*****************************************************************
05/17/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.117
*****************************************************************
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 [NYTr] US Updating contigency plan to bomb Iran
2 [NYTr] China, Russia to veto force against Iran
3 [NYTr] Iran Says EU is Offering "Candy for Gold"
4 [NYTr] Iran turns tables on EU 'incentives'
5 [NYTr] Nuclear Iran? Didn't the US Already Try That One?
6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects European Nuclear Incentives
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Potential European Incentives
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Enlists Allies in Nuke Program Battle
9 IRNA: Iran welcomes constructive proposals - envoy
10 IRNA: Iranian, Greek FMs discuss nuclear issue: Xinhua
11 Bellona: Iran shoots down EU diplomacy on uranium enrichment before
12 IRNA: President: Iranians will insist on their legal rights
13 IRNA: Russia, S Arabia to discuss Iran's N-case
14 AFP: No security guarantees for Iran - US
15 AFP: Iranian president ridicules European nuclear offer
16 AFP: London meeting on Iran crisis postponed
17 Annan Discusses Dpr Korea's Nuclear Programme With Japanese Prime Mi
18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Nuclear Negotiator to Visit S. Korea
19 Xinhua: US chief negotiator for six-party talks to visit Seoul
20 North Korea Times: Annan hopes for nuclear issue resolution
21 US: [NukeNet] Nuke Power Net Energy Scam
22 Global Security Demands Human Solidarity, Not Nuclear Deterrence - U
23 [NukeNet] G8 Sounds Nuclear Alarm, While Anti-Nuke Activists
24 Greenpeace: Choose Clean Energy - Stop Climate Change
25 Manawatu Standard: Radiation fight goes on
NUCLEAR REACTORS
26 US: [NukeNet] Great Letter Re Nuclear Power & "Experts"
27 IPS-English POLITICS: Muslim Nations Want Nuclear Energy, Wary
28 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
29 Guardian Unlimited: Blair presses the nuclear button
30 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet split over cost of nuclear energy
31 Guardian Unlimited: Justify nuclear 'agenda', PM urged
32 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Said to Launch Reactors in 2010
33 Guardian Unlimited: New reactors can be ready by 2017, says industry
34 Guardian Unlimited: Prime minister's questions
35 Guardian Unlimited: Blair decision challenges Cameron's green agenda
36 Guardian Unlimited: A decision that should not be rushed
37 London Times: Energy is bigger than nuclear versus the rest
38 US: St. Paul Pioneer Press: Unnecessary risks at Prairie Island
39 US: AP Wire: Ameren shuts down nuclear plant for second time in one
40 ENS: Blair Says Nuclear Power Back on the Agenda with a Vengeance
41 MSN: Radioactive water leaks from Japanese nuclear plant -
42 RIA Novosti: Russia wins tender to supply Czech NPP with nuclear fue
43 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk NPP in south Russia stopped for repairs
44 BBC: Papers ponder Blair's nuclear plans
45 BBC: Blair in anti-nuclear lobby clash
46 BBC: Blair sticks by nuclear options
47 BBC: Hopes grow for nuke
48 BBC: Doubts over Blair's nuclear
49 FT.com: Brussels briefing - Nuclear industry urged to win over EU pu
50 US: Platts: Peformance problems continue at Perry, Point Beach nukes
51 Pravda: Russia to launch two new nuclear reactors annually starting
52 Independent: Brown endorses Blair's plans for more nuclear power sta
53 EBR: Finland offers potential solution to UK nuclear finance quandar
54 US: toledoblade.com: Fermi II plans shutdown for fuel rod work
55 Comment is free: Blair's dodgy nuclear dossier
56 AFP: Blair angers ecologists with push for new nuclear plants -
57 AFP: Blair's call for new nuclear plants raises concerns about costs
58 US: WCRAN: Industry ready to fuel nuclear-power rebirth, NAM head sa
59 PDM: International nuclear school to be opened in North Bohemia -
60 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate a test for Beazley -
61 ITAR-TASS: Construction site for Leningrad NPP-2 selected
62 ITAR-TASS: Corporatisation of Russia nuclear sector launched – Kiriy
63 Livingstone: Nuclear an expensive and dangerous mistake
64 Telegraph: Foreigners will power UK's next nuclear age
65 Telegraph: Opinion | Going nuclear is a half-baked strategy
66 Scotsman: Labour manifesto opens door for new Scots nuclear plants
67 Comment is free: Nine nuclear questions
68 Comment is free: How much will you pay?
69 AU ABC: Articulate: Chernobyl: Ghost of the Soviet Union.
70 UPI: Blair gives backing to nuclear power
71 News & Star: Nuclear option just the start
72 News & Star: Blair pledge on nuclear power
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
73 US: Deseret News: Rocky wants N. Utah talks on blast
74 US: Record Online: Radiation overexposure at Indian Point
75 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP worker home care firm arrives
76 US: PVT: Native Americans protest planned non-nuclear blast at test
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
77 [NukeNet] Temporary Nuclear Storage May Be Needed Re Yucca
78 US: Deseret News: Proposals could let nuclear wastes in Utah
79 reviewjournal.com: Senators snap over mixed messages on Yucca projec
80 Platts: US won't use Yucca Mountain to store unrecycled waste: Domen
81 BUCHAREST DAILY NEWS: Radioactive waste nearby Bucharest not dangero
82 ITAR-TASS: Russia corporation wins Czech tender for nuclear fuel del
83 E&E D: Domenici delivers new message on future of Yucca Mountain -
84 NJ: Yucca Plan Hits Another Snag, Domenici Sees Long Delay -
85 US: Wall Street Journal: Waste Disposal Lights Up Nuclear Debate
86 Ensign: ENSIGN: DOMENICI REMARKS CAST FURTHER DOUBT ON YUCCA
87 US: KLASTV.com: Temporary Storage For Nation's Nuclear Waste Debated
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
88 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Congress weighs slowdown of Hanford work
89 SFNM: State accepts Los Alamos plan to study chromium contamination
90 TheNewsTribune.com: GAO recommends slow Hanford cleanup |
91 Chattanoogan: Oak Ridge Projects Get Full Funding In Energy And Wate
92 KnoxNews: Workers 'overwhelmingly' reject benefit plan changes
93 Knox News: Munger: Cleanup contractor's fee drops; is more
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] US Updating contigency plan to bomb Iran
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:26:50 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by MichaelP (activ-l)
[Here's a US contingency plan - what about yours? -Michael]
The Herald (Glasgow) - May 16 2006
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62043.html
US Updating Contingency Plans to Bomb Iran
THE US is updating contingency plans for a non-nuclear strike to cripple
Iran's atomic weapon programme if international diplomacy fails, Pentagon
sources have confirmed.
Strategists are understood to have presented two options for pinpoint
strikes using B2 bombers flying directly from bases in Missouri, Guam in
the Pacific and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
RAF Fairford in Gloucester also has facilities for B2s but this has been
ruled out because of the UK's opposition to military action against
Tehran.
The main plan calls for a rolling, five-day bombing campaign against 400
key targets in Iran, including 24 nuclear-related sites, 14 military
airfields and radar installations, and Revolutionary Guard headquarters.
At least 75 targets in underground complexes would be attacked with waves
of bunker-buster bombs.
Iranian radar networks and air defence bases would be struck by
submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles and then kept out of action by
carrier aircraft flying from warships in the Indian Ocean and Persian
Gulf.
The alternative to an all-out campaign is a demonstration strike against
one or two high-profile targets such as the Natanz uranium enrichment
facility or the hexafluoride gas plant at Isfahan.
UK sources say contingency plans have also been drawn up to cope with the
inevitable backlash against the Basra garrison in neighbouring
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] China, Russia to veto force against Iran
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 21:28:29 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Dave Muller (southnews)
[no source cited] - May 17, 2006
China, Russia to veto force against Iran
RUSSIA and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving the
Iranian nuclear dispute.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said yesterday after meeting with
Chinese officials in Beijing that dialogue was needed to resolve the
stand-off with Tehran.
"Russia and China will not vote for the use of force in resolving this
issue," Mr Lavrov said. "China and Russia agree the Iranian nuclear
issue should be resolved through dialogue."
Western governments have urged Iran to give up nuclear development,
which they fear is aimed at producing weapons.
The U.S. earlier sought a UN Security Council resolution to declare the
program a threat to world peace and subject Iran to sanctions or even
military action if it is not halted. Beijing and Moscow hold veto power
in the Security Council.
In the latest diplomatic initiative, the European Union offered Iran
economic incentives to stop enriching uranium. But the Iranian president
has rejected that.
The Russian-Chinese announcement came as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
said the international community must take "very urgent steps" to deal
with the dual problems of North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Mr Annan, speaking ahead of a meeting with South Korean President Roh
Moo-hyun in Seoul last night, urged all parties to stalled six-nation -
the U.S., North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea - talks on
North Korea's programs to resume them, saying human rights and other
topics should not be allowed to block the discussions.
"The nuclear issue is by far the most important and should be given a
separate category and priority as compared with human rights and other
activities," Mr Annan said.
He also urged Iran to work with European countries to settle the dispute
about the country's nuclear plans.
"Until recently we were focused on North Korea. Today we also have
Iran," he said. "The international community has to take very urgent
steps to deal with these issues."
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 [NYTr] Iran Says EU is Offering "Candy for Gold"
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:40:07 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[Iran took one look at the EU's "sweetener" and told them to suck it
off their own thumb. They don't need the EU's light-water reactor, and
the EU does need Iran's oil. -NYTr]
Al Jazeera - May 17, 2006
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/773F2935-C4FC-4B3C-9FE6-78C8AD179F25.htm
Iran says EU offer like 'candy for gold'
Iran's president has dismissed a EU offer of a light-water reactor in return
for giving up enriching uranium.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad likened the offer to accepting candy in payment for
gold.
"They say we want to give Iranians incentives, but they think they are
dealing with a four-year-old, telling him they will give him candies or
walnuts and take gold from him in return," he told a crowd in the central
city of Arak on Wenesday.
In the speech, broadcast live on the state television, he said the EU should
not "force governments and nations who are signatories to the atomic
Non-Proliferation Treaty to pull out of it".
Britain, France and Germany plan to offer the light-water reactor as part of
a package of incentives to Iran in return for the freezing of its uranium
enrichment programme, diplomats have said.
Token offer
Nuclear experts believe it is more difficult to use the light-water reactor
to develop nuclear weapons than a heavy-water plant.
Iran says it is enriching uranium as part of a civilian nuclear programme to
satisfy the country's energy needs.
However, the US and EU accuse Tehran of using this programme to cover up its
pursuit of nuclear weapons.
EU diplomats said on Tuesday that they would be surprised if Iran accepted
the offer, but would take rejection as a confirmation of their suspicions
regarding Tehran's nuclear aspirations.
The EU trio first proposed offering Iran light-water technology in 2005
after two years of negotiations. At the time, the Iranians said the offer
lacked specific incentives.
Diplomats said the new offer would be more specific, partly because they
were now confident of full US support.
The offer is being made, they said, to demonstrate to Russia and China, the
most sceptical members of the UN security council, that they were not
depriving Iran of the opportunity of a civilian programme.
Meeting delayed
Also on Wednesday, a high-level meeting on Iran has been postponed while the
United States lobbies other UN Security Council permanent members to harden
proposed penalties if Tehran does not give up uranium enrichment, diplomats
said.
The London meeting of senior representatives from the five permanent council
members and Germany was to have been on Friday.
But diplomats told The Associated Press that it had been moved to Tuesday or
Wednesday to allow more time for phone discussions on incentives and
penalties to be offered to Tehran, a diplomat said, demanding anonymity
because of the confidential nature of the information.
Agencies
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
4 [NYTr] Iran turns tables on EU 'incentives'
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:40:07 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AP via Al Jazeera - May 17, 2006
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E379C03F-6759-4080-9189-8C4C4EA7F981.htm
Iran turns tables on EU 'incentives'
Iran has dismissed an EU offer of a advanced nuclear reactor in return for
giving up its uranium enrichment programme, instead offering trade
concessions to Europe if it stops opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, heaped scorn on the offer in a
nationally televised speech on Wednesday.
"They say they want to offer us incentives," he said. "We tell them: Keep
the incentives as a gift for yourself. We have no hope of anything good from
you."
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, joined the
counter-attack, mockingly offering the Europeans trade concessions if they
dropped their opposition to its nuclear programme.
"We are prepared to offer economic incentives to Europe in return for
recognising our right [to enrich uranium]," state radio quoted him as
saying.
Lower risk
The EU is drawing up a package of trade and technological incentives -
including a light-water reactor - for Iran to stop enriching uranium.
The West fears the enriched uranium could be diverted to build a nuclear
weapon but Tehran says it only wants to generate energy.
A light-water reactor is considered less likely to be misused for nuclear
proliferation than is a heavy-water facility.
Ahmadinejad issued his retort to the EU in the city of Arak, the site of a
heavy-water reactor that is scheduled for completion by early 2009.
Such facilities produce plutonium as a by-product, which can be used to
build nuclear weapons.
Broken trust
The president said Tehran had put its trust in the European Union in 2003
and suspended its nuclear activities as a confidence-building measure.
The deal called for guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme was only
intended to building reactors for electricity generation and not to develop
weapons.
Iran agreed to the request, but negotiations collapsed in August 2005 when
the Europeans said the best guarantee was for Iran to permanently give up
its uranium enrichment programme.
Iran responded by resuming reprocessing activities at its uranium conversion
facility in Isfahan.
"We won't be bitten twice," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday.
In his speech on television, he said Iran would continue enrichment and
scolded the Europeans for doing the work of the Americans.
"We recommend that you not sacrifice your interests for the sake of others,"
he said.
AP
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
5 [NYTr] Nuclear Iran? Didn't the US Already Try That One?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:38:17 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by Joe Volk (FCNL) - May 16, 2006
A new preventive war is the talk of Washington following the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released this month It
said that Iran is not disclosing all aspects of its nuclear program and
has not halted uranium enrichment activities. Speeches by the Iranian
president have exacerbated the crisis. The IAEA has found no evidence
of research or diversion of materials toward atomic weapons in Iran.
But Washington still argues that Tehrans concealment of its nuclear
research program makes it untrustworthy to operate a domestic nuclear
fuel cycle -- even for civilian needs. For a detailed analysis see
FCNLs new blog, The Quakers Colonel at
http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/
Last week Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote an 18-page letter
to President George W. Bush. The White House immediately dismissed the
Iranian presidents letter as a philosophical ploy designed to derail
tough United Nations Security Council action to stop Iran from
expanding its nuclear program.
Yet a group of Iranian scholars suggested during a press conference at
FCNL that the U.S. might be wrong to dismiss the first direct
communication from an Iranian leader to a U.S. president in more than
two decades. This week, Henry Kissinger made the same argument. If
America is prepared to negotiate with North Korea over proliferation in
the six-party forum, and with Iran in Baghdad over Iraqi security, it
must be possible to devise a multilateral venue for nuclear talks with
Tehran that would permit the United States to participate -- especially
in light of what is at stake, writes Kissinger in a op ed published
in the Washington Post.
*U.S. Rhetoric Toward Iran Sounds Familiar*
President Bush insists that the U.S. is committed to exhausting all
diplomatic options to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
But the U.S. refuses to talk with Iran and the recent history of U.S.
preventive war in Iraq has led some people in the United States and
many people internationally to question U.S. intentions toward Iran
today.
The presidents own rhetoric in the last few weeks sounds very similar
to statements just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Asked about how
the U.S. will stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, Bush responded:
"The first option and the most important option is diplomacy. As
you know, I've made the tough decision to commit American troops into
harm's way," Bush told an audience in Florida last week.
"It's the toughest decision a president can ever make. But I want
you to know that I tried diplomacy. In other words, the president has
got to be able to say to the American people diplomacy didn't
work." Our own view is that the coercive diplomacy of this
administration has failed, and that the administration should now try
smart diplomacy as the alternative, not so-called preventive war.
White House officials argue that a credible threat is necessary to
force Iran to comply. The United States is pressing for a UN Security
Council resolution sanctioning Iran for re-starting its uranium
enrichment program. But, in early May, both China and Russia declined
to endorse a condemnation under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Over the
next one to two weeks, the European Union - 3 (Britain, France, and
Germany) is putting together a new packet of carrots and sticks to
entice Iran to reconsider its defiance and accept international control
of the fuel rods necessary to run its Russian-built reactor.
The U.S. is backing the EU-3s efforts. But the administrations
insistence that all options are on the table is escalating
tensions between two countries, whose leaders do not understand each
other, have a long history of hostility that occasionally boils over
into violence, and have almost no diplomatic relations. But as the
case of Iraq clearly demonstrates, war is not the answer. As military
analysts note, should the U.S. launch military action against Iran, the
130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq would be in immediate danger. This is
a dangerous game of chicken, warns Ahmad Sadri, a scholar who
coordinated 200 academics, experts and former government officials to
sign a letter warning the administration of the dire consequence of
U.S. military action against Iran.
*Congressional Debate on Iran*
FCNL urges policy makers to exercise caution in the matter of
imposing sanctions on Iran. As imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, the
economic sanctions exacted a devastating effect on masses of innocent
civilians and weakened any internal critics of the Iraqi regime. The
effects of those economic sanctions would almost certainly would have
risen to the level of war crimes had they been judged by the rules of
war, which prohibit the targeting of civilians. The U.S. should not
risk a similar outcome in Iran.
Many members of Congress embrace the calls for sanctions and support
the presidents characterization of Iran as part of an axis of
evil in the world. But some seasoned members of Congress are
offering a different view. Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) warned in April
against imposing sanctions on Iran and called for talks between the
U.S. and Iran. This view resonated with Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE), who
argued in an editorial last week any lasting solution to the Iranian
nuclear threat has to address the broader interest of Iran, the US, the
region and the world. FCNL has learned that several senators are
considering initiatives to encourage face-to-face negotiations between
the U.S. and Iran.
We at FCNL believe the that the U.S. ought to engage Iran bilaterally
and through the UN and other multilateral venues to develop and
implement procedures for safeguarding fissile materials, while
permitting Iran to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs in
accordance with the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
War is not the answer.
Read the web log entry, "Iranian Democracy in the 20th Century" at
http://quakerscolonel.blogspot.com/2006/05/iranian-democracy-in-20th-century.html
For more information on Iran see our web site
athttp://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=123
The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/
Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign
bumper stickers and yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/pubs/
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=bump
Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/donate/
Subscribe or update your information to this list:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/mlm/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see
the end of this message.
Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls.
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330
We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored.
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects European Nuclear Incentives
[UP]
Wednesday May 17, 2006 9:01 PM
AP Photo XHS101
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's president mocked a package of
incentives to suspend uranium enrichment, saying Wednesday they
were like giving up gold for chocolate - defiance that appeared
certain to complicate U.S. efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear
ambitions.
``Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom
you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from
him?'' President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked derisively.
He spoke before a huge crowd in the city of Arak, the site of a
heavy-water reactor that is scheduled for completion by early
2009. Such facilities produce plutonium as a byproduct usable in
building nuclear weapons.
Signaling the difficulties ahead, a high-level, six-nation
meeting on Iran was postponed Wednesday, reflecting differences
between the United States and its allies on one side, and the
Chinese and Russians on the other.
The London meeting of senior officials from the five permanent
Security Council members and Germany was to have been held
Friday, but was postponed to Tuesday at the earliest, diplomats
told The Associated Press.
The British Foreign Office said the move was ``to allow a
further detailed preparation of the ... offer to Iran.''
