*****************************************************************
11/28/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.276
*****************************************************************
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 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE DISPUTE: Everyone cannot be kept
2 RIA Novosti: Tehran ready to reply to Russia
3 AFP: EU tests waters for resuming nuclear talks with Iran -
4 AFP: Iran, EU agree future nuclear talks
5 IRNA: EU3 accepts Iran's offer to resume nuclear talks next month -
6 [NYTr] N.Korea Blames US for Failed Nuke Energy Project
7 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Seeks Compensation on Nuke Project
8 US: SF Chronicle: U.S. alters nuclear weapons policy / Congress reje
9 US: Inside Bay Area: Defection of House hawk stuns Bush
10 US: OpinionJournal: Power to the People
11 AFP: US Congressman backs Indo-US nuclear pact
12 [du-list] India working on using DU for nuclear energy?
13 Pace Picks Up For Signing Of UN Nuclear Inspection Protocol
14 Xinhua: India, US reaffirm partnership in non-proliferation
NUCLEAR REACTORS
15 US: [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuanc
16 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Dec. 7
17 RIA Novosti: China's NPP to get unique Russian containment system
18 BBC: Blair to unveil 'nuclear option'
19 Herald: Could the climate be changing for Britain’s nuclear option?
20 Herald: Beckett points to new era of nuclear power
21 US: NRC: NRC Renews Millstone Nuclear Power Station Operating Licens
22 US: Platts: Regulators approve replacement of Diablo Canyon steam ge
23 Platts: EDF's 'safety benefits' analysis shows many backfits unjusti
24 UK: Independent: Yes please? No thanks? For and against nuclear powe
25 Independent: Nuclear power: Divided opinions
26 Independent: Nuclear power: We are heading for an energy gap, but wh
27 Independent: Blair hopes for new nuclear programme
28 SMN: ON-TIME POWER PLANT CLOSURE TO PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT LOSS FOR BUL
29 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the Jo
30 Xinhua: Nuclear industry research base launched in Shanghai
31 US: NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuance of
32 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
33 US: Advocate: NRC Renews Millstone License
34 Interfax China: Feature: China's nuclear ambitions questioned by set
35 US: PRN: Dominion Celebrates Renewed Licenses for Millstone Power St
36 US: UK: News & Star: Coastal fears could block N-plant plan
37 Whitehaven News: Erosion fears over nuclear plants
38 SABCnews.com: Koeberg engineers' negligence exposed
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
39 [du-list] European parliament moratorium on uranium weapons
40 [du-list] DU in the news - 25th Nov. 05
41 [du-list] DU in the news - 26th Nov 05
42 [du-list] DU in the news - 27th Nov 05
43 [du-list] U and cancer ... look this way ... but you need
44 [du-list] DU & other Usuk WMD not in the news - write to BBC
45 News 24: Ex-nuke workers in for tests
46 US: Guardian Unlimited: Feds Offer New Way to Manage Elk
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
47 US: theage.com.au: Emotional reactions cloud nuclear debate
48 US: Platts: Uranium prices continue climb
49 LVBP: Federal government could oust Yucca Mountain contractor
50 ABC News Online: Nelson can't be trusted on nuclear waste - NT group
51 UK: News & Star: Threat to Sellafield from rising Irish Sea
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
52 Kingsport Times-News: UT officials say Oak Ridge National Laboratory
53 DOE: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Site-Wide Environmental Impact
54 Albuquerque Tribune: Bright Idea: Los Alamos Lab gets a clue from Wa
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English IRAN-NUKE DISPUTE: Everyone cannot be kept
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:06:45 -0800
LA IP=20
IRAN-NUKE DISPUTE: Everyone cannot be kept guessing, says UAE paper
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
DUBAI, Nov. 26 (WAM) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) daily has urged Iran =
to
swiftly accept proposals allowing Russia to carry out uranium processing =
on
behalf of the Islamic republic.
The Dubai-based 'Gulf News' said in an editorial on Saturday that
=94Initially, the U.S. and EU were sceptical of Iran claiming the nuclear
energy programme is essential for its long-term needs. Such scepticism, t=
he
paper added, was out of the belief that Iran was more interested in
developing its own nuclear bomb.
=94Now, western officials are more accepting of Iran's argument and ho=
pe
the latest Russian proposals whereby they carry out uranium processing fo=
r
Iran will be adopted. But Iran has to agree quickly, for the patience of =
the
U.S. and EU is not inexhaustible,=94 noted the English language newspaper=
=2E
In the arena of international diplomacy, argues 'Gulf News', it is
generally recognized that a negotiator will not reveal all the cards held=
,
saving a few for later use in the hope of trumping the argument and winni=
ng.
=94But while such skills are accepted, there are times when it is
desirable, if not essential, for negotiators to give way and be more
forthcoming in their reasoning. Otherwise, it could be interpreted that
everything being said is based on a false premise, designed to mislead. S=
uch
is the case with Iran and the nuclear armaments dispute in which it has
become embroiled,=94 maintained the paper commenting on Iran's negotiatin=
g
tactics. (WAM)
=20
*****************************************************************
2 RIA Novosti: Tehran ready to reply to Russia
Opinion &analysis -
28/ 11/ 2005
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Vladimir Benazarov.)
Last weak, speaking at a session of the governing body of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), official
representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Mehdi
Akhunzadeh said Tehran was "seriously considering Moscow's
proposal to have Iranian uranium enriched in Russia." According
to some sources, Akhunzadeh actually expressed Tehran's
readiness to reply to the Russian propositions within the
shortest time possible, at least "before the next meeting of the
governing body scheduled for March 2006."
There are, however, some undertones little known to the general
public. To begin with, experts in Iran say Russia's proposal
cannot be seen as an attempt to keep Iran from developing its
own nuclear weapons, as is claimed by some western analysts.
From the Iranian point of view, enrichment in Russia of the
uranium converted at the Isfahan nuclear center should be
regarded at this stage as an endeavor to soften foreign policy
pressure brought to bear on the Islamic republic in recent times
by the U.S., Israel and European Union countries.
The central issue that has been facing the governing body for
close to three years has been the "Iranian file" - whether it
should be referred to the UN Security Council threatening
international sanctions against Iran, or left with the IAEA to
find a compromise solution in the course of Iran-EU
negotiations. Practically all resolutions passed by the Agency
note Tehran's desire to cooperate and be transparent and open in
resolving the problem of the file.
Besides, IAEA general director Mohammed el-Baradei, in all his
reports preceding scheduled and unscheduled meetings of the
board, has repeatedly stressed the peaceful tenor of Iran's
nuclear programs.
The words of the Agency's head are based on the information
obtained in practically continual inspections of Iranian nuclear
facilities by qualified specialists and experts. Statistics say
that IAEA inspections in Iran have logged more than 2,000
man-hours over less than three years: an undoubted record.
But they have failed to produce any confirmation that Iran
maintains a military component of its nuclear research. However,
Washington and Tel Aviv are continuing to assert that Tehran
intends to develop the nuclear bomb and have been tossing ever
new pieces of unconfirmed evidence to the public.
On the other hand, it is evident that the attempts by the
"European Trio" (Britain, France, Germany) to solve the issue of
Iranian nuclear programs have brought no results over the past
two and a half years despite Iran's persistent desire to carry
on dialog with the European Union.
Circles close to the IAEA are convinced that Tehran would do
well by accepting Moscow's offer. Firstly, this will give it
time to persuade the world community that its atomic intentions
are truly peaceful, and secondly, to create a more positive
image of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected
last August.
Enrichment of Iranian uranium on Russian territory may, Tehran
believes, mark a half-way station on Iran's path to its
long-term program aimed at using atomic energy for power
generation.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
3 AFP: EU tests waters for resuming nuclear talks with Iran -
Sun Nov 27, 1:57 PM ET
BARCELONA, Spain (AFP) - Top European Union" /> European
Uniondiplomats wrote to Iran" /> Iranto test the waters for
resuming direct talks on the Islamic republic's disputed nuclear
program, EU foreign policy head Javier Solana said.
"We offered the Iranians to have conversations ... to see if we
have enough common basis to restart a negotiation," Solana told
reporters covering a summit of European Union and Mediterranean
leaders in Barcelona.
The letter was sent on the behalf of Solana as well as foreign
ministers Jack Straw of Britain, Philippe Douste-Blazy of
France, and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany, he said.
Two years of talks between Iran and the EU-3 broke off in August
when Tehran rejected an offer of trade and other incentives in
exchange for its promise to limit its nuclear activities amid
fears they could be used for military purposes.
Solana said the letter set no date for a resumption of the
negotiations. "We have to see what is the response that the
Iranians give us," he added.
A European diplomat who asked not to be identified told AFP in
Tehran earlier that the letter offered "an exploratory meeting"
with Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani to
consider resuming the talks.
"The Europeans do not question the rights of Iran (to have a
nuclear program), but want to have guarantees concerning its
objectives," said the diplomat.
According to the semi-official Mehr news agency in Tehran, the
letter was handed to Javad Vaidi -- one of Iran's negotiating
team -- in response to a letter from Larijani which called for a
resumption of negotiations.
Although not directly involved in negotiations, Washington
suspects the Islamic republic is using an atomic energy drive as
a cover for nuclear weapons development, a charge Iran has
denied.
Iran also broke an agreement signed a year ago to suspend
uranium enrichment-related work by resuming conversion -- a
precursor to ultra-sensitive enrichment work.
Solana did not reply to a question from a reporter in Barcelona
on whether the European Union had requested Iran stop conversion
as a condition for resuming talks.
EU diplomats have already cited December 6 as a possible date
for a meeting between the two sides, although the time and venue
appear not to have yet been finalized.
The International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agencyon Thursday put off taking Iran to the Security
Council to give time for a new Russian diplomatic initiative.
Under the compromise plan, Russia would conduct uranium
enrichment -- a process which can make both nuclear fuel and the
explosive core of a weapon -- on Iran's behalf.
But there appears to be little space for compromise: on Sunday
the foreign ministry said Iran reserved the right to restart
ultra-sensitive uranium enrichment work for "research and
development" purposes, insisting the sensitive nuclear activity
was not up for negotiation.
Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said any talks
would need to provide "concrete guarantees" that Iran can
conduct fuel cycle work on its own soil -- a position at odds
with the Russian compromise plan and the positions of the
European Union and the United States.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: Iran, EU agree future nuclear talks
Mon Nov 28, 3:10 PM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> and Britain, France and Germany have
agreed to resume talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme
but no time or venue for the discussions has yet been set,
student news agency ISNA reported.
"The agenda, time and venue of the talks are not set yet, but
both sides will first hold talks at the experts' level, then at
the higher level," the spokesman for Iran's supreme national
security council, Hossein Entezami, told the news agency.
He was responding to an offer by the EU-3 to resume direct talks
with the Islamic republic on its nuclear programme. Washington
accuses Iran of using it as a cover for nuclear weapons
development, a charge vehemently rejected by Tehran.
"It does not make any difference whether the talks are official
or unofficial, the important thing is to talk. However the talks
should have a timeframe," he added.
An EU diplomatic source in Berlin said that Europe was ready to
begin "exploratory talks on a possible entry into a negotiating
phase," provided Iran refrained from "unilateral measures".
The source said the objective "remains obtaining objective
guarantees" that Iran's nuclear programme "has exclusively
peaceful ends".
On Sunday, a diplomat told AFP that the foreign ministers of the
EU-3 had written to Iran's top national security official Ali
Larijani with an offer of new direct talks.
According to the semi-official Mehr news agency on Sunday, the
letter was handed to Javad Vaidi -- one of Iran's negotiating
team -- in response to a letter from Larijani which called for a
resumption of negotiations.
Entezami reaffirmed Tehran's insistence that it would enrich
uranium on Iranian soil, saying it had not received any
proposals from Russia on moving its enrichment work abroad.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at a press
conference during a visit to Azerbaijan on Monday that Tehran
had a right to enrich uranium as part of its nuclear energy
programme, adding "no force" could stop it from doing so.
"The enrichment of uranium is Iran's internal affair. It is the
right of any state and no force can prevent the state from
exercising this right," he said.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: EU3 accepts Iran's offer to resume nuclear talks next month -
Nov 27, IRNA
The so-called EU3 has accepted Iran's offer to take up nuclear
negotiations from where they were left off in August, the
country's top security body said on Sunday.
A letter signed by British, French and German foreign ministers
was delivered by the EU3 ambassadors here Sunday, announcing the
bloc's readiness to resume the negotiations next month.
In a letter dated November 6, Secretary of Iran's Supreme
National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani had invited the
Europeans to resume the negotiations.
The Europeans' positive response to the invitation comes even
as they had made resumption of talks conditional on Iran's
renewed suspension of uranium enrichment activities.
In his letter, Larijani had announced that 'Iran welcomes
rational and constructive negotiations in the framework of
international rules and regulations'.
The top negotiator had also stressed the need for the Islamic
Republic to 'acquire its legal and legitimate right of the
Iranian nation and guarantee the country's national interests'.
Negotiations broke down in August after Iran rejected an EU
proposal of concessions, which the country described as 'a
package of lollipops' and resumed uranium conversion work.
The three ambassadors handed over the letter, signed by British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his French and German
counterparts Philippe Douste-Blazy and Frank-Walter Steinmeier,
to the SNSC deputy head, Javad Vaeedi, in a meeting here Sunday.
Earlier Sunday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
stressed that the focal point of any future negotiations would
have to provide 'concrete guarantees for realizing production of
nuclear fuel in Iran'.
"We believe that negotiations with Europe must be rational ...
they must not set out special regulations for the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
"The period of negotiations must be definite and their aim must
not be burning opportunities; moreover, treatment of Iran must
not discriminatory," Asefi told reporters.
The official also played down press report about proposal to
transfer uranium enrichment to Russia under a joint venture with
Iran as 'media speculation'.
"This is a fabrication of news to determine the fate of
negotiations through media. However, the fate of negotiations
must be decided on the negotiating table," he added.
*****************************************************************
6 [NYTr] N.Korea Blames US for Failed Nuke Energy Project
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:10:38 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
N Korea Blames US for Failed Nuke Energy Project
Pyongyang, Nov 28 (PL) The People's Democratic Republic of Korea blamed the
US for a failed project to build two light water reactors to meet domestic
electricity demands.
The project was born of a 1994 agreement with Washington in Geneva in return
for the PDRK to quit building a heavy water reactor.
The local news agency KCNA says the Foreign Ministry blames the US for the
project's demise and urged for compensation for economic and political
damages.
Korea's Energy Development Organization (KEDO) started to build both
reactors in the year 2000 with funds from the US, Japan, S. Korea and
European Union.
But KEDO halted the construction in 2002 after several months of delays and
agreed to total suspension with Washington on the 22nd this month after the
latter suspended oil and fuel supplies.
At the end of the 4th round of talks on the domestic nuclear program with
all six parties in Beijing, North Korea conditioned dismantling the reactor
project to supply domestic electricity
The source said the latest events prove that the PDRK's demands are fair,
and that the US neglect of the nuclear program stands as an increasing
physical barrier to build bilateral confidence.
ln/emw/mne/mf
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Seeks Compensation on Nuke Project
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday November 28, 2005 12:31 PM
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Monday demanded
compensation from the United States over a scuttled project to
build two nuclear reactors in the communist nation under a 1994
agreement.
Last week, the United States, South Korea, the European Union
and Japan terminated the project promised under the 1994
so-called agreed framework, where the North agreed to scrap its
plutonium-based nuclear weapons program.
