*****************************************************************
4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: If North tests, China reported ready to cut off food
June 4, 2005 KST 15:24
June 04, 2005 ¤Ñ Seoul officials said yesterday they could not
confirm a report that Beijing intends to cut off food aid to
North Korea if the regime in Pyongyang decides to conduct a
nuclear test.
Japan's Kyodo News, quoting unnamed U.S. government officials in
Washington, reported yesterday that China had promised it would
end food deliveries to North Korea in an effort to dissuade
Pyongyang from demonstrating its suspected nuclear weapons
capability.
"We have not heard anything from the Chinese regarding such a
matter," said a Seoul government official yesterday. "As far as
we know, China has expressed strong objections to Pyongyang with
regard to a possible nuclear test, but cutting off food aid was
not mentioned."
Another government official said that such a step by Beijing
would be a last resort.
"That's the same as enforcing sanctions, but we are still all
for diplomacy," the official said. "It's certainly an option,
but we have not discussed it."
Washington has repeatedly asked Beijing to increase pressure on
Pyongyang to return to the six-party nuclear disarmament talks.
Separately, Thomas Schieffer, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, told
reporters yesterday in Tokyo that a nuclear test by Pyongyang
would trigger a wave of changes in the strategic balance in
Northeast Asia. "It seems to me that that increases the pressure
on both South Korea and Japan to consider going nuclear
themselves," the ambassador said.
In recent months, Pyongyang has taken additional steps in its
nuclear brinkmanship as Seoul confirmed in April that Pyongyang
had shut down a reactor at the country's main nuclear facility
in Yongbyon, 80 kilometers (50 miles) north of Pyongyang.
Experts said that the move is a possible indication that
Pyongyang has been preparing to gather more material in order to
increase its nuclear arsenal.
The following month, the Korean Central News Agency, Pyongyang's
official mouthpiece, quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as
saying that 8,000 fuel rods had been removed from the nuclear
power plant in Yongbyon.
by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
5 Xinhua: Removal of US threat key to Peninsula's denuclearization: DPRK
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-03 21:54:34
PYONGYANG, June 3 (Xinhuanet) -- The Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) said Friday that the removal of the US
nuclear threat, rather than Pyongyang's abandonment of its
nuclear program,is the focus of the Korean Peninsula's
denuclearization.
The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in a
commentary rebuffed allegations made by the US and its allies
that Pyongyang's dismantlement of its nuclear program would lead
to the denuclearization of the peninsula.
"It is a gross distortion of the true nature of the
denuclearization of the peninsula," said the commentary.
"The DPRK initiated the denuclearization of the peninsula
and exerted efforts for its materialization. However, the US
shipped more than 1,000 nuclear weapons into South Korea, posing
constant threat to the DPRK, torpedoing the denuclearization
process on the peninsula," it said.
"The present US administration adopted a preemptive nuclear
attack on the DPRK as a state policy, thus compelling the latter
to have access to nuclear weapons to safeguard its own system
and existence," the article added.
"If the issue of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula is to
be properly discussed, it is necessary to focus on removing US
nuclear threat, and establishing the relations of confidence
between the DPRK and the countries concerned," the commentary
stressed. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Times: Ex-US Official Criticizes Washington¡¯s NK Policy
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
By Reuben Staines
Staff Reporter
A former U.S. State Department official has criticized
Washington for pursuing an ineffective policy of ``regime
change¡¯¡¯ in the ongoing nuclear standoff with North Korea.
Richard Haass, now president of the New York-based Council on
Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is unlikely to resolve the
crisis as long as it sticks with its current policy.
In an article for the July-August edition of Foreign Affairs
magazine, Haass urged the U.S. to offer economic assistance and
a security guarantee to the North in exchange for the communist
nation scrapping its nuclear weapons programs.
A former director of policy planning at the State Department,
Haass reportedly left the administration because he opposed the
direction of President George W. Bush¡¯s foreign policy.
He argues that Washington¡¯s refusal to engage in negotiations
with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs is based
on a view that the regimes are vulnerable and will collapse on
their own in due course.
``Essentially, many in the administration were hoping that these
regimes would fall, and the problems posed by them, particularly
the proliferation problems, would go away,¡¯¡¯ he said in a
recent interview published on the Council on Foreign Relations
Web site.
But Haass said Washington must face up to North Korea¡¯s nuclear
capabilities.
``To me, this argues for a serious attempt at diplomacy, rather
than continued drift,¡¯¡¯ he said.
rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 06-03-2005 19:21
*****************************************************************
7 KRT Wire: Energy bill, trade pact among GOP lawmakers' priorities
| 06/03/2005 |
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Here are the leading legislative priorities
that Republicans and allied business lobbyists hope to push
through Congress in coming weeks:
ENERGY - The Senate bill, expected to face floor debate in
mid-June, includes tax incentives for traditional energy sources
such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear power, as well as renewable
sources such as solar, wind and biomass. The legislation aims to
reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels of oil per day
in 10 years, or about 5 percent. A House of Representatives
version already passed.
CAFTA - The Bush administration is expected to send draft
language to implement the Central American Free Trade Agreement
the week of June 13. The trade deal would expand commerce with
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the
Dominican Republic. U.S. sugar producers are the most vocal
opponents because CAFTA would open U.S. markets to lower-priced
Central American sugar.
ASBESTOS - A bipartisan Senate bill would create a $140 billion
fund to pay people made ill by asbestos exposure. It's intended
to provide relief to businesses against lawsuits. Some Democrats
believe the victim compensation is inadequate. Some Republicans
want more protection for businesses against future lawsuits and
assurances that taxpayers won't be forced to supplement the
fund. There is no House version of the bill.