China and Russia have opposed bringing Iran's case to a vote in
the U.N. Security Council, where the United States, Britain and
France have pressed for sanctions.
Only a day earlier, European nations said they might add a
light-water reactor to a package of incentives meant to persuade
Tehran to permanently give up enrichment.
But Ahmadinejad heaped scorn on the offer in the nationally
televised speech Wednesday.
``They say they want to offer us incentives,'' he said. ``We
tell them: keep the incentives as a gift for yourself. We have
no hope of anything good from you.''
His defiance was met with shouts of, ``We love you
Ahmadinejad!'' from the crowd.
A light-water reactor is considered less likely to be misused
for nuclear proliferation than a heavy-water facility, which
produces plutonium waste.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi joined the president
in the counterattack, mockingly offering the Europeans trade
concessions if the EU dropped its opposition to the nuclear
program.
``We are prepared to offer economic incentives to Europe in
return for recognizing our right (to enrich uranium),'' state
radio quoted him as saying.
The fiery Ahmadinejad said Tehran had put its trust in the
European Union in 2003 and suspended its nuclear activities as a
confidence-building measure as negotiations continued. The EU
then demanded that Iran permanently stop uranium enrichment.
``We won't be bitten twice,'' Ahmadinejad said.
The 2003 deal called for guarantees that Iran's nuclear program
was only intended for building reactors for electricity
generation and was not being used as a cover to develop weapons.
Iran agreed to the request, but negotiations collapsed in August
2005 when the Europeans said the best guarantee was for Iran to
permanently give up its uranium enrichment program.
Iran responded by resuming reprocessing activities at its
uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.
On Wednesday, Ahmadinejad underlined Iran's determination to
continue enrichment and scolded the Europeans for what he viewed
as doing the dirty work of the Americans.
``We recommend that you not sacrifice your interests for the
sake of others,'' he said.
Ahmadinejad also reissued his threat to pull out of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.
``Don't force governments and nations to renounce their
membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,'' he said
asserting that Iran had the right to a civilian nuclear power
program.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meanwhile, said Tuesday
that Beijing and Moscow would not vote for using force to
resolve the nuclear dispute.
In a gesture to Tehran, Lavrov also said Ahmadinejad was
attending a summit next month in Shanghai, China, of leaders
from Russia, China and four Central Asian nations.
``We cannot isolate Iran or exert pressure on it,'' Lavrov said.
``Far from resolving this issue of proliferation, it will make
it more urgent.''
---
Associated Press Writer George Jahn in Vienna, Austria,
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Rejects Potential European Incentives
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 17, 2006 11:01 AM
AP Photo TOK215
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on
Wednesday rejected a possible European offer for incentives,
including a light-water nuclear reactor, in return for allaying
fears about his country's nuclear program by giving up uranium
enrichment.
``Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom
you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from
him?'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in a speech in
central Iran.
European nations have weighed adding a light-water reactor to a
package of incentives meant to persuade Tehran to permanently
give up uranium enrichment - or face the threat of U.N. Security
Council sanctions.
Senior diplomats and EU government officials said Tuesday that
the tentative plans were being discussed among France, Britain
and Germany as part of a possible package to be presented to
representatives of the five permanent U.N. Security Council
members and Germany at a meeting in London. All spoke on
condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the
information.
The London talks were postponed Wednesday until next week to
allow more time for phone discussions of what should be included
in the package of incentives and penalties to be offered to
Tehran, said a diplomat, requesting anonymity for the same
reason.
U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to say
Tuesday whether a light-water reactor would be offered in the
package. But he insisted that Iran would be required to halt its
program of enriching and reprocessing uranium on Iranian soil,
saying the United States and others ``do not want the Iranian
regime to have the ability to master those critical pathways to
a nuclear weapon.''
In his speech broadcast live on state television Wednesday,
Ahmadinejad said Iran ``won't accept any suspension or end'' to
its uranium enrichment activities.
He said Iran trusted the European Union in 2003 and suspended
its nuclear activities as a gesture to boost negotiations over
its nuclear program, only to have the Europeans eventually
demand Iran permanently halt its uranium enrichment program.
The 2003 deal called for guarantees that Iran's nuclear program
wouldn't diverge from civilian ends toward producing weapons.
Iran agreed to the request, but negotiations collapsed in August
2005 when the Europeans said the best guarantee was for Iran to
permanently give up its uranium enrichment program.
Iran responded by resuming uranium reprocessing activities at
its uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.
``We won't be bitten twice,'' Ahmadinejad said.
``We recommend that you not sacrifice your interests for the
sake of others,'' he said in an apparent warning to the European
Union about supporting the position advocated by the United
States.
Ahmadinejad reiterated his threat to pull out of Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty if international pressure to give up
uranium enrichment continued.
``Don't force governments and nations to renounce their
membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty,'' he said
asserting that Iran had the right to a civilian nuclear power
program.
With Iran's nuclear program now before the Security Council, the
Americans are at the forefront of efforts to introduce a council
resolution that would demand Iran give up enrichment or else
face the threat of sanctions. Washington seeks to make such a
resolution militarily enforceable, something opposed by Russia
and China, which continue instead to favor talks meant to
persuade Tehran to compromise.
In the latest sign of persisting differences, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that Beijing and Moscow will
not vote for the use of force in resolving the nuclear dispute.
In a gesture to Tehran, Lavrov also said Ahmadinejad will attend
a summit next month in Shanghai, China, of leaders from Russia,
China and four Central Asian nations.
``We cannot isolate Iran or exert pressure on it,'' Lavrov told
reporters. ``Far from resolving this issue of proliferation, it
will make it more urgent.''
A light-water reactor is considered less likely to be misused
for nuclear proliferation than the heavy water facility Iran is
building at the city of Arak, which - once completed by early
2009 - will produce plutonium waste.
Still, light-water reactors are not proliferation-proof, because
they are fueled by enriched uranium, which can be processed to
make highly enriched ``weapons-grade'' material for nuclear
warheads.
---
Associated Press Writer George Jahn in Vienna, Austria,
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
8 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Enlists Allies in Nuke Program Battle
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 17, 2006 7:16 PM
AP Photo XHS101
By TAREK AL-ISSAWI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran is enlisting Syria and the militant
Palestinian Hamas group - both also deeply at odds with the
United States, Israel and some in western Europe - as allies in
the battle over its disputed nuclear program.
The move has prompted Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman to
declare that ``a dark cloud is looming above our region, and it
is metastasizing as a result of the statements and actions by
leaders of Iran, Syria and the newly elected government of the
Palestinian Authority.''
Syria and Iran have historically close ties dating back to 1980,
when Damascus sided with Iran against Saddam Hussein in the
Iran-Iraq war. But ties have become far cozier since hard-line
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected last summer.
Syria was the new leader's first destination after he took
office, and President Bashar Assad returned the compliment,
becoming the first head of state to travel to Iran after
Ahmadinejad assumed power.
Iranian and Syrian officials spoke of forming a ``united front''
to counter external pressure. It was Assad's fourth trip to Iran
since he took office in 2000, succeeding his father, Hafez
Assad.
Iran also has a long history of close ties to Hamas. Despite
Iranian denials, Tehran was believed to have funded the group
for years.
After Hamas won Palestinian legislative elections and the United
States and Western Europe cut funding because of the militant
organization's vow to destroy Israel, Iran announced it was
sending the beleaguered Hamas-led government $50 million.
It remains unclear whether the money reached the Palestinians
because Arab bankers fear U.S. retribution if they forward the
funds.
While Iran, Syria and Hamas share an ideology that rejects
Israel, opposes the Middle East peace process and is hostile to
the United States, analysts say the alliance is nothing more
than a tactic to boost morale and would be of little use to
Tehran should the Americans attack.
``Tactically, the other part of the equation (Syria and Hamas)
is too weak at the moment. Iran will certainly try to use all
the options it has, but the Syria-Hamas factor is not beneficial
to Iran,'' said Tehran-based political analyst Mashallah
Shamsolvaezin.
``Syria and Hamas have their own problems. Damascus is trying to
deal with international pressure over the assassination of
former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, and Hamas is almost
broke and does not have the ability to take any initiatives to
help Iran,'' Shamsolvaezin said.
Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based political analyst, concurred, saying
Syria has ``moved down the list of countries on the U.S.
radar.''
Iranian political commentator Ahmad Bakhshayesh said both Syria
and Hamas would want to avoid any unnecessary attention now.
``They are busy with their own domestic and international issues
and would want to avoid new problems,'' he said.
But other, more powerful Arab countries could take up the slack.
``If something on the ground happens, there will be solidarity
with Iran across the Arab world, except perhaps the neighboring
Arab Gulf states,'' he said.
Iran has taken comfort in the nuclear dispute from Moscow and
Beijing, both veto-holding members of the U.N. Security Council,
who oppose sanctions to punish Tehran. The United States,
Britain and France - the other veto-wielding members - favor
tougher measures.
Washington wants a U.N. resolution demanding that Iran stop
uranium enrichment or face sanctions and perhaps military
enforcement.
Movement toward a vote on a resolution was put on hold earlier
this month to give the European Union more time for diplomacy.
But its initial offers of economic and political incentives to
Iran, including providing it with a light-water reactor, have
been rejected out of hand by Ahmadinejad.
``Do you think you are dealing with a 4-year-old child to whom
you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from
him?'' the Iranian president said Wednesday.
Despite the harsh rhetoric, senior Iranian officials have been
jetting across the Middle East, visiting Kuwait, the United Arab
Emirates, Turkey and Syria in an apparent bid to reassure its
neighbors of Tehran's peaceful intentions and win support.
And Iran has shown extraordinary dexterity with the United
States and its European allies, as it tries to buy time.
Both Bakhshayesh and Shamsolvaezin said Iran was expert in
dragging out conflicts.
``Iran is like a marathon champion when it comes to
international conflicts. It lures the enemy in and then
systematically and gradually takes control. It has proved that
in the past,'' Shamsolvaezin said.
Rashwan, the Cairo-based analyst, predicted Iran would continue
playing a deft hand.
``The Iranians are veterans at playing a high-stakes game and
then cooling off the situation. They have immense negotiating
powers and the will to protect their interests at any cost,'' he
said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: Iran welcomes constructive proposals - envoy
Tashkent, May 17, IRNA
Iran-Uzbekistan-Nuclear
Iranian Ambassador to Uzbekistan Mohammad Fat'hali said here
Wednesday that Iran welcomes any constructive proposal that
would guarantee the rights of the nation and help settle its
nuclear case.
The ambassador was speaking to reporters at a press conference
in which he pointed to a new proposal by the three big states of
the European Union (Germany, France and Britain) aimed at
resolving the current dispute on Iran's nuclear activities.
"Iran says the proposal should include two conditions. It
should officially recognize the country's inalienable nuclear
rights based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and guarantee
implementation of these rights.
"Iran's demands in its nuclear case are based on the NPT. As a
signatory to the NPT, we have repeatedly announced we just
intend to enjoy our inalienable rights based on the treaty," he
said.
Elaborating on Iran's aim in enriching uranium, he said this
was merely to produce fuel for a nuclear reactor, and regretted
that the Western press was not reflecting the truth with regard
to this matter.
Assessing demands on Iran to halt its nuclear activities as
"illogical" and "unacceptable," he said the demands would
violate its rights under the NPT.
"If Europe's new offer makes the same demand, it will face the
same fate as its previous proposal which Iran rejected in August
2005."
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: Iranian, Greek FMs discuss nuclear issue: Xinhua
Tehran, May 17, IRNA
Iran-Greece-Conversation
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Greek
counterpart, Dora Bakoyanni, on Wednesday discussed latest
developments in the Iran nuclear issue.
China's official news agency, Xinhua, said Mottaki and
Bakoyanni, in a telephone conversation, exchanged views on the
European Union's new proposal for Iran and efforts to settle the
dispute on Iran's nuclear activities through diplomatic channels.
The Greek minister reportedly told his Iranian counterpart that
the EU proposal was very effective, and urged Iran to consider it
in a positive and constructive way.
*****************************************************************
11 Bellona: Iran shoots down EU diplomacy on uranium enrichment before it is
even tabled
In an apparent effort to thwart diplomatic efforts before they
even get off the ground, Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said Sunday that Tehran will reject any new deals
offered by European powers to halt the Islamic republic's nuclear
activities if they required his country to stop enriching
uranium.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejects out of hand any
offer from the EU to cut Iran’s uranium enrichment programme
while speaking on Iranian national television.
AFP
Charles Digges, 2006-05-15 13:27
The announcement from Ahmadinejad dovetails with the discovery
of highly enriched uranium residue by United Nations (UN)
nuclear watchdog inspectors from the International Atomic Energy
agency (IAEA) of some of Iran’s enrichment equipment.
"Any offer which requires us to halt our peaceful nuclear
activities will be invalid," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by
the state news agency IRNA Sunday.
"If they want to decide things that concern us in a place where
we are not present, then that body does not have any legal
validity or credibility in decision-making," Ahmadinejad said,
referring to on-going talks between western diplomats in
Brussels over the nuclear standoff with Tehran.
President Ahmadinejad spoke on state television after returning
from Indonesia, where he was warmly welcomed and won developing
nations' support for the peaceful production of nuclear energy.
Iran reports huge advances in uranium enrichment
Iran has apparently successfully enriched uranium for the
first time, a landmark in its quest in developing nuclear fuel,
hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday—but he
insisted his country does not aim to develop nuclear weapons,
western news agencies reported.
European Union (EU) members Britain, France and Germany are
considering offering a new bundle of wide-ranging incentives to
Iran in return for a guarantee that it will suspend its
uranium-enrichment activities, which the West suspects of being
part of a covert atomic weapons programme. Ahmadinejad’s remarks
were clearly aimed at European Union foreign ministers meeting
taking place Monday in Brussels, Belgium.
Washington and its European allies’ earlier efforts have sought
to push a UN Security Council resolution that would oblige Iran
to halt all uranium enrichment work or face possible sanctions.
Russia, China reluctant on UN Security Council resolution
But Russia and China, which have energy interests in Iran, have
resisted the sanctions. Washington agreed to let Britain, France
and Germany—the so-called EU3—devise a package of benefits for
Iran in return for cooperating, pushing back a decision on a
possible resolution, diplomatic sources said.
"The aim is to come up with a very attractive package to make it
difficult for the Iranian government to refuse," a senior envoy
from one of the EU3 countries told Bellona Web in a telephone
interview.
Russia proposes joint uranium fuel production with Iran
Iran will process a new batch of uranium at its Isfahan atomic
plant beginning next week with Russia’s help, despite pressure
from the United States and European Union to halt all sensitive
nuclear work, diplomats told Reuters on Wednesday.
A draft statement for Monday's EU meeting obtained by Bellona
Web stated the group was ready to help Tehran develop "a safe,
sustainable and proliferation-proof civilian nuclear programme"
while insisting it halt all enrichment on its own soil. Russia
had previously offered—in an effort to de-fuse the stand-off
between Iran and the EU3—to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia,
but was rebuffed.
EU officials said it was undecided if help could include letting
Western firms build nuclear power stations in Iran, an offer
sources said was in an earlier package rejected by Iran last
August, and which also stipulated an end to enrichment, Reuters
reported.
The EU’s new offer
The foreign ministers of the EU3 countries were meeting in
Brussels on Monday to work out technical, trade and political
sweeteners that would be offered to Iran in exchange for
allaying Western fears that Tehran is seeking to produce an atom
bomb, notably by halting uranium enrichment.
But European officials said no major progress on a final
proposal could be expected at the Brussels meeting. The plan
would be held in reserve until after talks among
non-proliferation officials from the five permanent members of
the EU Security Council on Friday in London.
Afghanistan has also offered to mediate between Washington and
Tehran, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta was quoted
on Sunday as saying, the Associated Press reported.
Spanta told Germany's Bild am Sonntag newspaper that he and
Afghan President Hamid Karzai planned to travel to Tehran at the
end of May to assess the "room to manoeuver" for a peaceful
resolution to the conflict.
Would Iran scrap industrial uranium fuel producton?
Several Iranian officials have recently focused on saying Iran
must be allowed to keep at least an enrichment research
programme, suggesting Tehran might be ready to scrap plans for
industrial-scale production of uranium fuel as part of a deal.
"We should first see what the (EU) proposal is. Anyway, we will
not abandon our rights. (Nuclear) research and development will
remain on Iran's agenda," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza
Asefi told a weekly news conference.
But Washington has said all such work must stop and the draft EU
proposals rules out even enrichment for research.
Western diplomats say keeping even a small-scale enrichment
programme at home would enable Iran to master a technology that
could quickly be expanded for military purposes in the future if
Tehran chose.
Iran’s Response
"These masters believe that they are still living in the
colonial era, and so their decisions are not valid for us," said
Ahmadinejad.
Asefi also vowed: "We will not back down on our rights." Any
offer to Iran must recognise the rights of Iran and guarantee
the means to exercise those rights," he told reporters.
Civilian nukes in Iran
At present, Iran has no functioning civilian nuclear programme,
though it is in the works. Russia took over the building of a
light water reactor in the Iranian port town that was begun by
Siemens of Germany, but abandoned during the Islamic revolution.
Russia plans to have the reactor online later this year or early
next year and is also seeking contracts for as many as five more
reactors in Iran—a thorn in the side of many western
negotiators, most notably the United States.
According to President Ahmadinejad, the "best incentives" for
cooperation from Tehran would be the implementation of parts of
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which recognises the
right of signatory states to do research on and produce nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes—Iran, unlike other countries such
as India and Israel to which the Bush Administration has lent
nuclear support, is an NPT signatory.
The West’s conditions
Ahmadinejad’s purported view to a peaceful nuclear industry in
Iran is not held by the Western powers, which are also pushing
for a UN Security Council resolution that would make a
suspension of enrichment legally binding. Iran has vowed to
ignore any such resolution.
Although the United States has repeatedly said it wants to see
the crisis resolved through diplomacy, US administration
officials have refused to rule out the option of military action
against Iran.
Washington reasons that the EU3 have already tried but failed to
use incentives to coax Iran into agreeing to a moratorium on
fuel work, according to a western diplomat.
Iran said Sunday it has also already enriched uranium to 4.8
percent—higher than its announcement last month made to great
local fanfare stating that it had enriched uranium to 3.5
percent—which is sufficient to make nuclear fuel for a power
station, progress that it argues the Western world needs to
accept.
Highly enriched uranium
Iran also showed its determination not to step down when the
Foreign Ministry’s Asefi on Sunday dismissed a report two days
earlier that IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched
uranium on some of Iran's nuclear equipment.
“It's insignificant. It's not important. Previously, things like
this were said but later inspectors arrived at the right
conclusions,'' Asefi told reporters.
It was the second time the IAEA inspectors found traces of
highly enriched uranium at Iranian facilities. The first
discovery was later traced to equipment from Pakistan that Iran
allegedly bought on the black market during nearly two decades
of clandestine activity.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22
38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
12 IRNA: President: Iranians will insist on their legal rights
Arak, Markazi Prov, May 17, IRNA
Iran-President-Tour
The Iranian nation will insist on their legal rights and will
not submit to threats or worthless incentives, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said here Wednesday.
Addressing a large crown in a stadium in the central city of
Arak, the president said Iran will not withdraw an iota from its
rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
He warned big powers of deciding in a way that would discredit
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and "convince
members to end their membership in the agency."
President Ahmadinejad stressed that the Iranian nation "will in
no way give up its peaceful nuclear activities as it once did in
the past three years and is determined not to repeat this bitter
experience."