The decade-old light-water reactor project had been mothballed
for the last two years with the outbreak of the latest nuclear
crisis, after U.S. officials said in late 2002 that the North
violated the earlier deal by admitting to a secret
uranium-enrichment program.
``Now that the construction of the (light-water reactors) came
to a final stop, (North Korea) is compelled to blame the U.S.
for having overturned the (agreed framework) and demand it
compensate for the political and economic losses it has caused
to the former,'' an unnamed North Korean Foreign Ministry
spokesman said in a statement carried by the country's official
Korean Central News Agency.
The spokesman claimed the move to shutter the reactor project
proved the North was ``quite just'' in demanding simultaneous
actions to build mutual confidence with the United States in
exchange for disarmament.
To resolve the latest standoff, the United States has sought to
convince the North to disarm at six-nation talks hosted by
China. In September during those negotiations, the North pledged
in principle to disarm, but afterward maintained that it would
first need light-water reactors for electricity.
In the latest agreement, Washington and other countries agreed
to consider the issue of giving the North a reactor at an
appropriate time. At a summit this month of Asia-Pacific leaders
in South Korea, President Bush said no reactors would be
considered before the North gives up its nuclear weapons
program.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
8 SF Chronicle: U.S. alters nuclear weapons policy / Congress rejects 'bunker
busters' for more reliable arms
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, November 28, 2005
After struggling in recent years to redefine U.S. nuclear
policy, Congress turned the country in a new direction this
month by giving millions of dollars for a program aimed at
producing a smaller arsenal of more reliable warheads.
Lawmakers killed the widely criticized nuclear "bunker buster"
concept, which critics regarded as too aggressive, and instead
appropriated $25 million for research on what is called the
reliable replacement warhead, or RRW. Though that initial sum is
relatively modest, it signifies an important policy shift that
could end up costing many billions of dollars.
Even some arms control advocates have applauded the decision,
because many see the new program as a sharp scaling back of the
Bush administration's once soaring nuclear ambitions.
Democrats as well as Republicans were so enthusiastic that they
voted for almost three times the amount of money requested by
the White House, in large part because the program is viewed as
an exercise in restraint.
"This is about tinkering at the margins of the existing weapons
systems, nothing more," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut
Creek, a member of the House Appropriations Committee's energy
and water subcommittee, which controls the nuclear weapons
budget "They (the White House) aren't getting what they wanted."
But while the vote was decisive, just what the nuclear future
will look like is not. Some experts caution that more than
tinkering may be involved.
"The answer to every question at this point is, 'It depends,' "
said Philip Coyle, a senior Pentagon official in the Clinton
administration and a nuclear scientist at the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory for 33 years. "A new warhead can be new in a
wide variety of different ways, and nobody knows what that will
mean yet."
Indeed, the reliable replacement warhead is a strikingly elastic
concept that, at this stage, each side can define as it likes.
One of the few clear guidelines is that Congress has ordered
that, whatever it is, it must be deployed without new
underground testing, which President George H.W. Bush banned in
1992. But few agree on whether that is even feasible.
Beyond that, experts generally agree, the new program will mean
spending billions of dollars to ensure that nuclear weapons
remain a fundamental element of military planning, at a time
when many other countries -- some friendly, some not -- are
making similar calculations. The commitment is, in short, part
of a global trend.
"It's not just that the Cold War is over, the post-Cold War
period is over, too," said Nikolai Sokov, a senior research
associate at the Monterey Institute for International Studies
and a former Russian arms control negotiator. "What you're
seeing now is a whole wave of policies of this kind being
discussed in Russia and the United States and other places.
There is an active process in a wide variety of countries. They
are all exploring the option of nuclear weapons."
He added, "We're not talking about disarmament, we're talking
about optimization. What you're doing is reducing the warheads
to a more appropriate size." To those who believe in nuclear
restraint, the program is a modest upgrading of existing
weapons. For instance, optical fiber detonator cables would
replace electrical wires and safer high explosives would be used
to initiate the implosion of the radioactive core, which starts
the nuclear chain reaction.
"This is not a sneaky way to get a whole new powerful warhead
type of thing in the future," insisted Rep. David Hobson,
R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's energy
and water subcommittee, and the most influential voice for
restraint. "We're not trying to do separate missions than those
the warheads were designed for today."
Nuclear weapons proponents, however, see it in more expansive
terms. Although the initial funding is just for research, and
Congress will have to approve any further steps, nuclear
proponents regard the program as an efficient new production
platform for rapidly developing new warheads for specialized
missions.
For some government officials, the code word is capability. When
the talk turns to warheads with new capabilities, or of dealing
with new threats, the implication is that whole new weapons
designs will be required.
"Part of the transformation will be to retain the ability to
provide new or different military capabilities in response to
(the Department of Defense's) emerging needs," Linton Brooks,
administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which builds and maintains the stockpile, said at a Senate
hearing earlier this year.
That increases the possibility, many experts say, that the
warheads may need not only testing, but also the development of
heavily modified missiles or new missiles to deliver them,
adding billions of dollars more to the ultimate cost.
William Schneider Jr., chairman of the Defense Science Board, an
influential advisory body to the Pentagon, said in a report last
year that "the nature of the potential threat demands that we
consider solutions that go beyond improvement on the margin,"
and that the country should build "weapons more relevant to the
future threat environment," including nuclear warheads.
Cutting through the distrust and disagreements, there are
critical areas of bipartisan agreement. First, the method of
maintaining the Cold War-era stockpile -- the so-called life
extension program -- cannot last indefinitely because the
warheads are aging. Some experts dispute this, but Congress
seems to have accepted the view that a new approach is required.
Second, the U.S. nuclear weapons manufacturing capability, all
but halted after the Cold War, needs to be resuscitated. It
could cost tens of billions of dollars over the coming decades
and, as some envision it, could give the United States the
capacity to produce more than a hundred warheads a year.
How the new warheads would be delivered to their targets has
been little discussed, but expensive missile improvements are a
prospect, even though Hobson and others insist this will not be
called for. But making the new warheads more reliable and safer,
weapons experts say, could make them heavier and bulkier. At the
least, that would require extensive retesting of missiles.
The first warhead to be upgraded will be the W76, which is
deployed on the submarine-based Trident missiles. But whether
that missile will still work as designed with a new warhead,
without substantial modifications, is yet to be proven.
"You can't just have a conversation about the warheads -- it has
to be about the delivery systems and even the military's command
and control," said John Browne, a weapons designer and former
director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "These things
are part of an interrelated system. That's what people forget."
The rethinking of the U.S. nuclear posture began after the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Underground nuclear testing was
banned, warhead production was stopped, and thousands of weapons
were decommissioned.
Some demanded that the nuclear stockpile, with more than 10,000
warheads, be scrapped. Instead, the Clinton administration
started increasing the budgets for the nuclear design labs, at
Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratory, for what
was called "science-based stockpile stewardship," a program of
maintaining and refurbishing aging warheads.
While the nuclear weapons budget has more than doubled since the
mid-1990s to about $6.5 billion, some now argue that the old
warheads are growing less reliable with age and are not suited
for deterring new types of enemies, such as North Korea or Iran,
in part because they are too powerful.
In 2001, a conservative Washington think tank, the National
Institute for Public Policy, called for the development of new
types of specialized warheads, such as "bunker busters" --
warheads in super hard casings that would allow them to burrow
deep into the earth before exploding -- to destroy deeply buried
targets or caches of chemical and biological weapons.
That report became the backbone of the Bush administration's new
nuclear strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review, issued in 2002.
Half a dozen members of the group that drew up the 2001 study
assumed senior positions in the Bush administration, including
Brooks at the National Nuclear Security administration,
Schneider at the Defense Science Board and Stephen Hadley, now
the president's national security adviser.
In 2003, the White House won funding in Congress for the bunker
buster study and research into other new types of warheads.
But that is when Hobson, concerned that the weapons could spur a
new arms race, surprised fellow Republicans by pushing back. He
later slashed some of the funding and strongly criticized some
of the White House plans. He wanted, he said, a more restrained
policy, one that would survive pressure from nuclear hawks.
"My problem is I can only be chairman for six years," Hobson
said. "That's why I'm trying to lock in place a footprint for
the future. I'm trying to kill things so they don't come back."
But California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate's
energy and water appropriations subcommittee, said she did not
trust the administration and expected to fight the same battle
again.
"This administration continues to try to reopen the nuclear
door," she said. "So we must remain vigilant in ensuring that
the reliable replacement warhead program does not lead to the
development of new nuclear weapons and the resumption of nuclear
testing."
Hobson and others say they fully expect the government to try at
some point to expand the program, and they insist they are
prepared to fight back. But some nuclear proponents are angry at
what they see as a weakened Bush administration backing off at
all.
"This 'modernization' is not a modernization of the weapons'
capabilities," said Kathleen Bailey, a senior associate of the
National Institute for Public Policy and a co-author of the 2001
nuclear study. "That's what is needed. But the administration
has already shown it doesn't have the willingness to stand up
and go to bat on this. So I can't imagine the Republicans or the
Democrats in the future doing so."
Surprisingly, one of the few groups that seems not to have
engaged directly in the debate is the military.
William Odom, a retired lieutenant general trained in nuclear
warfare and former director of the National Security Agency,
said one reason was that professional military leaders regarded
the weapons as too dangerous and too difficult to protect and
maintain, given the modest probability that they would ever be
used, particularly as conventional bombs become more powerful
and more accurate.
"Once you get through all the imponderables of using these
things, you increasingly lose your enthusiasm for the desirable
effects of the weapons," said Odom, who also helped put together
the 2001 study but has a limited belief in the usefulness of
nuclear weapons. "From a professional's perspective, it's damn
hard to work up any excitement about them. Eventually, they'll
go the way of chemical weapons."
E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchroicle.com.
Page A - 1
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
9 Inside Bay Area: Defection of House hawk stuns Bush
Last Updated: 11/28/2005 07:30:27 AM
ONCE in a while — but not often enough — a member of
Congress may deliver a historic speech that electrifies the
nation.
The late Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, R-Maine, a member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee, rose to such an occasion in
1950 when she delivered her Declaration of Conscience address
denouncing the smear and bully tactics of Sen. Joseph McCarthy,
R-Wis., who was on a rampage against alleged communists in the
government.
Her stunning 15-minute speech was a turning point against
McCarthys scare campaign — it was downhill for him from then on.
A speech recently by Rep. John Murtha, D-Ohio, a hawk and the
top Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee,
rattled the Bush administration and released pent-up national
anger about the war.
Murtha called for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq within six
months, saying the U.S. could not win the war there.
His defection threw Bush and his cohorts for a loop.
Murthas bombshell also showed up his spineless fellow House
Democrats who retreated into silence when asked their views of
Murthas challenge.
Shallow Senate Democrats with presidential aspirations — Joseph
Biden and Hillary Clinton quickly come to mind — rejected a
quick pullout from Iraq, apparently willing to let this
mindless, futile war go on.
Speaking for the president, White House press secretary Scott
McClellan accused Murtha of endorsing surrender to the
terrorists.
Stung by Murthas desertion, Vice President Dick Cheney accused
war critics of irresponsible comments, saying
they had previously
favored the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
In a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute —
which is akin to preaching to the choir — Cheney blasted those
critics who say the president misled the American public about
pre-war intelligence.
Their claim is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible
charges ever in this city, the vice president claimed.
But an exhaustive record has been compiled of Cheneys many false
pre-war statements and warnings about a non-existent Iraqi
nuclear threat. Cheney, who went through five draft deferments
to avoid military service in the Vietnam War era, is the
administration lobbyist for a shameful legal exemption to the
ban on torture of prisoners of war.
In his AEI speech, Cheney continued to link Saddam Hussein to the
9/11 al-Qaida attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
even though he knows it is not true. Just where does this guy
stop?
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was one of the first to
jump on Murtha, saying Democrats would prefer that the United
States surrender to terrorists who would harm innocent
Americans.
Newly-elected Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, triggered
quite a commotion when she took the House floor to tell Murtha:
Cowards cut and run. Marines never do.
Her floor speech will be hard to live down. Murtha is a
decorated Vietnam War veteran and served 37 years in the Marine
Corps.
The Bush administration is hurting badly, and it is desperately
trying to push back with its customary
weapon based on the theory
that an offense is the best defense.
But it wont work. They cant hide the daily losses of Americans
in Iraq, and the polls show a dwindling trust in the president.
The administration was clearly hoping to swift boat Murtha by
tarnishing his apostasy with attacks on his patriotism. They did
it to former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga. — a veteran who lost both
legs and an arm in Vietnam — by questioning his patriotism.
Cleland was defeated in his bid for reelection in 2002 but the
memory of that infamous campaign lives on.
Bush and his team later decided to tone down their personal
attacks against Murtha after indications that the public didnt
approve.
Before he returned home from his Asian swing, the president
said: Congressman
Murtha is a fine man, a good man, who served
our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam
and a United States congressman.
Murtha said he had hoped to open the door for him (Bush) to
start a dialogue about how we change the course.
Forget it. Bush is not going to budge until the American people
tell him enough is enough.
Helen Thomas writes for Hearst Newspapers.
© 2005 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
10 OpinionJournal: Power to the People
John Fund on the Trail
November 28, 2005
The Federalist Patriot
The Internet's most widely subscribed conservative journal
invites you to visit our PatriotShop.USfor distinctive gifts.
THE op-ed page for conservatives
Washington policy makers stand in the way of
sensible energy policies.
Monday, November 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
After Hurricane Katrina temporarily knocked out 30% of America's
oil refinery capacity and caused gasoline prices to spike, it
became dramatically obvious that the nation needed to build more
refineries away from the vulnerable Gulf Coast. But when a bill
to streamline the permitting process and provide incentives to
build refineries on closed military bases was headed for the
Senate floor, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R., R.I.) joined with every
Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee and blocked the
bill.
Mr. Chafee says he opposed the bill only because it lacked
provisions to develop alternative fuels and raise fuel-economy
standards, although he offered no amendments to that effect. But
even if conservation takes center stage in the future, existing
energy sources must be expanded now before the economy's health
is jeopardized. A just published report by the New England
Energy Alliance warns that "energy shortages could be acute
soon--by 2010 at the latest" if policy makers in the region
don't act aggressively. Unfortunately, Mr. Chafee and other
senators appear more concerned about fending off the aggressive
criticism of the green lobby. Mr. Chafee's spokesman noted there
is strong local opposition in Rhode Island to using two
shuttered military bases to add refinery capacity.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, chairman of the Environment
Committee, says he personally urged Mr. Chafee to back his bill,
noting that the nation hasn't built a new refinery since 1976.
"He sweats a lot," Mr. Inhofe told Human Events, referring to
his fellow Republican's re-election battle next year. "He said,
'I just can't do that. I have to win that election. Right now I
have a perfect record with the environmentalists.' "
Mr. Inhofe then approached some committee Democrats who he knew
were under pressure from home-state businesses to vote for the
bill. They rebuffed him too. Noting that a House-passed bill to
streamline refinery permitting also failed to get even one
Democratic vote, Mr. Inhofe concludes the nation's refinery
policy is now being held hostage to partisan politics. "In the
next election, high gas prices will be one of the Democrats' big
campaign issues."
But on other energy issues it's Republicans standing in the way
of progress. This month, House leaders had to bow to the demands
of some two dozen GOP moderates and strip a budget bill of
provisions to allow exploration for oil on Alaska's North Slope
and permit states like Virginia that wanted to opt out of
moratoriums on oil and natural gas exploration off their coasts
to do so. Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, has been
touting a "windfall profits" tax, even though the net profit
margin of oil and gas companies on the Standard &Poor's 500 is
9%, barely above the S average of 8%.