---
© 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
*****************************************************************
8 Heartland Institute: Blue-Ribbon Government Panel Calls Lauds Nuclear Energy
HEARTLAND INSTITUTE 19 South LaSalle Street Suite 903 Chicago, IL
60603 312.377.4000 think@heartland.org
“It is now imperative that the U.S. government act decisively to
create the environment and incentives to ensure...” Nuclear
Energy Task Force U.S. Department of Energy Environment News
June 2005
Written By: Jay Lehr, Ph.D.
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. Secretary of Energy formed the Nuclear Energy Task
Force in July 2004 and directed its members to “assess the
issues and determine the key factors that must be addressed if
the Federal Government and industry are to commit to the
financing, construction, and deployment of new nuclear power
generation plants to meet the nation’s electric power demands in
the 21st Century.”
Dramatic Efficiency Gains Noted
The panel noted nuclear power has played a major role in
electric power supply in the United States for 30 years. The
U.S. has 103 nuclear power plants, more than any other country
in the world. Those plants have supplied 20 percent of the
nation’s power over the past three decades--even as the
country’s energy demands have grown, and despite the fact no new
plants have been ordered or built since 1973.
Improvements in efficiency--from a 70 percent average to a
current 90 percent average--over the past decade have produced
the equivalent power of 18 new nuclear plants. Over this same
period, the committee determined, nuclear safety improved
significantly, while operating costs have declined and the
volume of nuclear waste has been reduced.
Economic Benefits Cited
According to task force member C. Paul Robinson, the economic
arguments “are just becoming very timely in terms of electrical
needs. We have looked at all the alternatives, and certainly if
you believe in the threats of greenhouse gases, then it is
important to have something that can produce electricity with
good efficiency and cost, and be emission free.”
Added task force member Burton Richter, it “looks very much as
if, once you get past the extra costs of a first-of-a-kind
plant, then the costs of nuclear power are competitive with
coal. That’s a surprise to most people. If you can replace coal,
you do good for air pollution, the economy, energy supply, and
competitiveness.”
Michael J. Wallace, executive vice president of Constellation
Energy, in April 26 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee
on Energy &Natural Resources observed, “New nuclear power plants
provide future price stability that is not available from
electric generating plants fueled with natural gas. Intense
volatility in natural gas prices over the last several years is
likely to continue, thanks partly to unsustainable demand for
natural gas from the electric sector, and subjects the U.S.
economy to potential damage.
“Although nuclear plants are capital-intensive to build,”
Wallace continued, “the operating costs of nuclear power plants
are stable and can dampen volatility of consumer costs in the
electricity market.”
Plants Are Non-Polluting
Unlike coal and natural gas, which account for 51 percent and 16
percent respectively of U.S. power generation, nuclear plants
emit no sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, or carbon dioxide. In
contrast to U.S. petroleum supplies, North America has ample
uranium resources for use as fuel for these new plants.
The Nuclear Energy Task Force concluded, “It is now imperative
that the U.S. government act decisively to create the
environment and incentives to ensure that the construction of
new, safe and reliable nuclear generation capacity occurs
expeditiously.”
New Construction Guidance Offered
The committee went into considerable detail in offering guidance
for the government to clear up residual uncertainty in the
licensing of nuclear power plants and to minimize the threat of
the abuse of litigation as a means of delaying the operation of
well-constructed plants.
The committee also outlined methods to coordinate the activities
of various regulatory bodies to ensure continual modification of
workable designs would not be necessary.
The committee also strongly recommended the federal government
provide financial incentives to overcome the uncertainties and
economic hurdles that would otherwise prevent the first few new
nuclear plants from being built.
U.S. Leadership at Risk
The committee indicated its concern over the fact that nuclear
power plant construction is underway in many other countries,
raising issues associated with the loss of U.S. leadership and
business opportunities if the United States does not commit to
new construction.
The report stated that as a result of 9/11 there is a need to
provide the country with confidence that nuclear power plants
are adequately protected against terrorist attacks. While
significant security upgrades since 9/11 have made the nation’s
nuclear facilities more secure than most other elements of the
civilian infrastructure, this has not been adequately
communicated to the public, the report found.
To facilitate nuclear energy production, the committee report
directed the Secretary of Energy to strengthen the department’s
investment in the physical sciences and advanced engineering
research and to enhance its role in educating and training
future scientists and engineers for careers in nuclear science
and engineering.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director
for The Heartland Institute.
Testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy &Natural
Resources’s April 26 hearing on the Nuclear Power 2010 Program
is available online at
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.
Hearing&Hearing_ID=1465.
*****************************************************************
9 timesunion.com Cheap power ready to expire --
leaders discuss compromise that could mean higher bills
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau
First published: Friday, June 3, 2005
ALBANY -- Lawmakers and Gov. George Pataki are trying to resolve
a power struggle over cheap electricity, and Niagara Mohawk
market customers may have to sacrifice a few dollars a month to
help out.
Dozens of employers across the state will face increases in power
costs ranging from 10 percent to 40 percent over the next year --
some as soon as October -- because the state Power Authority sold
the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant in 2000 to Entergy
Corp.
As a result, the Power Authority no longer can assure relatively
cheap nuclear energy to companies whose rights to discounted
power are expiring under contracts that guaranteed the discount
prices. The companies employ 60,000 workers statewide.