"If Iran is made to halt its nuclear activities and be
subjected to new inspections, other states should also be made
to stop their nuclear activities," said the president.
He stressed that the era of bullying was over and warned powers
which try to impose their ideas on others that they "will
sustain utmost damage."
Referring to a letter which he sent to his US counterpart on
May 8, Ahmadinejad said that his letter offered US officials "a
historic opportunity on behalf of the Iranian nation."
Reminding his listeners that history has been one of the best
teachers of mankind, the president said that those "who have
distanced themselves from the teachings of the Divine Prophets
would be severely punished by God."
Ahmadinejad and his cabinet members arrived in this central
city Wednesday morning for a two-day visit.
His visit is part of his program of meeting local residents and
getting to know their problems firsthand.
After he finished his speech, he left the city for the city of
Shazand in the southeastern part of the province.
On the first day of his two-day trip to this central province,
he is expected to visit the cities of Khomein (birthplace of the
late Imam Khomeini, Father of the Islamic Revolution), Delijan
and Mahalaat.
The president's current visit is his 13th to various provinces
of the country.
Markazi province, situated about 300 kilometers southwest of
the capital Tehran, has a population of about 1.5 million.
*****************************************************************
13 IRNA: Russia, S Arabia to discuss Iran's N-case
, May 17, IRNA
--
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has announced he will
exchange views with senior Saudi officials on Iran's peaceful
nuclear activities.
Lavrov, who is scheduled to pay a two-day visit to Saudi Arabia
on Sunday, will discuss latest developments in Iran's nuclear
case with Saudi officials.
Riyadh has always supported Tehran's peaceful nuclear
activities, he said, and stressed that all countries, including
Iran, have the right to access peaceful nuclear technology.
Condemning the dual approach of the West towards Iran's nuclear
activities, Saudi Arabia has rejected the claims made by the
West, saying Iran has not been found diverting its nuclear
program towards production of military weapons against the
interests of the region.
The Saudi government also backs a peaceful solution to the
nuclear crisis of Iran and has cautioned the West against any
military action which would endanger the entire region.
Moscow has said it will not vote for any resolution that would
use force on Iran to force it to halt its nuclear activities.
It believes continuing the negotiations with Tehran would be
the only solution to the crisis caused by the West on Iran's
nuclear program.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently announced that
Moscow believes no date should be set to settle Iran's nuclear
case and that negotiation would be the only solution to the
nuclear dispute.
Moscow has called on Iran to move within the framework of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
*****************************************************************
14 AFP: No security guarantees for Iran - US
Wed May 17, 7:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will not give Iran" />
Iransecurity guarantees in exchange for forfeiting its nuclear
program, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
"That's not something from the United States that's on the
table," McCormack told reporters when asked about European
willingness to present Iran with incentives tied to security.
On Monday, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in
Brussels that the European Union" /> European Unionwas preparing
a "bold package, that will contain issues relating to nuclear,
economic matters, and maybe, if necessary, security matters".
But McCormack said the US was not considering offering
assurances over security.
"I'll let others speak for themselves," McCormack said. "But
from the United States, that's not on the table."
He recalled President George W. Bush" /> President George W.
Bush's oft-repeated position that no option is off the table,
including the military option.
Earlier Wednesday Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
ridiculed the EU plan during a rally in Arak, Iran, saying,
"They say they want to give us incentives. They think they can
take away our gold and give us some nuts and chocolate in
exchange."
When asked about the comment, McCormack said: "I think that once
this is presented to the Iranian regime, we will have at least a
better idea of what their intent is."
McCormack also said that the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council plus Germany would meet on Tuesday to work out
a common approach on Iran.
The discussions on Iran were initially scheduled for Friday but
the State Department spokesman said the six countries needed
time to prepare contingency plans depending on how Iran responds
to the package of incentives and penalties.
He said diplomats from the major powers were trying to "talk
through" the question of "how would the international community
react to either Iran agreeing to this package of incentives or
rejecting this package of incentives?"
McCormack added: "And so you can understand this is complex,
complicated, multilateral diplomacy. It takes a little bit of
time."
Washington has urged a resolution that would invoke Chapter
Seven of the UN Charter, which can authorize sanctions or even
military action as a last resort.
Russia and China, which have close trading ties with Tehran,
have so far opposed coercive measures to rein in Iran's nuclear
activities.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Iranian president ridicules European nuclear offer
by Farhad Pouladi Wed May 17, 8:03 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran" /> Iran's hardline President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad ridiculed a European Union" /> European Unionplan to
offer trade and technology incentives in exchange for his country
agreeing to halt sensitive nuclear work.
"They say they want to give us incentives. They think they can
take away our gold and give us some nuts and chocolate in
exchange," Ahmadinejad told a rally in the town of Arak.
In a confident speech carried live on state-run television, he
also vowed the Islamic regime would not bow to demands it freeze
uranium enrichment work -- at the centre of fears the country
could acquire atomic weapons.
The president also again warned that Iran could quit the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and halt inspections by the UN's
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency(IAEA).
"We accepted a suspension for two years," Ahmadinejad said,
referring to a now-moribund deal with leading EU members
Britain, France and Germany.
"This was a bitter experience for the Iranian people. The
Iranians won't be bitten twice on the same spot," he told a
crowd of thousands, drawing chants of "Death to America!" and
"Ahmadinejad, we love you!"
Enrichment is a process that makes fuel for nuclear power
reactors but can also produce the core of a nuclear weapon. Iran
insists that it only wants to make reactor fuel and that this is
a right enshrined by the NPT.
"We don't need incentives. There is no need to give us
incentives, just don't try to wrong us," said the president
during the rock festival-style rally.
The European powers are currently drawing up a package of trade
and technological incentives they hope will coax Iran into
voluntarily curbing its atomic ambitions.
Under the draft deal, Russia would enrich uranium on Iran's
behalf, diplomats say.
The offer -- which could include helping Iran acquire a
light-water nuclear reactor -- was to have been reviewed Friday
in London by the five permanent UN Security Council members plus
Germany, but this meeting has been postponed.
"The reason is to allow more detailed preparations on the EU-3
proposals to Iran," a British Foreign Office spokesman told AFP
in London. He added that a meeting would likely take place in
the next 10 days or so.
A similar offer was made last year but also spurned by Tehran.
The Foreign Office spokesman declined to comment on
Ahmadinejad's latest tough talk, saying: "He's been saying these
things continuously ... and everyone knows our position."
Security Council members remain divided over how to crack down
on Iran if the new offer is rejected.
Washington, along with the so-called EU-3, wants a Security
Council resolution that would make a suspension legally-binding
-- but Russia and China fear this would worsen tensions and open
the door to military action.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad confidently asserted that the Western
powers were doomed to fail.
"These bullying powers are nothing and are bound to go away
because they stand in the way of truth. They will be defeated
and they won't last. This is the divine tradition," he said in
his speech in Arak, situated 250 kilometres (160 miles)
southwest of Tehran.
Arak is also the site of a planned heavy-water reactor, another
source of concern in the West.
"As long as the nation is pious, it will overcome all problems
and will humiliate the enemies," said Ahmadinejad, who managed
to give a rousing speech despite an apparent soar throat.
The firebrand president also repeated a warning that Iran could
follow the path of North Korea" /> North Korea.
"Don't act in a way so that countries and other people stop
being a member of the NPT and finish with the agency," he
warned.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: London meeting on Iran crisis postponed
Wed May 17, 8:21 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - A meeting of world powers in London on the Iran"
/> Irannuclear crisis has been postponed in order to fine-tune
European Union" /> European Unionproposals to Tehran, Britain
said.
The meeting -- involving senior diplomatic officials from
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States --
would likely take place in the next 10 days or so, a Foreign
Office spokesman told AFP.
"The reason is to allow more detailed preparations on the EU-3
proposals to Iran," he said. Those proposals -- set out by
London, Paris and Berlin -- would offer incentives to Tehran if
it halts sensititive nuclear work.
Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, but
the international community has yet to be reassured that the
Islamic republic's real aim is to develop its own nuclear
weapons.
The United States, along with Britain, France and Germany, which
are leading the EU response on Iran, want a UN Security Council
resolution that would legally bind Iran to stopping its uranium
enrichment work.
But China and Russia fear this could worsen tensions and open
the door to a military attack on Iran -- an option that the
United States is refusing to take off the table.
Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier Wednesday
ridiculed the idea of EU incentives, telling a rally: "They
think they can take away our gold and give us some nuts and
chocolate in exchange."
The Foreign Office spokesman declined to comment on
Ahmadinejad's tough talk, saying: "He's been saying these things
continuously... and everyone knows our position."
He also said he was unable to confirm when the closed-door
meeting in London would now take place, but added: "We're
looking at some time over the next 10 days."
Speaking in Washington on Tuesday, where he hinted that the
London meeting might be postponed, US Under Secretary for
Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the EU incentives had yet
to be finalised.
"The package has not been approved. It is under development,"
Burns said, adding that the London talks would "probably" take
place next week.
"We are just at the beginning," he added. "I can't say anything
about the package as it is still being negotiated."
The idea of a London meeting on Friday was announced last week,
after a dinner in New York of foreign ministers of the six
countries trying to forge a common approach on Iran.
According to diplomats in Vienna, the headquarters of the
International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic
Energy Agency, the EU and the United States are considering a
proposal to allow Iran to acquire a light-water nuclear reactor
in return for forfeiting uranium enrichment. Russia would enrich
uranium on Iran's behalf.
UN sanctions could follow if Iran did not accept the deal,
diplomats in Vienna told AFP.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 Annan Discusses Dpr Korea's Nuclear Programme With Japanese Prime Minister
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:00:07 -0400
ANNAN DISCUSSES DPR KOREA’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME WITH JAPANESE PRIME
MINISTER
New York, May 17 2006 2:00PM
On the third leg of a six-country tour, Secretary-General Kofi Annan
met in Tokyo today with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi,
discussing issues ranging from United Nations reform to the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) nuclear weapons programme.
“We covered lots of territory in a relatively short time,” Mr. Annan
<"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=874">told reporters
following the meeting.
The two leaders also discussed the sometimes stormy relations between
the Republic of Korea and Japan and “and the need to reduce
tensions and improve relations,” Mr. Annan said. “I was able to,
since I am just coming from South Korea, to share my impressions
and observations with the Prime Minister who also would want to see
a good relation between the two countries.”
He said Mr. Koizumi indicated that during the five years since he
has been in office, contacts had expanded and he seemed quite hopeful
as to the future.
“I think what is important is that after this conversation, I have
a feeling that the door is open, it may require some important
gestures to ease the way forward and remove the impediments that
stand in the way of further development of this essential relationship,”
the Secretary-General added.
Asked about the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, Mr. Annan said
he hoped that negotiations will resume and that “all parties will
go to the table with an open mind.”
Following the meeting with the Prime Minister, the Secretary-General
also met with Foreign Minister Taro Ase, and separately with
Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.
Mr. Annan, who began his current trip in Vienna last week, will also
visit China, Viet Nam and Thailand.
2006-05-17 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/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
18 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Nuclear Negotiator to Visit S. Korea
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 17, 2006 4:46 AM
By BO-MI LIM
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The top U.S. nuclear negotiator will
visit South Korea next week to focus on ways to resume the
stalled six-way talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program,
officials said Wednesday.
During his two-day trip, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill ``plans to discuss important issue between
South Korea and the United States, including six-party talks,''
South Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters.
Nuclear talks were last held in November, when negotiators made
no progress toward implementing a September agreement in which
the North agreed to give up its nuclear program in exchange for
aid and security guarantee.
Pyongyang has refused to return to negotiations until Washington
lifts financial restrictions it imposed on the communist nation
for alleged illegal activity such as counterfeiting.
The United States says the North should return without
conditions, and has increasingly pressured the North over its
poor human rights record - a move analysts say may be aimed at
pushing it to resume the nuclear negotiations.
The talks also include China, Japan, Russia and South Korea.
Hill's planned visit comes after the United States said it will
restore full diplomatic relations with Libya and remove it from
a list of terrorism sponsors as a reward for renouncing weapons
of mass destruction and cooperating in the hunt for terrorists.
Libya's case ``is an example that shows there is a brighter
future when one gives up WMD,'' Ban said Wednesday.
``Our government will urge North Korea to realize that there
will be a brighter and better future for them if they give up
nuclear weapons and to return to the six-party talks soon for
prompt resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue,'' he said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
19 Xinhua: US chief negotiator for six-party talks to visit Seoul
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-17 15:13:13
Special:
SEOUL, May 17 (Xinhua) -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Christopher Hill, also the U.S. chief negotiator for the
six-party talks, will visit Seoul next week to seek ways to
resume the six-party talks on the nuclear issues on the Korean
Peninsula, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon said on
Wednesday.
"The main purpose (of Hill's visit) is to make consultations
on the nuclear issue and bilateral issues between South Korea
and the U.S.," Ban told a news conference.
Hill is expected to meet with Chun Yung-woo, South Korea's
chief negotiator for the six-party talks, and other related
officials during his two-day visit on May 25, Ban said.
Ban said Hill's trip "reflects the fact that South Korea and
the U.S. are closely working together to resume the six-way
talks."
Hill's visit draws attention as former South Korean
President Kim Dae-jung plans to visit the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) and meet with DPRK's top leader Kim
Jong-il late June.
However, Ban refused to give comments on whether Hill's
visit has connections with Kim Dae-jung's upcoming trip.
The six-party talks, composing the two the DPRK, South
Korea, China, the United Sates, Russia and Japan, has been in a
standoff since the last session of the talks ended in last
September. The DPRK accused the United States of conducting
economic sanctions against it and set the lift of the sanctions
as a precondition for the talks. Enditem
Editor: Yao Runping
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
20 North Korea Times: Annan hopes for nuclear issue resolution
NorthKoreaTimes.com Thursday 18th May 2006 Issue 756
Big News Network
Tuesday 16th May, 2006 (UPI)
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged a resumption of
six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear weapons program.
Talks on North Korea's nuclear program are currently suspended
as Pyongyang protests U.S. actions to freeze North
Korean-related accounts in a Macao banks because of allegedly
money laundering by the North.
I would urge the parties to the six-party talks not to slow
their efforts but to persevere and press ahead and get everyone
back to the table to continue the discussions, Annan said.
I think in terms of priority, the nuclear issue is by far the
most important issue and should be given a separate category and
priority as compared with human rights and other activities.
Annan arrived in Seoul Sunday for a three-day visit on the first
leg of a 2-week Asian tour. He is also to visit Japan, China,
Vietnam and Thailand.
*****************************************************************
21 [NukeNet] Nuke Power Net Energy Scam
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:50:44 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bell"
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:39 PM
It is widely known that even after all the
energy has been consumed to
create nuclear fuel rods and they are installed in
a reactor and generating
heat to produce steam to run a steam turbine to
turn a generater to produce
electricity, the efficiency of the process is
around 32%. As you will see
below and in Sidney's book, when all the other
fossil fuel inputs needed to
support the whole nuclear fuel cycle are included,
the net thermodynamic
energy gain is 4% as Sidney calculates or even
negative as is sited below in
the paragraph with the footnote number 132.
The material below was excerpted from my first
book. Like my latest book,
this book is also available free on my web site,
www.jimbell.com, click on
"Jim's First Book". The footnotes for this excerpt
follow the text.
ACHIEVING ECO-NOMIC SECURITY*
ON SPACESHIP EARTH
By Jim Bell
CHAPTER VII
EFFICIENT ENERGY USE
Pollution related to the nuclear power industry
includes:
1.. Radioactive residues borne by wind and water
from uranium mines and
mine tailings.
Rain water runoff from uranium mines and their
tailings causes harmful
pollutants to be distributed far beyond mining
sites. Land is also required
for uranium processing facilities and for the
storage of radioactive wastes.
In some areas, radioactive residues from mining
are scattered so extensively
that the public is at risk. The Grants Mineral
Belt, a large area in
West-central New Mexico, is so contaminated from
mining and milling
operations "that scientists have recommended that
human habitation of the
area be permanently prohibited." (124)
An associated cost connected with mine residues
is the illnesses,
primarily cancer, that uranium miners have
experienced. To address this
problem, Congress passed a bill which will pay 300
to 500 miners or their
survivors $100,000 each in compensation. (125)
Although no amount of money
can make up for the tragedy of cancer, this
compensation package equals $30
to $50 million.
2.. The release of radioactive materials during
fuel enrichment processes
and when the enriched fuel is loaded into
reactors. (126)
3.. The release of radioactive materials as part
of normal reactor
operation and during nuclear plant accidents.
(127)
4.. Contamination of the environment with
radioactive materials at nuclear
waste storage facilities. (128)
In recent years nuclear power has been touted as a
way to reduce CO2
emissions. Even if this is true, investing in
efficiency reduces CO2
emissions for a lot less money. A study by the
Rocky Mountain Institute
concluded that "every dollar invested in energy
efficiency displaces nearly
seven times more carbon dioxide than the same
investment in nuclear power."
(129)
In general, investing in efficiency will displace
more carbon dioxide than
investing in nuclear power or any other power
production system. Investing
in efficiency also makes better economic sense. In
1991 a Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory analysis revealed that a government
investment of $6 million in
three projects to improve the performance of
compact florescent lights,
high-performance windows, and low-energy heat
pumps, water heaters, and air
conditioners had "already realized savings of $5
billion and will eventually
generate savings of $82 billion -- a return on
taxpayer investment of 14,000
to 1". (130) Just the $3 million dollars spent on
the development of high
performance windows "will eventually save as much
energy as the Interior
Department believes could be found from drilling
in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge." (131)
One study concluded that nuclear power may
actually be a net CO2 producer.
According to Gene Tyner Sr. of the Oklahoma
Institute for a Viable Future,
Robert Costanza of the Coastal Ecology Institute,
Center for Wetland
Resources, Louisiana State University, and Richard
G. Fowler of the
University of Oklahoma, nuclear power is probably
not even a net energy
producer. In their view, nuclear power, even
without including past or
future accidents, "is at best a re-embodiment of
the fossil energies by
which it was set in place." (132)
In other words, if all the energy inputs necessary
to mine and process
uranium for use in reactors, to build and operate
a reactor, and to
decommission it and store the wastes it produces
are added together, they
are greater than the amount of energy a reactor
produces over its lifetime.
If this is true, less CO2 would have been released
to produce the same
amount of energy if the fossil fuels used up to
create the nuclear industry
had been burned directly to make electricity
instead.
Even if nuclear power proves to be a net energy
plus, it "cannot compete
(economically) with either efficiency or
renewables." (133) To date, nuclear
power has "cost the United States about $200
billion in public and private
investment -- by one government estimate over a
trillion dollars if all the
tax-payer provided R&D (research and development)
is included." (134) That
is more money than what was spent on "the Vietnam
War and the Space Program
combined, to deliver to the U.S. just over half as
much energy as wood."
(135)
In all, the health and environmental costs of our
current energy direction
are very high. If these costs are added to the tax
subsidies enjoyed by the
conventional energy industry, the cost to society
is even higher. "Estimates
for the U.S. alone range between $100 billion and
$300 billion per year."
(136)
An exhaustive study in 1985 identified federal
subsidies for non-renewable
energy sources, (nuclear, oil, natural gas, and
coal) in excess of 30
billion dollars per year. (137) A number of other
sources put the figure at
around $50 billion per year.