Some members of Congress still believe their demagoguery somehow
restrains prices. Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) told CNBC's Larry
Kudlow that "the energy companies push [prices] to the ultimate
limit until Congress is raging mad on both sides of the aisle
and then retreat with their prices."
In reality, high energy prices are often the direct consequence
of misguided government policy. After House leaders were forced
to remove natural gas drilling provisions from the budget, Jack
Gerard of the American Chemistry Council said he was
"flabbergasted that some in Congress continue to live in a
fantasy world, in which the government encourages use of
clean-burning natural gas while cutting off supply, and then
they wonder why prices go through the roof." Natural gas prices
recently spiked at $14 per million BTUs, the highest in the
world and the equivalent of $7 a gallon gasoline.
Not only will such price spikes increase the cost of heating
homes this winter, but they are already costing jobs. Andrew
Leveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, testified before Congress this
month that high energy prices were a major reason that Dow has
closed 23 of its plants in North America, shedding 7,000 of its
25,000 U.S. jobs. Out of 120 chemical plants currently under
construction around the world, only one is being built in the
U.S. More than 50 are going up in China, where natural gas costs
half of what it does in the U.S.
Given the parochial interests that are retarding a sensible
energy policy, national leadership is necessary to avoid
continued gridlock. President Bush has been tarred as a tool of
oil companies ever since his days working in a Texas oil patch,
but the American people also intuitively feel that something is
out of whack with energy. They are willing to listen to
straight, direct talk.
Example: Polls show that the public is now much more willing to
consider an expanded role for nuclear power, an environmentally
clean way of generating electricity that could also someday help
to make hydrogen cars or other alternative means of powering
cars economically viable. New plant designs have laid to rest
many fears about the safety of nuclear power plants and Mr. Bush
now appears to ready to announce a major initiative to promote
nuclear energy and also help discourage developing countries
from making plutonium that can also be used to manufacture
nuclear weapons.
In light of the Nimby opposition to storing spent nuclear fuel
from utilities at the Yucca waste repository in Nevada, the Bush
administration is likely to announce plans to have Washington
step in--using a national security justification--and take the
spent nuclear fuel off of the hands of utilities. It would then
be stored at a federal facility in Nevada where a fuel recycling
facility could be built. Fuel could also be recycled at the
Savannah River national laboratory in South Carolina. Federal
recycling facilities could handle fuel not just for U.S.
utilities, but also for those nations who would be willing to
give up plans to develop a complete nuclear fuel cycle.
That would help with the campaign against proliferation of
nuclear weapons as well as improve the environment and spur
economic growth in the developing world. "The U.S. could
encourage the use of cleaner nuclear technology by offering to
reprocess nuclear fuel on their behalf," says James Lucier, an
energy analyst with Prudential Securities. "Why should
fast-growing India burn cow dung if it can use nice American
uranium?"
Expect a firestorm of controversy when the new Bush nuclear
policy is announced. Environmental groups, which have long
trumpeted national mandates for everything, will suddenly
discover states' rights and rail against federal intrusion. But
for every political action there is often an equal and opposite
reaction. If members of Congress are afraid to challenge the
orthodoxies of the green lobby, they can't be too surprised if
President Bush exercises national leadership in a dramatic way
to make sure the lights stay on while Washington fiddles. Some
of them may privately even be thankful someone is willing to
break a small part of the energy gridlock.
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: US Congressman backs Indo-US nuclear pact
Mon Nov 28, 8:20 AM ET
NEW DELHI (AFP) - A US legislator and well-known critic of
Indian policies in Kashmir" /> has backed a landmark pact that
would let New Delhi buy civilian nuclear technology, the Press
Trust of India said.
"I am leaning towards the nuclear agreement," said Congressman
Dan Burton, R-IN, a senior member of the Foreign Relations
Committee in the US House of Representatives.
"But we want a definite separation between civilian and military
(components of India's nuclear programme). If that is assured, I
am quite sure it will be addressed," he said on the sidelines of
a meeting with delegates of an Indian trade promotion group.
In July, the United States said it would change laws and work to
amend international treaties designed to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons and allow India to buy civilian nuclear
technology.
In return, New Delhi, which tested nuclear weapons in May 1998,
would have to identify its military and civilian nuclear
facilities and place the later under International Atomic Energy
Agency" /> (IAEA) inspections.
Burton, a Republican from Indiana, has been a critic of India's
human rights record in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir,
which has been in the grip of a 16-year-old insurgency that has
left more than 44,000 people dead.
But Burton's remarks on Monday sounded a more positive note,
particularly at a time when many US lawmakers have raised
concerns about exchanging nuclear technology with India.
Both houses of the US Congress must approve the July 18
agreement signed by US President George Bush" /> and Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in order for the deal to take
effect.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 [du-list] India working on using DU for nuclear energy?
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:11:01 -0800
"The second stage reprocesses the spent nuclear fuel and uses the recovered
plutonium in fast breeder reactors so that non-fissile depleted uranium and
thorium can breed additional fissile nuclear fuel, plutonium and uranium-233.
In the third stage, thorium and uranium-233 based nuclear reactors can meet
long-term energy needs."
http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=54296
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
13 Pace Picks Up For Signing Of UN Nuclear Inspection Protocol
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:01:22 -0500
With Belarus and Malaysia signing a protocol that allows more effective nuclear inspections in their countries, 106 States have signed the important verification tool, with 16 signing this year alone, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations.
"On the whole, 2005 has been a good year in terms of States concluding
comprehensive safeguards agreements and additional protocols,"
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
"However, it is important that we continue and accelerate this trend."
The additional protocol must become the universal standard
for verifying nuclear non-proliferation commitments, Dr. ElBaradei
recently reaffirmed, noting that the expanded access provided by
the additional protocol "had proven its worth".
The Model Additional Protocol was agreed upon in 1997 to strengthen
the <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/safeguardsrights.html">IAEA
safeguards system, based on the wake-up call caused
by the discovery of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons programme.
Once in force, such protocols provide IAEA inspectors with better
tools to ensure that States have no undeclared nuclear material
or activities that should have been reported to the Agency.
2005-11-28 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
14 Xinhua: India, US reaffirm partnership in non-proliferation
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-28 20:34:15
NEW DELHI, Nov. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- India and the United
States on Monday repeated their resolve to be partners in global
efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and agreed to join hands to promote a more stable
Asia.
"India is a partner in global non-proliferation efforts
rather than a target of these efforts," Indo-Asian News Service
quoted India's Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran as saying at the
India Economic Summit.
US Undersecretary of Commerce David H. McCormick, here to
co-chair a meeting of the High Technology Cooperation Group
(HTCG), said the US-India civil nuclear energy pact "represented
a significant step by confirming our joint commitment to playing
a leading role internationally to prevent proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction."
Referring to the energy pact signed during Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington in July, Saran
said the agreement had radically transformed bilateral relations
from one of "estrangement" to a "growing convergence of
interests" between the two countries.
Placing the growing relations in a larger global context,
Saran said, "There is a major realignment of forces in Asia.
India and the US can contribute to a much better balance in the
Asian region."
The United States has stressed that the success of the civil
nuclear energy deal depends on India's presentation of a
"credible plan" for separating its civil and nuclear facilities
before the Bush Administration pushes legislation in Congress to
implement the historic agreement.
New Delhi has agreed to this, but emphasized that it will do
the separation on its own and not accept any limitations on its
strategic nuclear program.
McCormick, who is here on a week-long visit, will meet
Indian officials to discuss recent developments in US export
licensing policies for India's civil space and civil nuclear
power programs. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 [epa-impact] Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuance
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:41:37 -0500 (EST)
X-Fingerprint: bounce-428369-485116@lists.epa.gov-127.127
http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/November/Day-28/
=======================================================================
[Federal Register: November 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 71335]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28no05-90]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72-27]
Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuance of Materials
License SNM-2514 for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Materials License.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager,
Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Telephone: (301) 415-1336; fax number: (301) 415-8555; e-mail:
jrh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or the Commission) has issued Materials License No. SNM-2514 to the
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the receipt, possession,
storage, and transfer of spent fuel at the Humboldt Bay Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to be located in Humboldt
County, California. This Materials License is issued under the
provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 72 (10
CFR part 72), and is effective as of the date of issuance. A license
for an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 72 is issued for 20 years, but the
licensee may seek to renew the license prior to its expiration.
The Humboldt Bay ISFSI is licensed to provide interim storage in a
dry cask storage system for up to 31 metric tons of uranium contained
in intact and damaged fuel assemblies and associated radioactive
materials resulting from the operation of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant,
Unit 3. The dry cask storage system authorized for use is a site-
specific version of the HI-STAR 100 system, designated as the HI-STAR
HB system, designed by Holtec International.
Following receipt of PG&E's application dated December 15, 2003,
the NRC staff published a ``Notice of Docketing, Notice of Proposed
Action, and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing for a Materials License
for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation'' in
the Federal Register on February 11, 2004 (69 FR 6701). In conjunction
with the issuance of this license, the staff published a ``Notice of
Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation,'' in the Federal Register on November 16, 2005 (70 FR
69605). The staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) considered the
impacts of the construction, operation and decommissioning of an ISFSI
at the Humboldt Bay site, including impacts resulting from the use of
the HI-STAR HB dry cask storage system. The staff has determined that
no significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed
Humboldt Bay ISFSI.
The NRC staff has completed its environmental, safeguards, and
safety reviews of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI license application and safety
analysis report, as amended. The NRC staff issued Materials License No.
SNM-2514 and its Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for the Humboldt Bay
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on November 17, 2005.
Further details with respect to this action are provided in the
application dated December 15, 2003, as amended October 1, 2004; the
staff's EA, dated November 16, 2005; Materials License SNM-2514 and the
staff's SER, dated November 17, 2005; and other related documents,
which are publicly available in the records component of NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). These
documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Persons
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Licensing Section, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-6549 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/
------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-485116N@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.
For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
16 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Dec. 7-10 in Rockville, Maryland
News Release - 2005-16 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-160 November 28,
2005
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting Dec. 7-10
in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant request to increase power output by
20 percent. The committee will also discuss the early site
permit application and safety evaluation report for the Grand
Gulf nuclear power plant.
The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. On Wednesday, the
session will run from 1 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. The Thursday session
will run from 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. The Friday session will run
from 8:30 a.m. to 6:45 p.m and the Saturday session will run
from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. A complete agenda will be available on
the NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/.
Requests for videoteleconferencing should be directed to Theron
Brown, at 301-415-8066. Anyone with questions or those wanting
to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam
Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364.
The ACRS, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, advises the Commission on licensing, the operation of
nuclear power plants and related safety issues.
Last revised Monday, November 28, 2005
*****************************************************************
17 RIA Novosti: China's NPP to get unique Russian containment system
28/ 11/ 2005
LIANYUNGANG (China), November 28 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Yefimov)
- A unique Russian containment system is being installed at the
Tianwan nuclear power plant in China, the head of state-owned
Atomstroiexport's branch in Lianyungang said Monday.
The company is building the first and second units of the
nuclear power plant in Lianyungang in the Jiangsu province under
a 1992 relevant intergovernmental agreement.
"The containment system rules out the possibility of a
radiation release and environmental pollution," Alexander
Selikhov said.
He called the system a unique Russian invention.
"No similar devices have been installed at other [nuclear power]
plants in the world," Selikhov said.
He also said the Tianwan NPP had four security systems, instead
of the usual three.
According to Selikhov, the nuclear power plant could stand a
magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Richter Scale. Chief engineer Ma
Yi said the plant was highly reliable and immune to possible
terrorist attacks.
The first unit is to be launched in January 2006. China wants
Russia to build the third and fourth units.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
18 BBC: Blair to unveil 'nuclear option'
Last Updated: Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[Dungeness nuclear power station]
The CBI has warned of a possible energy crisis
Tony Blair is likely to use a speech to business leaders at the
CBI to launch a review of UK energy policy which could lead to
new nuclear power stations.
Mr Blair is believed to view nuclear power as a way to improve
the security of the UK's energy supply and also help the UK meet
its greenhouse gas targets.
He has also said ministers must make "difficult and
controversial" choices.
The energy review will be headed by the Energy Minister Malcolm
Wicks and report by the middle of next year.
Business leaders want a decision made quickly, while green groups
want clean and safe alternatives to fossil fuels.
Weather warning
The prime minister is expected to announce the terms of reference
for the energy review during his speech to the Confederation of
British Industry annual conference in London.
The government's energy revi must show that nuclear power is
unnecessary, as well as unsafe and uneconomic Tony Juniper
Friends of the Earth Plugging the energy gap
Last week Mr Blair said a debate was needed because by 2020 the
amount of energy from nuclear power would fall from just over 20%
to 4%, and trying to meet that shortfall through renewable
sources was "going to be difficult".
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the prime minister had
been convinced building more nuclear power stations was the only
way to meet the country's energy needs and stick to the targets
on climate change.
Also last week Mr Blair's chief scientific adviser Sir David King
publicly called for the government to give the green light for
new nuclear power stations.
Any moves to do so would provoke strong opposition from some
Labour MPs.
Ex-environment minister Michael Meacher said at prime minister's
questions he preferred a steady increase in renewable energy,
saying nuclear power was expensive, a terrorist target and
produced hazardous waste.
And David Willetts, the shadow trade and industry secretary,
criticised the review's timing.
"A leak from the DTI in May showed that civil servants were
calling on the government to start an energy review, but it has
taken them seven months and an energy crisis to get things
rolling," he said.
'Rubber stamp'
Norman Baker, the Lib Dems environment spokesman, said: "The
suspicion must be that Tony Blair has already decided to advocate
an increase in the use of nuclear power - this review will serve
little purpose if the prime minister has already made up his
mind.
He called for an extension of nuclear power to be ruled out and
for the focus to be on cleaner renewable energy.
Environmentalists Friends of the Earth said the government's
energy review should not rubber stamp a new generation of nuclear
power stations.
They argue a programme to reduce electricity waste, be more
efficient with fossil fuels and increase renewable energy use
will help the UK meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gases
while maintaining fuel security.
The group wants to meet Mr Blair to discuss other options which
it says will reduce carbon dioxide levels.
Lights 'on'
"The UK can meet its targets for tackling climate change and
maintain fuel security by using clean, safe alternatives that are
already available," says Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the
Earth.
"The UK could be a world leader in developing a low-carbon
nuclear-free economy."
The debate over nuclear power comes amid the recent sharp
increase in the price of gas, and CBI warnings a possible energy
crisis could reduce Britain to a three-day week this winter.
However, Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson insisted the
lights across Britain would not go out this winter "under any
scenario whatsoever".
b
*****************************************************************
19 Herald: Could the climate be changing for Britain’s nuclear option?
Web Issue 2408 November 28 2005
VICKY COLLINS November 28 2005
It is a sunny day in May, 1978, and Britain's first major
protest against nuclear power stations is taking place on the
east coast of Scotland. Nearly 4000 people are camped in a field
six miles from Dunbar.
They are listening to music and learning the tricks of peaceful
protest from those in the movement who are marginally more
experienced in such things.
Peter Roche is there, amazed at the numbers who have turned out
to try to stop Torness nuclear power station from being built.
"We felt at the time that we were creating the anti-nuclear
movement," he remembers. "Groups like Friends of the Earth and
Greenpeace were in their infancy, but we still managed to get
all these people to come."