At the same time, employers of about 35,000 workers in western
New York receiving the cheapest power in North America are
facing expiring rights to that electricity. The entire
legislative delegation from the Buffalo and Niagara Falls area
is pushing for a law that would permanently provide that
hydroelectric power to those employers.
However, to help balance the prices somewhat for employers
elsewhere in the state, some lawmakers are trying to negotiate a
compromise. They seek to use 60 to 70 megawatts of unallocated
power from the Niagara Frontier -- now provided to residential
consumers in NiMo territory -- for the businesses that will
experience price hikes.
Talks among Senate, Assembly and gubernatorial officials to
straighten out the power rates for businesses are centering on
hydropower going to residential customers, said Assemblyman
Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, chairman of the Assembly Economic
Development Committee. He is a member of the western New York
delegation trying to preserve the hydropower for Buffalo-area
businesses.
Brian Vattimo, a spokesman for the Power Authority, said
residential consumers could take a hit of $1.25 to $1.50 a month
in their bills if they lose the hydropower. "There's no question
these business customers would like to access some of this
(hydro) power," he said. "The question is, how do you access it?"
Assembly Energy Committee Chairman Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam,
called for doing "what's fair and equitable, and avoid wherever
we can the loss of jobs."
He said several big users of power outside of western New York
would close or cut jobs if power costs rise as predicted --
perhaps well above 10 cents per kilowatt hour. Hydropower
customers in western New York pay less than 2 cents per kilowatt
hour.
"It's the people's resource," Tonko said.
Indeed, of the 60,000 jobs tied to companies whose rates would
spike, 26,000 are in the manufacturing sector, he said. Capital
Region companies threatened this year include Fiber Conversion
Inc. in Broadalbin, Keymark Corp. in Fonda, Native Textiles Inc.
in Glens Falls, Kaz Inc. in Hudson and Racemark International
L.P. in Malta.
The total load of customers whose prices are about to rise is
about 225 megawatts, so the unallocated hydropower would do no
more than ameliorate the problem, Tonko said. Their bills would
rise a total of $75 million a year under the current increased
billing plan.
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2005, Capital
Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.
*****************************************************************
10 DEPLETED URANIUM SITUATION - OPEN LETTER to PRES. BUSH, PM
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 05:42:46 -0500 (CDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
OPEN LETTER to PRES. BUSH, PRIME MINISTER BLAIR & U.S. CONGRESS - DEPLETED
URANIUM SITUATION REQUIRES ACTION
Depleted Uranium Situation Requires Action By President Bush and
Prime Minister Blair & U.S. Congress
FROM: Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D.,
Former Director of U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project,
Former Gulf War 1 DU assessment team health physicist,
Confirmed DU casualty
June 2, 2005
While U.S. and British military personnel continue using uranium
munitions- America's and England's own "dirty bombs" U.S. Army,
U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Defense
officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and
environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture,
testing, and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for
the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material
- depleted uranium. They arrogantly refuse to comply with their
own regulations, orders, and directives that require United
States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and
effective medical care "all" exposed individuals [Medical
Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD,
Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed
to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command
29 April 2004), and section 2-5 of AR 70-48].
They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination
as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of
Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive
Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington,
D.C., September 2002) and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin- TB
9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage,
And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or
Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department
Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996).
Specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR
700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that: (1) "Military
personnel "identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all
RCE" (radiologically contaminated equipment). (2) "Procedures to
minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon
as possible." (3) "Radioactive material and waste will not be
locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration,
destruction in place, or abandonment" and (4) "All equipment, to
include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged,
retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin
9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are
specified in Appendix F).
The past and current use of uranium weapons, the release of
radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military
equipment, and releases of industrial, medical, research facility
radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures.
Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S.
Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all
radioactive materials resulting from military operations.
The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium
weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes
facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or
tested including Vieques, Puerto Rico, Colonie, New York, and
Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana.
Therefore medical care must be provided by the United States
Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by
the manufacturing, testing, and/or use of uranium munitions.
Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without
further delay. I am amazed that fourteen years after I was asked
to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War 1 and almost ten
years since I finished the depleted uranium project that United
States Department of Defense officials and many others still
attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory
requirements. But beyond the ignored mandatory actions that the
willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive and chemically
toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions just does not even
pass the common sense test.
Finally, continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los
Alamos Memorandum (
http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html ) that was
issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions cannot be
justified.
In conclusion:
The President of the United States- George W. Bush and The Prime
Minister of Great Britain-Tony Blair & U.S. Congress must
acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of illegal
uranium munitions- their own "dirty bombs"- resulting in adverse
health and environmental effects.
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order:
1. medical care for all casualties,
2. thorough environmental remediation,
3. immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance
with medical care and environmental remediation requirements,
4. and ban the future use of depleted uranium munitions.
References- these references are copies of the actual regulations and orders
and other pertinent official documents:
http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_dtic_wakayama_Aug2002.html
*****************************************************************
11 Bellona: US funding in Russia should encourage nuclear reform in Moscow
Bellona Position Paper
It is the assertion of The Bellona Foundation that money sent to
Russia by the United States for the purposes of improving
nuclear and non-proliferation safety would be more effective if
that funding supported a fundamental reform of the Russian
nuclear industry. In Bellona’s assessment, simple and well
established programs supported by the United States, such as
submarine dismantlement, are in good working order. However,
more complicated programs involving western investment such as
the Mayak Fissile Materials Storage Facility (FMSF) in the
Southern Urals, and the shut down of Russia’s remaining
plutonium production reactors, have faltered. Such programs as
the HEU-LEU program—whose funding is allocated on a freer
basis—allows Russia to maintain the Soviet-era status quo of its
nuclear industry, and offer no impetus for Moscow to re-assess
the current structure of its nuclear industry.
