disclose conversations that I have with businesspeople on an individual case-by-case basis. They come and talk to me about a wide range of issues and I see lots of people every week. ALISON CALDWELL: Speaking to ABC Local Radio in Melbourne, Ian Macfarlane was also asked if he'd ever given a nod or a wink about the issue to either Ron Walker, Robert Champion de Crespigny or to Hugh Morgan. IAN MACFARLANE: I'm not into nods and winks. ALISON CALDWELL: The Australian Conservation Foundation is concerned about the developments. Anti-nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney. DAVE SWEENEY: It's very clear that the company's title and positioning is very strongly pro-nuclear and is actively exploring looking at building a reactor in south-eastern Australia. And it's also clear that there are strong links between the principal people in this consortium and the Federal Government as well as the mining industry and the nuclear industry. It's also clear that at least one of the people in this consortium has strongly advocated Australia, not only embracing nuclear power, but also becoming the host or the waste site for the world's high-level nuclear waste. Now, these are all concerns and it's particularly concerning because it's happening against the backdrop of a very aggressive pro-nuclear push from the Federal Government. Three men can put together a consortium and talk up a project. That is a long way from a reactor. I think that we will see enormous community concern and opposition if this moves from talk in the boardroom or talk in a broader, theoretical sense, to a practical proposal. ELEANOR HALL: David Sweeney from the Australian Conservation Foundation ending that report from Alison Caldwell. ***************************************************************** 67 AU ABC: Labor not supporting any nuclear plans. 27/02/2007. ABC News Online Last Update: Tuesday, February 27, 2007. 1:22pm (AEDT) Mr Walker will only say his firm has made an investment in the clean fuel business. (Melbourne Commonwealth Games) The federal Opposition says it is not supporting any proposal for the construction of a nuclear power plant. A company headed by businessmen Ron Walker, Robert de Crespigny and Hugh Morgan is reported to be assessing the feasibility of such a project, with South Australia or Victoria as potential sites. A newspaper report today says the three businessmen had informal discussions with the Federal Government about the proposal. Mr Walker says the company has been set up as an investment in the clean fuel business, and its owners have had discussions with governments. But he has refused to confirm whether the company is considering building a nuclear plant. South Australian Premier Mike Rann and Victorian Premier Steve Bracks both refuse to allow a nuclear plant in their states. The Opposition's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, says the two state governments are opposed to a nuclear power plant, but Prime Minister John Howard is not. "It seems that Mr Howard's plans for bringing nuclear reactors are advanced and I think it's important that the Prime Minister answer these questions and inform the Australian people on whether or not his Government has had discussions with Mr Walker about these proposals," he said. Mr Garrett says Mr Howard is in favour of nuclear power and should reveal his plans for the industry. "The key question that we really want answered is whether Mr Walker or other members of that company had any discussion with the Federal Government about it," he said. "Because it's very clear that Mr Howard has been a very strong proponent of nuclear energy and nuclear power - he's said that it's clean and green." Opposition resources spokesman Chris Bowen also says an explanation is needed. "The Government should come forward today and tell us what they know about this proposal, what meetings have been held, what discussions have been held, just how advanced these plans are," he said. "If they have nothing to hide they'll come out and clear the air this morning." Macfarlane tight-lipped Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says he is not at liberty to reveal whether any meetings took place between the Federal Government and Mr Walker's company. "I don't disclose conversations that I have with business people on an individual case-by-case basis," he said. "They come and talk to me about a wide range of issues, and I see lots of people every week and I just can't start disclosing who talked to me about what. "I don't recall meeting with the three of them together - I'll check my diary on that." At Parliament House today, Labor MPs were quick to seize on the newspaper report about the proposed plant. Frontbencher Jenny Macklin says it is time for the Prime Minister to come clean . No plant for SA Mr Rann says a nuclear power plant will never be built in South Australia under a Labor Government, irrespective of the credentials of those behind it. "The interesting thing about this is that it doesn't matter anyway because it won't happen," he said. "We've already ruled it out, we've ruled it out in the most emphatic way at the election and in Parliament. "The Liberals in South Australia want to build a nuclear power plant, Labor is opposed to it and it won't happen while we're in Government." Federal Labor backbencher Kate Ellis says the South Australian community has not been consulted about the prospect of a nuclear power plant in the state. "We have some very real local concerns over nuclear power and I'll be making very clear to the Prime Minister that he needs to make sure that he addresses the local community concerns and not just his mate's business interests," she said. Anti-nuclear campaigner Helen Caldicott says the reports are concerning, and the Prime Minister must come clean. "I think a lot is going behind the backs of the public," she said. "We don't know what [Mr] Howard's hidden agenda is and that he's negotiating with Ron Walker and a company to build a reactor without telling anyone in South Australia I think it's a gross violation of his responsibilities as Prime Minister." In other developments: * Labor is demanding the Prime Minister reveal if he has had any discussions with a company reportedly planning to build a nuclear plant. (Full Story) * South Australian Premier Mike Rann is rejecting a proposal for a nuclear power plant to be built in his state. (Full Story) ***************************************************************** 68 AU ABC: PM - Labor tries to link Govt to nuclear company PM - Tuesday, 27 February , 2007 18:10:07 Reporter: Chris Uhlmann MARK COLVIN: Now you might think that calling your company Australian Nuclear Energy Proprietary Limited was a fairly strong hint that you proposed to supply nuclear energy in Australia, but a company with that name and led by three of Australia's best known businessmen, is denying today that it proposes to do anything of the sort. Melbourne's Herald Sun reported this morning that Australian Nuclear Energy owned by Ron Walker, Hugh Morgan and Robert Champion de Crespigny had been looking at the viability at building a nuclear reactor in Victoria or South Australia. The company issued a statement this afternoon saying it had not put forward a proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia and that it would make no other comment, but the story dominated Question Time in Federal Parliament. The Opposition tried to tie the Government to the company and the Government accused the Opposition of being conspiracy theorists and Luddites. Chief Political Correspondent Chris Uhlmann. CHRIS ULHMANN: Elections make politicians nervous and as a general rule, they don't do or say anything in an election year that makes their constituents nervous. So it's not surprising that the prospect of spending a year batting away suggestions that 25 nuclear power stations will begin mushrooming up around the nation is not one that excites them. The idea is in a report of the Prime Minister's taskforce into uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy. It specifically mentions a scenario where by 2050 a third of the nation's energy could be produced by 25 reactors dotted around the country. At a joint party room meeting today, that section of the report was criticised by backbenchers who said it would make the politics of nuclear power very difficult in an election year and prone to a scare campaign. The taskforce chair is Dr Ziggy Switkowski and he defends his decision to include the scenario. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, our mandate was to inform the public debate and provide our communities with information as to what a future involving nuclear power would look like. And we certainly took the view that we had to describe a potential number of reactors by a certain time, in this case 2050, in order to… to a number that would be sufficient to make a difference to the national generation of electricity - and in our case we picked the number that was about a third of the electricity capacity - in order for the Australian public to understand how nuclear would co-exist along with fossil fuel and other renewable energy sources. CHRIS ULHMANN: So you were thinking about the practicalities of it, not the politics? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: We certainly weren't considering the politics although we were obviously not insensitive to them. But I think it is important that given that we're talking about a 50-year timetable and that people's understanding of the various elements in the portfolio of energy generation in Australia are quite complex, that they understood what was possible when it came to the deployment of nuclear reactors. CHRIS UHLMANN: The backbench nervousness was heightened by a report in Melbourne's Herald Sun which said a private company called Australian Nuclear Energy was examining the viability of building a nuclear power plant in Victoria or South Australia. It went on to say the plans had been discussed with the Australian Government and the governments of Victoria and South Australia. Premiers Steve Bracks and Mike Rann were quick to dismiss the reports. STEVE BRACKS: I think Ron Walker has mentioned to myself and the Treasurer that he had an interest in nuclear power generation and we made it clear our position is not to support that. So I haven't heard of any proposal for a plant as such, only a general interest. MIKE RANN: Absolutely not. And even if we did get approached in the future, the answer will be the same, and that is that at the last election, I ruled out any nuclear power plants being built in South Australia, have recently reaffirmed that in Parliament. CHRIS ULHMANN: By Question Time, the company had also issued a statement saying that it had no proposal to build nuclear power plants in Australia, but that didn't stop the Opposition from peppering Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, with questions. KEVIN RUDD: My question again is to the Minister for Industry. Has the minister had discussions with any representative of Australian Nuclear Energy Limited or not? … I refer to the minister's answer to my last question where he said he would welcome discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy Limited. My question to the minister is has the minister already had discussions with Australian Nuclear Energy Limited? … Given the minister has now been asked this question four times and has refused to answer, what does the minister have to hide about the Government's nuclear reactor plans for Australia? CHRIS ULHMANN: Ian Macfarlane did answer. He said his diary showed no meeting with representatives of the company. IAN MACFARLANE: Mr Speaker, can I also say that I don't recall discussing this proposal with these three gentlemen and if someone is able to remind me of when I did, I will correct the record. CHRIS ULHMANN: The Opposition turned its attention to the Prime Minister who has a prodigious memory, and he made no secret of the fact that he believes all energy options should remain open. JOHN HOWARD: I had a discussion with Ron Walker, I'm very happy to tell the world that one Saturday morning when Ron rings me, it's not with racing tips, neither of us are very interested in racing but it's about something else. And Ron, he said to me, it was about the middle of last year, he said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power. And I said well that's a great idea Ron, 'cause you know my