It was a different time then. Chernobyl was still to come and
the general public had not begun to worry seriously about the
disposal of nuclear waste or what would happen when the atomic
plants reached the end of their lifespan. Their main motivation
was what they believed was the misuse of public money.
"Everyone there just had this impression of a government way
down in Westminster that was doing stupid things with taxpayers'
money in Scotland," says Roche.
That battle was lost, but the anti-nuclear movement has become
powerful in the years since so much so that Roche recalls a
time, not so long ago, when he was beginning to feel that he and
his fellow anti-nuclear campaigners had won the war. Now,
however, he is preparing to enter the fray all over again.
Next week, Tony Blair will set out the terms of a wide-ranging
review into the future sources of the UK's energy. With climate
change, security of supply, and the rising price of gas all
putting pressure on energy policy, the review is expected to
examine the possibilities of nuclear power, despite it being
described as an unattractive option just two years ago in the
energy white paper.
The review will lead to a decision in principle by the middle
of next year on whether to replace Britain's ageing nuclear
plants.
Roche is preparing to fight any such proposals, which he again
believes would be a waste of public money. "Nuclear plants are
simply not cost-effective," he said.
Looking at their record in Britain to date, that seems true.
When Margaret Thatcher decided to privatise the nuclear
industry, what emerged was a business so inefficient that
private investors baulked at the prospect of involvement.
Initial building costs of around Ł2bn, the even higher price of
decommissioning (Dounreay in Caithness is expected to cost more
than Ł2.7bn), and the money spent on disposing of waste made
nuclear power incapable of competing with coal and gas.
The government admitted partial defeat. The 12 oldest nuclear
power stations of which half are still operating today
remain in the public sector.
Privatisation of the remaining eight nuclear power stations
proved a disaster, with British Energy being forced to go
cap-in-hand to the government in 2002, seeking immediate and
massive financial support to keep it afloat. The government had
little choice but to provide it.
So much for the claim by the proponents of nuclear power that
it would produce electricity too cheap to meter.
However, the arguments over cost-effectiveness may not hold
water in the future.
The technology has undoubtedly moved on and government figures
show that Britain's latest nuclear reactor the 10-year-old
Sizewell B is producing energy at a cost of 6pence/kilowatt
hour (p/kWH), even when the costs of building, running, and
decommissioning the station are taken into account.
New-build nuclear plants are likely to be even more efficient,
with some predictions placing future prices as low as 3p/kWH by
2020. They are also claimed to be safer, with third generation
reactors in the US using a much simpler and more effective
cooling system one of the most important components of a
nuclear plant because it prevents the core from melting.
True, gas and coal remain cheaper at just over 2p/kWH. However,
this is where the argument becomes complicated. Climate change
and the UK's commitment to reduce polluting emissions mean coal
is no longer the easy option.
European regulations have forced ScottishPower to commit to
closing its plants at Cockenzie and Longannet by the end of 2015
rather than fitting pollution-reducing filters, which would cost
Ł400m.
And these filters designed to reduce the gases that cause
acid rain do nothing to tackle CO2 emissions. Technologies for
cutting these would add to the costs which operators of
coal-powered plants will have to meet if they wish to continue.
Coal, in short, is likely to become an increasingly expensive
method of energy generation.
As is gas, for completely different reasons. The fossil fuel
was originally seen as the best back-up for renewable energy
sources, as it is less polluting than coal and is in plentiful
supply close to Britain's shores.
At least it used to be. North Sea supplies are running out and
the UK has to import gas to meet demand even though it
accounts for only a third of electricity generated across the
country and 6% of energy consumed in Scotland. To rely even more
heavily on this form of generation could necessitate good
relations with places like Russia and the Middle East, possibly
tying the UK government's hands in the event of political
disputes.
Then, there are renewables. These are looking promising, with a
recent report for the Scottish Executive predicting that the
potential for renewable energy both onshore and offshore is so
great in Scotland that it could, one day, account for 75% of the
UK's energy capacity.
That day is a long way off, though. Onshore wind development is
progressing quickly and, according to some estimates, the cost
of producing energy this way has already come down to around
7p/kWH, with further reductions likely as the technology
continues to improve.
There is, however, one major barrier to windfarms public
opinion.
Already, the growing number of turbines has led to the
formation of community campaign groups, who are joining forces
to create national organisations and attracting the support of
well-known names such as David Bellamy and Prince Charles.
It is unlikely that windfarms can proliferate indefinitely.
Other technologies are still at an early stage. Trials of wave
and tidal energy generators are ongoing off the north coast of
Scotland and there are plans for the creation of the country's
first offshore windfarm, in the Moray Firth. Biomass, carbon
capture, and other methods of reducing pollution are also being
explored.
The time it will take these forms of energy generation to make
a significant contribution means the government targets for
renewables are already ambitious: the Scottish Executive wants
them to produce 40% of electricity by 2020.
To expect renewables to meet the gap left by coal, as well as
by the closure of the nuclear power plants that will be
decommissioned over the next two decades, and to have an
increasingly unreliable gas supply as the only back-up, would be
folly.
In light of these issues, nuclear begins to seem a reasonable
option. It has the potential to be cleaner, cheaper, and more
reliable than coal and gas might be in the future.
Some countries have already put their faith in it, most notably
France. Bruce Cromby, founder and president of the Paris-based
international campaign group Environmentalists for Nuclear
Energy, believes it is the only green solution available.
"The planet is facing a major crisis today. We are dependent on
the huge amounts of energy we use yet the climate is warming and
we have to do something now about this crisis that the world is
facing.
"The French experience is that it takes a long time to build a
new nuclear plant and around quarter of a century to develop an
effective nuclear programme.
"I am pleased Tony Blair is now considering nuclear, but he
needs to make a decision quickly because climate change is going
to start affecting us in less than 25 years. Whatever can be
done with renewables will be welcomed, but we should not
overestimate their power. The solution is only one, and that is
nuclear."
Nuclear could provide the back-up so essential to renewable
technologies, which will never be able to meet the country's
energy needs alone because of fluctuations in the strength of
wind, wave, and tide.
However, if nuclear is given the go-ahead, the government will
have significant barriers to overcome in order to avoid
widespread opposition.
Foremost of these are safety concerns. Even if the new
generation of reactors are as reliable as is claimed, it will be
difficult to convince a public who have been made sceptical by
repeated safety breaches.
Three Mile Island suffered the United States' worst-ever
nuclear accident in 1979. One of the two reactors on the
Susquehanna River was shut down permanently after it overheated.
The facility lost coolant water and appeared in danger of
meltdown as radioactive gases leaked into the atmosphere.
The horror caused by the disaster in Chernobyl in 1986 is also
unlikely to be forgotten.
In 1999, two workers died following a breach of safety
regulations at a plant in Japan and a year later the UK Atomic
Energy Agency was fined more than Ł100,000 for two major safety
breaches at the Dounreay plant one of which resulted in three
workers being contaminated with radiation.
A catalogue of smaller incidents in the UK, reported quarterly
by the Health and Safety Executive, continue to damage public
confidence in those responsible for safety at plants.
The advantages of choosing nuclear could well be many, but they
have yet to be proved. The one certainty about choosing this
option is also its main drawback: public acceptance will be
extremely hard to win.
"I will be back out there protesting at any attempts to build
new nuclear power stations," Mr Roche said.
"Nuclear power has had its chance and it failed. Why should we
give it another go?"
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
20 Herald: Beckett points to new era of nuclear power
Web Issue 2408 November 28 2005
MICHAEL SETTLE, Chief UK Political Correspondent
November 28 2005
ANOTHER sign that the government is preparing the ground for a
new generation of nuclear power stations came yesterday when
Margaret Beckett, arguably the cabinet's biggest "nuclear
sceptic'', conceded it might be needed to combat global warming.
As environmentalists and politicians opposed to the nuclear
option warned against backing a new build programme, the
environment secretary was asked whether she stood by her view
that nuclear was not a sustainable form of energy generation.
"I don't think you can argue that it meets the definition of
sustainability because it means not leaving a legacy for future
generations at all in any circumstances," she said.
"But that's a separate issue from saying, however, despite those
enormous problems, you're driven to it by other considerations
such as climate change. I've always accepted that that could
happen, very reluctantly on my part, but I've accepted that it
could happen."
At present, nuclear power meets just under a quarter of the
UK's energy needs; by 2010 that will fall to just 4% if none of
the current power stations is replaced. In Scotland, 50% of
energy needs are met by nuclear power.
While the government is increasing its use of renewables such as
wind and wave power, it still is expected to miss its target of
reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010. Tomorrow at the CBI's
annual conference, Tony Blair is due to announce a major energy
review. He has already spoken of the need to take difficult and
controversial decisions.
Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, has
argued for nuclear power being part of a mixed energy portfolio.
Yesterday he courted more controversy. In a leaked memo he
suggested putting a levy on consumers' power bills to pay for up
to 20 new nuclear power stations, his argument being that this
would ensure a resurgent nuclear industry traditionally a
lossmaker would have three or four decades of guaranteed
profit.
The leaked memo of his meeting with senior nuclear energy
executives also showed he wanted Britain to aim at having 35% of
its future electricity needs met by nuclear power.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth said: "The
government's chief scientific officer should be advising the
government about various options that exist for tackling climate
change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign. Even before it's
begun, the energy review risks being a sham."
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: NRC Renews Millstone Nuclear Power Station Operating Licenses for an Additional 20 Years
News Release - 2005-16
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail:
opa@nrc.gov No. 05-161 November 28, 2005
licenses of the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3, for an
additional 20 years.
The Millstone plant is located about 3 miles southwest of New
London, Conn. The licensee, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
submitted its license renewal applications on Jan. 20, 2004.
With the renewal, the license for Unit 2 is extended to July 31,
2035, and the license for Unit 3 is extended to Nov. 25, 2045.
The NRCs environmental review for this license renewal is
described in a site-specific supplement to the NRCs Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants (NUREG-1437, Supplement 22), issued in July. The
review concluded there were no environmental impacts that would
preclude renewal of the licenses for environmental reasons. A
public meeting to discuss the environmental review was held near
the plant on Jan. 11.
After carefully reviewing the plants safety systems and
specifications, the staff concluded that there were no safety
concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the
licensee had demonstrated the capability to manage the effects
of plant aging. The Safety Evaluation Report Related to the
License Renewal of the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3
(NUREG-1838), was published in October. In addition, NRC
conducted inspections of the plants to verify information
submitted by the licensee. The reports relating to the Millstone
renewal are available on the NRC Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons/millstone.html.
On Sept. 22, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards an
independent body of technical experts which advises the
Commission issued its recommendation that the operating license
for Millstone be renewed. That recommendation is contained in
Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Applications
for the Millstone Power Station, Units 2 and 3. This document is
available on the NRC Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2005/.
The Millstone renewals bring the total number of renewals to 37
reactor units. A complete listing of renewal applications can be
found on the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons.html.
Last revised Monday, November 28, 2005
*****************************************************************
22 Platts: Regulators approve replacement of Diablo Canyon steam generators
London (Platts)--25Nov2005
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) received the go-ahead from
California regulators late last week to spend up to $815-million
replacing eight steam generators at the two-reactor Diablo Canyon
station.
The authorization the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) issued Nov. 18 allows PG&E to avert an early shutdown of
the 2,323-MW nuclear power plant. PG&E has said the station
likely would have to shut down around 2014, only 29 years after
unit 1 began operating, if it could not replace the steam
generators.
The change-outs are slated for 2007 and 2008 (NW, 23 Sept. '04,
3). Spanish nuclear parts manufacturer Equipos Nucleares is
scheduled to deliver the replacement generators, which will be
fabricated at its factory in Santander in northern Spain, between
2007 and 2008.
The replacement generators will have tubes made of
corrosion-resistant alloy 690, rather than the alloy 600 used for
the plant's existing steam generator tubes, the company said.
In a separate, but related move, PG&E plans to seek California
regulators' approval next month for a $19-million study on the
feasibility of renewing the NRC operating licenses for Diablo
Canyon-1 and -2. The request will be part of a general rate case
request that the utility plans to send to the CPUC in December
(NW, 4 Aug., 4).
Without the renewal, the licenses for Diablo Canyon-1 and -2
would expire in 2021 and 2025, respectively. This story was
originally published in Platts Nucleonics Week. Request a free
trial at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
23 Platts: EDF's 'safety benefits' analysis shows many backfits unjustified
+ Nearly all the safety benefit of plant modifications envisaged
for the 30th-year outages of Electricite de France's (EDF)
oldest reactors is attributable to only nine modifications that
altogether cost less than one-third of expenditures projected
for the total potential backfit package, EDF found in applying a
new method of cost/benefit analysis.
Moreover, the analysis showed, several backfits to which EDF has
already committed, including in agreements with safety
authorities, fall into the group of low-priority actions as
determined by EDF's calculation of safety benefit.
The analysis showed that sometimes a relatively simple
modification, such as planned automation of reactors' fuel
handling systems, makes a major contribution to safety by
reducing the probability of human error. Conversely, a planned
major (and expensive) seismic upgrade at the Bugey PWR plant,
EDF's second-oldest, was found to have relatively low safety
benefit, said Alain Dubreuil Chambardel of EDF's Septen basic
design department.
However, he said, EDF will carry out the seismic upgrade anyway
because it is one of several backfits the utility agreed on with
regulators in the runup to the 30th-year outages. "We aren't
going to go back on our commitments," he told Inside NRC.
The 30th-year outages at EDF's 900-MW-class PWRs are scheduled to
start in 2009 and end in 2020, covering a total of 34 units.
Their success is critical to EDF's strategy of operating its
reactors for 40 years or longer. EDF developed the new approach
at the prodding of nuclear regulatory authority DGSNR, which has
said it is open to risk-informed approaches to safety backfits
provided they are justified in a rigorous way (Nucleonics Week, 6
June '03, 5).
Under the French nuclear regulatory system, EDF is required to do
safety reassessments of its reactors every 10 years and to
specify a package of modifications to be implemented during each
unit's decennial outage.
(EDF tries to maintain as much standardization as possible across
a series, despite smaller changes over the years that tend to
differentiate between reactors in the same series.)
Safety authorities must sign off on the proposed backfit package.
For the 900-MW plants, the 30th-year backfit package is currently
under study by nuclear regulatory agency DGSNR and its technical
support organization (TSO), the Institute of Radiological
Protection and Nuclear Safety.
Dubreuil Chambardel presented results of the safety
benefits/costs analysis of the proposed backfit package to the
Eurosafe meeting sponsored by French, German and Belgian TSOs in
Brussels. His paper was co-authored by Jean-Pierre Roux of EDF's
nuclear generation division and N. Gimet-Meca of its center for
engineering of operating plants, CIPN. This story was published
in full in Platts Inside NRC. Request a free trial at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
London (Platts)--28Nov2005
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
24 UK: Independent: Yes please? No thanks? For and against nuclear power
Today, Tony Blair signals the first step to a new generation of
nuclear power stations. What are the pros and cons?
Published: 29 November 2005
Five reasons for nuclear power
1 Generating electricity by nuclear reactors does not produce
carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas causing global
warming and climate change. Britain's existing nuclear power
plants reduce the nation's carbon emissions by between 7 and 14
per cent.
2 Building new nuclear power stations will ensure the nation
retains control over its own sources of energy. Security of
supply is essential in an unstable world where oil and gas comes
mainly from regions that could hold Britain to ransom by
threatening to disrupt supplies.