Nils Bøhmer
Igor Kudrik, Charles Digges, 2005-06-03 21:30
The United States contributes approximately $1 billion to $1.3
billion annually to nuclear dismantlment and security projects
in Russia. Nearly half of this funding is accounted for by the
US Defence Department’s Co-operative Threat Reduction (CTR)
program, which began in 1992. after the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, with the goal of neutralising ex-Soviet weapons of
mass destruction. Among these items are ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs), bombers, inter-continental ballistic
missiles, nuclear war-heads, missile silos and launchers, and
chemical weapons.
CTR’s efforts are combined with those of the US Department of
Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
and the US Department of State. The DOE contribution consists
mainly of bolstering nuclear security at additional vulnerable
sites, finding alternative employment for out of work weapons
scientists, the on-going shutdown of Russia’s three remaining
plutonium production reactors, and building coal-fired sources
of energy in the towns that these reactors power. The DOE also
heads up the Plutonium Disposition program, under which both
nations have agreed to destroy 34 tonnes each of surplus weapons
grade plutonium.
Additionally, the 1993 HEU-LEU Agreement, also known as the
“Megatons to Megawatts” program, brings up to $500,000 million
annually into the Russian nuclear industry’s coffers, and is,
indeed the industry’s lifeblood. Through this program, Russia
down-blends weapons usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) and
sells the resultant low enriched uranium (LEU) to the United
States for use in commercial reactors. The US agent for this
program in the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC).
Tenex, Russia’s nuclear fuel exporting giant, is USEC’s
Moscow-based counterpart. Russia draws on its Cold War stocks of
HEU to keep this program in operation. The program is scheduled
to end by 2013. By that year, the Russian nuclear industry will
have netted $7.5 billion from the program.
Effects of the programs
The targeted programs, or structured programs, run primarily by
the DOE and DOD have gained considerable results. The programs
have succeeded in dismantling nuclear submarines and securing
many nuclear sites with updated technologies. More complex
programs like the FMSM and plutonium reactor shut down, however,
have fallen short of expectation.
The DOD-run CTR scorecard for nuclear materials destroyed, as of
January 27th 2005, includes:
+ 6,564 of 13,300 targeted warheads deactivated (49 %);
+ 570 of 1473 targeted ICBMs destroyed (38 %);
+ of 831 targeted missile silos eliminated (57 %);
+ 17 of 442 targeted ICBM mobile launchers destroyed (3.8
percent);
+ 142 of 228 targeted bombers eliminated (62 %);
+ 761 of 829 targeted nuclear ASMs destroyed (91 %);
+ 420 of 728 targeted SLBM launchers eliminated (57 %);
+ 28 of 48 targeted SSBNs destroyed (58 %);
+ 194 of 194 targeted nuclear test tunnels and holes sealed
(100 %).
Yet CTR’s project to open a safe storage facility for 50 tonnes
of plutonium and 200 tonnes of HEU have flagged considerably.
Begun in 1993, FMSF is CTR’s longest running program to date. A
ribbon-cutting ceremony was held for the facility in December
2003, but additional safety equipment installation, training and
test remain before the facility can being to receive fissile
materials for storage.
DOE run programs are harder to quantify, but its Materials
Protection, Control and Accounting (MPC) programs have offered
both so-called “rapid upgrade” and “comprehensive upgrades” at
sites storing weapons usable nuclear material. In conjunction
with its Weapons Protection Control &Accountability (WPC) sister
program at CTR, 37 percent of weapons usable nuclear material
has been secured under lock and key in the past dozen years.
Many in US Congress and a host of nuclear experts have
complained that this progress is far to slow. But Senator
Richard Lugar has argued that the alternative to slow progress
is no progress at all. Bellona supports his position. The MPC
programs have also received substantial budget increase requests
for 2006.
The DOE’s efforts to shut down Russia’s remaining weapons-grade
plutonium production reactors—two in Seversk near Tomsk, and one
at Zheleznogorsk near Krasnoyarsk, all in central Siberia— have
been hobbled.
As the reactors in question also supply heat and electricity to
the communities where they are located, the DOE’s task it to
shut the reactors down completely and build or refurbish nearby
fossil fuel plants to compensate for the power loss when the
reactors go off-line. But this project has become overburdened
by bureaucracy and contractors, and a plan to shut down the
reactors have yet to be developed. It is highly unlikely that
the program will be effected prior to 2011. The reactors are
meanwhile pumping out a combined 1200-1500 kilograms of
weapons-grade plutonium each year they remain operational.
The HEU-LEU agreement an “unstructured” program
We refer to the HEU-LEU Agreement as an “unstructured”
program—that is the program serves its goal by converting HEU to
LEU, but at the same time supplies considerable financial
resources directly to the Russian nuclear industry. It has, in
other words, less build-in financial accountability than do CTR
and DOE programs. The question is, how does Russia spend the
estimated $500 million annual financial windfall it yearly
receives from the HEU-LEU program? In 2004, only 16 percent of
the received funding is spent on increasing safety at nuclear
installations. The bulk of this HEU-LEU funding is spent on
construction of new nuclear sites outside of Russia (41
percent). Only 7.8 percent goes to reforms within Russia’s
nuclear industry. Another 29 percent of the proceeds are used
for unspecified expenses (approximately $162 million dollars in
2004).