view on it. I don't know what this is all about. My view and the view of the Government about nuclear being an option has been well known, Mr Speaker. The question of whether it ever goes any further will be a matter for commercial decision. I might remind the leader of the Opposition that the laws of the Commonwealth and the state as they now stand, prohibit any nuclear power generation in Australia, we will address that issue in relation to the Commonwealth when we give our detailed response to the Switkowski report. But let me just say again to the leader of the Opposition, if you are serious about climate change, if you want to lead the intellectual debate on this issue, you have to look at every option. MARK COLVIN: John Howard ending Chris Ulhmann's report. ***************************************************************** 69 AU ABC: Govt under fire over nuclear reactor reports 7.30 Report - 27/02/2007 Reporter: Michael Brissenden KERRY O'BRIEN: A nuclear industry may seem a long way off for Australia and the debate just starting to simmer, but some at the top end of town have already decided to take the prospect very seriously and, since one of them is the Liberal Party's former top fundraiser, with close links to the Prime Minister, as revealed in a newspaper report this morning, it didn't take long to exercise minds in the parliament. It seems three of Australia's richest businessmen have already formed a public company and begun examining the viability of building the nation's first nuclear power plant. The chairman of the Fairfax media group and former national Treasurer of the Liberal Party, Ron Walker, is one of them. That brought accusations of cronyism from the Opposition, particularly after Mr Howard admitted he had discussed the company's plans with Mr Walker as far back as the middle of last year. He scoffed at suggestions that that might be unusual. But the day has highlighted one uncomfortable political reality with the nuclear debate the pros and cons get swamped by the question of where a nuclear power plant might go. Political editor Michael Brissenden reports. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: As the climate change debate hots up, the nuclear energy option has become one of the defining policy fissures. For a government struggling to shrug off a perception that it is still a reluctant convert to the global warming crisis, nuclear power provides a powerful platform to at least be seen to be proactive and engaged. It's clear the public wants their politicians to act and to take the issue seriously. The politicians have got that message loud and clear. PETER GARRETT, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN: If we are serious about climate change, we are not going to deal with climate change and produce solutions by producing nuclear waste. If Australians want serious action on climate change, they want to see action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, they want to see investment in energy efficiency and they don't want to see nuclear reactors dotted around this country. JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: I think this nation, if it is serious about climate change, has to look at the nuclear option. I'm not frightened of that. I'm not ruling out power stations anywhere in this country. That is a juvenile, idiotic game to play, Mr Speaker. If those who sit opposite, if you are interested, Mr Speaker, if you are interested, if you are interested in a serious debate, you will embrace it and I do not intend to be diverted from a rational discussion of the nuclear option by this kind of childish scare tactics. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: For a Prime Minister often accused of being poll-driven, this is another of those issues, like Iraq, where he's chosen to take a strong stand seemingly against popular public opinion, a stand designed to portray leadership strength and define a political vision. It helps that the nuclear issue has been an explosive one inside the Labor Party as well. The Labor Party will formalise its shift on uranium mining at its national conference in April, but there will be no shift on nuclear power. It may be a populist position, but Labor's going to ride it for all it's worth. Poll after poll has shown that no one wants a power station anywhere near our own backyard. CHRIS BOWEN, SHADOW ASSISTANT TREASURER: Where will Springfield be in Australia? Who will be Mr Smithers and who will be Mr Burns? Where is this nuclear power plant going to be, and what will the government do about it? HOMER SIMPSON: Aaaagh, it's my problem, we're doomed! RECORDED MESSAGE: Sector 7 G is now being isolated. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Homer Simpson's nightmare reverberates through lounge rooms across the nation and headlines today revealed that while we may not have Mr Burns himself, three of Australia's richest men are certainly keen to find their own Springfield somewhere soon, in Victoria or South Australia, it seems. Two of them, Ron Walker and Hugh Morgan, have impeccable Liberal Party connections. Together with the Adelaide businessman Robert De Crespigny, they have formed a private company called Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd. The Opposition says the connections raise some serious questions. CHRIS BOWEN: Have there been any meetings between senior cabinet ministers and these three businessmen, senior bureaucrats, senior ministerial advisers? They need to be clear and transparent with the Australian people today. We deserve to know where John Howard and Peter Costello stand about Ron Walker's plans. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: And that was Labor's pursuit inside the House as well. KEVIN RUDD, OPPOSITION LEADER: Minister, the question is, have you had any discussions with any individual from Australian Nuclear Energy Limited? IAN MACFARLANE, INDUSTRY MINISTER: Representing Australian Nuclear Energy Limited, no. KEVIN RUDD: Has the Minister had discussions with any individual with an interest in Australian Nuclear Energy Limited, including Mr Ron Walker, the former Treasurer of the Liberal Party; Minister, what has the Minister got to hide? MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: It took six questions but, eventually, the Industry Minister cleared it up. IAN MACFARLANE: I have not met with the company, I have not met with representatives of the company about this issue and I have not seen a proposal on a nuclear power station from them. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: But perhaps they didn't need to. Under further questioning, the Prime Minister revealed he had discussed the matter with Mr Walker last year. JOHN HOWARD: I had a discussion with Ron Walker. I'm very happy to tell the world that one Saturday morning when Ron rings me, it's not with racing tips, neither of us are very interested in racing but it's about something else and Ron, he said to me, it was about the middle of last year, he said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert De Crespigny have decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power and I said, "Well, that's a great idea, Ron, because you know my view on it." I don't know what this is all about. My view and the view of the government about nuclear being an option has been well known. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: What it's all about is a Labor charge of cronyism. Labor says the timing of it all is suspicious. The three businessmen established their company on June 1 last year, five days before the Prime Minister established the Switkowski inquiry that eventually found that if the conditions were right, Australia could have as many as 25 nuclear power stations across the country by 2050. It's a charge the Prime Minister dismissed as trivial. JOHN HOWARD: I would have thought instead of alleging in a childish, juvenile fashion that there was something sinister in my having a discussion - perhaps, having had a discussion, he can speak for himself - they would have had a serious debate, Mr Speaker. The last hour has revealed the Labor Party who sits opposite as inadequate and intellectually deprived participants in the climate change debate in Australia, and I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper. MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: There will certainly be more questions, and they may well be dismissed as juvenile. The bigger political problem for the Prime Minister, though, probably won't be his telephone conversations with his friends, but rather his own intransigence. He has locked himself in behind the nuclear option, and no really serious debate about that can be had without consideration of where to place the power plants when they come, whoever it is who eventually builds them. KERRY O'BRIEN: Political editor Michael Brissenden. ***************************************************************** 70 AU ABC: Howard's nuclear plan 'more advanced than thought'. 28/02/2007. ABC News Online Labor says the PM is secretly encouraging businesses to build nuclear power plants. (ABC) The Federal Opposition says Prime Minister John Howard is pursuing his own nuclear power agenda by secretly encouraging business identities to build nuclear power plants. Mr Howard has told Parliament that last year he spoke to Melbourne businessman Ron Walker, who is behind a new business called Australian Nuclear Energy. Labor's Energy spokesman Chris Evans says Mr Howard is pushing an agenda. "It's clear that the Prime Minister is encouraging people to go down the path of nuclear energy," he said. "The Howard Government's plan to take us down the nuclear path is much more advanced than people thought." The head of the Government's nuclear inquiry, Ziggy Switkowski, has told ABC's Lateline it was obvious the Government would aim for nuclear power. "It was the sort of initiative that I could see would logically follow," he said. Dr Switkowski says it will still be years before a nuclear reactor can even be ordered, let alone built. Mr Howard maintains his support for nuclear power is well known. Related Video The Federal Opposition has attacked the Government over the possibility of nuclear power plants in Australia. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] Tony Jones speaks with Nuclear Taskforce chairman Ziggy Switkowski. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] Related Audio Prime Minister John Howard is under pressure over claims his Government has already been in talks with a business consortium about building the first Australian nuclear power plant in South Australia or Victoria. [RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3] It has been reported that Australian Nuclear Energy has been looking at building a reactor in Victoria or South Australia, but the company has issued a statement denying the reports. [RealMedia 28k+] [WinMedia 28k+] [MP3] Related Stories * PM chides Rudd over nuclear power 'conspiracy theory' * Nuclear energy company denies proposing sites * Nuclear power debate worries Portland * Labor not supporting any nuclear plans * PM urged to answer nuclear plant questions * SA Govt rejects nuclear power plant proposal ***************************************************************** 71 AU ABC: Howard encouraging nuclear power development - ALP AM - Wednesday, 28 February , 2007 08:04:00 Reporter: Peta Donald TONY EASTLEY: The Federal Opposition is planning to hound the Prime Minister John Howard over a telephone conversation he had last year with the businessman Ron Walker, over nuclear power. Mr Walker and two other businessmen registered a company called Australian Nuclear Energy, and not long afterwards the Federal Government ordered an inquiry to look into the feasibility of nuclear power stations in Australia. Labor is suspicious about the timing, and is accusing Mr Howard of encouraging the development of nuclear power, rather than exploring all the alternatives. From Canberra, Peta Donald reports. PETA DONALD: Last night the Prime Minister wasn't interested in elaborating on his phone call with businessman Ron Walker about nuclear power. JOHN HOWARD: Hello there. PETA DONALD: Any more details on your conversation with Ron Walker? REPORTER: Prime Minister, was there any connection between the timing of your phone call and the announcement of the inquiry? JOHN HOWARD: No. PETA DONALD: Earlier in Parliament he had been more forthcoming. In fact, Mr