3 Nuclear power is a mature technology and has proven
reliability. It has been developed over 50 years and the latest
reactors are reliable, clean and efficient. The last 10 nuclear
reactors to be built in the world have been delivered on time
and to their budget.
4 Generating electricity by nuclear power is a 24/7 operation
and is not subject to the vagaries of wind, sun or tides. It can
be fine-tuned to meet peak demand and will not let us down in
the depths of winter.
5 As a founder member of the nuclear club, Britain has the
expertise to operate the new nuclear-fission reactors. By
building new fission reactors Britain will be well placed to
develop cleaner fusion reactors.
Five reasons against nuclear power
1 Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that remains
dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The Government still
does not know what to do with the waste that has accumulated
from more than 50 years of nuclear power. Costs of disposal are
estimated at about Ł56bn.
2 The technology of generating electricity from nuclear fission
can also be used to produce nuclear weapons. Civil nuclear power
has been used for a covert nuclear weapons programme by several
regimes. Zimbabwe is the latest country suspected.
3 Nuclear power stations are a target for terrorist attack.
Terrorists are already believed to have targeted nuclear power
plants, including one in Australia. Waste and fuel shipments are
also at risk of being hijacked and used to manufacture a "dirty"
bomb.
4 The legacy of Chernobyl proves nuclear power is not without
enormous risk. Although the risk may be small, the consequences
of a catastrophic accident are immense.
5 Nuclear power is not carbon free. Fossil fuels are needed to
run the nuclear cycle, from mining the uranium ore and shipping
it to Britain, to disposing of the huge volumes of radioactive
waste.
© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
25 Independent: Nuclear power: Divided opinions
Published: 29 November 2005
Professor Ian Fells, professor of energy conversion at Newcastle
University:
"As you look to the future, security of supply is very
important, so nuclear is inevitable. We are beginning to realise
we need a more mixed energy supply. The rise in gas prices is
startling but predictable. If there is no replacement nuclear
energy after the stations are closed, by 2020 we will become
dependent on importing natural gas from Russia and Nigeria."
Bernard Jenkin, Tory energy spokesman:
"Ministers should not champion technologies. It's not for
ministers to decide whether nuclear is the most effective way of
producing electricity without carbon. That is a technical
decision which I don't think ministers are qualified to take.
Personally I am agnostic, I feel no objections in principle. It
can be safe and I don't feel waste is a technically fundamental
problem. It's a political problem and been overcome in other
countries."
Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth director:
"The UK can meet its targets for tackling climate change and
maintain fuel security by using clean, safe alternatives already
available. But these have been underplayed by the Prime
Minister, who has fallen for the nuclear industry's PR campaign.
The review must cut through this spin, promote the clean, safe
measures we know will meet our needs, and show nuclear power is
unnecessary - as well as unsafe and uneconomic."
Peter Law, independent MP for Blaenau Gwent, part of the old
Welsh coalfield:
"I'm not for nuclear power because the consequences of it going
wrong are so great, and we cannot afford to have another
Chernobyl here. I suppose I have to accept that carbon emissions
are lifting the global warming problem, but I think they should
look more at tidal sources, like the Severn. There is a lot of
water coming down the mountains as well."
John Thurso, Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross, which includes the Dounreay nuclear power station:
"There may be a case for a new generation of civil nuclear power
but three issues need to be addressed - the cost, how waste is
dealt with and the amount of carbon emissions for each form of
energy. Every person you talk to about energy generation seems
to be in a camp and puts forward data that favours them."
Stephen Tindale, executive director, Greenpeace:
"Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change - it's
costly, dangerous and a terrorist target. Only three years ago
Blair conducted the biggest energy review in 60 years, and
concluded that renewable energy and energy efficiency, not
nuclear, was the way forward. Another energy review is simply a
smokescreen for pushing his enthusiasm for nuclear power.
Nuclear power is simply a dangerous red herring in this debate."
© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
26 Independent: Nuclear power: We are heading for an energy gap, but what can
fill it?
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 29 November 2005
Why is nuclear power suddenly in the news again?
The Government is reviewing energy policy and it will soon have
to make a decision on whether to build new nuclear power
stations. Many of the current ones will be decommissioned within
20 years.
It can take 10 years to build a nuclear power station, meanwhile
our energy demands are expected to rise, and Britain's supply of
natural gas from the North Sea is declining. Experts believe
that if nothing is done soon then British power stations will be
unable to supply 20 per cent of the country's peak demand for
electricity in 10 years time. In short we are heading for an
energy gap and some people see nuclear power as the only way we
can fill it.
Why can't Britain just buy more gas or oil from abroad?
Much of this oil and gas comes from unstable regions of the
world or is transported through them. Russia could supply much
of our needs but there is some reluctance to rely heavily on
another country for our strategic supplies.
But another more compelling reason why we can't just carry on
burning more fossil fuel is that this generates greenhouse gases
and Tony Blair is committed to reducing Britain's CO2 emissions
by 20 per cent by 2010 - a target that we are unlikely to hit.
In short, Britain has to think of ways of generating electricity
that do not involve burning fossil fuels. This leaves nuclear
and renewable sources of energy.
How much does nuclear power contribute now to Britain's energy
demand?
Nuclear power stations generate up to a quarter of energy
requirements. By 2020 nuclear power is expected to fall to less
than a third of its current level as ageing power stations are
shut down. Britain has 31 operating nuclear reactors at 14 power
stations.
Is nuclear power clean?
Generating electricity by nuclear fission does not produce
carbon dioxide, the principle greenhouse gas. Nuclear power is
estimated to reduce Britain's total greenhouse gas emissions by
between 7 and 14 per cent. But mining the uranium fuel for
fission reactors requires energy in the form of fossil fuel, so
strictly speaking nuclear power generation is not entirely
carbon free.
Another problem with nuclear power is what to do with the
radioactive waste that it generates. At present Britain is
storing this waste temporarily at the sites where it is
generated, unless it is sent for reprocessing at Sellafield in
Cumbria. Sellafield has a sorry history of polluting the sea and
air with radioactive elements. But it has improved in recent
years and the latest reactors are far cleaner and more efficient
than those designed 40 or 50 years ago.
How much nuclear waste is there and what are we going to do with
it?
Britain's radioactive waste would fill several Albert Halls but
this includes the low-level stuff that is not particularly
dangerous. It is the high-level waste which can remain
radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years that is causing
the biggest problem.
The Government committee of experts is looking at what to do
with this waste and they are due to make their recommendations
next year. One option is to leave the waste where it is but in
more secure buildings, another is to bury it permanently.
Why do we need nuclear when we can develop clean energy from
renewable sources?
This is at the heart of the debate. Wind, wave, solar and other
renewable sources are carbon free and do not carry the safety
risks attached to nuclear power and its associated radioactive
waste.
Not everyone believes these renewable energy sources can fill
the energy gap created by a decline in natural gas and nuclear
power. The critics say that the technology has a long way to go
and even some of the most optimistic assessments suggest that
renewables would only fill about half of the expected energy
gap. Proponents of renewables argue not enough is being invested
in research and development.
© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
27 Independent: Blair hopes for new nuclear programme
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Published: 29 November 2005
Tony Blair will today announce the terms of an energy review
that he hopes will lead to the building of a new generation of
nuclear power stations.
The Prime Minister will insist he has not pre-judged the
inquiry, saying that it will be a hard- headed look at the pros
and cons of replacing the 14 existing power stations, all but
one of which are due to be decommissioned by 2023. They
currently produce 22 per cent of Britain's electricity, a figure
which is due to fall to 7 per cent by 2020.
Mr Blair, who will announce the internal government review in a
speech to the CBI's annual conference in London, hopes to reach
a decision on how to meet Britain's future energy needs next
year. The inquiry will report to Malcolm Wicks, the energy
minister at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). He will
insist today that the department will investigate the cost,
safety and waste-disposal implications of nuclear power with a
genuinely open mind.
Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by Sir David King, the
Government's chief scientist, who believes nuclear power is a
vital weapon in the battle against climate change. No 10
advisers are also worried about Britain becoming too reliant on
gas imported from Russia. They want to consider building new
nuclear plants on the sites of existing reactors and to speed up
the planning application process to prevent opponents securing
long delays at a series of public inquiries. But the Prime
Minister faces strong opposition from Labour MPs, 41 of whom
have already signed a Commons motion warning that going nuclear
would require "massive public subsidies" that could be better
spent on boosting renewable energy sources such as wind, wave
and solar power.
Last night, the Government's opponents accused it of pre-judging
its own review before it had even begun. Norman Baker,
environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: "It's a
done deal. The inquiry is a fig leaf. The suspicion must be that
Tony Blair has already decided to advocate an increase in the
use of nuclear power. This review will serve little purpose if
the Prime Minister has already made up his mind."
Urging the Government to rule out an extension of nuclear power,
he said: "This will provide the certainty that the industry so
desperately needs, and will allow us to focus on cleaner
renewable energy." He warned that the public subsidies required
for nuclear plants would kill off the renewables sector.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the Government's Sustainable
Development Commission, warned that it would be a "catastrophe"
and "extremely foolish" to pre-judge the review.
He said: "Since the general election, we have had a growing
spate of commentaries from the Prime Minister downwards that it
is almost impossible to meet the challenge of controlling
climate change without a nuclear option being brought back into
play. This seems to be pre-positioning for a decision taken in
advance of a proper review. Frankly, that would be a pretty
illegitimate process."
The environmental group Friends of the Earth appealed to the
Government not to rubber-stamp a new wave of nuclear plants.
Tony Juniper, its director, said: "The UK can meet its targets
for tackling climate change and maintain fuel security by using
clean, safe alternatives that are already available. But these
have so far been underplayed by the Prime Minister, who has
fallen for the nuclear industry's slick PR campaign. Will the
Government seize the opportunity, or has it already fallen for
the latest nuclear con?"
David Willetts, the Tories' trade and industry spokesman,
accused the Government of panicking in the face of possible
power shortages this winter. He said: "To launch an energy
review only now is testament to Labour's failure to tackle the
problem a long time ago. A leak from the DTI in May showed that
civil servants were calling on the Government to start an energy
review, but it has taken them seven months and an energy crisis
to get things rolling."
Critics of the nuclear option argue it would not help the
Government hit its goal of a 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxide
levels by 2010 because it would take too long to upgrade plants
or build new ones. But supporters say nuclear could help achieve
the more ambitious target of a 60 per cent cut by 2050.
© 2005 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
28 SMN: ON-TIME POWER PLANT CLOSURE TO PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT LOSS FOR BULGARIA - Top News news
[Sofia News]
Sofia Morning News
Mon 28 Nov 2005
The scheduled closure of the third and fourth units of Kozlodui
nuclear power plant in 2006 will lead to direct losses totaling
735 million euro for Bulgaria's energy sector. This is according
to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
requested by the Bulgarian Cabinet. Bulgaria will also have to
stop electricity exports, increasing the loss to 935 million
euro, Dnevnik newspaper reported.
Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin said that if Bulgaria raises the
question of power plant closure now, it would face delayed
accession. Kalfin said his opinion coincides with the IAEA
report that the two units are reliable and could continue
operating for several more years. If the loss prediction is
accurate, Bulgaria needs to start immediately construction of
the Belene nuclear power plant. Kalfin said that the Cabinet
will demand additional energy compensation from the EU budgetary
framework, just like all other member countries facing similar
problems. Reactor closure is an expensive procedure, Kalfin
said. Other Articles BULGARIANS'
SENTENCE MIGHT BE REPEALEDBULGARIAN OFFICIALS AT
EURO-MEDITERRANEAN SUMMIT BULGARIA'S BUSINESS CLIMATE
INDICATIONS WORSEN © 2001-2005,
Sofia Echo Media Ltd. Made by Webfactory Bulgaria.
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the Joint
FR Doc 05-23321
[Federal Register: November 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 227)]
[Notices] [Page 71335] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28no05-91]
ACRS Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk
Assessment and on Human Factors; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment
(PRA) and on Human Factors will hold a joint meeting on December
15-16, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday,
December 15, 2005--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.
Friday, December 16, 2005--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of
business.
The joint subcommittees will examine the current status of human
reliability analysis including ATHEANA, SPAR-H, and industry
approaches (if available). The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the
NRC staff and industry regarding this matter. The Subcommittee
will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and
formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for
deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Eric A. Thornsbury, (Telephone: 301-415-8716) or Dr. John H.
Flack, Senior Technical Advisor (Telephone: 301-415-0426) five
days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be
permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individuals at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: November 21, 2005.
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 05-23321 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 Xinhua: Nuclear industry research base launched in Shanghai
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-28 21:31:12
SHANGHAI, Nov. 28 (Xinhuanet) -- The China Nuclear Industry
Group (CNIG) set up Sunday a research base for nuclear power,
instruments for civilian use, and military industry, in
Shanghai, according to sources with CNIG.
Located in Shanghai Caohejin high-tech development zone, the
research base covers 21,000 square meters of floor space, and
will combine the functions of management, service and trade.
An official with CNIG said that China's nuclear industry has
embraced a crucial development opportunity, with nuclear power,
nuclear fuel and nuclear applications to be the three pillars.
By the year 2020, the installed capacity of China's nuclear
power is expected to reach 40 million kilowatts, accounting for
25percent of the country's total.
In the coming five years, the market scale for nuclear
applications will reach 100 billion yuan (about 12.5 billion US
dollars).
Wang Shoujun, CNIG deputy general manager, said that in the
2006-2010 period, his group will complete integration and
research of the meters matched with the nuclear industry to
provide more home-made products for the country's nuclear power
construction. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Issuance of
FR Doc E5-6549
[Federal Register: November 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 227)]
[Notices] [Page 71335] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28no05-90] [[Page 71335]]
Materials License SNM-2514 for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of Materials License.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1336; fax number:
(301) 415-8555; e-mail:
jrh@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or the Commission) has issued Materials License No. SNM-2514
to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG) for the receipt,
possession, storage, and transfer of spent fuel at the Humboldt
Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), to be
located in Humboldt County, California. This Materials License is
issued under the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 72 (10 CFR part 72), and is effective as of the
date of issuance. A license for an ISFSI under 10 CFR part 72 is
issued for 20 years, but the licensee may seek to renew the
license prior to its expiration.
The Humboldt Bay ISFSI is licensed to provide interim storage in
a dry cask storage system for up to 31 metric tons of uranium
contained in intact and damaged fuel assemblies and associated
radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the
Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3. The dry cask storage system
authorized for use is a site- specific version of the HI-STAR 100
system, designated as the HI-STAR HB system, designed by Holtec
International.
Following receipt of PG's application dated December 15, 2003,
the NRC staff published a ``Notice of Docketing, Notice of
Proposed Action, and Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing for a
Materials License for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation'' in the Federal Register on February 11,
2004 (69 FR 6701). In conjunction with the issuance of this
license, the staff published a ``Notice of Issuance of
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation,''
in the Federal Register on November 16, 2005 (70 FR 69605). The
staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) considered the impacts of
the construction, operation and decommissioning of an ISFSI at
the Humboldt Bay site, including impacts resulting from the use
of the HI-STAR HB dry cask storage system. The staff has
determined that no significant environmental impacts will result
from the proposed Humboldt Bay ISFSI.
The NRC staff has completed its environmental, safeguards, and
safety reviews of the Humboldt Bay ISFSI license application and
safety analysis report, as amended. The NRC staff issued
Materials License No. SNM-2514 and its Safety Evaluation Report
(SER) for the Humboldt Bay Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation on November 17, 2005.