In reality this funding channel not only helps Russia to build
nuclear power plants and other nuclear sites in such countries
as Iran, India and China, but also supports the Cold War era
nuclear infrastructure that has remained basically unchanged
since Soviet times, and could barely survive without this
funding feeding tube.
Restructuring the programs
As seen above the target programs (such as those sponsored by
CTR and the DOE) bring leverage, but also have their share of
remediable flaws. The HEU-LEU program converts weapons grade
material, but at the same time pumps cash into the Russian
nuclear infrastructure and Russian nuclear ambitions abroad,
essentially putting the two programs at cross purposes.
Massive Cold War uranium resources, equalling some 1200 tonnes
of HEU, are of no use to the Russian military. These resources
prevent the reform, as the country can live on them without
reforming anything. But these HEU resources are finite. What
will the United States and other donor countries do when these
resources are depleted and Russia asks for considerable support
again? Is it not better to make sure that these issues are
resolved sooner rather than later, and that Russia’s nuclear
infrastructure (both technical and regulatory) begins reforms
now?
The answer is obviously affirmative. But what should be done to
achieve that goal? The problem is that Russia has yet to perform
a true evaluation of its past strategies and policies, and has
simply taken habits and practices inherited from Soviet times
for granted. One such policy is the closed nuclear fuel cycle
that Russia employs—taking spent nuclear fuel, reprocessing it
at great danger to the environment and proliferation, and
putting the separated uranium and reactor grade plutonim back
into use. Is it this an effective strategy for Russia’s
beleaguered nuclear industry that can barely keep up with its
reprocessing back-log at Mayak? Nobody among Russia’s top
nuclear brass has ever even tried to answer this question.
Meanwhile, the current Plutonium disposition agreement—should it
overcome its current liability deadlock—stipulated the
destruction of only 34 tonnes of Russia’s estimated stockpile of
100 to 150 tonnes of weapons grade plutonium. What is to become
of the rest?
These questions remain unanswered, and will remain so as long as
such policy questions are not evaluated in Moscow and no clear
political decision has been made. There have been "concepts"
forwarded by Russia’s current nuclear industry authority,
Rosatom, but they are arguable on many points, even within the
nuclear community itself. It must be asserted therefore that no
political decision is in place.
The lack of policy decisions in Moscow have led to roadblocks in
a large number of US led programs, as well as European programs.
To resolve this issue the EBRD has launched a project to create
a so-called “Master Plan” for nuclear remediation of Northwest
Russia’s limping nuclear infrastructure. The resultant Master
Plan for Northwest Russia produced by Moscow fell short of
expectations. The paper produced by Russian counterparts
contained a methodically prioritised list of projects or areas
of urgency. But there was a pronounced lack of comparisons to
similar problems, and questions of what to do with Russia’s
mounting stock of spent nuclear fuel were not elaborated upon.
Russia should be encouraged to make clear, reason-based
policies—a Master Plan for the whole Russia. Only then it will
be clear how and what projects will work and whether they will
be effective in the long run. Russia should also be encouraged
to spend funds received from such philanthropic agreements as
the HEU-LEU agreement for the safety and restructuring, rather
than on the mere survival of Cold War era enterprises.
Such policies will also create a clear picture on whether a
particular project genuinely contributes to Russia’s nuclear
security, instead of the Russian nuclear industry's corporate
ambition.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
12 Press Communique: New nuclear energy data just released
2 June 2005 -
[OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
The latest official figures released today by the NEA reveal
that, at the start of 2005, there were 352 nuclear units in
operation in 17 OECD member countries, seven less than the year
before. However, despite this reduction, nuclear generating
capacity in the OECD increased by almost 1% and
nuclear-generated electricity increased by over 4% over the
previous year. In all, nuclear power plants produced 23.5% of
the electricity generated in OECD member countries during 2004
and in Belgium, France, the Slovak Republic and Sweden it was
over 50%. Improved performances compared to 2003 allowed nuclear
powers share of electricity generation to increase in six OECD
member countries (Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan and
Sweden).
These numbers are from the just-published 2005 edition of
Nuclear Energy Data, more commonly known as the Brown Book,
which gives an overview of the status of and trends in nuclear
electricity generation and the fuel cycle up to 2025 in OECD
member countries. The official statistics include data and
projections complemented by short country reports. The Brown
Book is considered as a standard reference for nuclear energy
data.
At the end of 2004, eight nuclear units representing a total
capacity of 6.6 GWe were under construction in OECD countries,
with firm commitments for 19 more representing a total capacity
of 24.1 GWe. All but one of these are destined for the OECD
Pacific region. However, one new reactor, an EPR (European
Pressurised Water Reactor), has been firmly committed in OECD
Europe in Finland, marking the first new unit in this region in
many years. In France, the construction of a new EPR is under
consideration, subject to the outcome of a national public
debate to take place in 2005. At the same time, 11 reactors
representing a total capacity of 3.1 GWe are expected to be shut
down over the next five years, six of which are in the United
Kingdom. Additionally, not reflected in the preceding figures,
additional reactors in Germany are expected to be shut down in
line with the governmental decision to phase out nuclear energy.
Natural uranium production in OECD countries is projected to be
lower than requirements in 2005. The remaining requirements will
be met by secondary sources including imports, stockpiles, spent
fuel reprocessing and re-enrichment of depleted uranium. For
conversion, the capacity is also lower than requirements and the
needs are again being matched by imports and stockpiles
complementing the supply from OECD production facilities. OECD
enrichment and fuel fabrication capacities remain higher than
requirements. Thirty-four units use mixed-oxide fuel. All of
these units are in OECD Europe, with all but four in France and
Germany.