Howard said he was happy to tell the world about a phone call he received from Mr Walker, a former Liberal Party treasurer, on a Saturday morning last year. JOHN HOWARD: He said that he and Hugh Morgan and Robert de Crespigny had decided to register a company that could be interested in nuclear power. And I said well, that's a great idea, Ron, because you know my view on it. I don't know what this is all about. My view and the view of the Government about nuclear being an option has been well-known. PETA DONALD: Labor's Environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, isn't satisfied. PETER GARRETT: The answer that the Prime Minister gave in question time about a phone call that he had with Ron Walker raises more questions than it does answers, and I think that Australians need to know to what extent the Prime Minister, his ministers, or any senior staff or reps have had any discussions of any kind with Australian nuclear energy over that period of time. PETA DONALD: But on the phone call between the Prime Minister and Ron Walker, what was so wrong with that phone call? All the Prime Minister said was "good idea, Ron". PETER GARRETT: There is a communication between the Prime Minister and Mr Walker concerning the development of an industry, an Australian nuclear energy industry proposal, and that subsequently the posture of the Government in terms of initiating the Switkowski inquiry and going on, you know, is something which there's a huge public interest in. PETA DONALD: Mr Howard says it was about the middle of last year when he took the call from Mr Walker. Mr Walker's nuclear energy company was registered on the first of June last year. Just days after that, the Government ordered an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power, chaired by the former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski. It found viable nuclear power is 15 years off, but there could be 25 nuclear reactors in Australia by 2050. It's left an opening for Labor in an election year. Peter Garrett. PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister can't talk up nuclear energy and duck away from the question of where nuclear energy plants or reactors would be sited. TONY EASTLEY: Labor's Environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, ending Peta Donald's report. ***************************************************************** 72 NRC: NRC Announces Appointment of New Member to the Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes News Release - 2007-029 - 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 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced the appointment of Darrell R. Fisher, Ph.D., as the patient's rights advocate on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). The ACMUI was established in 1958 and advises the NRC on policy and technical issues related to the regulation of the medical use of radioactive material. Dr. Fisher, a medical physicist with experience in the dosimetry and health effects of radionuclides and radiopharmaceuticals used for diagnosing and treating cancer, is currently a senior scientist with 28 years experience at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. He leads the radioisotopes research program and serves as scientific director of the Department of Energy's isotope production program. Dr. Fisher previously served as an assistant to the director of the American Association of Cancer Patients. A survivor of childhood cancer, he has also worked with other patient advocate organizations as a counselor to patients who need to evaluate cancer treatment options. Recently, Dr. Fisher served as science advisor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in Washington, D.C., and previously served "on loan" to the government as science advisor to the Secretary of Energy's human radiation experiments investigative study. He is an adjunct member of the radiology faculty at the University of Washington, and of the environmental sciences, pharmaceutical sciences, and English and humanities faculties at Washington State University. 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 27, 2007 ***************************************************************** 73 Deseret News: NRC fines Utah firm over incident Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Associated Press WASHINGTON ? A Utah company faces a $6,500 fine after one of its drivers left radioactive material unattended overnight when he stopped at a bar in Casper, Wyo., for a drink and was later arrested after getting in a traffic accident. Universal Testing LLC, based in Clearfield, fired the driver and declined to give his name, as did the nuclear Regulatory Commission. The employee left an industrial radiography device, which X-rays metal pipes at construction sites, in the open bed of a pickup truck while drinking in a bar on Feb. 18, 2006, the NRC's statement released Monday said. Later that night, the NRC said, the driver was involved in a traffic accident, arrested and held overnight in local jail. His truck was impounded while the radioactive device was left "unattended and unsecured," the NRC said. The driver recovered his truck and the device the next day. Bruce S. Mallett, a regional administrator with the NRC, said the rule violation "was significant because the material was vulnerable to unauthorized access or removal." The company's office manager said no one was immediately available to discuss the case. According to the company's Web site, Universal Testing provides testing and inspection services in the nuclear, aerospace and petrochemical fields, among others. The company has 30 days to pay or challenge the proposed fine, the NRC said. © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 74 National Academies Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium PIN: PHPH-H-06-01-A Institute of Medicine Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice RSO: Mitchell, Abigail Project Scope A committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will review, evaluate, and summarize scientific and medical literature regarding the association between exposure to depleted uranium and chronic human health effects. The study committee will focus on literature published since the IOM's 2000 report, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines was written. The committee will make determinations on the strength of the evidence for associations between exposure to depleted uranium and human health effects. The report might include recommendations for additional scientific studies to resolve areas of continued scientific uncertainty. The findings will not be limited to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. They also will be applicable to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The start date for the project is September 18, 2006. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 15 months. Project Duration: 15 months Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/22/2007 Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 75 AU ABC: Tennant Creek meeting to address nuclear waste fears. 28/02/2007. ABC News Online Traditional owners of an area in the Barkly region are today gathering in Tennant Creek, in central Australia, to discuss the issue of nuclear waste. Some Muckaty Station traditional owners have raised concerns the Northern Land Council (NLC) is negotiating with the Federal Government over a possible waste dump on their land. Nat Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre says today's meeting will try and address fears that they are being excluded from negotiations on the issue. She says the NLC has taken trips with traditional owners to the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney. "Even the people coming back from that haven't felt like they've had enough information or that they were given the proper information to make an informed decision and just really wanted a chance for all people with interest in that land to have an opportunity to talk about it," she said. ***************************************************************** 76 Herald Sun: 'Billions' in nuke storage NEWS.com.au | George Lekakis February 28, 2007 12:00am A COMPANY owned by a senior Victorian businessman yesterday warned that Australia could miss out on billions of dollars if it shies away from building a nuclear waste dump. Melbourne businessman John White, a former chief executive of Visy Industries and Transfield Defence Systems, is applying to international regulators to win approval as a nuclear services provider. Mr White is the principal of Australian Nuclear Fuel Leasing, which was formed in October last year to market uranium to offshore power plants under lease deals. His is one of a raft of companies lining up to take advantage of the possible freeing up of Australia's nuclear industry. "As climate change effects get worse, the need for low emission energy sources will become imperative," Mr White said. "Worldwide, the development of nuclear energy is in train and my interest is to develop a system called nuclear fuel leasing." Under lease contracts, Mr White's company would undertake to manage nuclear fuel at all stages of production from extraction of uranium to disposal of waste. It would remain the technical owner of the nuclear fuel and would earn revenue by managing the transfer of spent nuclear fuel rods to waste dumps. Mr White hopes Australia will eventually compete against the United States and several Scandinavian countries in the nuclear waste storage business. However his business would develop whether a local dump was built or not. "Repositories are being built in the US and several Scandinavian countries," he said. "It will be sad if Australia misses the opportunity, but that's up to the Australian community." Mr White said his company was in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency to become an accredited provider of nuclear management and waste services. Companies such as Australian Nuclear Fuel Leasing are likely to flourish regardless of whether Federal and State governments allow nuclear generation to proceed in Australia. Such companies are effectively "middlemen" in the nuclear fuel industry and are likely to be sustained so long as the volume of Australian uranium exports is maintained or increased. Michael Angwin, the executive director of the Australian Uranium Association, said the time had come for the removal of uranium mining restrictions. "Australia has a major opportunity to expand its exports of uranium," Mr Angwin said. "That's the goal we should be seeking to achieve, right now." © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 77 NEWS.com.au: PM told to reveal waste dump talks February 28, 2007 11:04am Article from: AAP ONE of the businessmen involved in a company looking at building a nuclear reactor in Australia is also in favour of an international nuclear waste dump here, according to the Greens. Greens Senator Christine Milne said Prime Minister John Howard should reveal whether he had discussed a waste dump with Hugh Morgan, one of three businessmen behind Australian Nuclear Energy (ANE) Pty Ltd. Mr Howard revealed yesterday that he had discussions with another of the trio - Melbourne businessman Ron Walker - a former treasurer of the Liberal Party and major party fundraiser. Mr Walker and fellow businessmen Robert Champion de Crespigny and Mr Morgan registered ANE on June 1 last year, five days before Mr Howard set up a prime ministerial task force on uranium mining and processing and the viability of nuclear energy. Senator Milne said Mr Morgan had been advocating the international waste dump idea around the same time. "Now that the Prime Minister has admitted to phone calls with Ron Walker, perhaps he'd also like to tell the Australian people whether he's also had communication with Hugh Morgan who, at approximately the same time last year, was advocating Australia become an international waste dump, arguing that it would be the best use of some of the country in outback South Australia," Senator Milne said. "He also needs to detail whether there's a three-way relationship between these three businessmen, himself and (Liberal Party pollsters) Mark Textor and Linton Crosby, and polling that might be going on on the nuclear issue. "It's well acknowledged that the company run by Mark Textor and Lynton Crosby have done work for the Government and also Mr de Crespigny has been chair of (that company). Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja also wanted more information on Mr Howard's contacts with the businessmen. "I just think politics gets more interesting every day. I'd like to hear the Prime Minister detail his conversation (with Mr Walker)," Senator Stott Despoja said. "Nuclear energy and power is not currently sanctioned in this country, and yet this is a business company that is going to invest in and potentially develop nuclear energy if it's allowed. "And he's had a chat with the prime minister. You bet I'd like to know more." Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 78 Nevada Appeal: Berkley briefs lawmakers on federal budget BRENDAN RILEY Associated Press Writer February 27, 2007 Rep. Shelley Berkley, now on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, told state lawmakers on Monday that the budget proposed by President Bush makes "asinine" cuts in federal funds that will hurt Nevada and other states. But Berkley, D-Nev., said there's one federal budget account that she'd like to see disappear completely - the nearly $500 million that Bush put into his $2.9 trillion budget plan for a high-level nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Berkley said she's working with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is "hellbent on eliminating" the Yucca Mountain funding. She also urged legislators to continue their opposition to the dump until it's "nothing but a very, very bad memory." In comments to the lawmakers and to reporters at an earlier news conference, Berkley highlighted numerous problems created for this state by the proposed federal budget, including a 64 percent cut in the state's homeland security grant funds. There's also inadequate funding to fully carry out terms of the federal No Child Left Behind Act or properly run Head Start or anti-drug programs, Berkley said. In Nevada, about 425,000 people lack health insurance but the proposed federal budget makes cuts in critical programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Berkley said, adding that a slight increase in federal funds for a health insurance program for children is far below what's actually needed. The proposed budget also cuts funding for Nevada's environmental programs, cuts job training and employment assistance and revives an attack on the Social Security system, Berkley said. Berkley also said she's working with other Democrats in the Democrat-controlled Congress to revise the federally mandated Real ID program which will require Nevadans to apply for new, tamper-proof driver's licenses. The congresswoman told reporters that the federal government will have to "pony up" with additional funding rather than force Nevada and other states to spend billions of dollars complying with the law. She added that because of all the funding problems with the proposed budget the hopes of adequate dollars for such pressing needs as highway construction are "becoming dimmer and dimmer." Nevada's projected shortfall for road funds is about $3.8 billion. Berkley also repeated her opposition to the Bush administration's troop "surge" in Iraq, and said a political rather than military solution is the best tactic. All contents © Copyright 2007 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701 ***************************************************************** 79 AU ABC: Tennant Creek meeting to address nuclear waste fears ABC Northern Territory (AEST)Wednesday, 28 February 2007. 12:05 (ACDT)Wednesday, 28 Traditional owners of an area in the Barkly region are today gathering in Tennant Creek, in central Australia, to discuss the issue of nuclear waste. Some Muckaty Station traditional owners have raised concerns the Northern Land Council (NLC) is negotiating with the Federal Government over a possible waste dump on their land. Nat Wasley from the Arid Lands Environment Centre says today's meeting will try and address fears that they are being excluded from negotiations on the issue. She says the NLC has taken trips with traditional owners to the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney. "Even the people coming back from that haven't felt like they've had enough information or that they were given the proper information to make an informed decision and just really wanted a chance for all people with interest in that land to have an opportunity to talk about it," she said. ***************************************************************** 80 KCPW: Clock Running Out for Veto of EnergySolutions Bill - Feb 26, 2007 by Julie Rose (KCPW News) Governor Jon Huntsman Junior has until midnight Tuesday to act on a bill that would give radioactive waste disposal company EnergySolutions more leeway. Huntsman won't say whether he's sharpening his veto pen, but says he wants to make sure the bill doesn't open a quote "back door" that would allow the company to store higher level waste or expand beyond it's existing license. Last year, Huntsman vetoed a measure that would have allowed EnergySolutions to expand without his approval. This year's bill lets EnergySolutions make changes within its current license without legislative and gubernatorial approval. That license was issued before Huntsman was elected, and he has since made a point of opposing efforts to bring higher levels of waste to Utah. Huntsman says he will give Senate Bill 155 a quote "thorough legal scrubbing" before announcing his decision - which is expected tomorrow evening. Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage, and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2007 KCPW KCPW's Annual EEO Public File Report ***************************************************************** 81 Salt Lake Tribune: Legislative News: Foes of waste site expansion continue to urge governor to veto Article Last Updated: 02/27/2007 02:55:05 AM MST Opponents of a bill that would ease the approval process for large expansions at EnergySolutions' radioactive waste landfill made a final effort Monday to urge Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. to veto the bill. Huntsman, who has until midnight tonight to decide, has not indicated whether he supports or opposes it. Attorneys now before the Utah Supreme Court in opposition to an EnergySolutions boundary expansion told elected leaders in an open letter they are giving up an important policy tool by letting the bill become law. "If SB155 is not defeated, the governor will no longer have this important power to veto any increase in the amount of radioactive waste on purely public policy grounds," said James W. McConkie II and Bradley H. Parker. The company and its supporters in the Legislature say the state now micromanages the mile-square hazardous and radioactive waste site in Tooele County. Both the House and the Senate passed the bill with enough votes to override a Huntsman veto. Next step: Restricting local leaders' protection of some wetlands passes House The House backed a bill Monday that would restrict local leaders from protecting wetlands not recognized by the federal government. In pushing for the bill, Republicans said city and county officials are abusing the wetlands provision, unnecessarily restricting the use of farm land. But Minority Leader Ralph Becker said the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, would step on local governments. "For us to pass a bill like this where local governments can make no determination about wetlands is wrongheaded and misguided," he said. Next step: Schools would not be able to limit unions' access to teachers A seemingly innocuous bill regarding teacher union rules generated vigorous debate before passing its final legislative hurdle Monday. The bill would give unions equal access to teachers by prohibiting schools from limiting access to mailboxes or favoring one union over others. Although the bill doesn't mention the Utah Education Association by name, debate centered around the state's largest teachers union. The bill's supporters lambasted the UEA for complaining about a proposed record public education budget even though several of its teacher members disagreed. Opponents said the UEA gets a bad rap and shouldn't be punished by the bill. It passed the House 39-31.House OKs 'Life Elevated' plate design The House on Monday agreed on new license plates, complete with new colors and the slogan "Life Elevated." Pending the governor's signature, the state will begin issuing the plates when the Ski Utah plates run out. That will likely be in the next year, said Rep. Roger Barrus, R-Centerville. One of the new plates would feature a skier and the other, Delicate Arch. Next step: Eviction process could be accelerated Landlords would be able to more quickly evict tenants under a bill that passed the House on Monday. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, would target people who commit crimes in a rented apartment or home. Waddoups is a professional property manager. Most Democrats have opposed the bill saying it would hurt low-income families. Next step: Governor's action on bill should come today. - Judy Fahys Goes to the governor for signature. - Matt Canham Next step: Goes to the governor for signature. - Nicole Stricker and Steve GehrÂke Goes to the governor for signature. - Steve Gehrke Goes to the governor for signature. - Matt Canham © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 82 Salt Lake Tribune: Exxon gets new hearing on $112 million award in Louisiana case Tribune Wire Services Bloomberg News By Greg Stohr Article Last Updated: 02/26/2007 08:22:09 AM MST Posted: 8:23 AM- Exxon Mobil Corp. will get another chance to overturn a $112 million punitive damage award in a Louisiana land contamination case, as the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a lower court to reassess whether the award is excessive. The justices today told a Louisiana state court to take a fresh look at the case in light of a decision they issued last week putting new constraints on punitive damages. The damages were part of a $168 million award to landowners who blamed Exxon, world's largest publicly traded oil company, for radioactive contamination on the site. Exxon told the Supreme Court that the jury improperly penalized the company for potential health problems suffered by workers at the site. The high court's decision last week said jurors can't punish for injuries suffered by people who aren't part of the case. "Because the jury punished Exxon Mobil for the effects of its conduct on non-parties, the punitive damages award was orders of magnitude greater than any harm actually suffered by the plaintiffs in this case," the Irving, Texas, oil company argued in court papers filed in Washington. Retired judge Joseph Grefer and his siblings say a company Exxon hired polluted their 33-acre site near New Orleans with radioactive residue from an oil pipe cleaning operation. The Grefers say Exxon left them with massive cleanup costs and endangered the health of neighbors and workers on the site. A Louisiana appeals court called Exxon's conduct "callous, calculated, despicable and reprehensible." Punitive Damages The jury that considered the case awarded $1 billion in punitive damages, on top of $56 million in cleanup costs. The appeals court cut the punitive portion to $112 million, saying anything larger would violate the U.S. Constitution. In its decision last week, the court ruled 5-4 that, while juries can't explicitly punish for injuries to others, jurors can consider the risk of harm to others in assessing the reprehensibility of a defendant's conduct. Critics, including dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens, said that distinction was so fine it will prove impossible to apply. The ruling came in the case of a smoker lawsuit against Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit. The case is Exxon Mobil v. Grefer, 05-1670. © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 83 Salt Lake Tribune: Low-level toxic waste landfill to be toured by lawmakers By Seanna Adcox The Associated Press Article Last Updated: 02/27/2007 01:49:05 AM MST COLUMBIA, S.C. - The public will be allowed to tour a low-level radioactive waste landfill with South Carolina lawmakers who are considering whether to keep it open to trash nationwide. The 235-acre site in Barnwell County is set to close next year to waste from all but South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. But a bill introduced by Republican state Rep. Billy Witherspoon would allow it to continue accepting low-level radioactive waste through 2023 from everywhere, including lab coats, coveralls and control rods from commercial nuclear power plants. 