Further details with respect to this action are provided in the
application dated December 15, 2003, as amended October 1, 2004;
the staff's EA, dated November 16, 2005; Materials License
SNM-2514 and the staff's SER, dated November 17, 2005; and other
related documents, which are publicly available in the records
component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS). These documents may be accessed through the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301)
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Section, Spent
Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-6549 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on
FR Doc E5-6550
[Federal Register: November 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 227)]
[Notices] [Page 71336] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28no05-92] [[Page 71336]]
Power Uprates; Revised The agenda for the November 29-30, 2005,
ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates has been revised to include
several sessions that may be closed to discuss information that
is proprietary to General Electric Nuclear Energy, and other
contractors of the licensee pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). All
other items remain the same as published in the Federal Register
on Monday, November 14, 2005 (70 FR 69169).
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) between
7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). Dated: November 18, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-6550 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
33 Advocate: NRC Renews Millstone License
Associated Press
Published November 28 2005, 5:54 PM EST
WATERFORD, Conn. -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
renewed Millstone Power Station's license today, approving the
power plant's operation for another 20 years.
The commission conducted an environmental review and determined
there were no environmental effects that should keep the power
plant from remaining operational. Similarly, the plant passed a
safety review and inspections.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut owns and operates Units 2 and 3
at the Millstone Power Station. Unit 1 is being decommissioned.
The NRC said Dominion has shown it has the plans and capability
to manage the effects of the plant's aging.
The lengthy review process has been going on for nearly two
years. Some eastern Connecticut residents testified at public
hearings, urging the commission not to renew the permit because
of concerns that the plant was polluting the environment.
The commission found in July that continuing Millstone's
operation would have only limited effects on the environment and
said those effects would not be reduced by shutting the plant
down.
The staff, however, found that the impact from electromagnetic
fields in the area is uncertain.
Calls seeking comment Monday from the Coalition Against the
Millstone Nuclear Power Reactor went unanswered.
Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press
© 2005, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
34 Interfax China: Feature: China's nuclear ambitions questioned by setbacks at
Tianwan
By David Stanway
Lianyungang. November 28.
INTERFAX-CHINA - In Jiangsu on China's eastern coast, nuclear
power has been placed at the very center of the province's
efforts to galvanize the struggling regions of the north and
allow them to catch up with the thriving Yangtze River Delta, but
the construction of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant in the port
city of Lianyungang has not been without its difficulties.
The Lianyungang Tianwan Nuclear Power Station. Image: Interfax
At the plant, situated in a large patch of reclaimed land facing
the East China Sea on one side and a range of craggy gray cliffs
on the other, Ma Yi, the chief engineer of the project, pointed
out a model of the plant's "core catcher". "This technology,"
said Ma, is designed to prevent the so-called 'China Syndrome',"
a term coined at Three Mile Island to describe the possibility
of a meltdown so severe that it would burn through the earth and
reach China on the other side of the globe.
Safety is at the top of the agenda, and Ma Yi insisted that the
probability of an accident was far lower even than normal
international standards. However, it is another type of China
Syndrome that concerns Lianyungang, and the part that it will
play in the country's ambitious plans to construct as much as
40,000 MW of nuclear capacity before 2020. Throughout the
country, massive rates of economic growth are being augmented
and sustained by the frantic expansion of energy capacity. In
northern Jiangsu, every method is being used to prevent the area
from falling even further behind the southern cities. Elsewhere,
in Dalian in the northeast, in the struggling eastern provinces
of Anhui and Jiangxi, and in southwestern Chongqing and Chengdu,
officials are vying to control a piece of China's ambitious
nuclear expansion plans, but the procedures are far from easy.
With the first unit of the Tianwan project already delayed by a
year and no specific timetable set for the construction of the
third and fourth units - they may be put up for tender some time
in the middle of next year, with Russia, France and the US all
vying to provide the core technology - many experts suspect that
central government targets will be dashed against the rocks of
bureaucracy and stymied by prohibitively high costs.
Ma Yi, an affable and multilingual veteran of China's nuclear
power industry, told Interfax that the target was indeed
ambitious. "We need to work hard to meet the target," he said,
"and if we suffer any further difficulties, we will not meet the
challenges."
The first two phases of the Tianwan plant, using reactor
technology supplied by Russia's AtomStroiExport and control
technology provided by Siemens, is one of many to be put up for
international tender. Officials refused to be drawn about the
prospects in the next round of bids. Wang Jianhua, the
Communist Party General Secretary in Lianyungang, said that the
Chinese side in the deal were perfectly satisfied with Russian
technology, but could not say whether Russia, France's Areva or
the US-based Westinghouse would be chosen for the third and
fourth units.
Ma Yi was also reluctant to say which country was being favored,
saying that the technology from each company was "equally good".
However, he did say that a crucial part of China's efforts to
meet its target would be the localization of technologies and
the subsequent reduction in construction costs.
The plant has had its share of setbacks in the last few years.
Work on the site began in 1997, and although it was originally
scheduled to begin generating electricity at the end of last
year, the date has now been put back to January 2006. The fuel
was already loaded into the reactor in October, but it is not
likely to begin full commercial operations until the second half
of next year.
The general secretary of the Lianyungang Communist Party, Wang
Jianhua, told Interfax on Saturday that the major problem was
the proportion of the investment provided by the various
partners involved, led by the national nuclear monopoly and
regulator, the China National Nuclear Corporation, and backed up
by the Jiangsu Provincial Power Corporation and the China Power
Investment Corporation.
Ma Yi conceded that there were also problems with some of the
equipment supplied by domestic companies, but added that all
problems had now been solved. "We will start to generate a
little electricity in January," he said, "and probably go into
full commercial operation in the second half of the year."
High hopes are being expressed about the Tianwan power station,
which will eventually consist of four 1,060 MW units. With the
depletion of Jiangsu's already meager coal reserves, centered in
the neighboring city of Xuzhou, the province's northern regions
are desperate to attract foreign investors to their shining new
industrial parks and development zones. Driven also by
aggressive expansions in port capacity, almost the whole of the
Lianyungang area has been earmarked for further construction.
While northern Jiangsu has been among the very few regions not
to experience power shortages in the last few years, consumption
is set to grow significantly.
"The situation in northern Jiangsu was considered when making
the decision to build the power station here," said Ma Yi, and
indeed, many local officials stressed the part the plant could
play in galvanizing the local economy.
"One advantage that Lianyungang has," said Wang Qiang, of the
Lianyungang Eco&Tech Development Zone, "is the Tianwan nuclear
power station, the biggest capacity unit in China, and the
creation of a big energy base here. Southern Jiangsu has been
facing huge power shortages in recent years, [with enterprises]
sometimes having to open for three days and close for the next
four. Lianyungang has suffered no shortages at all and we
aren't afraid of introducing high-energy consuming industries."
The General Secretary of the Lianyungang Communist Party, Wang
Jianhua, said, "I hope the entire four phases will be completed
by the end of the next Five Year Plan, but it isn't my
decision."
1991-2005 Interfax Information Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
35 PRN: Dominion Celebrates Renewed Licenses for Millstone Power Station
PR Newswire
TITLE="http://www.dom.com">
WATERFORD, Conn., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Thomas F.
Farrell II, president and chief operating officer of Dominion
(NYSE: D), welcomed Monday's decision by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to renew the operating licenses for the two
nuclear units at the company's Millstone Power Station in
Connecticut.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20000831/DLOGO )
With the NRC's decision, the operating licenses of Millstone
Units 2 and 3 are renewed for an additional 20 years of
operation, until 2035 and 2045, respectively.
"This good news means that safe and reliable nuclear energy
will remain an important source of affordable electricity for
Connecticut and New England residents for many years to come.
The renewed licenses also are important in maintaining a diverse
energy supply for the nation," said Farrell.
Millstone's two units generate a combined 2,020 megawatts, or
48 percent of Connecticut's electricity needs.
Dominion is one of the nation's largest producers of energy,
with a portfolio of about 28,100 megawatts of generation, about 6
trillion cubic feet equivalent of proved natural gas reserves and
7,900 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline. Dominion also
operates the nation's largest underground natural gas storage
system with more than 965 billion cubic feet of storage capacity
and serves retail energy customers in nine states. For more
information about Dominion, visit the company's Web site at
http://www.dom.com.
For the NRC news release, go to:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-161.ht
ml SOURCE Dominion Web Site: http://www.dom.com Photo Notes:
http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20000831/DLOGO AP Archive:
http://photoarchive.ap.orgPRN Photo Desk photodesk@prnewswire.com
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
*****************************************************************
36 UK: News & Star: Coastal fears could block N-plant plan
Published on 28/11/2005
Opposition politicians and environmental campaigners have warned
Tony Blair against giving his backing to a new generation of
nuclear power plants amid fears over coastal erosion.
They pointed to leaked comments from the Government’s chief
scientific adviser Sir David King in which he suggested that a
levy on consumer bills may be needed to finance the plants.
The critics also cited research by the nuclear waste agency Nirex
warning that most of the sites for potential plants are
threatened by climate change.
The Prime Minister – who is thought to favour the nuclear
option for the long-term – is expected to announce a review of
energy policy tomorrow.
Nuclear power met almost a quarter of Britain’s energy needs in
recent years but that will fall to just 4% by 2010 if ageing
reactors are not replaced.
The Sunday Times reported that Sir David has suggested putting a
levy on consumers’ power bills to pay for up to 20 new plants.
Sir David proposed the charge as a way of ensuring that a
resurgent nuclear industry – which has traditionally run at a
loss – would be assured three or four decades of guaranteed
profit on new reactors.
Glasgow’s Sunday Herald newspaper said that the Nirex study
suggested that a number of sites for potential nuclear plants
were at risk from rising sea levels and coastal erosion,
including Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness.
Two nuclear sites in England – Bradwell in Essex and Berkeley
in Gloucestershire – are virtually at sea level.
The massive nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria and the
nearby radioactive waste dump at Drigg are also said to be highly
vulnerable to coastal erosion.
Friends of the Earth’s chief executive Duncan McLaren said:
“Current thinking on where to locate nuclear power stations
will really be turned on its head by these findings. In most
cases, siting new power plants beside the current facilities will
no longer be an option.
“Almost anywhere in Scotland and the rest of the UK that’s a
reasonable height above sea level becomes fair game and a
possible target for siting new nuclear facilities.”
FoE also expressed concern over Sir David’s reported remarks.
The organisation’s director Tony Juniper said: “The
Government’s chief scientific officer should be advising the
Government about various options that exist for tackling climate
change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign.
“Even before it’s begun, the energy review risks being a
sham.”
Commenting on both the Nirex document and on the leak of Sir
David’s thoughts on a consumer levy, Scottish National Party
energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said: “These damaging reports
must surely be the final nail in the coffin of expensive and
dangerous nuclear power plants.”
A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry stressed
that Sir David is an independent adviser and that his views do
not necessarily represent Government policy.
That policy, the spokesman said, was to conduct an energy review
which would “look at the entire energy mix.”
The spokesman continued: “There is no silver bullet to meeting
our objectives and we will continue to look at a mixture of
energy sources including use of fossil fuels and developing
renewable energy as well as energy efficiency measures.
“We will also examine the options for civil nuclear power and
whether and to what extent we should replace the existing
generating stations that will reach the end of their lives over
the next 30 years.”
*****************************************************************
37 Whitehaven News: Erosion fears over nuclear plants
Published on 28/11/2005
Opposition politicians and environmental campaigners have warned
Tony Blair against giving his backing to a new generation of
nuclear power plants amid fears over coastal erosion.
They pointed to leaked comments from the Government’s chief
scientific adviser Sir David King in which he suggested that a
levy on consumer bills may be needed to finance the plants.
The critics also cited research by the nuclear waste agency
Nirex warning that most of the sites for potential plants are
threatened by climate change.
The Prime Minister – who is thought to favour the nuclear
option for the long-term – is expected to announce a review of
energy policy tomorrow.
Nuclear power met almost a quarter of Britain’s energy needs
in recent years but that will fall to just 4% by 2010 if ageing
reactors are not replaced.
The Sunday Times reported that Sir David has suggested putting a
levy on consumers’ power bills to pay for up to 20 new plants.
Sir David proposed the charge as a way of ensuring that a
resurgent nuclear industry – which has traditionally run at a
loss – would be assured three or four decades of guaranteed
profit on new reactors.
Glasgow’s Sunday Herald newspaper said that the Nirex study
suggested that a number of sites for potential nuclear plants
were at risk from rising sea levels and coastal erosion,
including Hunterston in North Ayrshire and Dounreay in Caithness.
Two nuclear sites in England – Bradwell in Essex and Berkeley
in Gloucestershire – are virtually at sea level.
The massive nuclear complex at Sellafield in Cumbria and the
nearby radioactive waste dump at Drigg are also said to be
highly vulnerable to coastal erosion.
Friends of the Earth’s chief executive Duncan McLaren said:
“Current thinking on where to locate nuclear power stations
will really be turned on its head by these findings. In most
cases, siting new power plants beside the current facilities
will no longer be an option.
“Almost anywhere in Scotland and the rest of the UK that’s a
reasonable height above sea level becomes fair game and a
possible target for siting new nuclear facilities.”
FoE also expressed concern over Sir David’s reported remarks.
The organisation’s director Tony Juniper said: “The
Government’s chief scientific officer should be advising the
Government about various options that exist for tackling climate
change, not leading a pro-nuclear campaign.
“Even before it’s begun, the energy review risks being a
sham.”
Commenting on both the Nirex document and on the leak of Sir
David’s thoughts on a consumer levy, Scottish National Party
energy spokesman Richard Lochhead said: “These damaging
reports must surely be the final nail in the coffin of expensive
and dangerous nuclear power plants.”
A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry stressed
that Sir David is an independent adviser and that his views do
not necessarily represent Government policy.
That policy, the spokesman said, was to conduct an energy review
which would “look at the entire energy mix.”
The spokesman continued: “There is no silver bullet to meeting
our objectives and we will continue to look at a mixture of
energy sources including use of fossil fuels and developing
renewable energy as well as energy efficiency measures.
“We will also examine the options for civil nuclear power and
whether and to what extent we should replace the existing
generating stations that will reach the end of their lives over
the next 30 years.”
*****************************************************************
38 SABCnews.com: Koeberg engineers' negligence exposed
- south_africa/general
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright © 2000 - 2005
SABC
Image of Koeberg Power Station]
An independent energy expert says engineers at the Koeberg Power
Station may have been negligent
November 28, 2005, 15:15
An independent energy expert says engineers at the Koeberg
Nuclear Power Station on the Cape west coast may have been
negligent when one of the reactors had to be shut down on
Thursday evening.
A low level of the chemical-boron was detected in one the
plant's injection systems. There was large-scale disruption of
business, industry and homes due to rolling blackouts as a
result of the shut down.
Andrew Kenny says, however, Koeberg management made the correct
decision to shut down the reactor. Kenny says they should just
keep checking up that the boron levels are alright as the
reactor was running well at the time, the reactor could be shut
down anyway. He says, however, there was a little bit of an
oversight on allowing those levels to go down.
*****************************************************************
39 [du-list] European parliament moratorium on uranium weapons
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:09:59 -0800
On Nov. 17, the European Parliament issued for the third time a call for
a moratorium on the use of so-called "depleted” uranium munitions.
The resolution regarding depleted uranium is part of an 11-page
document entitled, “Texts adopted by European Parliament, on
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; A role for the European
Parliament”
The Resolution's section No. 82 says the EP, “Reiterates its call
for a moratorium -- with a view to the introduction of a total ban -- on
the use of so-called ‘depleted uranium munitions.’”