In addition to government subsidies, there are a
host of other costs
associated with the use of non-renewable energy
resources. A 1991 Scientific
American article analyzed the true-cost of our
present energy production and
use direction, from the perspective of societal
burden. In the article, our
yearly energy production and consumption
liabilities were listed as follows:
(138)
Corrosion
$2 to ? billion
Health Impacts
$12 to 82 billion
Crop Losses
$3 to 8 billion
Radioactive Waste
$4 to 31 billion
Military
$15 to 54 billion
Employment
$30 to ? billion
Subsidies
$43 to 55 billion
Total Yearly Burden
$109 to 262 billion
Chapter VII
Footnotes for the text above
124. Shuey, Chris. "Uranium Mines and Their
Problems", The Workbook.
Southwest Research and Information Center, Vol. X,
No. 3, (July/September
1985): p. 113.
125. Houston, Paul. "Compensation for Radiation
Victims OKd", Los Angeles
Times. (September 28, 1990): p. A - 1. This
represents a payout of $30 to
$50 million.
126. Gyorgy, Anna et al. No Nukes. South End
Press, Boston, Mass., (1979):
p. 103.
127. Ibid. p. 106.
128. Ibid. p. 45 - 70.
129. Hall, Stephen. "Back From The Grave", New
Internationalist. No. 206,
(April 1990): p. 14. Also see Udal, James B.
"Turning Down The Heat",
Sierra. Vol. 74, No. 4, (July/August 1989): p. 26.
130. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future
Superpower. William Morrow and
Company, (1992): p. 139.
131. Ibid. p. 140.
132. Tyner, S., Gene et al. "The Net-Energy Yield
of Nuclear Power",
Pergamon Journals Ltd. Vol. 13, No. 1, (1988):
p.73.
133. Lovins, Hunter et al. Changing America:
Blueprints for a New Democracy.
(Reprint), Rocky Mountain Institute, Old Snowmass,
Colorado, (1992): p. 12.
Also see Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future
Superpower. William Morrow and
Company, (1992): p. 139.
134. Ibid.
135. Ibid.
136. Hubbard, Harold R. "The Real Cost of Energy",
Scientific American. Vol.
264, No. 4, (April 1991): p. 36.
137. Romm, Joseph J. The Once and Future
Superpower. William Morrow and
Company, (1992): p. 147.
138. Ibid. p. 148.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
22 Global Security Demands Human Solidarity, Not Nuclear Deterrence - UN Atomic Chief
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:00:56 -0400
GLOBAL SECURITY DEMANDS HUMAN SOLIDARITY, NOT NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
– UN ATOMIC CHIEF
New York, May 17 2006 11:00AM
Noting that many of the world’s ills could be eliminated for less
than a third of the global annual expenditure on armaments, the
head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency has dismissed
the current global approach to security as dysfunctional and called
for a new emphasis on universal freedoms to eliminate extremism
“Regardless of differences of nationality, ethnicity, culture or
faith, it is high time to understand that we are all part of one
human family, with shared core values - and what is more important
is that we act accordingly,” International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei said on being awarded
the International Four Freedoms award presented by the Roosevelt
Stichting Foundation.
“The current global approach to security is in my view dysfunctional,
and cannot endure. We therefore need to work urgently towards
the development of a new collective security system,” he said at
the week-end ceremony in Middelburg, the Netherlands, calling for
an effective and equitable mechanism to address the security needs
of all.
Such a system must be based not on nuclear deterrence, but on human
security, human solidarity and human interdependence. “This requires
a new mindset and reformed institutions,” he asserted
The Four Freedoms Award, named in honour of the United States World
War II-era leader, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, highlights
the freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want
and freedom from fear.
While in Europe and some other parts of the world people take the
four freedoms for granted, in many other areas the picture is very
different with more than 20,000 people dying “because they are
too poor to stay alive,” Mr. ElBaradei said.
Yet, according to experts, “for an additional 65 billion euros per
year, we could cut world hunger in half, put programmes in place
for clean water worldwide, enable reproductive health care for
women everywhere, eradicate illiteracy and provide immunization for
every child,” he noted. By comparison, he noted that in 2004,
expenditures on armaments increased by more than 200 billion euros.
Intolerance, poverty, repression and fear, he declared, “can lead
to despair and humiliation, which in turn breed extremism and terrorism
- the very threats that, ultimately, affect the freedoms
of every one of us.”
2006-05-17 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/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
23 [NukeNet] G8 Sounds Nuclear Alarm, While Anti-Nuke Activists
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:50:49 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Dear all,
Maybe you can help -- I've been trying to get anti-nuclear groups involved with
the counter-G8 effort since January to no avail. Have you seen the
press/activist
alert we issued in mid-March --
Reclaim the Commons
exposes 'nuclear agenda' behind
the 2006 G8 Summit's leaked draft "Communique on Energy Security" ?
http://www.reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=303
In late March I even joined a Global Abolition Council conference call to
propose a July
16th Global Anti-Nuclear Day of Action (because July 16 is the day of the
first-ever atomic
bomb explosition at Trinity test site in New Mexico 3 weeks before
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
assaults, as well as the day when the G8 "Communique on Energy Security" is
going
to be officially released to the public) --- And people said they were
enthusiastic about
mobilizing for this, and we agreed to continue the discussion by email, and
then they
kicked me off their list, presumably because I'm not a member of the Council!!
So all in all, I've come to the conclusion that anti-nuclear so-called
activists are not
serious organizers, and I've shifted my focus to the July 15th Climate
Justice Day of
Action and the July 14th Global Day of Action Against the G8, which are
both really
happening and will be powerful days of global opposition to the G8 agenda.
(details at
www.reclaimthecommons.net and our new
website www.rtc.revolt.org) But if anyone
knows how to kickstart the anti-nuclear community out of slumber, I'm still
100% behind
mobilizing on this critical issue, and taking action to ensure that the
G8's planned global
"nuclear rebirth" is aborted... Contact me at
EndTheNuclearAge@gmail.com
solidarities ~ ethan genauer, ReclaimTheCommons.net, CultureChange.org &
Rising Tide North America
On 5/17/06, Carol Moore in DC
<endviolence@carolmoore.net> wrote:Also
note that the Russians still have 2500 nuclear weapons in the 10-50
megaton range pointed at us - 50-60 pointed at this area -- and that
Bush wants to freak them out by nuking their good buddies the Iranians
just a couple hundred miles from their borders. EXCELLENT opportunity
to LINK the issue of militarization and nuclear weapons as a way of
suppressing ones own population as well as expanding US dominance.
CM
>
> On 5/16/06, *Ethan X* <olivetrii@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> *next anti-G8 DC organizing meeting is this Thursday May 18, 6:30 pm
> at Dupont Circle!
>
> May 11 meeting notes follow below, after counter-G8 Day of Action
> summaries
>
> This July 15-17, the world's 8 richest countries will gather in
> St.Petersburg , Russia for their annual G8 Summit. "Energy
> Security" is at the top of the G8 agenda during Russia's
> presidency of the Gang of 8-- the West's 7 biggest industrialized
> States plus Japan
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
>/G8> . A leaked
> > draft of the " *G8 Summit Communique on Energy Security*
> >
> <http://reclaimthecommons.net/downloads/2nd_draft_of_G8_Summit_Communique_on_Energy_Security_1.pdf
> >,"
> > scheduled to be released officially on July 16, calls for a huge
> > global expansion of nuclear power and /trillions of dollars/ in
> > new investment to escalate oil, gas and coal production worldwide. *
> >
> > **Friday, July 14th will be a Global Day of Action Against the G8
> > and for free Health Care for Everyone, Education for All, an End
> > to the Nuclear Age, and an End to War . The day before the
> > beginning of the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia where the
> > world's 8 richest countries will meet 15-17 July, 2006, join
> > people everywhere in the streets! The 3 main themes of the 2006 G8
> > Summit are Energy Security, Education, and Aids/Health Care. This
> > year the Russian /Network Against the G8/
> > <http://g8-2006.plentyfact.net/ >
> wants to show that wherever they
> > meet, the G8 will face protests against them. For those who can't
> > come to Russia, activists there appreciate your support by joining
> > this international Global Action day on the 14th of July in as
> > many cities as possible. The power of the elites crosses many
> > lines, but our solidarity goes beyond any borders! 14 JULY 2006:
> > GLOBAL ACTION DAY! For more info, see: http://nog8.ru
> >
> http://g8-2006.plentyfact.net
> >
> http://www.spb8.hardcore.lt
> >
> http://abb.hardcore.lt
> > /Called by the Russian Network Against
> > the G8
> <http://g8-2006.plentyfact.net/ >/ **
> >
> > **Saturday, July 15th will be an International Day of Direct
> > Action Against Climate Change and the G8
> <http://rtc.revolt.org/>
> > . As G8 energy ministers promise trillions of dollars in new
> > subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries destroying our
> > planet and our future, we will take action to shut them down! /
> > This is a call for autonomous, decentralized actions appropriate
> > for your town, city, or bioregion/ . Use this international day of
> > action to support local struggles against oil refineries, gas
> > pipelines, strip mines and coal-fired power plants. Disrupt the
> > financial backers of the fossil fuel industry. Host teach-ins to
> > spread sustainable post-petroleum living skills. Find a weak point
> > in the infrastructure of resource exploitation and throw a literal
> > or symbolic wrench in the works. Visit your local polluters and
> > give 'em hell! 15 JULY 2006: CLIMATE ACTION DAY! /Mobilized by
> > Earth First! Climate Caucus and Rising Tide North America, visit
> > www.rtc.revolt.org for more information /.
> >
> <http://reclaimthecommons.net/article.php?id=318
> >**
> >
> > *+++++++################++++++++
> > *
> >
> > *Meeting notes from 5/11 Washington DC ad hoc working group against
> 2006 G8
> > Summit *
> >
> > - Idea of protesting Russian embassy in DC, located @ 2650
> > Wisconsin Ave., conveniently nearby homes of US govt officials &
> > "climate/war criminals" who have ties to oil/nuclear industries. /
> > Idea of picketing homes, etc. / Concern about state repression &
> > police violence that protesters in Russia are likely to face.
> > Stand in solidarity with them with presence at Russian embassy? /
> > Also concern that DC actions should focus on US government
> > involvement in G8, not on Russia (or other G8 countries: England,
> > France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan).
> >
> > - Critical Mass on Friday, July 14th could support & feed into
> > other protest actions happening...
> >
> > - Local issues: Congress has special power plant exempt from
> > emission regulations (Will Congress be in session in mid-July?) /
> > Struggle against Inter County Connector / DC has 3rd or 4th worst
> > air pollution in USA / Hydrogen plant in Anacostia is local case
> > of environmental injustice
> >
> > - Teach-on on climate change and globalization AND connections to
> > local issues? Could happen earlier in week or weekend of July 8-9
> > to build momentum for actions.
> >
> > - July 14th is Bastille Day! Throw yellow cake? (symbolizing uranium)
> >
> > - Protest global warming with swim-out ! (Any worthy fountains in
> > DC?)
> >
> > - Earth First! Rondezvous is happening in Appalachia July 3 - 10.
> > Major issue in that bioregion is struggle against mountaintop
> > removal (MTR) coal-mining. Possibility of recruiting EF! activists
> > to come to DC actions. Any good coal industry targets in DC?
> >
> > - Realization that more info is needed about G8 schedule of
> > events, which US officials will be there, US corporations with
> > links to G8 (?) etc.
> >
> > THEREFORE: Department of Energy press releases:
> >
> http://www.doe.gov/news/press_releases.htm
> > < http://www.doe.gov/news/press_releases.htm>
> >
> > DOE Organization Chart and Structure:
> >
> http://www.energy.gov/organization/orgchart.htm
> >
> >
> > G8 ministerial meetings in Russia leading up to July 15-17 Summit:
> > http://en.g8russia.ru/page_work/
> >
> > Lots of Russian G8 officials to contact for more info!
> > http://en.g8russia.ru/contacts/
>
> >
> > June 1st application deadline for accredited media covering G8
> > Summit:
> http://www.en.g8russia.ru/press/
> >
> > Leaked G8 "Communique on Energy Security":
> >
> http://reclaimthecommons.net/downloads/2nd_draft_of_G8_Summit_Communique_on_Energy_Security_1.pdf
> >
> > DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman's view on nuclear energy, from May
> > 11th speech at MIT: "We in this country need more nuclear energy,"
> > said Bodman. "I am convinced we will see new nuclear plants in our
> > country," he said. "We don't need six new reactors, we need 16, we
> > need 26, we need 46."
> >
> http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N25/25bodman.html
> >
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Call
regular phones from your PC and save big.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
24 Greenpeace: Choose Clean Energy - Stop Climate Change
Blair backs a nuclear (and more dangerous) future
[If Blair gets his way, more nuclear power stations will be built
across the UK]
17-05-2006
Tony Blair has announced that nuclear power is now "back on the
agenda with a vengeance".
Speaking at a CBI dinner last night, Blair made his strongest
admission yet that the Energy Review is a smokescreen for a
decision that has already been taken: to build a new generation
of nuclear power stations.
Stephen Tindale, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK, called the
announcement "the latest act in the long running farce that is
the Energy Review".
Repeating claims made by the nuclear industry its recent PR
campaign, Tony Blair positioned nuclear power as part of the
solution to climate change and the UK's energy gap. But the
claims are disingenuous. Building 10 new nuclear reactors would
only deliver a 4 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2024, even at
the most optimistic build rate: far too little, too late to help
combat climate change.
And nuclear power can't bridge the energy gap. As it only
produces electricity, it can only marginally deal with our need
for the services that are mainly derived from gas: hot water,
central heating and cooling. In fact, its overall contribution
to total UK energy demand is tiny - only 3.6 per cent.
"Nuclear power presents a real terrorist threat, costs a stupid
amount of money, doesn't help in the fight against climate
change and certainly won't plug the energy gap. To put this
hazard back on the agenda is recklessly incompetent," says
Stephen Tindale.
But there is a proven solution to energy security and climate
change - and it is not only cleaner, safer and more secure than
nuclear power, it is also enormously cheaper.
Nuclear power, like coal, oil and gas, relies on an antiquated
energy model that is the largest single contributor to climate
change in the UK, wasting two thirds of all the energy put into
it. The heat lost through the chimneys of the UK's power
stations is enough to meet all of the UK's building and water
heating needs.
By producing electricity near to where it is used, waste heat
can be captured and used to heat local buildings. This
decentralised model -- already common in Europe -- is far less
vulnerable to massive failure or attack than nuclear power, as
it relies on diverse, renewable energy supplies. And it works -
Woking Borough Council has reduced emissions by 77 per cent by
decentralising its energy.
A Greenpeace report comparing nuclear and decentralised
scenarios for the UK found that a decentralised energy scenario
would be:
1. Ł1 billion cheaper than a nuclear scenario -- even
excluding the cost of managing nuclear waste;
2. Cleaner than nuclear, with 17 per cent lower carbon
emissions;
3. More secure than nuclear - UK gas consumption would be 14
per cent lower than in the nuclear scenario.
"If we don't take these long-term decisions now," Blair told the
CBI, "we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to
the future of this country."
Blair wants to quadruple the amounts of the UK's most highly
radioactive waste by building a new generation of nuclear power
stations. It takes over a million years for nuclear waste to
become safe: a time span equivalent to the evolution of modern
man.
Is this Blair's idea of a legacy to the nation?
What can you do?
Make your voice heard now. Write to your MP to state your
opposition to nuclear power and support for renewable energy and
energy efficiency as the cheapest, safest, most effective
solution to climate change.
Find out more
Do you live near a nuclear transport route?
Decentralised energy: an energy revolution
Read about Greenpeace's vision for decentralising energy
Find out more about why nuclear power is not the answer
The government must take bold and effective action to combat
climate change, but nuclear power is not the answer. Nuclear
power is expensive, unreliable, commercially unviable and
vulnerable to terrorist attack. Most importantly, it will still
fail to significantly cut CO2 emissions within the necessary
time frame.
Make your voice heard now.
Write to your MP to state your opposition to nuclear power and
support for renewable energy and energy efficiency as the
cheapest, safest, most effective solution to climate change.
Do you live near a nuclear waste transport route?
Check our map of waste routes in the UK and print posters to
alert your neighbours. You might be closer than you think...
Watch the film that shows how easy a terrorist attack on a
nuclear facility could be, and warn your friends about the
dangers nuclear power poses.
Support the solution
Learn more about decentralised energy, a real answer to the
problems of climate change and the enrgy gap.
*****************************************************************
25 Manawatu Standard: Radiation fight goes on
local, national &world news from Manawatu's daily newspaper:
Thursday, 18 May 2006
www.manawatustandard.co.nz
By NICK WILSON
Soldiers exposed to radiation during nuclear weapons tests in the
1950s may have had a breakthrough in their case against the
British government.
Large London law firm Rosenblatt has announced it will take on
the case involving more than 1000 ex-servicemen.
The law firms that had represented the veterans ceased to do so
last year when the British government stopped providing legal
aid for multiparty cases.
The announcement came after research by Al Rowland at Massey
University showed elevated levels of sister chromatid exchange,
a bio-indicator of genetic damage, in a study of 50 New Zealand
naval veterans.
The veterans tested were from a group of British, Kiwi and
Fijian servicemen who were deliberately exposed to nuclear
radiation from British atomic bomb tests near Christmas Island
in the Pacific during the 1950s.
According to a report by the British Defence Research Policy
Committee, the tests were to "discover the detailed effects of
various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and
without various types of protection".
Roy Sefton, chairman of the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans
Association, who lives in Palmerston North, was on the ship
Pukaki during the test.
"The first explosions were carried out with `protective
clothing', which was really just denim, a cotton hood and dark
glasses," he said.
"The protection was actually against burns from heat."
Several detonations were carried out, with the crew at various
points from ground zero.
The ship also sailed through the projected path of fallout.
"As the testing proceeded the `protective clothing' became less
and the distance from the explosion became less. We ended up 20
miles from ground zero," said Mr Sefton.
Mr Sefton has been working to gain recognition and compensation
from the British government since the '80s.
When he began his campaign he received three packages totalling
about 250 documents relating to the testing, sent anonymously
from Britain.
One document contained minutes from a meeting held at the Atomic
Weapons Research Establishment in 1958.
The matter of blood tests was discussed, with an air commodore
warning that "if a person was examined and found to be normal
before posting to Christmas Island and who later developed
leukemia, it might be difficult to refute the allegation that
this was due to radiation received at Christmas Island".
Mr Sefton said the bombs being detonated were measurable in
megatons and larger than those dropped on Japan.
The lack of acceptance by the British government has angered and
frustrated the veterans, said Mr Sefton.
"Many of these men went through terrible wars and never
complained, but this really upsets them."
Further research in this field by Dr Rowland will be completed
this year.
*****************************************************************
26 [NukeNet] Great Letter Re Nuclear Power & "Experts"
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:50:45 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/opinion/l16nuclear.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
To the Editor:
I am always amused when advocates for nuclear
energy make appeals to the public based on
scientific evidence. The technology is
sufficiently complex that no lay person will ever
be able to make an informed choice. The appeals
are little more than smoke and mirrors.
An institution does exist that can calculate the
risks. It's called insurance. So, key to the
rhetoric of pro-nuclear energy is an omission: The
Price-Anderson Act of 1957 limits the liability of
the nuclear industry.
Like so many Republican initiatives, the new-found
passion for nuclear energy is the privatization of
benefits and the socialization of costs.
Nevertheless, the title of your editorial is well
chosen. The "greening" in "The Greening of Nuclear
Energy" is the almighty dollar.