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 group opposes keeping the site open to the nation's waste. The three-state compact was compromise enough, Isham said. A spokesman for Utah-based 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 company bought the site's previous operator, Chem-Nuclear, and its parent company last June. EnergySolutions wants to remain open to more than just three states. Rep. Lonnie Hosey, who represents South Carolina's Allendale and Barnwell counties and is co-sponsor of the bill, said the county's three rural school districts, which split $1 million a year from the site, and the county will be thrown into an economic crisis if operations are reduced. About 10 percent of the county's budget is funded by the facility, said Wendall Gibson, treasurer for Barnwell County. The site, still referred to as Chem-Nuclear, contributes $1 million for county operations and also paid nearly $1 million last year in property taxes and a business-license fee tied to waste volume. A portion of the disposal fees helps pay for school-building projects statewide. Members of a House committee led by Witherspoon will board a bus to tour the facility Wednesday. Anyone else who is interested can take extra seats or meet the group at the site. © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 84 Tennessean: TAKING PART: Nuclear waste on the move - Nashville, Tennessee - Tuesday, 02/27/07 - Tennessean.com What do you think about the possibility of radioactive waste from the country's commercial nuclear reactors being shipped on Nashville's highways and rail tracks to East Tennessee? Under one scenario under discussion, companies' nuclear waste that is intended to go to a final resting place in Nevada, could be hauled to Oak Ridge for reprocessing into more nuclear fuel. . Let us know what you think. Contact reporter Anne Paine at apaine@tennessean.com or 259-8071 Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting. Since Tennessean.com does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our Web site. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Tennessean.com or its related sites. All comments posted should comply with the Tennessean.com's terms of service Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 85 Daily Herald: Veto nuclear waste bill Tuesday, February 27, 2007 One of the bills sitting on Gov. Huntsman's desk is arguably the worst to emerge from this year's Legislature. It involves the way radioactive waste is approved or denied in Utah. For the sake of all Utahns, Hunstman should veto Senate Bill 155 and preserve the current system of oversight of elected officials when it comes to the expansion of a radioactive waste dump. The bill, sponsored by Nephi Republican Sen. Darrin Peterson, is nothing but a cheap way for the Legislature and governor to avoid a political hot potato -- a potato that it's their duty to handle. The bill would take elected officers out of the loop and allow state regulators to approve expansion requests that do not exceed a dump's original footprint. EnergySolutions under this scheme could find it much easier to win approval for doubling the height of its dump in Clive. All it would need is a simple OK from the state's Radiation Control Board instead of approval through the people's representatives -- the Legislature and the governor. It is no surprise that EnergySolutions would like to see elected officials taken out of the loop. The former Envirocare's last attempt to expand its waste operation was scuttled when Huntsman announced that he would not approve it. So SB 155 creates an end-run. Lower-level approval from regulators would mean that decision-making is taken away from the most important stakeholders -- ultimately the citizens of Utah. This bill is simply not in the public's best interest. More radioactive waste destined for EnergySolutions means more radioactive waste shipped by rail or truck through our communities. While EnergySolutions maintains that the material it stores is far safer than spent nuclear fuel rods proposed for Skull Valley, it is not harmless. It is dangerous enough that the EnergySolutions goes to great lengths to check its employees for radiation exposure. It is dangerous enough that two people who crashed through the dump's fence in a stolen car recently, and two Utah Highway Patrol troopers who responded to the accident, needed to be screened for radiation exposure. Do we really want more of this stuff out there, seeping into our soil and water? No. Nor do we want to be fending off proposal after proposal to increase the storage volume or the level of radiation accepted. When business sees a profit to be made, it is relentless. The history of nuclear waste storage in Utah provides a classic example of how big money nibbles away at political resolve. Utahns want to see their state marketed as a healthy, wholesome place to do business and raise a family. They do not desire a reputation as a radioactive dumping ground. Making it easier to dump this poison is not the best way to promote Utah to the world. The two most important reasons to keep the Legislature and the governor in the loop are to keep the process accountable to the people and to maintain integrity in the permitting process. EnergySolutions, in its life as Envirocare, was involved in an ugly incident in which then-owner Khosrow Semnani was accused of bribing the state director of radiation control to get approval to operate the dump. Semnani claimed that Larry Anderson demanded money in return for granting Envirocare the necessary approvals. Semnani paid a fine for not reporting the payments on his income tax while Anderson went to jail for tax evasion. Do we really want to create a climate that could increase such temptations for businesses and officials? Do we want them cutting ethical corners to advance a project? No. Yet that is the prospect if the governor signs SB 155. He must not do it. The Legislature and the governor should stand accountable to the people on this vital issue. They should not shrink from their duty. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5. Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 86 Deseret Nnews: Huntsman lets radioactive waste bill take effect Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Deseret Morning News Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said today that he would allow a controversial bill dealing with oversight of EnergySolutions' radioactive waste dump in Tooele County to become law without his signature. Huntsman, who had been lobbied heavily by environmental groups to veto SB155, said the bill is "simply a technical clarification" that would not allow EnergySolutions to expand beyond its current operation. "It is not the legislation that concerns me, but the nuclear waste industry and its impact on Utah," Huntsman said in a statement. The bill, SB155, would take the Legislature and governor out of disposal decisions by EnergySolutions on its own property. Supporters of SB155 say it restores a provision that was mistakenly changed. They point out that the normal review process is still required, with approval by state regulators needed for changes. Opponents say it changes the rules on an important issue and opens the door for more, and hotter, radioactive waste being dumped in the state. Huntsman said that EnergySolutions would still have to have legislative and gubernatorial approval to move onto a new geographic area or increase in capacity and facility cost, outside of the company's existing Section 32 facility boundary. Nor can EnergySolutions accept hotter, more radioactive waste than already permitted. "In fact, the last time an expansion beyond Section 32 was attempted, I adamantly opposed and successfully blocked it," Huntsman said. The bill passed both houses by veto-proof majorities earlier this month and legislative leaders said if the governor had vetoed the measure, lawmakers would have overridden it before adjourning Wednesday at midnight. © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 87 Press-Enterprise: Rialto officials report progress on perchlorate - Massiel Ladr¢n De Guevara 10:00 PM PST on Monday, February 26, 2007 By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA The Press-Enterprise About 30 residents of Rialto and the surrounding area were told Monday of two developments in the flight to clean up perchlorate contamination in water wells. The long-awaited hearing to determine blame for the Inland region's most significant water-pollution case will be held in Rialto starting March 28, city attorney Bob Owen announced to the audience at a town hall meeting in Rialto. The hearing could lead to the cleanup of an underground plume of perchlorate several miles long. Owen also announced that a plan outlining options on cleaning the plume of contamination and the source area has been completed. Now, the city wants to involve the community in the decision-making process of what remediation efforts will be chosen, who will pay for them and how much it's going to cost, Owen said. "This is what we will be taking to court, to the upcoming hearing, to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and to state and federal officials that represent us," Owen said. A link to the city's Web site will be added in coming weeks soliciting community views on the issue, he said. Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel and fireworks, has contaminated six Rialto water wells. It is believed that the chemical interferes with thyroid function and brain development. Human fetuses and newborns are considered most at risk. Residents were reassured after expressing concern that the city's water is safe to drink. "You're pretty much safer than the average consumer in California when it comes to water because of the council's zero-tolerance policy," Owen said. Under the city's policy, if a well tests positive for detectible levels of perchlorate, it is taken out of service. The well's water won't be placed back into the city's water system unless it is outfitted with treatment equipment and the water tests -- using state-approved methods -- do not detect perchlorate. Councilman Ed Scott said he wants to hire a medical expert on perchlorate to learn about all possible medical side effects of the chemical and to see if anyone in the area is affected. Philip McCririe, a Rialto resident, said he is glad to see that city officials are concerned about the water contamination and are making progress. "It's very bureaucratic, but I'm happy it's moving forward," he said. Reach Massiel Ladrón De Guevara at 909-806-3054 or mdeguevara@PE.com © 2007 Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 88 Deseret News: Radioactive waste bill in balance Tuesday, February 27, 2007 Huntsman must decide on a veto by midnight By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Another end-of-the-session fight is shaping up over radioactive waste, with activists pressuring the governor to veto a bill even though it passed with veto-proof majorities in both houses. For the second year running, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. faces a decision ? which must be made today ? about whether to veto a bill that would strip him of some control concerning EnergySolutions, the state's only radioactive waste disposal facility. Currently, both the Legislature and the governor must approve before substantial changes are made at the EnergySolutions disposal site, located on a square mile of its property in Tooele County. Last year's controversy focused on SB70, which would have allowed the Legislature to overturn a decision by the governor over radioactive waste. Huntsman vetoed the bill and lawmakers failed to override. This session, the fight is over SB155, which would take the Legislature and governor out of disposal decisions by EnergySolutions on its own property. Supporters of SB155 say it restores a provision that was mistakenly changed. They point out that the normal review process is still required, with approval by state regulators needed for changes. Opponents say it changes the rules on an important issue and opens the door for more, and hotter, radioactive waste being dumped in the state. Lisa Roskelley, the governor's spokeswoman, said Huntsman has until midnight tonight to veto SB155, which was sent to the governor on Feb. 15, or let it become law. "If there were a veto, then the Legislature would have to act by the end of the legislative session, which is Wednesday by midnight," she said. To override a veto, the bill's supporters would have to muster a two-thirds majority in both houses. SB155 passed earlier in the session with veto-proof majorities ? 