The legal basis for the moratorium was detailed early in the
document, which stated that “all European Union Member States are Parties
to the major multilateral agreements that make up the non-proliferation
regime, namely the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the 1972
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), the 1993 Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) and the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).”
The Resolution made pointed mention of the fact that, “two Member
States, the UK and France, are nuclear-weapon states as defined in the NPT,
and that U.S. tactical weapons are stationed on the territories of many
more Member States: Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Greece, the
Netherlands and Belgium and states applying for EU membership, Turkey in
particular.”
On Jan. 17, 2001 the European Parliament resolved, among other
things, to “[Call] on the Member States that are also NATO members to
propose that a moratorium be placed on the use of depleted uranium weapons
in accordance with the precautionary principle as defined in the Council
resolution adopted at the European Council meeting in Nice and the European
Parliament's resolution on the subject.”
Likewise on Feb. 13, 2003, the EP called on its executive body the
European Council, “to support independent and thorough investigations into
the possible harmful effects of the use of depleted uranium ammunition (and
other types of uranium warheads) in military operations in areas such as
the Balkans, Afghanistan and other regions; [especially] on military
personnel serving in affected areas and the effects on civilians and their
land; [and called] for the results of these investigations to be presented
to Parliament …
The 2003 resolution further called for “Member States -- in order to
play their leadership role in full -- to immediately implement a moratorium
on the further use of cluster ammunition and depleted uranium ammunition
(and other uranium warheads), pending the conclusions of a comprehensive
study of the requirements of international humanitarian law …”
SEE:
Nov. 17, 2005:
http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-0439+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=0&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y&LSTDOC=N
Feb. 13, 2003
http://www.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade3?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P5-TA-2003-0062+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&L=EN&LEVEL=2&NAV=S&LSTDOC=Y&LSTDOC=N
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
40 [du-list] DU in the news - 25th Nov. 05
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:10:01 -0800
Northern Territory News, Thu, 24 Nov 2005 5:43 AM PST
DU bombs denied
http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,17347441%255E13569,00.html
THE RAAF say no depleted uranium bombs will be dropped on the Territory. US
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Australian Defence Minister Robert
Hill last week signed a new agreement to let American bombers drop live
munitions at the Delamere weapons range.
Washington Post, Thu, 24 Nov 2005 0:29 AM PST
Make Politics, Not War: Lawyer Enters House Race With Call For Troop
Pullout
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112301087.html?nav=rss_metro/md
In a scene reminiscent of another time and another war, Barry J. C. Kissin
, a lawyer and longtime political activist in Frederick, announced his
Democratic candidacy for Congress in Maryland's 6th District with a rousing
denunciation of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. Kissin called
for...
Bloomberg.com, Thu, 24 Nov 2005 8:18 AM PST
Iran Peaceful Atomic Claims `Ring Hollow,' EU Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aWwQyGJoKDf0
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union said Iranian claims that its
nuclear program is for peaceful purposes ``ring hollow'' and warned that
time for negotiating a settlement may be running out.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/180 - Release Date: 11/23/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
41 [du-list] DU in the news - 26th Nov 05
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:10:02 -0800
Asia Pulse via Yahoo! Australia & NZ News, Fri, 25 Nov 2005 1:26 AM PST
Kazatomprom Aims High In Uranium Production
http://au.news.yahoo.com/051125/3/wygf.html
The head of Kazakhstan's Kazatomprom, Mukhtar Dzhakishev said the state
company aims to become the world's biggest uranium producer by 2010.
Interactive Investor, Thu, 24 Nov 2005 5:06 PM PST
(AFX UK Focus) 2005-11-25 00:39 GMT: Australia's depleted gold sector to be
boosted by Champion IPO
http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=5476425&subject=companies&action=article
SYDNEY (AFX) - Junior gold explorer Champion Resources Ltd hopes to raise
three mln aud through an initial public offering (IPO), boosting the ranks
of Australia's gold sector which has been thinned by a spate of takeovers
in recent years.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.7/180 - Release Date: 11/23/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/u8TY5A/tzNLAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
42 [du-list] DU in the news - 27th Nov 05
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:10:46 -0800
WGAL 8, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:03 AM PST
Iran's President Wants U.S. Leaders Tried For War Crimes
http://www.wgal.com/news/5407846/detail.html?rss=lan&psp=nationalnews
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's president is calling for U.S. leaders to be tried on
war crimes charges. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't mention the United States by
name in his remarks on Iranian television, but it was implied when he spoke
of the use of "uranium ordnance in Iraq."
AP via Yahoo! News, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 8:19 AM PST
Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us_1
Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be
tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran
to curb its controversial nuclear program.
ABC News, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 8:37 AM PST
Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1347778&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Iran's President Says Bush Administration Should Be Tried on War Crimes Charges
San Diego Union-Tribune, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 9:33 AM PST
Iran's president says Bush administration should be tried for war crimes
http://www.uniontrib.com/news/world/20051126-0819-iran-us.html
KRON 4 Bay Area, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 9:42 AM PST
Iran's president: Bush administration should be tried for war crimes
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=4167078&nav=5D7l
TEHRAN, Iran Iran's president is calling for U-S leaders to be tried on war
crimes charges.
UPI, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 8:35 AM PST
Intl. Intelligence
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051126-112442-5877r
TEHRAN, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad warned
Saturday the Iranians will confront the "supporters of the Zionist entity,"
describing them as "war criminals."
Islamic Republic News Agency, Sat, 26 Nov 2005 4:07 AM PST
President: Iran having no covetous eye on other nations' territory
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0511269778153222.htm
Basij - Nuclear - Ahmadinejad President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here
Saturday that if enemies want to violate the rights of the Iranian nation,
the revolutionary people of the Islamic Republic will stand up to them.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
43 [du-list] U and cancer ... look this way ... but you need
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:10:59 -0800
The trick in this circumstance is to gather the science and medicine
on ALPHA emitters (look only for the science and medical research,
and ignore the rhetoric of the activists and lies of the self-
interested )
There is very litter on DU medical effects per se but lots on uranium
and alpha emitters (relatively speaking, that is, compared to DU).
Read Dr John Gofman's work and check this web site:
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/
1. Contact Green Audit (C Busby, Richard Bramhall) at llrc.org for
references. Also check out John Coffman's work
2. Go to the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute and get Dr
Alexandra Millers work on mutagenic effects of uranium and DU.
3. Go to International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for
material on Alpha emitters.
4. Look for chromosomal and gene and stem cell damage by alpha
emitters ad this is the beginning of the cancer cycle.
5. Look into metabolic pathway of uranium. It is a very efficient
bone seeker, its incorporates into bones where stem cells are
manufactured, replaces calcium and also has link to leukemia as red
blood cells are made in marrow.
5 Look for also, heavy metal effects. U is the heaviest metal on
earth. Inhalational uptake of heavy metals has established cancer
links.
Lines of investigation should be:
Chemo toxicity of U
Radio toxicity of U and any alpha emitters
Genetic effects of alpha emitters
Remember and don't let anyone fool you on this. Uranium (DU or
whatever isotopic signature you refer to NatU, LEU, NDU, DU, HEU and
all the transuranic byproducts) is an alpha emitter. All alpha
emitters emit the same radiation profile of slow, heavy and big
quantum particles that slice into chromosome, damage genes, modify
cellular structure and ionize biological materials, release free
radicals.
The military may say "no proof DU causes cancer" but it cannot say no
proof about alpha particle emissions.
BUT without bioassay studies to prove internal contamination no
amount of literature or petitioning will move the courts.
Hi...rh
Yours ...dc
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
44 [du-list] DU & other Usuk WMD not in the news - write to BBC
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:11:15 -0800
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
November 28, 2005
MEDIA ALERT: THE TRAGIC BLINDNESS OF THE EMBEDDED BBC
White Phosphorus, Fallujah And Unreported Atrocities
Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, said earlier this year:
"We are committed to evidence-based journalism. We have not been able to
establish that the US used banned chemical weapons and committed other
atrocities against civilians in Falluja last November. Inquiries on the
ground at the time and subsequently indicate that their use is unlikely to
have occurred." (Email forwarded to Media Lens, July 13, 2005)
Sadly, their use has occurred, as the Pentagon has now been forced to admit.
Readers may recall from previous media alerts that we did not know then
whether unusual or banned weapons - including cluster bombs, depleted
uranium, napalm, white phosphorus and poisonous gas - had been used in
Fallujah, or whether atrocities had been committed by 'coalition' forces
against civilians. We did know, however, that the BBC had consistently
overlooked credible testimony from multiple sources suggesting such weapons
had been used and such acts had taken place.
Last November, Fallujah was placed under "a strict night-time shoot-to-kill
curfew" with "anyone spotted in the soldiers' night vision sights... shot";
male refugees were prevented from leaving the combat zone; a health centre
was bombed killing 60 patients and support staff; refugees claimed that "a
large number of people, including children, were killed by American
snipers" and that the US had used cluster bombs and phosphorus weapons in
the offensive.
Recent US military offensives in Ramadi, Baghdadi, Hit, Haditha, Mosul,
Qaim, Tal Afar and elsewhere, have likely also killed many civilians and
created thousands more refugees. (For sources and further details see:
www.rememberfallujah.org/why.htm)
Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of US military reprisal, a
high-ranking Red Cross official estimated that "at least 800 civilians"
were killed in the first 9 days of the November 2004 assault on Fallujah.
(Dahr Jamail, '800 Civilians Feared Dead in Fallujah,' Inter Press Service,
November 16, 2004)
IRINnews.org, the news service of the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, reported that the emergency team from Fallujah's main
hospital recovered more than 700 bodies from rubble where houses and shops
had stood. Dr Rafa'ah al-Iyssaue, the hospital director, said:
"It was really distressing picking up dead bodies from destroyed homes,
especially children. It is the most depressing situation I have ever been
in since the war started."
Dr al-Iyssaue added that more than 550 of the 700 dead were women and
children. He said a very small number of men were found in these places and
most were elderly. (IRINnews.org, 'Death toll in Fallujah rising, doctors
say,' January 4, 2005;
www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=44904&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ)
The Study Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, based in Fallujah,
estimates the total number of people killed in the city during the assault
at 4,000 to 6,000, most of them civilians. Mass graves were dug on the
outskirts of the city for thousands of the bodies. (Dahr Jamail, 'Life Goes
On in Fallujah's Rubble,' Inter Press Service, November 23, 2005)
Embedded BBC Saw Nothing, Heard Nothing, Reported Nothing
In light of the Pentagon's admission that US forces +did+ use white
phosphorus (WP) as an offensive weapon, the BBC needs to explain its
earlier silence. The corporation is now trying to absolve itself by
claiming that not one single report until now was credible or worth
reporting. It has been revealed that UK forces also have WP in their
arsenal, and have been trained to use it as a weapon. (Sean Rayment, 'Tim
Collins trained troops to fight with white phosphorus,' Sunday Telegraph,
November 20, 2005)
Unprompted by Media Lens but disturbed by the BBC's bias in covering the
invasion and occupation, members of the public have been contacting the
corporation. Several complainants cited our earlier media alerts (e.g. 'BBC
Still Ignoring Evidence of War Crimes';
www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050524_bbc_still_ignoring_evidence.php)
Many independent researchers, including the London-based filmmaker and
author Gabriele Zamparini (www.thecatsdream.com/blog), have also been
pursuing developments. As a result, the pressure on mainstream media to
report and analyse what is now in the public domain has intensified.
No doubt mindful of this pressure, BBC News led with the WP revelations on
its flagship 10 O'Clock News bulletin on November 15, 2005. BBC
correspondent Paul Wood, who had been embedded with US forces in Fallujah,
asserted that: "this deadly substance [WP] was fired directly at trenches
full of insurgents". This may be correct, but it is also incomplete. As we
reported in previous media alerts, there is ample evidence of devastating
weaponry, including WP, being deployed in built-up areas (not just
"trenches") where civilians (not just "insurgents") were sheltering.
Wood told anchor Jeremy Paxman on the BBC's Newsnight programme that same
evening:
"Many in the Arab world, some here [in the UK] who campaigned against the
war on Iraq, believe that a massacre of civilians took place inside
Fallujah. I didn't see evidence of that myself. In Fallujah over the
summer, I spoke to doctors at the hospital there who discounted these
allegations." (Newsnight, November 15, 2005)
We asked Wood for details of his research in Fallujah. He told us that he
"had long conversations" with hospital doctors. By Wood's own admission
only one of these "had been in Falluja right throughout the November
campaign". He added: "Others had arrived later, but I thought it would be
good to ask them about the various atrocity allegations anyway, to see how
widely they were believed in the town, even if they had no proof."
According to Wood: "All of them dismissed allegations of chemical weapons
use, or of the use of dispersal weapons in general." (Email forwarded to
David Cromwell via Newsnight editor Peter Barron, November 17, 2005)
However, the US has now been forced to admit that it did use white
phosphorus as an offensive weapon in Fallujah. We also now know, thanks to
the unearthing of a US intelligence document by researchers using the
internet, that the US recognises that white phosphorus +is+ a chemical
weapon (Peter Popham and Anne Penketh, 'US intelligence classified white
phosphorus as "chemical weapon" ', The Independent, November 23, 2005).
And, as Dahr Jamail has reported over many months, cluster bombs and
depleted uranium were also used in the assault on Fallujah.
(http://dahrjamailiraq.com/)
We asked Wood why he had reported not one of the many credible accounts of
atrocities in Fallujah, and elsewhere in Iraq - many of which had been
presented to the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul. (See 'The
Mysterious Case of the Disappearing World Tribunal on Iraq,'
www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050706_the_mysterious_case.php)
Wood told us that he had spoken to independent reporter Dahr Jamail "to try
to chase down his leads." He added: "Dahr told me they were all too scared
to talk (even though they are now in Jordan) or that he otherwise couldn't
track them down. Fair enough -- they are his contacts and he might have a
number of valid reasons for not handing them on." (Email forwarded to David
Cromwell via Newsnight editor Peter Barron, November 17, 2005)
Dahr Jamail disputes this:
"I am rather surprised that Mr. Wood would allege here that I've not
provided him contacts he requested. As I told him on the phone when we
spoke of this, I gave him all the contacts I had emails/phones for." Jamail
added: "Why does Mr. Wood think I have withheld contact details?" (Email to
David Cromwell, November 19, 2005)
Jamail again:
"Perhaps Mr. Wood wouldn't find it necessary to question another
journalist's sources (mine were first-hand interviews), and would be able
to obtain some of these reports himself, if he were not embedded with the
military forces which destroyed the city of Fallujah." (Email to David
Cromwell, November 20, 2005)
Wood stated on Newsnight that he had only seen WP used for illumination
purposes. He did note, however, that the US admission of WP use "does to
some appear to be confirmation of the much wider allegations that civilians
were killed in large numbers inside Fallujah."
And so, once again, the BBC dismisses as mere "allegations" the copious
evidence of atrocities provided by humanitarian workers, doctors, refugees
and other credible sources.
A new BBC online piece written by Wood excuses himself and the BBC with a
few carefully chosen words:
"We didn't at the time, last November, report the use of banned weapons or
a massacre because we didn't see this taking place - and since then, we
haven't seen credible evidence that this is was [sic] what happened."