####
OECD, Paris, 2005 ISBN 92-64-01100-5
24, £ 16, US$ 29, ¥ 3 200.
Please quote the title and reference in any review.
Commercial orders may be directed to
Extenza-Turpin
Stratton Business Park, Pegasus Drive, Biggleswade,
Bedfordshire, SG18 8QB, United Kingdom
OECD Customer Service: +44 (0)1767 604960
Main Switchboard: +44 (0)1767 604800, Fax number: +44 (0)1767
601640
E-mail: oecdrow@extenza-turpin.com Website:
www.extenza-turpin.com
Stratton Business Park, Pegasus Drive, Biggleswade,
Bedfordshire, SG18 8QB, United Kingdom
OECD Customer Service: +44 (0)1767 604960
Main Switchboard: +44 (0)1767 604800, Fax number: +44 (0)1767
601640
Karen Daifuku
Head, External Relations and Public Affairs
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
Tel. +33 (0)1 45 24 10 10
Fax +33 (0)1 45 24 11 10
E-mail:
The NEA consists of 28 OECD member countries. The mission of the
NEA is to assist its member countries in maintaining and further
developing, through international co-operation, the scientific,
technological and legal bases required for a safe,
environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes. The NEA also provides authoritative
assessments and forges common understandings on key issues, as
input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to
broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and
sustainable development.
*****************************************************************
13 American Thinker: Russia’s nuclear deception
June 3rd, 2005
Iran’s long march to develop nuclear weapons continues behind
the facade of so-called negotiations with the European-3
(France, Britain, and Germany) and with Russia. How anyone
could consider this bunch as having any ability to restrain the
mullahs is beyond comprehension. After all, the reactor at
Bushehr originally was designed and constructed by the Germans,
and is now being refurbishedby the Russians, a highly lucrative
undertaking. It is absolutely ludicrous that we would expect
results from nations that risk losing billions of Euros and
Rubles in contracts to develop the very same nuclear
capabilities that we are trying to forestall.
The mullahs have a very robust and dispersed nuclear
infrastructure, but the commercial power reactor at Bushehr
garners most of the world’s attention. The primary area of
concern is that the E-3 and Russian agreement with Iran calls
for the spent fuel rods to be shipped back to Russia for
reprocessing, to keep the plutonium out of the hands of Iranian
weapons scientists.
The Bush Administration is rightfully suspicious of this
arrangement, especially since the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has been unable or unwilling to conduct proper
inspections and report violations to the UN Security Council
concerning Iran, and in years past with Iraq and North Korea.
In fact, if recent news reports out of Russia are correct, Iran
will not only have the fuel to run the reactor at Bushehr, but
through a technical slight of hand will retain the spent fuel
rods in the country for many years, despite Russia’s claim to
the contrary.
On April 1 of this year, Moscow RTR TV broadcast a news segment
about the Novosibirsk nuclear fuel fabrication facility in
Siberia. Specifically, the video showed how the plant was
producing fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor. The report
also notes that under the terms of a contract signed last
January, the Novosibirsk plant is ready to ship about 80 tons of
nuclear fuel to Iran. But buried toward the end of the
broadcast was a statement that was ostensibly designed to allay
US fears about proper control of the spent fuel rods, but in
reality raises more questions about the true intentions of Putin
and his nuclear scientists:
[Correspondent] However, spent nuclear fuel will not be returned
to Russia that soon. Safety regulations dictate that it must
first be kept in a so-called cooling pond for a minimum of 10
years. [emphasis added]
Ten years? Either someone at the Novosibirsk plant is very
confused about nuclear industry procedures, or the true
intentions of the Russians concerning the spent fuel rods
inadvertently slipped out. My wager is the latter, because the
industry standard for spent fuel to lie in the cooling pool is
generally for a minimum of five months, not 10 years. This
minimum cooling period of 150 days is used as the reference
point for light water reactors (LWR), which is exactly the type
of reactor at Bushehr.
When spent fuel is removed from the reactor, it emits radiation,
primarily from the fission fragments and heat. The spent fuel
is loaded into the cooling pool, normally adjacent to the
reactor, to allow the radiation levels and the quantity of heat
being released to decrease. The pools are both shields against
the radiation and absorbers of the heat released. The cooling
process allows most of the fission products of short half-life
to decay, to reduce overall beta and gamma emissions, and,
lastly, but most important to the Iranians, to allow the decay
of heavy isotopes into elements which can be separated from more
important products.
One of these desirable products would be plutonium, which is
extracted by a process known as plutonium and uranium recovery
by extraction (PUREX). The plutonium could then be used as a
partial replacement for the uranium fuel in the Bushehr reactor,
or as the fuel in a fast breeder reactor, such as the one under
construction at Arak. Alternatively, of course, the plutonium
can also be used in nuclear weapons.
There is no technical reason to keep the spent fuel rods from
Bushehr in a cooling pool in Iran for 10 years prior to shipping
them back to Russia. Even if Russian scientists decided to err
on the side of safety and doubled the industry minimum
standards, it would result in the fuel being stored in the
cooling pool for less than one year. And if the IAEA continues
its flawed inspection regimen, look for the spent fuel rods to
eventually disappear over the 10 year “safety” period, even
though they were under IAEA “seal and control.”