Joseph Henry Vogel
San Juan, P.R., May 13, 2006
The writer is director of the Unit for Economic
Research, University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
27 IPS-English POLITICS: Muslim Nations Want Nuclear Energy, Wary
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:41:20 -0700
ROMAIPS AP MM CR DV EN IF IP NU WT=20
POLITICS: Muslim Nations Want Nuclear Energy, Wary of Iran
Fabio Scarpello
BALI, Indonesia, May 17 (IPS) - As the West debates the perceived Irania=
n nuclear threat, leaders of the world's eight largest Muslim countries,=
collectively known as the D8, met on this resort island over the weekend=
where they asserted the right of Islamic countries to peaceful nuclear e=
nergy.=20
=94It is simply a statement in support of peaceful nuclear energy, which =
is a universal right. It has no other meaning,=94 Indria Samego, senior a=
nalyst at the Indonesia Institute of Science, told IPS, referring to a D8=
(short for Developing Eight) resolution. =20
Virtually unknown in the West, the D8 is the brainchild of Necmettin Erba=
kan, Turkey's first Islamist prime minister, who was forced to step down =
in 1997.=20
The group -- which includes Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia,=
Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey -- was established with the Istanbul Declar=
ation on June 15, 1997 and has since met roughly every two years. The Bal=
i summit was the fifth in the series and was preceded by meetings in Tehr=
an, Cairo, and Dhaka, besides the first meeting in Istanbul.=20
The D8 is an offshoot of the Organization of the Islamic Countries (OIC).=
However, while the 57-country strong OIC is dominated by the Middle-East=
ern countries, the D8 represents the voice of almost 900 million people, =
who, with the exception of Iran, follow a moderate Sunni version of Islam=
and have adopted Western values of democracy.=20
The group's focus is trade and welfare. As matter of fact, the organisati=
on's stated aims are =94to improve developing countries' position in the =
world economy; diversify and create new opportunities in trade relations,=
enhance participation in decision-making at international level and prov=
ide better standards of living for its citizens.=94
Yet, the group also aims to counterbalance the influence the G8, the mig=
hty eight among the industrialised countries in the world, including the =
United States, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy Japan and Russia.=20
Regarding alternative energy, the Bali Declaration -- as the final docume=
nt is called -- reads: ''We reaffirm our commitment to enhance cooperatio=
n in the field of energy, to develop alternative and renewable energy sou=
rces, among others bio-fuel, biomass, hydro, solar, wind and the use of n=
uclear energy for peaceful purposes.=94
The document was quickly pounced on by Iran, which is currently looking f=
or international support in its ongoing tussle with the Washington-led gr=
oup that accuses it of secretly trying to build up a nuclear weapons capa=
bility. Tehran claims that it is purely interested in clean nuclear energ=
y.=20
''We thank D8's member countries for their initiative to defend the devel=
opment and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,=94 Iran's Preside=
nt Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a separate press conference following the =
release of the group's statement.=20
Commenting on the matter, Samego admitted that =94from Tehran's perspecti=
ve,=94 the resolution could be seen as a sign of support. =94But only fr=
om their viewpoint. Indonesia has signed an internationally binding treat=
y against nuclear weapons.=94
Indonesia recently announced plans to build a nuclear plant which should =
be operative by 2015.=20
It is significant that in their speeches, none of the heads of delegatio=
ns representing the D8 members mentioned Iran's nuclear programme.=20
In the recent past, Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Ma=
laysia's Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi -- to mention two -- hav=
e stated support for Tehran's right to pursue nuclear technology for peac=
eful means. At the same time, the two leaders have urged Ahmadinejad to b=
e more transparent and have reiterated their opposition to nuclear weapon=
s.
At least one D8 country, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons and is non-signato=
ry to the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Despite being a close a=
lly, Washington has refused to cooperate with Pakistan in a civilian nucl=
ear energy programme on the grounds that it had had proliferated nuclear =
technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. =20
According to Alexander C. Chandra, foreign policy analyst at the Jakarta-=
based Institute for Global Justice, far from endorsing Iran's belligerent=
nuclear program, Muslim countries are actually worried by it.=20
=94The members of the D8 and of the IOC are concerned with what is happen=
ing in Iran but Iran is not listening, it does what it wants,=94 he told =
IPS in a telephone interview.=20
The crisis threatens to get worse and UN sanctions loom large after Ahmad=
inejad turned down a proposal drafted by European countries.=20
=94Iran will not accept any proposal asking for the suspension (of uraniu=
m enrichment). The Europeans can keep their incentives,=94 he said on Wed=
nesday during a visit to the town of Arak, where a reactor to produce plu=
tonium is under construction.
On Monday, in an attempt to find a diplomatic solution, European represen=
tative for a common foreign and security policy, Javier Solana, had promi=
sed to make Iran a =94bold=94 offer of nuclear, economic, and possibly se=
curity, guarantees, if it agrees to bow to UN pressure and halt uranium e=
nrichment on its soil. The=20
However, the D8 was more than just Iran and nuclear energy. Issues such a=
s trade, figured high on the leaders' agenda and two agreements were sign=
ed to lower import tariffs on a range of products and help each other i=
n customs matters.=20
According to officials present at the summit, the two agreements would se=
rve as milestones for future economic cooperation among the member countr=
ies, and are aimed at boosting trade among members which, despite a posit=
ive trend, remain abysmally low.=20
Between 1999 and 2004, D8 intra-trade increased nearly 127 percent reachi=
ng 33 billion dollars in total worth. The sum is however still only four =
percent of the D8 countries' total foreign trade.
=94The agreements are good but the problem is always the implementation. =
We have to wait and see if they will have any impact,=94 Chandra said. (E=
ND/IPS/AP/IP/NU/MM/DV/CR/IF/WT/EN/FS/RDR/06)=20
=20
=3D 05171357 ORP007
NNNN
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
FR Doc 06-4653
[Federal Register: May 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 95)] [Notices]
[Page 28716-28717] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17my06-88]
date: Weeks of May 15, 22, 29; June 5, 12, 19, 2006.
place: Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
status: Public and closed.
matters to be considered: Week of May 15, 2006 Monday, May 15,
2006 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting). a. Pa'ina
Hawaii, LLC, LBP-06-4, 63 NRC 99 (Jan. 24, 2006) (admitting three
safety contentions and standing); LBP-06-12, 63 NRC--(March 24,
2006.
1 p.m Briefing on Status of Implementation of Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (Public Meeting) (Contact: Scott Moore, (301) 415-7278).
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
3:30 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex.2).
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public
Meeting) (Tentative). a. Hydro Resources, Inc. (In situ leach
mining license), 40-8968-ML, concerning LBP-06-1
(PID--Radioactive Air Emissions) (Tentative).
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review
Meeting-- Reactors/Materials (Public Meeting) (Contact; Mark
Tonacci, (301) 415- 4045).
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of May 22, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:30 a.m.
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 1:30 p.m. All
Employees Meeting (Public Meeting), Marriott Bethesda North
Hotel, Salons, D-H, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852.
Week of May 29, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1 p.m.
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of June 5,
2006--Tentative Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9 a.m. Discussion of
Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 3). Week of June 12,
2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of
June 12, 2006.
Week of June 19, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the week of June 19, 2006.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet
[[Page 28717]] at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. The
NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at (301) 415-7041, TDD: (301) 415- 2100, or by
e-mail at DLC@brc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415-1969. In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: May 11, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4653 Filed 5-15-06; 11:54 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
29 Guardian Unlimited: Blair presses the nuclear button
Patrick Wintour and David Adam
Wednesday May 17, 2006
The Guardian
[Tony Blair delivers a speech at the CBI annual dinner in London.
Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA ] Tony Blair delivers a speech at
the CBI annual dinner in London. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA
Tony Blair ignited a political storm, including within his own
cabinet, by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations
last night. Mr Blair warned that failing to replace the current
ageing plants would fuel global warming, endanger Britain's
energy security and represent a dereliction of duty to the
country.
Effectively pre-empting the outcome of the government's energy
review due to be published in July, Mr Blair, in a speech to the
CBI, said the issue of a new generation of stations was back on
the agenda with a vengeance, alongside a big push on renewables
and a step change in energy efficiency.
Mr Blair's spokesman said the prime minister was speaking after
reading "a first cut" of the Department of Trade and
Industry-led review on Monday. He said the country could not
rely on one new source to meet the coming energy gap, pointing
out that renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, had
technical problems.
Ministers believe a new generation of nuclear stations will
require an extension of the current renewables subsidy to
nuclear electricity and some form of pre-licensing agreement to
speed up planning permission for new stations.
In his speech last night Mr Blair said: "Essentially, the twin
pressures of climate change and energy security are raising
energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the
world.
"The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged
there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2
emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the
same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80%
to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle
East, and Africa and Russia.
"These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a
big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency,
engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a
vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we
will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the
future of this country."
Although Mr Blair has warned before -in a speech to the CBI last
November - that energy policy was back on the agenda with a
vengeance, his remarks yesterday were significant since his
considered judgment comes after viewing the initial findings of
the energy review.
His aides said he was convinced that improved energy efficiency
and renewables were not enough to fill the energy gap caused by
the phasing out of the current set of ageing stations. His
spokesman insisted: "There is no one club solution."
Mr Blair has been heavily influenced by the government chief
scientist, Sir David King, who believes nuclear power could in
future provide 40% of electricity supply, double the current
figure.
Mr Blair's move will open up divisions inside the cabinet, on
the Labour backbenches and provide the first serious test of the
nature of David Cameron's green credentials. The Liberal
Democrats are firmly opposed to nuclear.
Some environmentalists regard nuclear as a renewable option, and
Mr Cameron's colleagues have been looking at making the
investment climate more favourable to nuclear without actually
endorsing new stations.
Mr Blair has also decided there will not be a separate white
paper after the energy review, suggesting there will be no
legislation to bring in nuclear stations - reducing the
opportunities for a focused backbench rebellion in the Commons.
He will face familiar questions on the cost and safe disposal of
nuclear waste, and strong criticism from his own Sustainable
Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt.
The Nuclear Industry Association welcomed the prime minister's
remarks, saying they came at a "crucial time". Keith Parker, NIA
chief executive, said: "Nuclear energy is a large-scale,
low-carbon source of electricity generation that, as part of a
diverse, balanced energy mix, can help to ensure security of
energy supply."
The French company Areva said last night its reactors could be
up and running by 2017 - if the planning procedures were
streamlined and decisions made on long-term waste storage.
Resolutely anti-nuclear environmental groups were less
enthusiastic. Greenpeace said Mr Blair's nuclear embrace was
"recklessly incompetent". Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the
Earth, said: "This is not a chance comment it is a political
set-piece. He's trying to soften the ground and get us all
angrily running about in the hope that by the time the final
report comes out in July we'll all be bored of arguing about it.
We won't."
Polls show that Mr Blair is pushing the right buttons to
convince a traditionally equally split public on the issue of
new reactors. A survey of 1,491 people this year, carried out by
Mori and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, found
60% of people would support new atomic power stations as long as
renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same
time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part
of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply.
But 74% said that nuclear power should not be considered as a
solution for climate change before all other energy options had
been explored.
17.05.2006: Ex-minister Morley says figures are a fix
17.05.2006: Blair decision challenges Cameron's green agenda
17.05.2006: New reactors can be ready by 2017, says industry
Special report
The nuclear industry
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
30 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet split over cost of nuclear energy
The Guardian |
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair was last night facing cabinet-level opposition over
his plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations
following Treasury predictions of "eye-wateringly large" costs.
Ministers are seeking assurances that they will be given
detailed figures on the costs of nuclear power, and not bland
assurances from the Department of Trade and Industry before the
energy review is published next month.
Cabinet sources say the political achilles heel of the nuclear
industry is uncertainty over its costs, rather than safety. Some
months ago, the sources say, the Treasury produced
"eye-wateringly large" estimates for the cabinet, and they
expect Gordon Brown to take a close interest in the costings in
the next two months.
Formal requests have been circulated at cabinet committee level
demanding detailed costings. Ministerial sceptics want detailed
figures on the costs of decommissioning existing as well as new
stations. They also want figures on the capital costs for
construction, and disposal of waste. In March the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority said the cost of nuclear cleanup had
risen to Ł 70bn.
A recent study for the government's sustainable development
commission pointed out: "There is a complete absence of recent
real-world data on the capital costs of reactors of the kinds
likely to compete in the UK. Indeed no reactors of the type
likely to compete in the UK have yet been built anywhere." It
added: "All of the data available can be traced back to industry
sources, usually reactor vendors."
The cabinet sources complain that there is a lack of certainty
as to what the DTI means when it insists that there will be no
taxpayers' subsidy to encourage the private sector to build the
new stations. The sources believe the government will be forced
to make guarantees, soft loans, or rig the market in a way that
crowds out the case for renewables.
At prime minister's questions yesterday Mr Blair told MPs that
ruling out more use of nuclear technology in the future would be
a "collective dereliction of duty". On Tuesday, he delighted the
CBI by telling it that the nuclear option was back on the agenda
"with a vengeance".
The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, is starting to meet senior
ministers to brief them on the outline thinking of the review,
which he is leading. The DTI says no first draft of the report
yet exists, and the industry secretary stressed no final
decisions will be taken yet.
One former cabinet member said Mr Blair had spoken too soon this
week. "What's the point of having an energy review if you don't
have that energy review? Nuclear power is not the New Labour
energy message, sustainability is the New Labour energy message,
though you can argue that nuclear is part of it."
Some Labour MPs believe the Tories will try to paper over the
cracks on nuclear power in their own party by focusing on the
costs.
The Liberal Democrats' energy spokesman, David Howarth, said it
would be outrageous if the government tried to push through the
conclusions of the review, including the endorsement of a new
generation of power stations, without a parliamentary vote. He
added that new nuclear stations could not come on stream in time
to meet the coming energy gap.
The protest was joined yesterday by Ken Livingstone, the mayor
of London, who said choosing nuclear would be "the great
misjudgment of our generation". He said in a statement: "I would
say to Tony Blair and every politician who has the ability to
influence the future energy strategy of our country that giving
the green light to nuclear power would be an expensive and
dangerous mistake that is simply not the solution to the problem
of climate change.
"The government will get it disastrously wrong if it reactivates
the nuclear option. We need a solution to climate change that
protects the environment, not damages it. It will be the great
misjudgment of our generation to go back down the nuclear road,
which would saddle our children and grandchildren with the
consequences."
Ministers speaking to the Green Alliance last night emphasised
the role of greater energy efficiency in the review. The housing
minister, Yvette Cooper, promised a simpler and stronger set of
building regulations and a new planning policy statement on
climate change.
She also announced a new feasibility study that will explore the
scope to make the Thames Gateway a low-carbon development area
within the next decade, and then to move towards carbon
neutrality.
The new environment secretary, David Miliband, said: "Just as
social justice needed a new social contract in the 19th and 20th
centuries, so environmental security in the 21st century needs a
new environmental contract."
Such a contract "would have new and clear rights and
responsibilities for [the] government, for business and for
individuals, to balance what we take from nature and what we
give back".
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
31 Guardian Unlimited: Justify nuclear 'agenda', PM urged
From Press Association
[UP]
Press Association
Wednesday May 17, 2006 2:58 PM
Environmental campaigners have called on Tony Blair to publish a
briefing he used to justify hints that he would approve a new
generation of nuclear power stations.
Friends of the Earth has filed a freedom of information request
on the "first cut" of the Government's energy review - due to
report before the summer. The Prime Minister told business
leaders on Tuesday night that the "stark" facts he had been
shown meant the nuclear question was "back on the agenda with a
vengeance".
And he told MPs at question time that ruling out more use of the
technology in the future would be "a collective dereliction of
duty". But a chorus of protest was joined by Mayor of London Ken
Livingstone, who said choosing nuclear would be "the great
misjudgement of our generation".
"I would say to Tony Blair and every politician who has the
ability to influence the future energy strategy of our country
that giving the green light to nuclear power would be an
expensive and dangerous mistake that is simply not the solution
to the problem of climate change. We need a solution to climate
change that protects the environment not damages it."
Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said the energy
review appeared to have been a "sham" to mask the Prime
Minister's determination to press ahead with nuclear.
"Tony Blair has completely undermined the Government's Energy
Review by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations,"
he said. "Increasingly it seems that the Energy Review has been
a sham from the outset, with Tony Blair determined to ensure
that a new generation of nuclear power plants are built."
Mr Blair used a speech to the CBI on Tuesday night to make his
strongest indication yet that new nuclear power stations would
get the nod. The twin pressures of climate change and energy
security had put the issue at the top of the agenda in the UK
and around the world, he said.
His words came despite advice from the Government's own
advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission, that new
nuclear plants were not the answer to the problems. His stance
was welcomed by the CBI but provoked a furious reaction from the
anti-nuclear lobby and Labour mayor Mr Livingstone.
Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: "This is the
latest act in a long-running farce that is the energy review.
The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been
taken.
Tony Blair's official spokesman insisted the premier had not
pre-empted the Government's energy review, saying: "He is still
saying that we have to answer the question on nuclear, answer
the question on a big push for renewables, answer the question
on energy efficiency. What he's not doing is pre-empting the
energy review."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Said to Launch Reactors in 2010
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 17, 2006 6:16 PM
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia will commission at least two nuclear
reactors a year beginning in 2010 as part of a massive effort to
expand its nuclear energy sector, Russia's top nuclear official
said Wednesday.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said
the ambitious program would begin with the launch of
construction next year of a new nuclear power plant near St.
Petersburg, the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies
reported. The new plant with four nuclear reactors would cost $6
billion, Kiriyenko said.
He said the new plant would be located next to the existing
nuclear plant in Sosnovy Bor, near St. Petersburg.
Nuclear power accounts for 16 percent to 17 percent of Russia's
electricity generation, and the Kremlin has set a target to
raise its share to one-quarter by 2030. Kiriyenko said recently
that Russia would have to build 40 new reactors to meet the
goal.
In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against
nuclear power that followed the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster,
and the government has supported an ambitious program to develop
its nuclear industry.
Kiriyenko said his agency also hoped to build more reactors
abroad. He said China, in particular, was likely to place orders
for more reactors after the successful launch of the first
Russia-built nuclear reactor.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited: New reactors can be ready by 2017, says industry
Terry Macalister and David Adam
Wednesday May 17, 2006
The Guardian
The nuclear industry promised last night to have new reactors up
and running in Britain by 2017 - as long as the planning process
is streamlined and a final decision is made on long-term waste
storage.
Areva, the French company which has already seen one of its
designs adopted for new plants in Finland and in its home
country, said its reactors were ready for adoption in the UK. "We
believe that we can have one of our third-generation reactors
ready within five years of the first concrete being poured," a
spokesman for the company said last night.
With all the different stages of a new plant being taken into
account Areva says 2017 is a realistic timetable by which
electricity could be generated. That date does not take into
account any unforeseen problems; the backers of the new Finnish
plant at Olkiluoto recently admitted they were running nine
months behind schedule, barely one year into construction.
Neither does it take into account the logistics of constructing
many plants at the same time, nuclear insiders admit.
It is generally accepted that the UK could build no more than
two plants simultaneously - due to skills and other capacity
shortages - and yet between six and 10 at least will be needed
because all but one of the existing plants, which provide over
20% of UK electricity, will be phased out by 2023.
The final decision to build a new generation of plants will not
come from the designers, such as Areva, but from power
companies. It would be up to the large electricity suppliers
such as France's EDF or Germany's E.ON and RWE or even British
Energy to go for more nuclear.