22-5 in the Senate, 55-10 in the House ? but lawmakers can always change their votes the second time around. Legislative leaders, however, say that's unlikely on this bill. "I do believe there would be an appetite to support an override," said Majority Leader Rep. David Clark, R-Santa Clara. SB155 is not an issue that keeps him up nights with concern. "We already have good checks and balances in place." Despite the likelihood of an override, environmental activists have unleashed a torrent of e-mail and letters to the governor's office, pressuring Huntsman to veto the measure. "We have met with the governor's legal counsel to raise questions about a number of ramifications that this bill has, which have not been openly discussed by the Legislature," said Vanessa Pierce, director of the anti-nuclear Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. She believes SB155 might make it easier for hotter waste to come to Utah eventually. "It's within the realm of possibility that in the future EnergySolutions could try to repeal that ban" on hotter waste, she said. If so, SB155 would cut the governor out of that decision. "We've sent out probably three or four e-mails urging our supporters to have the governor repeal this bill," Pierce said. Also fighting the bill is Citizens Against Radioactive Waste. The group sent a letter to Huntsman and the Legislature opposing SB155. It says EnergySolutions probably would attempt to "double the amount of radioactive waste at its present site by building a radioactive skyscraper 85 feet in the air." Attorney James W. McConkie II of Citizens Against Radioactivity said in a press release, "It is bad policy for Utah to continue to be known as the radioactive waste-dump capital of the nation." The bill deals specifically with a parcel of land at EnergySolutions' Tooele County landfill called section 32. Greg Hopkins, EnergySolutions senior vice president for communications, defends building the disposal cell higher in the section. "Landfills around the country, whether they're radioactive landfills or whether they're municipal or industrial sites, use engineering techniques to build these disposal cells," he said. "As an example, the Salt Lake County landfill is 110 feet high. "Our proposed new cell would be 85 feet high, nothing unusual in a landfill situation. This is a proposal that has already gone through technical approval by the Division of Radiation Control." Hopkins said the governor has all the information he needs on SB155. "He has input from his Department of Environmental Quality, he has the opinion of the attorney general, who has weighed in in favor of this legislation. I don't think the protests of a small minority is going to impact the decision at all." According to Hopkins, SB155 is a straightforward, technical cleanup bill that reaffirms the legislative process, replacing a section of law inadvertently cut out. "There's been a lot of misinformation in the media about the bill," Hopkins said, "but it does not remove or alter any governmental control in any way in terms of oversight of our facility." Contributing: Nicole Warburton E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 89 AU ABC: Toyne questions economic benefits of uranium mining. 27/02/2007. ABC News Online Last Update: Tuesday, February 27, 2007. 4:30pm (AEDT) A recently retired senior minister in the Northern Territory Government has questioned the economic benefits a uranium mine would bring to Alice Springs. Peter Toyne was at an Alice Springs Town Council meeting last night for a symbolic vote on whether the municipality should be declared nuclear-free. Around 200 supporters packed the council chambers as the proposal was quashed. Some Alderman argued uranium mining would boost economic development. But the former health minister, attorney-general and minister for central Australia says their claims have not been properly tested. "As a local Centralian I would want to see the Northern Territory Government as well as the Federal Government look very, very carefully at the wins and losses of any of those sort of proposals," Mr Toyne said. "I think we're going to lose a lot here in Central Australia if we're not very careful about it ... I can't imagine tourists would be as keen to come to a uranium-mining province as they are to come to Central Australia at the moment." ***************************************************************** 90 KnoxNews: System detects threat levels Local company's technology pinpoints chemical, radiological risks for first responders By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com February 27, 2007 A Knoxville firm, in conjunction with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has developed a mobile system to detect chemical and radiological threats, the first system of its kind available for commercial use in the United States. Cadre5, a 30-person technology company with an office in Memphis, demonstrated the SensorNet SNAPS II (Sensor Network Area Protection System) Mobile Unit at its West Knoxville headquarters on Monday. The technology is part of ORNL's SensorNet, a system designed to provide information to first responders about chemical, biological or radiological threats. "This takes a technology that started, literally, on a PowerPoint briefing and spins it out into the private sector," said Richard Stouder, director of technology development and deployment for ORNL's National Security Directorate. Previous SensorNet projects have been deployed at the weigh station near Watt Road on Interstate 40, Watts Bar Lock, the Port of Memphis and Fort Bragg, N.C. ORNL developed a prototype of the SNAPS system and sent it last year to Washington, D.C., for use by the federal government. Cadre5 won a contract from ORNL to develop the mobile SNAPS system for commercial use and built the unit on display Monday in about two months, said Steve Hicks, president and chief executive officer of Cadre5. The system features a trailer that functions as a command center. Sensors that detect radiological materials or toxic industrial chemicals are placed at strategic locations and relay data covering 10 square miles to the trailer through a secure wireless network. The sensors also feature cameras that transmit video to the trailer when a sensor is activated. The person manning the command center can access information about the extent of the chemical or radiological threat through computer terminals. Hicks said the unit on display Monday, which will be delivered to the Shelby County Sheriff's Office, costs about $600,000. He said his company will market the system to large cities for use at special events, and to industries that could use it to monitor the release of toxic chemicals. Capt. Dale Lane of the Shelby County Sheriff's Homeland Security division was in Knoxville for Monday's demonstration. He said his department plans to use the SNAPS system for special events, such as the Memphis in May International Festival, but may find uses for it in tactical operations. "We hope to use it in a variety of ways, particularly for special events," Lane said. "We're looking at prevention with this, not just crisis intervention." Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 91 NewsBlaze : New Tritium Source On Line at DOE's Savannah River Site Extraction Facility Essential to Maintain Safe and Reliable Nuclear Stockpile U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell today toured the new Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and spoke at a celebration to mark the restoration of tritium production. The tritium facility gives the U.S. the ability to replenish tritium supplies in nuclear weapons after 18 years of recycling it. The extraction facility makes a key contribution to the safe inventory needed to maintain America's nuclear weapon stockpile. "I am pleased to be with you today to personally congratulate the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) employees at the Savannah River Site for their successful completion of this critical project," Deputy Secretary Sell said. "Through operations at the Tritium Extraction Facility, the United States is manufacturing an essential component of our nuclear defense system and helping to ensure the future safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile." On February 6, 2007, SRS completed the startup of the TEF and safely made the first transfer of new tritium gas to the nation's tritium inventory. Since SRS's tritium production reactors were shut down in 1988, the United States has used tritium recycling operations to keep the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal viable. As weapons were retired from the stockpile, their tritium gas was recovered and recycled for use in refurbished weapons. Because tritium has a half-life of only 12.3 years, this practice provided only a short term solution. "Now that tritium operations have begun at the Tritium Extraction Facility, we have restored an important capability to meet our future needs and continue to ensure the reliability and safety of the nuclear weapons stockpile," said Thomas P. D'Agostino, NNSA's Acting Administrator. "This is a tremendous achievement for our country's stockpile, for NNSA, and for all the employees at the Savannah River Site who worked so hard to make this happen." Ground-breaking for the $506 million TEF project was held in July 2000 and construction was completed in January 2005. Operational testing, training, and readiness reviews were completed over the past two years to allow this facility to begin processing tritium gas. The completion of TEF, along with the $142 million Tritium Modernization and Consolidation Project completed in 2004, have provided this nation with state-of-the-art tritium capabilities that were previously carried out in an SRS facility which operated for over half a century. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. SRS is owned by DOE and operated by a team of contractors led by Washington Savannah River Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Washington Group International. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 92 KnoxNews: Y-12 plant taking apart W55 warheads Project exemplifies dismantlement work's growing importance By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com February 27, 2007 OAK RIDGE - The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant has launched a new dismantlement project - taking apart components from old W55 warheads. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the Oak Ridge plant, confirmed the project, which apparently began in earnest within the past couple of months. He referred to the W55 as "a Navy system." Historically, Y-12 has built parts for every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, specializing in work with highly enriched uranium and production of so-called secondaries - the second stage of thermonuclear warheads. The plant is responsible for dismantling those same parts - and recycling the materials - after weapons are retired, and there reportedly is a huge backlog of Cold War systems in storage. "Our dismantlement mission at Y-12 is growing in importance as we have dramatically increased the pace of this activity over the past year," Wyatt said. The stepped-up work supports the government's plans to consolidate the Y-12 inventory of weapons-grade uranium at a new high-security storage facility. Construction of the $500 million Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility is about half finished. The strategic nuclear materials are stored in multiple facilities. According to various Web sites that track nuclear weapons, the W55 warheads were designed and built during the 1960s and deployed on SUBROC anti-submarine rockets. The last of the warheads reportedly was retired from the U.S. nuclear arsenal in 1990. A Jan. 19 report by staff of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board noted that BWXT, the managing contractor at Y-12, had completed the initial phase of dismantlement with the first unit. The board's memo did not identify the warhead system by its number but said "due to similarities with an ongoing program," the new work did not require an independent readiness review. Wyatt acknowledged that Y-12 is dismantling old components from two other weapon systems - the W56 (Minuteman I) and W70 (Lance) warheads. He would not comment on which dismantlement operation was similar to the W55, as referenced in the defense board's memo. "We really cannot address your question," he said. According to an October 2006 report by Robert Alvarez, Y-12 disassembled 2,836 secondaries between 1988 and 1998. Alvarez, a former Department of Energy official and onetime staff member of the U.S. Senate's Government Affairs Committee, estimated the Oak Ridge plant stores between 7,500 and 8,000 secondaries. Wyatt would not comment on the number of warhead assemblies in storage at Oak Ridge. Dan Linehan, a manager in Y-12's directed stockpile organization, last year said dismantlement activities traditionally were treated as "filler work" at the Oak Ridge plant. However, that workload is several times greater than it was in the past, he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 93 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Lab Operator Cited for Safety From the Associated Press Tuesday February 27, 2007 12:31 PM LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - The National Nuclear Security Administration proposed a $1.1 million civil penalty against the former manager of a nuclear weapons lab for safety violations that included a researcher spreading radiological contamination to two other states and workers inhaling radioactive substances. The agency announced the notice of violation Monday against the University of California for infractions that occurred in 2005, when UC was the sole manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The notice spells out 15 separate incidents that violated the Department of Energy's nuclear safety rules. The incidents include a Los Alamos researcher opening a package of slightly enriched uranium nitride pellets. The package was contaminated with americium 241, a radioactive decay product of plutonium. The researcher unloaded the pellets without the help of a radiological control technician, and he spread the contamination to his home and places he visited in Colorado and Kansas. Another incident involved workers who inhaled radioactive substances. In both cases, the contamination was limited by ``good fortune'' but had the potential to be significantly greater, acting NNSA director Thomas P. D'Agostino wrote in a Feb. 16 letter to lab director Michael Anastasio. The notice also referred to a November 2005 inspection that exposed ``long-standing'' deficiencies in the lab's safety, health and environmental programs. Since federal law exempted the non-profit university from financial liability at the time of the violations, the UC will not have to pay the fine. But the agency warned the lab's new management team - installed less than a year ago, in part to reverse years of security and safety problems - that those days are over. ``Due both to the recent contract change and changes in the civil penalty provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, future monetary civil penalties imposed ... as part of a notice of violation will no longer be waived,'' D'Agostino wrote. The lab is now managed by Los Alamos National Security LLC, which includes the university, Bechtel Corp., BWX Technologies Inc. and Washington Group International. D'Agostino said he expects corrective actions to be one Anastasio's highest priorities as lab director. UC spokesman Chris Harrington said in a statement Monday that the university has taken a number of steps to fix the problems outlined by the NNSA. ``The University of California takes safety and security issues very seriously as part of our commitment to managing the national laboratories,'' Harrington said. The notice of violation is the latest in a rash of criticism against the lab. Just last month, members of a House oversight committee threatened to strip the lab of its security responsibilities - or even shut it down - to correct security lapses. On the Net: Los Alamos National Laboratory: www.lanl.gov University of California: www.universityofcalifornia.edu National Nuclear Security Administration: http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 94 DOE: DOE Requests Fast Track Rulemaking for Implementing Energy Efficiency Standards February 26, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today sent legislation to Congress requesting authorization that would significantly speed up the process to establish energy efficiency standards and ultimately bring more efficient products to market sooner. Establishing a streamlined process would be achieved through a direct final rule – bypassing needless delays, when manufacturer, stakeholder, and government consensus exists. “If enacted, this legislation would amount to real, more immediate energy savings for Americans,” Secretary Bodman said. “We look forward to working with Congress and stakeholders to speed up the process to put into place mandatory standards that can really help raise the bar for efficiency standards.” The proposed legislation requests authority to use a more streamlined rulemaking process for certain products when a clear consensus for a standard exists. DOE would be able to prescribe energy efficiency standards by direct final rule when all relevant interests jointly negotiate and submit an agreed proposed standard. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, DOE is required to set energy conservation standards for certain residential and commercial appliances and equipment. EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to add additional residential and commercial appliances and equipment to the existing program. The proposed legislation applies to all of the EPCA products, including those added by EPACT 2005. Use of the proposed expedited rulemaking authority would be limited to circumstances in which, in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, representatives of relevant interests including manufacturers, efficiency advocates, and state officials, negotiate on their own initiative and submit a joint comment to DOE proposing an energy conservation standard for a product. If the Secretary determines that the jointly proposed standard meets the substantive requirements of the law for that product, he would be authorized to publish a notice of direct final rulemaking, incorporating the recommended standard. If there is no objection to the standard, the direct final rule would become effective 120 days after the notice is published. If any person files a significant adverse comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) would review that comment. The Secretary would be required to withdraw the direct final rule and move forward under the procedures of existing law, if the comments deemed by EERE were found to be significant and legally relevant. More than 30 products could be included if legislation is enacted. This includes a variety of home appliances such as refrigerators, central air conditioners, furnaces, water heaters, clothes washers and dishwashers; as well as smaller, home equipment including ceiling fans, torchiers, dehumidifiers, and fluorescent and incandescent lights. Also covered, would be plumbing equipment, including showerheads, faucets and toilets. Commercial and industrial products that would be included in the legislation, for example, are commercial conditioners and furnaces, water heaters, commercial refrigerators and freezers and ice cream freezers. Other products include traffic signals and pedestrian control modules. For more information on the Department of Energy’s appliance and equipment standards program visit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. For information on existing appliance standards legislation as well as a link to the Code of Federal Regulations to download a list of existing rules, visit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/laws_regs.htm l. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 95 Tri-City Herald: Hanford's dump untold treasures Opinions Published Friday, February 23rd, 2007 Where men are tough and women rough And weaklings have to die, And even dogs are afraid to bite, And babies are too strong to cry. -- A poem, signed with the pen name Timequest. It was reprinted by the Columbia Basin News. It's tempting to talk trash about the researchers who want to study Hanford's old garbage dump. After all, who needs another Prince Albert tobacco can, circa 1943? Some of us have socks that old. But such skepticism misses the point. The desire to delve into Hanford's wartime garbage isn't about collecting artifacts. It's about increasing our understanding of events that profoundly altered the face of the Mid-Columbia and the fate of the world. It's especially a way to get a better look at the rough and tumble people honored in the anonymous Timequest's poem, workers from across America who faced hardships that are absent from the modern Mid-Columbia. In early 1943, about 6,700 people lived along the 30-mile stretch of the Columbia River between Hover and White Bluffs. A year later, the construction camp at Hanford was home to 51,000 people. In 30 months, Hanford's construction forces would build 554 buildings, 386 miles of road, 158 miles of railroad, three massive chemical plants and the world's first three production-scale nuclear reactors. They excavated 25 million cubic yards of soil, poured 784,000 cubic yards of concrete, consumed 40,000 tons of steel, cut and hammered 160 million board feet of lumber and stacked 2.2 million concrete blocks and bricks. What happened at the Hanford Engineering Works, as the ultra-secret Manhattan Project site was called, continues to define the economic, political and social life of the Tri-Cities. By the time Hanford's wartime workers were done, they had produced the plutonium for the nuclear weapons that ended World War II and set the stage for the Cold War. The Washington State Historic Preservation Office's ruling that the dump sites aren't eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is mystifying. It's true, historians can already draw on a wealth of official documents and first-hand accounts from people who contributed to Hanford's construction. But that's hardly an argument for ignoring other ways of learning about one of the most significant projects in our nation's history. There are compelling reasons for studying Hanford's garbage, particularly because of its potential to help tell the story of the ordinary working men and women who literally laid the foundations of the nuclear age. Unlike other dumps, which are typically used for decades by diverse populations, this site contains only the detritus of a brief period and a specific group. The volumes written about the Manhattan Project have mostly focused on the military, political leaders and scientific leaders behind the Manhattan Project. The story of the workers and craftsmen who brought the visions of the physicists and engineers to life remains largely untold. A look at the things tossed into the construction camp's garbage pits can help breathe life into the historical record. The Department of Energy needs to refrain from any more cleanup efforts at the dump site until archeological studies can be completed. In the meantime, the garbage that's already been pulled from the pits needs to be protected for study. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 96 Hanford News: PNNL ranks seventh among DOE's 10 national labs This story was published Tuesday, February 27th, 2007 By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland ranked seventh among the Department of Energy's 10 labs under the agency's new grading system adopted last year. PNNL, which collected a composite score of 3.3 - or B-plus - after being evaluated in eight categories, was ahead of Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, Ames Laboratory in Iowa and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in Menlo Park, Calif., which had a B composite grade and was No. 10. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory near San Francisco led the scoring sheet, with a straight-A average that included two A-plus grades, four A's, one A-minus and one B-plus. Five national labs had A-minus composite scores. They were Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Va., the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois and the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. DOE's new grading system evaluated each lab in eight areas. The Herald averaged the individual grades to produce a single score reflecting each lab's overall performance as a composite grade. "I think we've always done quite well. This is the first year they've introduced the new scoring," said Geoff Harvey, spokesman for PNNL. "Having all A's and A-minuses ranking above us puts us in pretty good company," he added. There were only three C grades issued by the DOE in any of the eight categories across the 10 labs. PNNL received a C for facilities maintenance and infrastructure, and Ames Laboratory received a C-plus grade for security and emergency management. The lowest grade, a C-minus, went to Brookhaven National Laboratory for security and emergency management. Battelle Memorial Institute, with headquarters in Ohio, has operated PNNL under contract for DOE for 41 years. Battelle also runs solely or is in partnership in operating the labs at Brookhaven and Oak Ridge. DOE's grading system, used for the first time to evaluate performance in fiscal year 2006, which ended Sept. 30, established B-plus as the expected level of performance. Any grades lower than that mean improvement is needed. - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ( A grade ) has a $500 million annual budget to support research for nano-tech, life sciences, materials science and particle astrophysics. - Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ( A- ) has a $75 million annual budget solely for doing fusion energy source research. - Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( A- ) with an annual budget just over $1 billion, does research on energy, basic materials science, nuclear cleanup, neutron science, complex biology, high performance computing and national security. - Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility ( A- ) has a $78 million annual budget solely to support basic nuclear research. - Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ( A- ) has a $316 million annual budget, that supports high energy physics research. - Argonne National Laboratory ( A- ) has a $500 million annual budget. It is a multidisciplinary lab that operates a number of facilities, working nuclear engineering, the environmental issues, materials science, chemistry and advanced photon source research. - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ( B+ ) has a $750 million annual budget. It is a multidisciplinary lab that works on problems involving energy, national security, the environment and life sciences with research in physics, chemistry, biology and computation. - Ames Laboratory ( B+ ) has a $32 million annual budget soley for materials science research. - Brookhaven National Laboratory ( B+ ) has a $490 million annual budget for its multi-program research that includes life sciences, physics and medical imaging. - Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ( B ) has a $200 million annual budget for research on photo science, high energy physics and particle astro physics. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 97 Inside Bay Area: UC hit with $1 million fine they will not have to pay Pattern of Los Alamos nuclear safety breaches placed workers at risk, federal regulators assert By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 02/27/2007 06:12:43 AM PST Federal nuclear-safety regulators have slapped the University of California with a $1.1 million penalty, the largest ever assessed, for a pattern of recurring nuclear safety violations at Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab that put workers at risk and scattered radioactivity across two states. A lengthy and scathing letter from the National Nuclear Security Administration to the university said the only reason that workers did not inhale more radioactive substances or spread them to more places was mere "good fortune" and suggested the agency wanted to impose more than twice the fine. The university never will have to pay the fines because 15 safety violations date to 2005, a time when UC ran the NewMexico-based Los Alamos as a nonprofit and was classified by Congress as exempt from paying civil penalties for safety violations. Those days are now over at Los Alamos, since management was handed last year to a new, private team of corporations in addition to the university. In the future, the acting chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration warned Los Alamos executives, the lab will be fined. Even though the university won't pay a dollar in penalties, the timing of the violations notice hardly could be worse for the university. The UC-led team that now manages Los Alamos is competing with the nation's third largest defense contractor, Northrop Grumman, to operate a sister weapons research facility in the Bay Area, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The record fine is for a series of events and inspections in 2005 that exposed a haphazard safety culture inside Los Alamos even as university officials were assuring Congress that great improvements had been made in lab safety. The violations notice makes clear that lab employees flouted federal rules requiring one or more layers of safety reviews before handling radioactive substances, replacing critical equipment inside the lab's plutonium facility or decontaminating a radioactive sewage plant. The lab failed to hire enough radiation safety technicians, and when the rules called for those technicians to check for contamination, lab employees decided to push ahead regardless ? and ended up inhaling radioactive substances or tracking them off lab property, into vehicles, homes and out of state. In some cases, the federal nuclear agency suggested that the birthplace of the nuclear bomb often attempted to perform work involving radioactive substances without a "subject matter expert" available. In other words, employees didn't know what they were doing. In the past, university and Los Alamos officials have persuaded federal regulators to write off some safety violations or reduce the fines assessed when the lab has tried fixing at least some of the underlying problems. Acting NNSA administrator Thomas D'Agostino denied these requests because many of the safety failings were rooted in the same problems that the university never corrected when it was cited, without paying a fine, in the 1990s, as well as 2003 and 2004. "NNSA does not find it appropriate to provide mitigation for corrective actions when significant safety events continue to occur as a result of unresolved issues," D'Agostino wrote last week. "I hope to see improved performance on the part of the university with its participation in the new contract," he wrote. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or (510) 208-6458. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 98 Inside Bay Area: UC hit with nuclear penalty Safety violations at Los Alamos Lab draw $1 million fine By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 02/27/2007 02:47:23 AM PST Federal nuclear safety regulators have slapped the University of California with a $1.1 million penalty, the largest ever assessed, for a pattern of recurring nuclear safety violations at Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab that put workers at risk and scattered radioactivity across two states. A lengthy and scathing letter from the National Nuclear Security Administration to the university said the only reason that workers did not inhale more radioactive substances or spread them to more places was mere good fortune and suggested the agency wanted to impose more than twice the fine. The university never will have to pay the fines because the 15 safety violations date to 2005, a time when UC ran the New Mexico-based Los Alamos as a nonprofit and was classified by Congress as exempt from paying civil penalties for safety violations. Those days are over at Los Alamos now, since management was handed over last year to a new, private team of corporations in addition to the university. In the future, the acting chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration warned Los Alamos executives, the lab will be fined. Even though the universitywon't pay a dollar in penalties, the timing of the violations notice hardly could be worse for the university. The UC-led team that now manages Los Alamos is competing with the nation's third largest defense contractor, Northrop Grumman, to operate a sister weapons research facility in the Bay Area, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The record fine is for a series of events and inspections in 2005 that exposed a haphazard safety culture inside Los Alamos even as university officials were assuring Congress that great improvements had been made in lab safety. The violations notice makes clear that lab employees flouted federal rules requiring one or more layers of safety reviews before handling radioactive substances, replacing critical equipment inside the lab's plutonium facility or decontaminating a radioactive sewage plant. The lab failed to hire enough radiation safety technicians, and when the rules called for those technicians to check for contamination, lab employees decided to push ahead regardless ? and ended up inhaling radioactive substances or tracking them off lab property, into vehicles, homes and out of state. In some cases, the federal nuclear agency suggested that the birthplace of the nuclear bomb often attempted to perform work involving radioactive substances without a "subject matter expert" available. In other words, employees didn't know what they were doing. In the past, university and Los Alamos officials have persuaded federal regulators to write off some safety violations or reduce the fines assessed when the lab has tried fixing at least some of the underlying problems. Acting NNSA administrator Thomas D'Agostino denied these requests because many of the safety failings were rooted in the same problems that the university never corrected when it was cited, without paying a fine, in the 1990s, as well as 2003 and 2004. "NNSA does not find it appropriate to provide mitigation for corrective actions when significant safety events continue to occur as a result of unresolved issues," D'Agostino wrote last week. "I hope to see improved performance on the part of the university with its participation in the new contract," he wrote. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or (510) 208-6458. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 99 KRQE News 13: Lab manager escapes safety fine Posted: 2/27/2007 10:58:00 AM Source: AP LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- The former manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory has been fined $1.1 million because of nuclear safety violations at the lab. The National Nuclear Security Administration announced the civil penalty Monday against the University of California for infractions at the lab in 2005. But federal law exempted the nonprofit university from financial liability at the time of the violations. So the NNSA said the university will not have to pay the fine. However the agency warns the lab's new management team that those days are over. The lab is now managed by Los Alamos National Security, which includes the university. The team was installed less than a year ago, in part to reverse years of security and safety problems at the lab Phone: 505.243.2285 | Contact KRQE | EEOC Broadcast Plaza SW Albuquerque, NM ***************************************************************** 100 NAS: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management National Academies Project: PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board RSO: Crowley, Kevin Project Scope A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify: o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports, updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the private sector. o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory). o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites that should be maintained to support research, development, and bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry. The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges. Project Duration: 16 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/12/2007 Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************