We are witnessing a repeat of an old con game that was played to
perfection by Saddam Hussein, France, Russia, and the IAEA prior
to the Iraq War. Saddam was allowed to keep hundreds of tons of
yellowcake, low-enriched uranium, and other radioactive source
material to support two reactors and an enrichment lab that had
been destroyed in separate operations by Israel and the US.
Just as before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the business interests
of Russia and the E-3 with Iran trump any concerns about
non-proliferation of WMD. Except now, more people are wise to
their lies and deception.
Douglas Hanson is our national security correspondent.
*****************************************************************
14 Xinhua: National energy leading group set up
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-04 00:07:52
BEIJING, June 3 (Xinhuanet) -- China has set up a national
energy leading group headed by Premier Wen Jiabao.
The group convened its first meeting Thursday.
Vice Premiers Huang Ju and Zeng Peiyan are serving as deputy
directors of the group.
Wen said at Thursday's meeting that the group is mainly in
charge of energy strategy and major policies, the development
and conservation of energy resources, energy security and
emergency responses as well as energy cooperation with foreign
parties.
Energy is an important strategic issue concerning China's
economic growth, social stability and national security, said
Wen at the meeting, adding that the central government attaches
great importance to the issue.
The meeting required the full understanding of the
significanceand urgency of energy work in China.
It was agreed at the meeting that the strategic importance
of energy must be emphasized. In recent years, China has
suffered serious energy supply shortages, a key factor
restricting the country's economic and social progress. With its
gradual industrialization, urbanization and modernization, the
nation has greater demand for energy.
The group has decided to make a mid- and long term national
plan for energy development to adjust the country's energy
structure.
Priority will go to coal mining and power supply projects.
Particular effort will be spent in building large coal
production bases, enhancing coal mining technologies and
improving coal transport.
It was agreed that work needs to be done in power supply
projects, power grid construction and the development of key
equipment in the power industry.
Meanwhile, new types of energy should be developed,
including nuclear power supply, wind power and solar energy.
The meeting also stressed the importance of energy
conservation,calling for tight control over industries with high
energy consumption.
To improve the efficiency of China's energy industry,
further reform is to be conducted in energy companies as well as
the priceforming mechanisms concerning coal, power, gas and
petroleum.
Since China dissolved the Ministry of Energy in 1993, there
hasbeen a need for an authoritative institution to make energy
policyfor the country, observers said.
The move to establish a leading group office for energy
should strengthen China's ability to make a uniform plan in the
energy field, said an analyst in the industry.
With the rapid development of the economy, China has become
thesecond largest consumer of energy in the world. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 AU ABC: Carr calls for nuclear rethink
The World Today - Friday, 3 June , 2005 12:37:00
Reporter: Brendan Trembath
PETER CAVE: The New South Wales Premier Bob Carr has angered
some in his party and the green movement by suggesting it's time
to re-examine whether Australia should turn to nuclear power as
an alternative to coal.
Traditional conservationists have been opposed to nuclear power
because of the problems of disposing of radioactive waste and
the threat of power station meltdowns as happened at Chernobyl.
There's also the worry that nuclear fuel can end up as nuclear
weapons.
But with conventional power stations blamed for greenhouse gas
emissions and global warming, threatening the future of the
planet, some are now asking whether the nuclear option is the
lesser evil.
Brendan Trembath reports.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: The New South Wales Premier has hinted nuclear
power may help meet his State's future energy needs. He says
it's worth discussing because coal power is causing considerable
environmental damage.
Coal fired power plants produce the toxic gases which many
scientists say have caused the climate change known as global
warming.
Bob Carr's spoken in Canberra before a meeting of State and
Federal leaders.
BOB CARR: Hydrogen and solar and wind are not being developed
fast enough. There are too many barriers in the way of getting
them for them to meet our need for base load power. By base load
I mean reliable, day in day out power supplies.
This is a bigger problem for other parts of the world, but to
contemplate coal fired power stations across India and China to
meet their energy needs is to contemplate a world that's really
being heated up and wrecked by global warming. That's why we've
got to have a debate over nuclear power.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: It's a thought, not a plan, but opponents of
nuclear power have been quick to condemn his suggestion.
The Greens say a debate's not necessary.
Ian Cohen is a Member of the Upper House of the New South Wales
Parliament.
IAN COHEN: Given the controversy of uranium mining, nuclear
power, the nuclear industry with the Labor Party in the past, I
think it would be very problematic, and it certainly is a rather
provocative act. I think that the energy could be far better
spent on looking at more clever alternatives and demand
management.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Ian Cohen agrees coal harms the environment
but he says uranium is not a sensible alternative.
IAN COHEN: The Premier is looking to the big nuclear option when
we really should be looking at demand management and more clever
ways of dealing with the situation without creating a toxic
legacy.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Critics of nuclear power plants say there's no
safe way to store large amounts of hazardous waste which remains
active for thousands of years, but some nuclear scientists say
the waste created is smaller than many think.
Among them is Professor Jim Jury from Trent University in
Ontario, Canada. He's told ABC Local Radio in his country a
large amount of energy is nuclear power.
JIM JURY: Let's take a nuclear power plant that would provide 40
per cent of the energy needs of Sydney for 100 years and let's
take all the nuclear waste, the long lived nuclear waste, from
that power plant. You know, the long stuff, the dirty stuff, the
bad stuff. Let's concentrate that and ask how much volume that
is that we have to protect for the next 10,000 years, and the
answer is the size of the refrigerator in your kitchen.