Subsidies
Engineering companies, such as Washington Group International,
have declared their interest in being involved in newbuild as
they also line up with others to manage the billions of pounds
worth of clean-up work. Some power companies have already
clearly indicated they would be willing to go nuclear and say
they would not need subsidies, although environmentalists
opposed to this form of energy remain sceptical.
What the industry does fear, however, is the drawn-out planning
inquiries that delayed for so long the Sizewell B nuclear plant
in Suffolk and, more recently, Terminal 5 at Heathrow airport.
"We want to ensure that planning approval processes are faster,"
one industry figure said.
He pointed to the US, where public campaigns against various new
plants caused a "nuclear winter" in the 1980s and 90s, when
investors refused to back new facilities because there was no
guarantee they would be completed.
The US president, George Bush, made rejigging the planning
process a key part of his energy plans last year. Since then up
to five new plants have been proposed and are expected to be
connected to the electricity grid there by 2015. The US,
Finland, and France are among a number of countries that have
moved back into nuclear in an attempt to meet energy supply
concerns and CO2 targets after a long period when no plants were
built.
China is looking to build as many as 30 reactors in the
expectation that nuclear will provide 4% of its electricity by
2020, compared with just 1% now.
Britain will be able to choose from a range of other designs -
all of them in the hands of companies based abroad. These would
include products engineered by Westinghouse, which has been sold
to Toshiba of Japan. Westinghouse used to be controlled by the
state-owned operator of Sellafield, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd,
but the government wanted to avoid big future financial
commitments or potential liabilities. General Electric in
America and AECL in Canada could also be expected to put forward
designs for new British plants, each costing about Ł2bn.
Although anti-nuclear groups question the figures and
methodology, the atomic engineering companies say the industry
does not need subsidies.
The nuclear industry says its calculations about the viability
of atomic plants take into account dealing with waste.
Deep-earth burial
But the new British atomic pioneers are also determined that the
waste legacy now in the hands of the newly formed Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority - is also dealt with. "There must be
no uncertainty," said a member of the industry who asked not to
be named. "A decision must be taken by the government - and
supported by the British people - about storage so there is
total clarity."
The government has been advised by its waste adviser body that
it should go for deep-earth burial while the energy minister,
Malcolm Wicks, has also looked at speeding up planning and
regulation.
The nuclear industry has been saying that some of Britain's past
problems were caused by the insistence of UK operators to build
their own unique plants.
Areva, which has constructed 98 of the world's 443 reactors,
says there is no need to reinvent the wheel. "Britain can
benefit from standardisation of technology and the experience of
nuclear companies in Europe, the US and Asia leading to a more
predictable cost and build time," it says.
But the British public remains sceptical about the safety record
and secrecy of the nuclear industry, despite the fact there have
been no major accidents here.
Bold solution or dangerous problem?
What will nuclear new build involve?
Most analysts believe Britain would need to order a fleet of
between six and eight new reactors to fill the looming energy
gap and make the technology affordable. Officially, no decision
has been made on where to put them, most likely are the sites of
existing nuclear power stations, such as Sizewell in Suffolk. It
would take at least a decade to get them up and running -
perhaps even longer because of likely planning problems and
possible delays in sourcing key components.
Are they safe?
The pro-nuclear lobby claims that new reactors are much safer
than older designs but the shadow of the Chernobyl explosion in
1986 and the Windscale fire of 1957 still lingers. Anti-nuclear
campaigners highlight the new terrorist risk, but the industry
says reactors are not an easy target because they sit low on the
horizon and are spherical, making a direct hit from an aircraft
difficult.
What about the waste?
A fleet of new reactors would add only about 10% by volume to
the UK's mountain of nuclear waste over their lifetime, but
would increase fivefold the amount of the deadliest, longest
lasting type. Government experts concluded that Britain should
build an underground bunker for the waste that stays dangerous
for tens of thousands of years. That would take decades and the
waste from new reactors will probably be kept on sites where it
was produced in the interim. The spent fuel from new reactors is
unlikely to be reprocessed.
Will they help tackle climate change?
Yes, up to a point. Nuclear reactors generate electricity
without burning fossil fuels and so do not produce lots of
carbon dioxide. Building and dismantling the facilities, as well
as mining uranium fuel all do. Nuclear power currently supplies
about 20% of UK electricity, but just 3.6% of energy demands.
Replacing existing reactors with coal and gas stations would
raise emissions by 4-8%.
What about renewables?
Ministers have repeatedly said the energy review is not a
straight fight between nuclear and renewable sources, to which
they say they remain committed. Others say government support
for nuclear will damage confidence and investment in these
fledgling technologies. A new fleet of reactors would run for 40
to 50 years, by which time sources such as hydrogen may be
realistic options.
Will the public approve?
Polls are usually evenly split on the issue - one for the
Guardian/ICM at Christmas showed 48% against new reactors with
45% in favour. A more recent survey by Mori and the Tyndall
Centre showed 60% of people supported new reactors as long as
renewable energy sources were developed and used at the same
time, and 63% agreed that Britain needed nuclear power as part
of a mix of sources to ensure a reliable supply.
Special report
The nuclear industry
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
HSE nuclear glossary
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
34 Guardian Unlimited: Prime minister's questions
Read about the prime minister's weekly grilling as it happened,
with nuclear power and immigration two of the major talking
points
Matthew Tempest
Wednesday May 17, 2006
"Blair pushes the nuclear button" was the doomsday headline in
the Guardian today - not referring to Iran, thank God, but the
nevertheless important issue of nuclear power - and its tens of
thousands of years of radioactive waste.
That is sure to feature in today's clashes, as Mr Cameron's
Tories are undecided on whether to back the government's apparent
decision to commission new reactors or not. The Liberal Democrats
are vehemently opposed - but their leader, Sir Menzies Campbell,
is under renewed criticism for his stuttering performances at
PMQs.
Other issues likely to be raised are the question of the number
of illegal immigrants in the UK ("not the faintest" according to
the Mail's take on the story today), 900 job losses at Vauxhall
in Ellsmere Port (Labour's Andrew Miller's constituency) and
possibly even the government's "Let's Talk" initiative.
Midday
In what seems like a weekly ritual now, the PM pays tribute to
UK soldiers fallen in Iraq.
Ealing Southall's Labour MP, Piara Khabra, conveniently asks if
the PM agrees that judges and civil rights campaigners are
interpreting the Human Rights Act too leniently. Funnily enough,
that was exactly the theme of the PM's "Let's Talk" initiative
on Monday.
Mr Cameron's turn - he's had a haircut. And he asks exactly
which foreign nationals who have served a "significant jail
sentence" will, or should, be deported.
Mr Blair explains there's no automatic presumption of deporting
if the criminal has been in jail a short period of time, and
lived in the country a long period of time. This raises mild
jeers.
"We've gone from all prisoners, to the vast majority, to the
bulk of them," complains Mr Cameron - "I think [the PM] is
making it up as he goes along."
Mr Blair looks a little rattled - but rattles off the criminal
justice acts passed by the government but opposed by the Tories
and Liberal Democrats.
The Tory leader compares positive comments on the immigration
deportation system with the "haven't the faintest" revelation
yesterday. Mr Blair quotes Michael Howard as saying by
definition any estimate of the number of illegal immigrants in
the country is "highly speculative".
12.10pm
We need electronic borders rolled out across the entire country,
and we need identity cards, counters Mr Blair - and challenges
the Tories to back them. And he details some of the 43 criminal
justice acts Labour has passed.
So why did he sack the home secretary last week wonders Mr
Cameron - saying the PM looks "rattled" (see observation above!).
The Tory leader says that, after nine years, four home
secretaries and 43 bills, noone can now trust Mr Blair to sort
out the criminal justice system.
Put your vote where your mouth is, challenges Mr Blair, saying
the Tories complain about a lack of tough measures in the media,
then vote against them in the Commons.
12.15pm
Ming's turn - no notes in his hand this time. He asks if British
troops will have left Iraq by the time Mr Blair leaves office?
(Iraq is the Lib Dem leaders' strongest card.)
Sir Menzies follows up with the same formula question - will
Guantánamo have closed before Mr Blair leaves office? The PM
points out that is not within his jurisdiction.
The SNP's Mike Weir complains that Mr Blair is "bouncing" the
country into new nuclear power stations.
We can't be entirely dependent on foreign imports of gas,
responds Mr Blair - nuclear power is only part of an answer but
to avoid it would be a "dereliction of our duty".
Mr Cameron is back, less Punch &Judy this time, asking about
targets being set for reducing HIV infections and increase
access to Aids treatments. There's a UN meeting coming up
shortly, replies Mr Blair.
But the Tory leader wants an interim target of 2008, to help
towards the UN's 2010 target.
12.20pm
Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood holds up a bottle of HP sauce,
complaining it's being outsourced at the cost of 200 jobs to the
Netherlands. (And Harold Wilson liked it too.)
Mr Blair merely says he'll do everything he can to protect their
jobs - but doesn't reveal if he likes the brown stuff himself.
Tory Richard Spring complains that police amalgamation is
unpopular and unneeded.
The PM hopes for the best for the workers of Vauxhall, and
promised talks with General Motors' boss.
Tory former shadow foreign secretary John Maples calls for an
"ordered timetable" for UK withdrawl from Iraq, over the next 12
months. Mr Blair says he hopes an Iraqi government will be
formed in the next few days. "It's always been our strategy to
withdraw when they wish us to do so," he adds.
12.25pm
Mr Blair tells Labour MP for Bedford, Patrick Hall, you can't
complain about unaffordable housing in the south, then reject
all house building applications.
Rev Ian Paisley says Monday's meeting at Stormont had a minute's
silence for a murdered teenager - he calls on Mr Blair to back
the local Ballymena police to give them the resources to do
their job. Mr Blair thanks Rev Paisley for the "responsible" way
in which he has handled this issue - and praised the assembly
for its cross-party silence. The SDLP leader, Mark Durkan, adds
his voice, saying the memorial was attended by young people in
both Rangers and Celtic football shirts.
The PM responds merely by saying hopefully the murder represents
the past - and he would like the assembly to continue meeting.
The SNP's Peter Weir hopes Mr Blair will commit to heading up
Labour's campaign in the Scottish parliament elections next year
- if so, he will have the SNP's full support, he jokes.
Mr Blair says Labour will definitely be campaigning against the
SNP's pledge to pass an independence bill within 100 days of
gaining power.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
35 Guardian Unlimited: Blair decision challenges Cameron's green agenda
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
Wednesday May 17, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair's decision to go nuclear creates a major challenge
for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has been basking
in positive publicity about his green credentials.
Mr Cameron has been sitting on the fence until now, appointing a
declared opponent of nuclear power, Zac Goldsmith, to co-chair
his "quality of life" review, with John Gummer, the former
environment secretary who has Sizewell A and B in his Suffolk
Coastal constituency.
Mr Goldsmith and Mr Gummer are said to be willing to be flexible
and Mr Gummer has criticised nuclear power in the past. But one
source close to the review predicted the party would ultimately
come out in favour of limited replacement of nuclear stations,
in conjunction with extra investment in renewable energy.
Mr Cameron's "Vote Blue, Go Green" slogan served him well at this
month's local elections. But although nuclear power leaves a
smaller carbon footprint than coal-fired stations, the
environmental lobby has traditionally been vociferously
"no-nukes".
Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, who is
carrying out his own, separate, review of energy policy, issued
a splenetic statement last night. But he, too, is on the horns
of a dilemma.
"It just proves that the energy review has been a smokescreen
all along," Mr Duncan said. "[Mr Blair] has humiliated his new
secretary of state for trade and industry and he has
irresponsibly broken this down to a pro- versus anti-nuclear
argument. He should be looking at all generating methods with
equal vengeance.
"What on earth is the point of an energy review, when all he
ever wanted to do was to say that you will be having nuclear
power whether you like it or not?"
But Mr Duncan's response itself indicated the nervousness the
party faces on the issue. He added: "The Conservative party is
committed to an open-minded energy review and a belief that
tackling climate change is the most important issue on the
political agenda today." The Tory review will be published in
the summer.
Mr Blair has not been able to erode Labour's traditional
suspicion of nuclear power. The leftwing Labour MP John
McDonnell said last night that the prime minister had decided to
pre-empt the energy review and try to "bounce the government
into a decision on behalf of the nuclear industry".
He added: "This announcement, made not to parliament or the
parliamentary Labour party but at a dinner of New Labour's
friends in the City, flies in the face of all consultations and
democratic procedures and completely ignores the widespread
opposition within the party."
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesman,
told Channel 4 News: "He [Mr Blair] has bounced his own
ministers into this decision. This doesn't smack of proper
leadership, it smacks of desperation. Clearly the prime minister
under pressure wanted to create some sort of legacy for himself.
The danger is it will be a legacy of a high nuclear tax for
every family in the country because we all know nuclear is not
economic."
Industry was supportive. Sir Digby Jones, director-general of
the CBI, said: "The prime minister is absolutely right to put
nuclear power firmly on the agenda for the future. The
government must take brave decisions as a result of its energy
review, to help deliver to business and consumers secure and
affordable power for the long term that doesn't come at the
expense of the environment."
Email comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
36 Guardian Unlimited: A decision that should not be rushed
Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian
When Tony Blair presents the nation with a stark choice about
the future it is always worth pausing for thought. One of the
prime minister's worst habits is his sudden discovery of urgent
dangers which require absolute answers and forceful leadership.
The loser is usually debate and complexity, brushed aside by
perilous contrasts between the extremes of the argument. Thought
and caution are painted as cowardice, an avoidance of decisions
that have to be taken. Mr Blair did it again on Tuesday when he
threw out his sudden challenge on nuclear energy in a speech to
the CBI. Though his language avoided giving a firm commitment to
a new generation of British nuclear power stations, the tone of
his argument and his remarks at last week's prime ministerial
press conference left little room for doubt about what he has
decided. Although the government's energy review (which is
actually only a review of electricity) is not complete, Mr Blair
has run ahead of the outcome, telling MPs yesterday that ruling
out new reactors would be "a collective dereliction of duty".
There is crude politics amid all this, including Mr Blair's need
to recapture the agenda after a terrible month and force the
Conservatives, whose own energy review is under way, on to the
back foot. Searching for a legacy, he has settled on nuclear
power, at some cost to the principle of collective ministerial
decision-making and parliamentary debate. He is trying to push
the cabinet into taking a decision whose political half-life far
exceeds the remaining length of his own leadership. But he must
now be prepared to engage in a serious discussion of an issue
which is nothing like as clearly defined as he suggests. The
doubters - which after all include instinctively pro-nuclear
Conservatives - are not all neanderthals held back by
anti-scientific superstition.
Nuclear power would not even be on the agenda if it was not for
the unavoidable fact of climate change caused by carbon
emissions, which has had the effect of transforming nuclear
generation into an unlikely green champion. Mr Blair and a
number of influential scientists, including Dr David King, the
government's chief scientific officer, believe nuclear
generation is the fastest and simplest solution to taming the
UK's carbon output. The technology exists, a degree of the
infrastructure is in place, and supporters can point to 50 years
of secure nuclear power generation in this country, remembering
that the Calder Hall station first connected to the national
grid in 1956. There are risks and costs attached to nuclear
energy, this argument runs, but if we are intent on tackling the
causes of global warming then nuclear power is almost
unavoidable. Given that there are no easy options, going down
the nuclear road may be the least-worst choice.
Yet there are serious questions about nuclear generation which
should temper Mr Blair's optimism. The most obvious objection is
cost: nuclear power is expensive, especially when compared with
gas. The suspicion is that the market will have to be rigged in
its favour, although if global warming is a crisis of the
magnitude that many fear then cost alone may not be a sufficient
objection. The other danger is that spending on nuclear power
starves investment into renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency. If the government is to go ahead with nuclear power,
that must not come at the expense of other technologies.
Neither would a commitment to nuclear power automatically cut
carbon emissions. In the first place, new plants would only
replace old ones due to be decommissioned over the next 15
years. Making inroads into the carbon produced by current coal
and gas generations would require a massive building programme,
on a scale that industry would struggle to fulfil in the
timescales proposed by Mr Blair.
The biggest hurdle for nuclear power, however, is the simplest -
what to do with the radioactive waste it produces. Since 1997,
and the rejection of the proposed deep-disposal facility in
Cumbria by the Conservative government, the status of disposal
has been in limbo. This, as the government's own Sustainable
Development Commission noted, is the achilles heel of any new
nuclear development. The government still has no plans for
disposing of the toxic byproduct, even for the decommissioning
of current nuclear plants (up to 500,000 tonnes in the next 100
years alone) and it is close to certain that other countries
will not agree to dispose of it on our behalf.
There are plenty of potential deep burial sites in this country,
even if devolved Scotland is no longer an option. But the furore
by local residents may make animal rights activism pale into
insignificance. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
delivers its report on long-term disposal options in July, but
its interim proposals, published last month, are not
encouraging. It warns that implementing any decision on disposal
sites may take "as long as one or two generations". That caution
is not reflected in Mr Blair's argument. It is not enough to
leave the subject for 30 to 60 years: a clear signal about
disposal must be made by the government before any decision on
new nuclear plants is taken.
Alternatives sources must be seriously considered first:
efficiency and conservation are the most effective means of
cutting carbon emissions, pound for pound, and in the short term
provide the largest gain. The government is already committed to
increasing power generation from renewable sources to 20%, with
greater investment needed in emerging technologies of wave and
wind. The attractions of clean coal and carbon capture are
strong: storing greenhouse gasses underground may be risky but
is less dangerous than storing spent fuel rods. Several options
are on the table, including nuclear, all with merits and
complications. A portfolio of sources, including nuclear, may,
as Mr Blair suggests, be the best outcome. But the unarguable
case for nuclear has not yet been made. The debate is more
complex than the prime minister likes to suggest.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered
in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164
Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
37 London Times: Energy is bigger than nuclear versus the rest
The Times May 18, 2006
Sir, The Prime Minister must have been aware that his remarks
risk downgrading the energy debate to a narrow single issue.
Last month 35 organisations, including the Renewable Energy
Association, with support from all major political paties,
presented a manifesto of sustainable energy principles to the
Government's energy review. Mr Blair's comments suggest that this
review is simply a smokescreen to conceal the ditching of the
farsighted vision of the Energy White Paper the Government
published just three years ago.
A coherent national policy needs to look beyond electricity and
address also the two thirds of our energy devoted to heat and
transport. It should plan to exploit the efficiencies of
decentralised generation and set firm policies for energy
conservation and renewables.
We must not allow the Government to marginalise these priorities
in favour of an easy fix for a perceived shortage in centralised
electricity generation.
PHILIP WOLFE
Chief Executive, Renewable Energy Association
London SW1
Sir, It is misleading to describe nuclear power as a
carbon-neutral energy source (Business Commentary, May 16;
"Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis", May 17).
The Government's own energy review consultation document, issued
in January, which is seen by most independent commentators as
nuclear-friendly, states that "the mining, refining and enriching
of uranium, and plant construction and decommissioning, are
carbon- intensive processes, especially when low-quality uranium
ore is being processed."
The pamphlet from SERA, Labour's environment campaign, What's in
the Mix: The Future of Energy Policy, released this month,
demonstrates the sensitivities of different grades of uranium
ores to energy intensitivity in its mining and processing.
Two independent academic studies disaggregate the carbon
footprint of nuclear fuel in its production before use and its
management after irradiation in a reactor: one, by the German
™ko-Institut, which advises the German environment ministry; the
other by the academic researchers Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen
and Philip Smith (www.stormsmith.nl ). Both conclude that nuclear
generation produces about one third more CO2 per kWh than
conventional mid-sized gas-fired electricity generation.