(Wood, 'Heated debate over white phosphorus,' November 17, 2005;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4440000/newsid_4441700/4441798.stm)
As we have noted in previous alerts, 'credible evidence' comes from
'credible sources.' For mainstream media, this generally means officialdom
- including political and military leaders responsible for the use and
abuse of chemical weapons, cluster bombs and napalm.
Wood had earlier dismissed reports of such usage because no "reference
[was] made to them at the confidential pre-assault military briefings he
attended" and because he had not himself witnessed their use. ('Did BBC
ignore weapons claim?', April 14,
2005;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4390000/newsid_4396600/4396641.stm
)
This was a remarkable judgement by the BBC and an indictment of the 'embed'
system of reporting. When we pressed Helen Boaden further, citing more
reports of atrocities committed against civilians, she abruptly ended the
correspondence:
"I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful
purpose." (Email to David Cromwell, March 21, 2005)
Propagandists For Killing Power
Dirk Adriaensens, executive committee member of the Brussels Tribunal, told us:
"It is not that difficult to find witnesses for what happened to Fallujah.
There is ample evidence of the atrocities that took place there. Moreover,
it is notable that no embedded 'journalist' reported atrocities committed
in hospitals in recent attacks on Haditha, Al Qaim, Tal Afar, etc." (Email
to David Cromwell, November 21, 2005)
One UN report cited by Adriaensens observes that:
"Ongoing military operations, especially in western and northern parts of
the country, continue to generate displacement and hardship for thousands
of families and to have a devastating effect on the civilian population...
The United Nations has been unable to obtain accurate figures concerning
civilian losses following such operations but reports received from civil
society organizations, medical sources and other monitors indicate that
they are significant and include women and children." (UN Assistance
Mission for Iraq, Human Rights Report, 1 August - 31 October, 2005;
www422.ssldomain.com/uniraq/documents/HR%20Report.Oct.Eng%20final.doc)
As Adriaensens notes, "the UN report is consistent with eyewitness accounts
received from sources inside Iraq."
(www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq.htm,
www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq2.htm. Warning: disturbing images)
Other evidence ignored by the BBC includes the work of Mark Manning, an
American documentary filmmaker. Manning recorded 25 hours of videotaped
interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who
had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand.
Manning "was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their
sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers.
He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American
and Iraqi troops". Moreover: "he heard numerous reports of the second siege
of Falluja [November 2004] that described American forces deploying - in
violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous
bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium". (Nick
Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah,' Santa Barbara Independent, March 17, 2005;
www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm)
How much effort have Paul Wood and the BBC made to obtain such evidence?
Why have they ignored the work of the World Tribunal on Iraq, the Brussels
Tribunal, Iraqi human rights groups and the suffering reported by local
doctors, health workers and refugees?
The BBC has relied heavily on embedded reporters, and has broadcast
relentless propaganda from those wielding devastating firepower in the
assault on Iraq. But precious little has been heard from the 'unpeople' -
including women, children and the elderly - who have been on the receiving
end of such killing power.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
for others. We strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive
and non-abusive tone when writing emails to journalists.
Please write to:
Helen Boaden, director of BBC news
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news
Email: peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk
Paul Wood, BBC world affairs correspondent
Email: paul.wood@bbc.co.uk
Kevin Bakhurst, editor of the BBC 10 O'Clock News
Email: kevin.bakhurst@bbc.co.uk
Peter Barron, editor of Newsnight
Email: peter.barron@bbc.co.uk
Please send copies of all emails to us at: editor@medialens.org
You may also wish to consider lodging an official complaint about the lack
of BBC coverage of reports of 'coalition' war crimes at:
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please
consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/donate
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?unsubscribe=Mczq8NdKwnBD
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 11/25/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
*****************************************************************
45 News 24: Ex-nuke workers in for tests
Cape Argus Idols hotline.
South Africa
News
Johannesburg - More than 300 ex-workers of the Pelindaba nuclear
plant near Pretoria are to undergo independent medical tests
ahead of an industry investigation, Earthlife Africa said on
Monday.
The tests would be done at the occupational health consultancy,
Health Gap Services, in Centurion, before the end of the year,
said Mashile Phalane, co-ordinator of the environmental lobby
group's Nuclear Energy Costs the Earth Campaign (Nectec).
Thirty of the group would be screened on Tuesday and Wednesday.
They were suspected of suffering from occupational diseases and
would furnish oral medical histories.
Nectec has been waiting for the health records of more than 280
workers from the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA's (Necsa)
Pelindaba plant since December last year.
"The industry-led health investigation proposed by Necsa in July
this year is just a cover-up," Phalane said.
Earthlife launched a probe after workers approached the group
saying they believed they had diseases contracted while working
at the nuclear plant.
Initially, Earthlife identified 29 employees and former
employees at Pelindaba who had become ill and obtained medical
records for 23 of them.
Five of these people have since died. Thirteen have undergone
medical examinations and 10 have been found to have diseases
linked to radiation exposure. These include skin cancer and eye
diseases.
Earthlife has not been included in the team which will probe
health concerns at Pelindaba.
In September Simpiwe Msibi, the spokesperson for the team, being
led by Mogwera Khoathane, said Earthlife was not included
because this would take away the independence of the probe.
However they could make a submission.
*****************************************************************
46 Guardian Unlimited: Feds Offer New Way to Manage Elk
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday November 28, 2005 9:46 AM
AP Photo WAJJ804
By SHANNON DININNY
Associated Press Writer
HANFORD REACH NATIONAL MONUMENT, Wash. (AP) - To passing
motorists, the massive elk roaming across this sagebrush-dotted
land are a delightful sight.
But to farmers such as Bud Hamilton, whose property abuts the
Hanford Reach in south-central Washington, the large stands of
elk are a nuisance to his wheat crop.
``They come out at night, eat my fields or trample my crops and
go back to the federal land in the morning,'' Hamilton said.
``What am I supposed to do?''
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Hanford
Reach, has offered an elk management plan that is currently up
for public comment. One option is to allow the elk to be hunted
on the federal property, which has not been opened to the public
in decades.
Former President Clinton created the Hanford Reach National
Monument by proclamation five years ago. The monument, a
horseshoe-shaped property surrounding the Hanford nuclear
reservation, stretches along a section of the Columbia River
renowned for salmon runs, bird habitat and rare plant life on
its banks.
The area includes the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, one of the few
large, contiguous blocks of arid shrub-steppe habitat remaining
in the Northwest. The reserve has been closed to the public
since the nuclear site was created in the 1940s.
Wildlife managers estimate the herd at 770 elk, or roughly 400
more than some believe the area can support. Certainly it's more
than farmers are willing to tolerate: Since 2000, the state has
paid more than a half-million dollars in crop damages just from
this herd.
``We have been trying pretty much everything we can think of to
manage this elk herd,'' said Jeff Tayer, regional director for
the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. ``Hunting is a tool
... it's effective, it's cost effective and biologically
effective.''
The state has issued a select number of hunting permits to
landowners on the edges of the reserve. But with too many
hunters shooting bull elk for their antlers, rather than cow elk
that produce calves, additional hunting is needed, Tayer said.
Rick Leaumont, conservation committee chair for the lower
Columbia Basin Audubon Society, disagreed.
Leaumont said the proposed seven-month hunting season would
cause too much damage to the near-pristine reserve and drive elk
to yet another closed area: the remaining land of the nearby
Hanford nuclear reservation, the nation's most contaminated
nuclear site.
``We're not resolving the problem, we're just relocating the
problem,'' he said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the Hanford Reach,
issued three alternatives for managing the area's elk.
The agency's preferred alternative calls for a combination of
controlled public hunting, trapping and relocating the elk and,
if necessary, having wildlife officers cull the herd by hunting
the animals by ground or air.
The two other options are trapping and relocating some elk but
otherwise continue allowing the herd to grow; or allowing
controlled hunting plus trapping and relocating - but no
government culling.
The agency's proposal follows years of debate. Public comment on
the plan runs through Dec. 18.
Hamilton, the farmer, has opened his cropland to hunters for
several years to deal with his elk problem. For him, a workable
plan to reduce the elk can't come soon enough.
``I just want my property rights back - that the game department
isn't telling me what to do with my land, the hunter isn't
telling me what to do with my land, the elk aren't destroying my
land,'' he said.
---
On the Net:
http://www.fws.gov/hanfordreach/
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
47 theage.com.au: Emotional reactions cloud nuclear debate
Large font November 29, 2005
As the world's energy demands rise, intelligent discussion about
using Australia's vast uranium reserves is needed, writes Monika
Sarder.
OVER the past few months several events have led to increasingly
prominent public debate over the future of uranium mining and
Australia's nuclear industry.
These include various bids for our largest uranium deposit at
Olympic Dam, the decision by the Commonwealth to take control of
mining in the Northern Territory, and progress in negotiating a
bilateral agreement with China.
On an international level, increasing concern over global
warming, and burgeoning energy demand from developing countries,
has led many people to view nuclear power as an energy
alternative that is both attractive and necessary.
From the perspective of professionals engaged in the mining
industry, it is time for constructive debate on uranium. As the
second-largest exporter of uranium, with 40 per cent of the
world's
low-cost recoverable reserves, Australia is in a position of
significant ethical, environmental and political responsibility.
Discussion must take place in a rational and informed way,
stripped of sensationalist claims from both sides of the debate.
As people in developing countries increase their use of
electricity-reliant technologies and their standard of living,
energy consumption is anticipated to increase. Electricity use
in a developed country such as Australia (9178 kilowatt hours
per person) is now 36 times higher than in developing countries
such as Papua New Guinea (250 kWh per person).
Last year, the International Energy Agency stated that if
governments stick with policies in force as of mid-2004, the
world's energy needs will be 60 per cent higher in 2030 than
now. Consequently, no potential energy source can be ignored.
Nuclear power is one of the few sources of electricity that is
capable of meeting the needs of a developed country while
producing minimal greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power stations
produce less than 40 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt
hour compared with 760 kilograms of carbon dioxide/kWh from
state-of-the-art pulverised fuel-fired power stations firing
black coal.
Our governments are collaborating under COAL21 to develop
advanced technology to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas
emissions associated with the use of coal. However, we must
maintain a diverse energy portfolio to hedge against the risks
posed by unprecedented global energy demand.
As well as advancing nuclear and coal technologies, we must
continue to invest resources in wind, solar and hydro
electricity, while recognising that so far they have proven
intermittent and incapable of generating power at the scale
required.
With our significant uranium reserves and nuclear expertise, the
current climate realises itself as both an opportunity and a
responsibility.
An ad hoc policy on uranium, and a sensationalist debate that
omits the fine detail on crucial issues, cannot produce the best
outcomes for Australia or the world. In the opinion of
professionals in the minerals sector, the policy steps critical
to evolving the industry are:
Developing a consistent set of national principles covering the
approval process for exploration and mining of uranium.
Educating and engaging the public in key political
considerations underpinning the safeguards regime.
Co-ordinating expertise in nuclear technology, and ensuring
that we have a world-class system of education to guarantee a
sustainable future.
Continuing to evolve corporate social responsibility
principles.
Determining what materials stewardship means for the uranium
supply chain.
Determining as a nation how far along the uranium value chain
we want our industry to progress.
Supporting policies that encourage exploration for uranium
resources, both through geological surveys and investing in
appropriate R&D.
Monika Sarder is policy and research co-ordinator at The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Copyright © 2005. The Age Company Ltd. ![]()
.
SWEIS Preparation Process. The SWEIS preparation process begins
with the publication of this NOI in the Federal Register. After
the close of the public scoping period, NNSA will begin preparing
the draft SWEIS. NNSA expects to issue the draft SWEIS for public
review by next summer. Public comments on the draft SWEIS will be
received during a comment period of at least 45 days following
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication of the
Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Notices placed in
local newspapers will specify dates and locations for at least
one public hearing on the draft SWEIS, and will establish a
schedule for submitting comments on the draft, including a final
date for submission of comments. Issuance of the final SWEIS is
scheduled for late 2006.
Classified Material. NNSA will review classified material while
preparing this SWEIS. Within the limits of classification, NNSA
will provide the public as much information as possible to assist
its understanding and ability to comment. Any classified material
needed to explain the purpose and need for the action, or the
analyses in this SWEIS, will be segregated into a classified
appendix or supplement, which will not be available for public
review. However, all unclassified information or results of
calculations using classified data will be reported in the
unclassified section of the SWEIS, to the extent possible in
accordance with Federal classification requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of November, 2005.
Linton F. Brooks, Administrator, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-23369 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
54 Albuquerque Tribune: Bright Idea: Los Alamos Lab gets a clue from Wal-Mart
By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
November 28, 2005
Believe it or not, Wal-Mart and Los Alamos National Laboratory
have something in common.
They both have to get a firm handle on their inventory for the
holiday season rush.
Of course, national security won't be threatened if Wal-Mart is
off by a few pairs of socks this Christmas.
There would be significant alarm, on the other hand, if Los
Alamos came up short on its big annual nuclear inventory in
December, said Victoria Longmire, a nuclear materials safeguards
specialist at the lab.
"When Wal-Mart does inventory, they need to know the label is
correct and how many of each item they have," Longmire said.
"When we do inventory, we need to know that what's inside our
containers is actually what is supposed to be there, and we have
to be very accurate."
Managing nuclear inventory in the past was an exercise in
outdated technology. Lab personnel had to drag hundreds of
containers - ranging in size from a coffee mug to a refrigerator
- out of storage and into a separate facility where they were
weighed, tested and scanned, Longmire said.
This year some parts of the lab are using a new system designed
by Longmire. It's an inventory cart that can roll up to the
casks of nuclear material, weigh them, check labels and see
inside without opening them up, she said.
"It's not rocket science," Longmire said. "Basically what we
tried to do is take off-the-shelf Wal-Mart technologies and our
more sophisticated scanning and measurement equipment and put
them together."
The cart can shave weeks - and costs - off an inventory compared
with the older method. It also helps track when materials are
removed for scientific tests, said Nancy Ambrosiano, a
spokeswoman for the lab.
"A lot of the time people assume we have all these warehouses
full of nuclear materials and they never move," Ambrosiano said.
"The thing is, this is a scientific facility. People have to be
able to check materials in and out without throwing the
inventory off."
When an item is removed and returned, the cart can quickly scan
and make sure the materials are still present in the correct
amounts, Ambrosiano said.
It also prints out inventory reports and keeps a constant record
of what's there, as opposed to handwritten reports used in the
past, Longmire said.
Materials in storage are labeled with radio frequency tags and
bar codes. If there is a question about something being lost,
workers can do a very quick inventory by zipping through and
just checking the tags, Longmire said.
"Of course the cart isn't our only security," Longmire said.
"It's part of an integrated network of cameras, sensors and
smart portals that someone has to go through if they want to
remove any of the materials for research."
Los Alamos used the cart for the first time this October, when
the lab transferred several items from its TA-18 nuclear storage
facility - used since the 1940s - to a newer storage area at the
Nevada Test Site, Ambrosiano said.
"We were able to move that material basically on schedule,
despite the lab shutdown earlier this year, because of this
inventory cart," Ambrosiano said.
Work on the cart cost about $800,000 for the prototype, but
subsequent units will cost more in the range of $100,000 each,
Longmire said.
The project was sponsored by the Department of Energy Office of
Security and Safety Performance Assurance and the Office of
Field Security for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Longmire plans to continue tweaking and adding improvements to
the scanning and sensing abilities of the cart in coming months.
She hopes it will next be used at the lab's TA-55 facility,
which is the other big nuclear repository at Los Alamos, she
said.
© The Albuquerque Tribune
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************