BRENDAN TREMBATH: Mr Carr has stressed there's no nuclear power
plan for New South Wales, but his readiness to have a debate
highlights a shift in the thinking about uranium.
Federal Labor frontbencher, Martin Ferguson, has said he
supports expanding Australia's uranium exports, as does South
Australian Premier Mike Rann.
Martin Ferguson is on a parliamentary committee considering the
development of non-fossil fuels such as uranium. Its findings
are likely to add fuel to supporters and opponents of uranium
mining and uranium-derived power.
Bob Carr's not the first to raise the realistic possibility of
the State using nuclear power. New South Wales came close more
than three decades ago. But a proposal to build a reactor at
Jervis Bay on the New South Wales south coast was shelved in
1972.
PETER CAVE: Brendan Trembath reporting.
*****************************************************************
16 AU ABC: Outcry over call for nuclear power debate
Sci Tech News - from ABC News Online 03/06/2005
Friday, 3 June 2005 New South Wales Premier Bob Carr's call for
a debate on the merits or otherwise of nuclear power has been
labelled "ludicrous" by environmentalists, who say it is too
risky an option to even consider.
As speculation grows that the State Government is about to
announce another coal-fired power station for NSW, the Premier
yesterday called for a debate over nuclear power as a feasible
alternative energy source.
"Whether uranium-derived power is more dangerous than coal, coal
is looking very dangerous, there ought to be a debate," he said.
Prominent anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott says
nuclear power production creates massive amounts of global
warming gases and she describes it as a "cancer industry".
"It will over time produce epidemics of cancer - leukaemia and
genetic disease, particularly in children," she said.
The Nature Conservation Council (NCC) has labelled it mad and
dangerous and argues other safer alternatives are available.
Greens Senator Bob Brown says the tide of public opinion is
against it.
"It was sealed with Chernobyl, that was really the end," Senator
Brown said.
Senator Brown is suspicious of Mr Carr's motives.
"Asking for a debate about nuclear power is code for getting on
with more nuclear installations," he said.
*****************************************************************
17 NIRS, TMIA Appeal Siren Decision
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:41:00 -0700
Committee to Bridge the Gap
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Public Citizen
For immediate release Contact: Daniel Hirsch (831) 332-3099
3 June 2005 Diane D’Arrigo (202) 841-8588
Michele Boyd (202) 454-5134
NRC Unanimously Rejects Atomic Waste Deregulation Rulemaking
in Surprising Victory for Environmentalists and Public
Washington, DC - By a 5-0 vote, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has rejected a rulemaking proposal by its staff that would have permitted radioactive waste to be dumped in municipal landfills, used in roadbeds, and recycled into consumer products. The turnaround was all the more remarkable because the Commissioners themselves had earlier strongly directed staff to prepare the waste deregulation rulemaking in the first place.
Environmentalists cautiously praised the decision. “The NRC clearly backed down from this crazy idea because it recognized the firestorm of public concern that would be triggered,” said Daniel Hirsch, President of the Los Angeles-based Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG) that has fought such radioactive deregulation proposals for years. “The public doesn’t want radioactive waste in their local garbage dump, children’s braces, or tools.”
“This is an important victory for public health and environmental protection,” stated Diane D’Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), “although possibly temporary since some commissioners want to proceed with it AFTER new nuclear reactors are licensed. Maybe they don’t want the public to realize new nuclear reactors means nuclear waste that could end up in our kids’ toys and other everyday items. The NRC should be on notice, however: Don’t even think of trying this again. We’ll remain vigilant.”
In 1986 and 1990, the NRC tried a similar deregulation plan, called “Below Regulatory Concern” (BRC). It would similarly have permitted radioactive waste to go to unlicensed landfills, contaminated metals and other materials to be recycled into consumer products, and other wastes to avoid having to go to radioactive waste disposal facilities licensed and designed for that purpose. The BRC Policies created widespread public opposition, media coverage and legislation in numerous states. In 1992 Congress intervened and overturned the NRC’s radioactive waste deregulation policies.
In 2002 the Commissioners directed NRC staff to prepare a new regulation releasing significant volumes of radioactive wastes from the requirement that they be disposed of in licensed radioactive waste facilities. In March 2005 the proposed regulation was sent to the Commission for approval. Numerous environmental groups weighed in opposing it as a revival of the discredited BRC Policy. This week, the Commissioners unanimously rejected the proposed regulation. They did, however, hold out the prospect of possibly reviving it at some time in the future—“two, five, or ten years from now” according to one Commissioner.
The NRC will, however, continue to release nuclear waste under its current case-by-case exemption procedures, which are not readily open to public notice, comment or intervention. Opposition from the public and state officials recently forced the cancellation of shipments of reactor decommissioning wastes to unlicensed waste sites in Idaho and Texas that NRC staff had quietly approved using the exemption process.
“While we are pleased that the Commissioners are not moving forward with this ill-begotten proposal, we remain concerned about the so-called ‘case-by-case’ releases that are occurring today,” said Wenonah Hauter, director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen. “No releases of radioactively contaminated materials should be allowed for reuse, recycling, or disposal into municipal landfills. The NRC should make public information about the releases that have occurred thus far.”
“This decision is a major step in the right direction but it is tempered by the NRC’s recent deregulation of nuclear materials in transport,” D’Arrigo continued, pointing out that “NRC, with the US Department of Transportation has approved some of the very same exemptions in the 2004 radioactive transport regulations. NIRS, CBG and Public Citizen are among a group of organizations now challenging the both agencies in federal court for the transport exemptions.
# # #