Carbon-neutral it is not.
DAVID LOWRY
Environmental policy consultant
Stoneleigh, Surrey
Sir, Your report ("Power station's dirty secret", May 17) did not
mention that the wood yard at Drax is now nearly as big as the
coal yard.
Drax may pump out lots of CO2 (and 7 per cent of the UK's
electricity, which we are all wasting by leaving LEDs and lights
on in offices and homes across the UK), but it is moving towards
burning carbon- neutral, native-grown biomass such as willow and
elephant grass. Such renewable energy sources can reduce our need
for foreign gas and oil.
What we need now is support from the press and Government to
encourage such initiatives which benefit everyone: the
shareholders of the newly floated Drax, the biomass farmers and
the world at large.
ANDY BROWN
Cockermouth, Cumbria
Times and The Sunday Times.
Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
38 St. Paul Pioneer Press: Unnecessary risks at Prairie Island
| 05/17/2006 |
The accidental exposure of more than 100 workers to radioactivity
at the Prairie Island power plant is yet another example of
nuclear's unnecessary risks. Over the past few years, plant
management has cut staffing at the plants to potentially
dangerous levels, according to workers. The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission cited the Prairie Island plant for having an
inadequate flood plan. The plant, located on the Mississippi
River, is upstream from the Twin Cities' water supply source.
There could be many more safety concerns at the plant that we do
not know about. The Governmental Accountability Office issued a
report earlier this year criticizing the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for having a cozy relationship with industry,
preventing the watchdog agency from ensuring a high level of
safety.
At any workplace, accidents happen. If Minnesota continues to
rely on nuclear instead of clean solar and wind power, the next
accident at Prairie Island could be much more devastating.
MATTHEW PAINTER
New York, NY
The writer is energy policy associate for the Network for New
Energy Choices.
*****************************************************************
39 AP Wire: Ameren shuts down nuclear plant for second time in one week
| 05/17/2006 |
Associated Press
ST. LOUIS - For the second time in less than a week, Ameren
Corp. has shut down its Callaway nuclear plant for repairs.
The company said in a news release the plant was shut down
Wednesday to fix a steam valve in a part of the plant separate
from the nuclear reactor. The repair is not an emergency and
poses no threat to the public, according to the release.
Ameren shut the plant Friday after detecting high vibrations in
a power turbine. The plant reopened without incident.
Ameren says it hasn't found a connection between the two
shutdowns. When the plant closes, Ameren's Missouri subsidiary
AmerenUE uses its other plants in the state to make up the
electricity shortfall.
*****************************************************************
40 ENS: Blair Says Nuclear Power Back on the Agenda with a Vengeance
Environment News Service (ENS)
LONDON, UK, May 17, 2006 (ENS) - Prime Minister Tony Blair says
new British nuclear power plants are needed to deal with the
"twin pressures of climate change and energy security."
Environmentalists reacted angrily to Blair's suggestion that his
government is ready to rely on nuclear energy.
In remarks to the Confederation of British Industry on Tuesday,
the Prime Minister said the government will publish an Energy
Review before Parliament takes its summer recess, but he has
seen a first draft that puts "replacement of nuclear power
stations... back on the agenda with a vengeance."
Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper said, "Increasingly
it looks like the energy consultation has been a complete sham.
It's clear that Tony Blair is fixated with nuclear power and is
determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors
rather than investing in clean and sustainable options that
already exist."
Thirty-three nuclear units are in operation in the United
Kingdom, generating almost 25 percent of the country's
electricity.
All but one are scheduled to close by 2025 as are several older,
coal-fired power plants, totaling one-third of Britain's
generating capacity.
[Blair] British Prime Minister Tony Blair said new nuclear
plants are a necessity. (Photo courtesy Office of the Prime
Minister) Blair told the industrialists that the first draft of
the energy review, headed by Department of Trade and Industry
Minister Malcolm Wicks, shows that, "By 2025, if current policy
is unchanged, there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to
reduce CO2 emissions."
"We will become heavily dependent on gas," said Blair, "and at
the same time move from being 80/90 percent, self-reliant in gas
to 80/90 percent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the
Middle East and Africa and Russia."
Blair also said these "stark" facts also mean there should be "a
big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency,
engaging both business and consumers," but these points did not
upset environmentalists, who agree that renewables and
efficiency are important.
"The UK could be leading the world in the development of a low
carbon, nuclear free economy," said Juniper. "But rather than
backing safe solutions for tackling climate change and meeting
our energy needs, he seems intent on trying to waste yet more
taxpayers money on a discredited and dangerous nuclear
dinosaur."
Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, called
Blair's announcement "the latest act in the long running farce
that is the Energy Review."
Tindale accused the Prime Minister of repeating claims made by
the nuclear industry its recent public relations campaign.
"Tony Blair positioned nuclear power as part of the solution to
climate change and the UK's energy gap. But the claims are
disingenuous," Tindale said. "Building 10 new nuclear reactors
would only deliver a four per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2024,
even at the most optimistic build rate: far too little, too late
to help combat climate change."
[power plant] Construction of Calder Hall nuclear power plant in
Cumbria, England was ordered by Prime Minister Winston Churchill
in 1953. (Photo courtesy BNFL) "Nuclear power presents a real
terrorist threat, costs a stupid amount of money, doesn't help
in the fight against climate change and certainly won't plug the
energy gap," Tindale said. "To put this hazard back on the
agenda is recklessly incompetent."
Recently shuffled out of the Blair Cabinet, former environment
minister Elliot Morley said environment ministers were not
involved enough in the energy review.
Morley told "The Guardian" newspaper, "If nuclear power was so
great then you would have the private sector willing to invest
in it."
"The reality is that economically the risks are great and the
returns are low," he said, due to "the cost of decommissioning,
the storage, reprocessing and the responsibility for the waste."
Juniper says that even before the final draft of the energy
review is tabled, the Prime Minister has decided to rely on
nuclear power, and is rearranging his government to support that
position.
"It's probably no coincidence that a number of nuclear skeptics
were removed from key Cabinet posts earlier this month," Juniper
said.
In the May 5 Cabinet shuffle, one day after the Blair government
took a pounding at the polls, David Miliband became environment
secretary, replacing Margaret Beckett, who was viewed as a
nuclear skeptic. Beckett took the post of foreign secretary,
replacing Jack Straw.
Questions or Comments:
news@ens-news.com
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
41 MSN: Radioactive water leaks from Japanese nuclear plant -
MSN-Mainichi Daily News
May 18, 2006 National
About 400 liters of coolant water containing radioactive
material leaked from a non-active nuclear power reactor in
western Japan, but there was no danger of radiation escaping
from the plant, its operator said Tuesday.
The leak was discovered by a worker who rushed to the scene
after an alarm went off Tuesday afternoon at Reactor No. 3 of
the Mihama nuclear power plant, about 320 kilometers (200 miles)
west of Tokyo, according to Kansai Electric Power Co. spokesman
Hiroshi Toshikiyo.
Some 400 liters of water with traces of radiation spilled out
from the primary coolant tank into a catchment area, 26 liters
(seven gallons) of which then spilled onto the surrounding floor.
No radiation leaked outside the compound, and no one was harmed
by radiation, Toshikiyo said.
The cause of the leak was under investigation, but it appeared
water spilled out after workers failed to properly attach a hose
leading to the tank, he said.
The reactor has been closed since August 2004 after a corroded
pipe ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water and
steam, killing five and injuring six others in the country's
worst-ever nuclear plant accident. There was no radiation leak
at that time.
The government in December said Kansai Electric could restart
the reactor, saying the pipe had been repaired in line with
government safety standards. The energy company has been
carrying out checks since then, but the plant has yet to resume
operations.
Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program,
with the country's 52 active nuclear reactors supplying 35
percent of its electricity. The government has said it wants to
raise the figure to nearly 40 percent by 2010.
But the Japanese public has grown increasingly wary of the
nuclear power industry following a spate of safety problems,
shutdowns and cover-ups.
In 1999, an accident at a reprocessing plant north of Tokyo
killed two workers and exposed hundreds to radioactivity. That
accident was caused by two workers who tried to save time by
mixing excessive amounts of uranium in buckets instead of using
special mechanized tanks. (AP)
Click here for the original Japanese
story
May 17, 2006
Have your say in the MSN-Mainichi Daily News Readers' Forum
Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 RIA Novosti: Russia wins tender to supply Czech NPP with nuclear fuel
17/ 05/ 2006
MOSCOW, May 17 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian state-owned nuclear
fuel supplier Wednesday won a tender to supply the Temelin
nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic with nuclear fuel, the
company's press service said.
"TVEL Corporation won an international tender to supply nuclear
fuel to the Temelin NPP in the Czech Republic ... against
American company Westinghouse," the company said in a news
release.
Under the 10-year contract, signed with CEZ Group energy
company, TVEL will supply roughly 400 metric tons of fuel to the
Czech Republic's largest two-unit NPP, construction of which
began in 1987 with Russian help. First deliveries will arrive in
late 2009.
TVEL, which controls 17% of the global nuclear fuel market, will
be supplying modern, more economical fuel that also ensures
greater reactor security, the company said, adding that other
agreements on supplies of more advanced fuel may follow to
supplement the contract.
The company said the deal would help Russia regain its positions
as a leading global nuclear fuel supplier.
"Russia's victory in the international tender for fuel supplies
to the Temelin NPP means that our country is regaining its
traditional nuclear fuel markets," the company said.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
43 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk NPP in south Russia stopped for repairs
17/ 05/ 2006
MOSCOW, May 17 (RIA Novosti) - The No. 1 reactor at the
Volgodonsk nuclear power plant in the south of European Russia
has been shut down temporarily for repairs, Russia's nuclear
power generating monopoly said Wednesday.
Rosenergoatom said the plant would be switched back after a
malfunction in the reactor's turbo generator was repaired.
"There were no violations of secure usage of the Volgodonsk
NPP," Rosenergoatom said in a statement. "Background radiation
at the plant and surrounding areas does not exceed the permitted
level and corresponds to usage norms of the [plant's] reactors."
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
44 BBC: Papers ponder Blair's nuclear plans
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006
[Mastheads of the national newspapers]
"Blair presses the nuclear button," says the Guardian, referring
to the prime minister's comments on nuclear fuel made at a
business dinner in London.
The construction of new power plants could begin within 10 years,
predicts the Times.
The Daily Telegraph says Tony Blair's support for nuclear power
will prove to be one of his most controversial decisions in
office.
For the Daily Express, it is a decision he should have taken a
long time ago.
'Hopelessly inadequate'
The admission by a civil servant that he has not the "faintest
idea" how many people have entered the UK illegally infuriates
the Daily Telegraph.
It brands the Home Office "truly and systematically incompetent".
The Daily Mail takes up the theme, describing the asylum system
as "hopelessly inadequate".
The Daily Express can barely articulate its anger. The hunt for
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants "has been abandoned",
it says.
NHS refund
There is debate on the implications of a European Court ruling
that a woman who paid for treatment abroad should be refunded by
the NHS.
The Guardian welcomes the "measured, humane and sensible" court
ruling.
The Daily Mail also supports the decision. "For once, EU rules
appear to favour the ordinary individual," it argues.
But the Times believes the ruling is unclear and vague and will
favour lawyers, rather than patients.
'Prince of Hearts'
There are warm words in the papers for Prince William from a
football fan who met him in tragic circumstances at last
Saturday's FA Cup final.
Gary Luckhurst, a West Ham fan, was consoled by the prince after
his father died of a heart attack during the game.
He tells the Telegraph that the second-in-line to the throne
spent 10 minutes comforting him after the game.
The Sun compares Prince William to his late mother, praising him
for his "instinctive compassion".
*****************************************************************
45 BBC: Blair in anti-nuclear lobby clash
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006
[Tony Blair ]
Mr Blair said nuclear power was back on the agenda
Tony Blair has clashed with the Scottish National Party after he
said nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance".
The prime minister also angered Scottish environmental
campaigners when he refused to rule out replacing current nuclear
power stations.
The SNP's Mike Weir accused Mr Blair of threatening to leave a
legacy of nuclear "dumps" in Scotland.
Mr Blair said the UK could not risk being reliant on foreign
energy.
The prime minister told the CBI it would be "a collective
dereliction of duty" to rule out replacing nuclear power
stations.
Friends of the Earth Scotland said Mr Blair was determined to see
a new generation of nuclear reactors rather than clean and
sustainable options.
Are the Scott communities who figured in the last Nirex report
back in the frame as possible nuclear dumps Mike Weir SNP
Green MSP Chris Ballance said his party would fight "tooth and
nail" to keep nuclear power out of Scotland.
Mr Blair said the UK Government must be prepared to take the
decisions necessary to ensure the country does not become
"entirely dependent on foreign imports of gas".
At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, Mr Weir, the SNP's
energy spokesman, accused the prime minister of seeking to
"bounce" the country into building new nuclear power stations.
He said this was even before the "sham" of an energy review had
reported and before there was any solution to the disposal of
historic, let alone new nuclear waste.
"Are the Scottish communities who figured in the last Nirex
report back in the frame as possible nuclear dumps?" he asked.
"Will this be your legacy to Scotland?"
In response, Mr Blair said: "We have to dispose of existing
nuclear waste in any event.
[Hunterston in Ayrshire is due to close by 2011] Hunterston B in
Ayrshire is due to close by 2011
"But if we are to address the energy security needs of this
country in the future, of the United Kingdom - including Scotland
- then we have to be prepared to take the decisions necessary to
make sure that we don't end up in a situation where we are
entirely dependent on foreign imports of gas.
"That would not be sensible in my view."
He said he did not believe nuclear power was the only solution,
but added: "I do believe we have to debate very seriously whether
we need to replace nuclear power stations to guarantee the future
energy needs of this country, because otherwise we would be
engaged in a collective dereliction of duty."
The anti-nuclear lobby has accused him of pre-judging the
government's review of Britain's energy needs.
Reserved matter
More than a third of the electricity generated in Scotland comes
from its two nuclear power stations.
Hunterston B in Ayrshire is due to close in 2011 but could be
kept open for a further decade to plug the energy gap.
Torness in East Lothian is expected to stay open until 2023.
The nuclear issue has divided the Scottish Executive coalition.
The Liberal Democrats are against new nuclear power stations
while Labour has not ruled out the option.
Energy policy is reserved to the Westminster government but the
executive has said that it will not grant planning permission for
new nuclear power stations while the issue of waste disposal
remains unresolved.
On Tuesday, Mr Blair told the CBI annual dinner that Britain
faced the prospect of being largely reliant on foreign gas
imports for its future energy needs.
*****************************************************************
46 BBC: Blair sticks by nuclear options
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006
[Sizewell B nuclear power station]
Mr Blair has raised the prospect of new nuclear power stations
Nuclear energy is not the "sole answer" to meeting UK energy
needs but failing to consider it would be a "dereliction of
duty", Tony Blair has said.
At prime minister's questions, Scottish National Party MP Mike
Weir accused Mr Blair of threatening to leave a legacy of nuclear
"dumps" in Scotland.
Mr Blair sparked anger on Tuesday when he said new nuclear plants
were back on the agenda "with a vengeance".
But he told MPs the UK risked being left reliant on foreign
energy imports.
He told Mr Weir waste from existing nuclear plants had to be
disposed of in any case.
"We have to address the energy needs of this country in the
future," he added.
Critics accused the prime minister of pre-empting the
government's energy review, which is due to report in July.
Earlier, ex-Labour environment minister Elliot Morley rejected
the case for a new generation of nuclear plants.
He told The Guardian newspaper the energy review, which is headed
by Department of Trade and Industry Minister Malcolm Wicks, might
well point to renewable sources of energy if it was "open,
transparent and fair".
[Elliot Morley, former Environment Minister] Elliot Morley says
environment ministers were not involved enough in the energy
review
He complained that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs had not had the involvement it should in the technical
aspects of the review.
He had seen no official government figures on the real cost of
nuclear power.
Mr Morley said: "To have new nuclear power is going to involve
very large sums of money.
"If nuclear power was so great then you would have the private
sector willing to invest in it.
"The reality is that economically the risks are great and the
returns are low.
"No private sector company is going to take on the long-term
risks, the cost of decommissioning, the storage, reprocessing and
the responsibility for the waste."
Reshuffle
The recent reshuffle saw David Miliband become environment
secretary, replacing Margaret Beckett, who was seen as a nuclear
sceptic.
Friends of the Earth's Tony Juniper said: "It's probably no
coincidence that a number of nuclear sceptics were removed from
key Cabinet posts earlier this month."
Mr Blair told the CBI on Tuesday he had seen the "first cut" of
the energy review.
He said if current policy remained unchanged there would be a
"dramatic gap" on targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 forcing
Britain to become heavily dependent on gas.
"We will move from 80 or 90% self-reliance on gas to 80 or 90%
dependency on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East,
Africa and Russia," he told business leaders at the CBI.
These "stark" facts "put the replacement of nuclear power
stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy
efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the
agenda with a vengeance," Mr Blair added.
'Smokescreen'
The Conservatives accused Mr Blair of trying to reassert his
authority in government by "trampling" over his energy review.
The Liberal Democrats described the move as another "desperate
attempt" to establish his legacy.
The remarks were seized upon by environmental campaign groups.
Stephen Tindale, spokesman for environmental group Greenpeace,
said: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about
nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the
government launched its energy review.
"The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been
taken."
And Sir Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development
Commission, said: "It would be damaging to this government's
credibility if it were to pre-empt the conclusions of its own
energy review, by making premature and insufficiently considered
announcements on nuclear power."
The commission, which is an independent government watchdog,
recently produced a report that said nuclear power was not the
answer to tackling climate change or security of supply.
*****************************************************************
47 BBC: Hopes grow for nuke
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006
[Chapelcross towers]
Hopes have been raised of a new plant at Chapelcross
The campaign for a new plant at Chapelcross near Annan has been
boosted by the prime minister putting nuclear power "back on the
agenda".
Workers have lobbied constantly for the south west Scotland site
to be considered for a replacement station.
Local councillor Sean Marshall said it was the most "positive
indication" yet that a Chapelcross 2 could be built.
He said public acceptance, a site licence and highly skilled
workforce must help to support the scheme.
In a speech to business leaders Tony Blair said nuclear power was
"back on the agenda with a vengeance".
The statement was welcomed by the councillor for the Chapelcross
area.
"There are still problems convincing the Scottish Parliament but
certainly that is the most positive indication we have had from
the prime minister," Mr Marshall said.
"I totally welcome it," he added. "All the signs are if they are
going to build they are going to do it on existing sites."
You have got existing site licence and so many other advantages
like public acceptance and a location suitable for a new nuclear
plant [ src=] Sean Marshall Chapelcross councillor
Blair backs nuclear plans
The old Chapelcross plant, which opened in 1959 and ceased
generation in 2004, is currently being decommissioned.
However, Mr Marshall believes there is room for a new plant to be
built on the site and that such a move would be welcomed.
"This site has enough room to start construction of a new
station," he said.
"There is public acceptability here which is probably higher than
most of the UK.
"You have got an existing site licence and so many other
advantages like public acceptance and a location suitable for a
new nuclear plant."
Workers have already travelled to Westminster to make the case
for a new plant at Annan.
Mr Marshall believes locals would welcome the jobs that such a
development could bring.
'Quality jobs'
The Corridor Regeneration Strategy (CoReS) has been set up to
cope with the employment impact of the current decommissioning.
"In the Gretna, Lockerbie and Annan triangle there is 80% of the
workforce of 400," said Mr Marshall.
"CoReS will struggle to get the quality jobs which is one of
their main aims.
"Chapelcross 2 would probably fit the bill although there would
be a reduced work force."
The prime minister's comments were also welcomed by Dumfries
Labour MSP Dr Elaine Murray.
"This is good news for Chapelcross, although there will also be
strong support for Hunterston and Torness as sites for
replacement nuclear power stations," she said.
Tory MP David Mundell said the statement could have a big
economic impact.
"This area benefited enormously from having the Chapelcross plant
for over 50 years, which at the end of its life was bringing in
Ł20m to the local economy and employing hundreds of people," he
said.
*****************************************************************
48 BBC: Doubts over Blair's nuclear
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006
[Sellafield nuclear power station in Cumbria]
Prime Minister Tony Blair has been told a new generation
of nuclear power stations will only be welcome in Cumbria if
safety issues are resolved.
Mr Blair said new nuclear plants were back on the agenda "with a
vengeance".
Cumbria is already home to the giant Sellafield reprocessing
complex and the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA).
Responding to Mr Blair's comments, Cumbria County Council said
it welcomed the prospect of retained jobs, but wanted assurances
on safety and waste.
Critics have accused Mr Blair of pre-empting the government's
energy review, which is due to report in July.
Mr Blair told the CBI on Tuesday he had seen the "first cut" of
the energy review.
'Well paid jobs'
He stressed if current policy remained unchanged there would be
a "dramatic gap" on targets to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025,
forcing Britain to become heavily dependent on gas.
But Cumbria County Council's cabinet spokesman on nuclear
issues, Tim Heslop, said: "This is not the first indication that
energy supply issues might mean that a British Government may
decide to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
"That prospect certainly holds some possibilities for Cumbria to
keep or create skilled and well paid jobs and to bring
investment to the area.
"We have made clear to the government in a considered response
to the Energy Review, that there are serious issues such as
safety, decommissioning costs and dealing with nuclear waste
which have to be satisfactorily addressed before we could
welcome the prospect of nuclear new build in Cumbria.
"The prime minister's speech might have put a new generation of
reactors on the agenda 'with a vengeance', but we still do not
know what the government's new energy policy will actually be."
*****************************************************************
49 FT.com: Brussels briefing - Nuclear industry urged to win over EU public
By Sarah Laitner in Brussels
Published: May 17 2006 22:14 | Last updated: May 17 2006 22:14
[Andris Piebalgs] The nuclear energy industry needs to work
harder if it is to persuade the public of the benefits of
building new plants, Europe’s top energy official believes.
Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, said the sector should
do more to address concerns about costs, safety and waste
treatment. Mr Piebalgs said: “I believe the nuclear industry
should be more active in this situation. The industry should
provide some answers.”
The debate over nuclear power has re-emerged in the face of
tighter power supplies, higher oil and gas prices, and global
warming concerns.
Mr Piebalgs was speaking before Tony Blair, British prime
minister, on Tuesday signalled that he wanted the UK to build a
new generation of nuclear power plants.
Some countries, such as Germany, propose phasing out ageing
reactors, while others such as Finland are building new ones.
The EU’s 25 member states, rather than the Commission, the
Brussels-based executive, decide on whether to use nuclear
energy, which accounts for 15 per cent of the power consumed in
the EU.
Mr Piebalgs must steer the EU in its efforts to diversify power
sources and bolster competition in its internal market for
electricity and gas.
EU competition authorities on Tuesday ran dawn raids on power
companies in six countries, amid suspicions that the groups had
broken anti-trust rules.
The commissioner must also manage relations with Russia, which
supplies a quarter of Europe’s gas needs.
Moscow’s reliability as an energy partner was called into
question after Russia cut gas supplies to Ukraine in January in
a price dispute, temporarily affecting deliveries to the EU.
Mr Piebalgs warned that a particularly cold Russian winter could
trigger gas shortages in Europe.
The commissioner believes Moscow is a reliable partner that
wants to meet its export commitments, but that it could struggle
to maintain exports in the face of increased Russian domestic
demand for gas. He thinks the country needs to invest in
production capacity to be certain that it can deal with strong
demand if a winter was as cold as the last.
In an interview with the Financial Times, he said: “If a
winter is going to be like this winter, I ask myself how they
will honour the contracts. If a winter is going to be very cold,
they will need more gas for internal consumption.”
Gazprom, the Russian energy group, on Wednesday dismissed such
concerns. “Even last winter, which was the coldest in 30
years, Gazprom showed it can cope with demand pressures,” said
Sergei Kupriyanov, a spokesman.
He said had it not been for Ukraine taking gas intended for
Europe, there would have been no disruptions in supplies last
winter.
Speaking ahead of an EU-Russia summit next week, Mr Piebalgs
said there had been misunderstandings between the two sides.
“Russian gas is necessary for Europe. I do not see a huge
contradiction between Europe and Russia concerning the energy
sector.”
Additional reporting by Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow and Andrew
Bounds in Brussels
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
50 Platts: Peformance problems continue at Perry, Point Beach nukes: US NRC
Washington (Platts)--16May2006
FirstEnergy's Perry nuclear plant in Ohio and Wisconsin Electric
Power's Point Beach nuclear unit in Wisconsin continued to show
significant performance problems last year, senior managers with
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday.
The agency officials, however, reported that performance at
FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse plant, which had been under increased
NRC oversight since April 2002, has been operating under a more
normal agency review process since July 2005.
NRC commissioners were briefed at the annual agency action
review meeting, which includes an overview of the performance of
operating reactors and fuel cycle and other materials licensees,
industry trends, and the effectiveness of NRC's oversight
process. While three licensees were discussed at last year's
meeting, none had performance that reached the threshold for
discussion this year, said Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards Director Jack Strosnider.
Noting that Point Beach's performance has been discussed for
four consecutive years, Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield said he
believed that top executives of plants "languishing" in Column 4
-- those with significant performance problems -- should have to
come before the commission.
Nuclear Management Co operates Point Beach and FirstEnergy
Nuclear Operating runs Perry.
---Jenny Weil, jenny_weil@platts.com
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
51 Pravda: Russia to launch two new nuclear reactors annually starting in 2010 -
Pravda.Ru
05/17/2006 21:44 Source:
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said
that the ambitious program would kick off with the launch of
construction next year of a new nuclear power plant near St.
Petersburg, the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies reported.
The new plant with four nuclear reactors would cost US$6 billion
(€4.7 billion), Kiriyenko said.
He said the new plant would be located next to the existing
nuclear plant in Sosnovy Bor, near St. Petersburg.
Nuclear power now accounts for 16-17 percent of Russia's
electricity generation, and the Kremlin has set a target to
raise its share to one-quarter by 2030. Kiriyenko said recently
that Russia would have to build a total of 40 new reactors to
fulfill the goal, the AP reports.
In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against
nuclear power that followed the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster,
and the government has supported an ambitious program to develop
its nuclear industry.
Kiriyenko said his agency also hoped to build more reactors
abroad. He said that China, in particular, was likely to place
orders for more reactors after the successful launch of the
first Russia-built nuclear reactor.
C 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in
*****************************************************************
52 Independent: Brown endorses Blair's plans for more nuclear power stations
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Published: 18 May 2006
Gordon Brown is to throw his weight behind Tony Blair's
controversial plans to build a new generation of nuclear power
stations in a setback to opponents of the move. The Chancellor
believes that giving nuclear power a new lease of life is part
of the solution to Britain's energy problems.
But he admits privately that the public, parliament and
environmental groups will need to be convinced about the cost
and benefits of the nuclear option. Allies of Mr Brown said
yesterday there was "no real difference" between him and the
Prime Minister on the issue, and that he is personally convinced
a new nuclear programme is the right way forward.
His backing is a boost for Mr Blair and, following their
agreement on pensions, will be seen as a sign that they can
still work together on difficult policy issues despite tension
between them over when the Prime Minister should stand down.
Opponents of nuclear power had hoped Mr Brown, the overwhelming
front-runner to succeed Mr Blair, would block the Prime
Minister's plans, to be formally recommended in the Government's
energy review in July.
Public opinion is sharply divided. A Populus survey for the
Stockholm Network group of think tanks found that 46 per cent of
people agreed that "if Britain is to lessen its dependence on
foreign energy imports and meet its target for reducing carbon
emissions, we may have to build new nuclear power stations in
this country." However, 42% would rather Britain failed to meet
its carbon emissions targets and continued to import energy from
abroad.
Mr Blair faced further criticism yesterday for pre-empting the
review by saying in a speech on Tuesday that its first draft had
put the nuclear option back on the agenda "with a vengeance."
Friends of the Earth will file a request under the Freedom of
Information Act for the draft to be published in full so that
there can be a public debate about the "stark facts" on which Mr
Blair said he based his judgement.
Tony Juniper, the group's director, said: "He must publish
details of the briefing he received from the Department of Trade
and Industry, which he has now made so public, so that we can
have a transparent and open debate on this issue."
Mr Blair may not need legislation to authorise more nuclear
power stations but more than 50 MPs have signed a Commons motion
calling for a debate and vote in parliament.
It was tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Jenny Willott, who accused
Mr Blair of showing "blatant disregard for the views of the
people". She added: "The future of our energy supply is one of
the biggest decisions we face in Britain today, and the Prime
Minister is trying to force it through without proper
parliamentary debate."
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, said a new generation of
nuclear power stations would be an expensive and dangerous
mistake. "It will be the great misjudgement of our generation to
go back down the nuclear road, which would saddle our children
and grandchildren with the consequences," he said.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman denied the review had
been pre-empted. "This is now a situation in which Mr Micawber
is going to work. You cannot just hope something turns up, you
have to make decisions and you have to make decisions now
because in this field there is a long lead time," he said.
Reviewing the evidence
* When Tony Blair announced the Government's energy review last
November, he signalled his intent by putting the pro-nuclear
Department of Trade and Industry in the driving seat. It is
chaired by the Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks, rather than by a
neutral referee such as John Prescott or an independent figure
from outside government.
Mr Wicks has insisted he is "nuclear neutral", but it came as no
surprise when Mr Blair said on Tuesday that the review's first
draft showed the nuclear option was needed to prevent Britain
becoming dependent on foreign gas imports, and to hit its
targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Other inquiries have not reached the same conclusion. The
Sustainable Development Commission, chaired by Jonathon Porritt,
which advises the Government, said nuclear power was not the
answer to climate change and there was "no justification" for a
new nuclear programme.
The all-party Commons Environmental Audit Committee said in a
report last month the nuclear option would not plug Britain's
energy gap. With almost a quarter of the country's
electricity-generating capacity to be decommissioned by 2016,
the committee said there was not time to wait for a new
generation of nuclear reactors. It said Britain could face
electricity blackouts within a decade unless there was urgent
investment in new gas-fired power stations.
However, a study by the International Energy Agency is expected
to conclude nuclear power offers the best hope of tackling
global energy insecurity and meeting emissions targets.
Andrew Grice
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
53 EBR: Finland offers potential solution to UK nuclear finance quandary
Energy Business Review
16th May 2006 By EBR Staff Writer
With the UK Energy Review well underway, private business in the
UK is beginning to indicate the ways by which it would be
willing to support the financing of a future nuclear building
program. The review will be analyzing the different financing
options open to the UK government for new nuclear plant: looking
to the Finnish example could provide a plausible vision of the
future.
Advertisement With the UK needing to address the future of its
energy supplies, recent developments in Finland provide an
interesting background to the financing of new nuclear plant in
western Europe.
In 2003 the Finnish government narrowly gave the go-ahead for
the building of a new nuclear power station, planned to come
online in 2009. The decision is seen as very significant in that
it is the first such decision in western Europe for more than a
decade.
Prior to the building of any new nuclear stations, a decision
was made upon how Finland would deal with its future nuclear
waste, which was underpinned by two linked commitments. The
first was that Finland should take responsibility for its own
waste, ie. no exporting of waste, and consequently the second
was that it would need to store its own nuclear waste. The waste
site selection was made in 2000; building of the storage site
will begin in 2010 and become operational in 2020.
The specifics of the financing for the new Finnish plant have
not been fully explicated to date, but it is known that the
station is to be entirely financed from private funds, with
decommissioning and waste disposal costs built into this
structure. The plant has a number of investors who will receive
their financial return in the form of electricity supplied to
them. They include energy intensive businesses such as steel and
concrete companies and even the local council has taken an 8%
share in the project.
In the UK, E.ON has stated publicly that it would be interested
in operating future nuclear plant, believing that it would not
need to be underwritten by the UK government.
"A proven technology like nuclear should not need any government
financial support," said E.ON UK's chief executive Paul Golby.
Further private support for nuclear in the UK has taken the form
of Huntsman, the Teeside-based chemicals group, which has stated
it would be willing to develop long-term power purchase
agreements which could support any future construction of new
nuclear plant in the UK, although it wouldn't consider such
agreements as "investing directly in nuclear power", according
the company's director, Bill Perfitt.
The recent history of British Energy - which was crippled by
plunging wholesale electricity prices in the early 1990s may be
enough to dissuade some private businesses and investors from
going it alone, so it may be that a public private partnership
solution is on the cards if any future nuclear program is to get
the go-ahead.
With large energy users in the UK seeking secure power purchase
strategies for the longer term, the two different financing
structures, one of direct capital investment in plant such as
Finland and the other towards longer term power purchase
agreements, could provide a privately-financed safety net for
the UK government to share the financial burden of new nuclear
plant.
In reality investment decisions will be driven by the cost at
which large energy users can secure long term purchase
agreements, and the price of these will be heavily dependent
upon the economies of scale which would only result from a major
nuclear building program rather than single plant investment.
©2006 Business Review Ltd
*****************************************************************
54 toledoblade.com: Fermi II plans shutdown for fuel rod work
Thursday, May 18, 2006
NEWPORT, Mich. - Detroit Edison Co.'s Fermi II nuclear plant in
northern Monroe County, which went back online about a week ago
after being idle for six weeks of normal refueling and planned
improvements, is being shut down again Friday to replace a leaky
fuel rod.
Spokesman John Austerberry said the shutdown should be completed
Saturday and the repair work should last two weeks. The utility
chose to do it now, rather than wait until the peak summer
demand for electricity, he said.
Jan Strasma, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman, said the
utility detected the leak by noticing a slight increase in
radioactive gas that is captured from the reactor and processed
at the plant. The level of radiation detected is usually a
symptom of a pinhole leak, he said.
Detroit Edison was able to isolate the fuel assembly that has
the leaky rod and deactivate it while the plant was still
running. Fermi II's reactor core has 63,304 fuel rods bundled
into 764 fuel assemblies, an average of 74 to 92 rods per bundle.
The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
55 Comment is free: Blair's dodgy nuclear dossier
[Tony Juniper]
If the prime minister is looking for a lasting legacy, there's
nothing more durable than nuclear waste.
May 17, 2006 12:18 PM |
The prime minister always likes to impress a business audience.
Last night he made a special effort to please his favourite
business group when he laid out his recent thoughts on energy
policy to the CBI's gala dinner in London.
Everyone knows, and has known for some time, that the UK faces
some tough energy challenges. That is why in 2003 an energy
white paper was published to set out the plan for the future. It
quite logically concluded that we should vigorously pursue
energy efficiency and renewable power, and that we should not
yet commit to new nuclear stations because there were still
better options to try.
In 2005, the prime minister announced that he wanted a new
energy review, including a fresh look at the issue of nuclear
power. Less than a month ago, the review closed the phase of
public input, during which a huge amount of information was
gathered. But while that information should now feed into a
thorough analysis of the pros and cons of the various options,
the PM has waded in and all but announced the conclusion.
This is an incredible political move that can only be construed
as a clear decision on his part to pre-empt the outcome of a
detailed work in progress.
Many people believed the energy review to be a sham: a cosmetic
exercise set up to frame the PM's personal preference for new
nuclear stations as a respectable and carefully thought-through
choice. This impression would be conveyed, the cynics suggested,
by going through the motions of analysing information from
different stakeholders and giving the impression of having
engaged in an open and fair discussion with all the different
interests and issues.
The theory that the energy review was an elaborate and expensive
sham has just been proved correct.
Before the analysis is complete, Tony Blair has announced its
conclusion. And guess what? It's the answer the cynics said he
would come up with: that we need a new generation of nuclear
power stations. The PM claims to have seen a draft of the energy
review - though no one else has - and apparently made up his
mind on the strength of it.
If the draft he has seen is the same as the rather sparse
graphics published with his carefully worded statement on the ,
then the conclusion must be that the review is not finished, not
by a long way. The graphics show what we knew before the review
started: that we have some serious challenges in relation to
energy supply and climate change, and that we need to do
something about it.
The point of the review was to find a real answer to the
question of what to do, not simply to ask the question again and
then come up with the answer the PM first thought of. If Blair
has had some other briefing from ministers leading him to
pre-empt his own review, then he must publish that information
immediately.
The pro-nuclear intervention was accompanied by some reassuring
comments about energy efficiency and renewable power, but if
Tony Blair was serious about these he would have done a great
deal more to get them moving over the last nine years; he would,
at least, have made a serious effort since the energy white
paper three years ago.
Instead, he and his ministers have missed many opportunities to
make the UK more energy efficient, let alone a world leader in
new renewable energy technologies. We have left that leadership
role to other countries.
Had we done more in the early years of New Labour, we could now
be meeting our climate change targets, generating huge numbers
of new jobs and enjoying cleaner power. Instead, if Tony Blair
gets his way, we will be thrust back into the 1950s, and made
reliant on an expensive power source that relies on the base
technology for making nuclear weapons, and that creates deadly
radioactive waste and is the base technology for making nuclear
weapons. It will also be a choice based on imported French or US
technology, when we have dozens of UK companies waiting for
government to signal that it is truly in favour of sustainable
energy.
Friends of the Earth's to the energy review set out carefully
referenced material to show how we can meet climate change
targets while delivering on energy security objectives. Many
other organisations, including the Energy Saving Trust and
Greenpeace, provided information pointing in the same direction.
Having engaged in good faith, it looks like we have just wasted
our time.
Why the prime minister has done this now is not clear, although
the impression that he was gearing up to such a move was
suggested by what many saw as pro-nuclear cabinet reshuffle.
Some say the Conservatives' interest in green energy and climate
change is taking them toward a more sceptical stance on nuclear
power; perhaps Tony Blair was seeking to pre-empt any statement
from them. Who knows?
Whatever the reason, he has just done serious damage to the
credibility of his government.
Some are already comparing the process of the energy review to
the decision-making process before the invasion of Iraq. In that
case, information was selectively leaked while the analysis was
still ongoing, in a clear and deliberate attempt to shape public
opinion in the run-up to the final decision. In the end, we got
what came to be known as the dodgy dossier. The so-called energy
review may well end up being seen as the nuclear equivalent.
While this is in some ways no less a momentous decision, in the
case of Iraq Tony Blair's main sources were the intelligence
agencies; this time it is a wide spectrum of civil society
organisations, his own independent advisers (for example the
Sustainable Development Commission), a range of specialist
agencies and various companies who have staked their future on
genuinely sustainable energy.
This time, the prime minister has not only betrayed public trust
in a process; he has also shown two fingers to many people and
organisations who would like to support him in his stated aim of
doing something about climate change. Had he really pursued this
process in good faith, listened to all the arguments and come
forward with good reasons why he had rejected them, then he
might at least have earned some respect, even if people still
disagreed with him.
If the prime minister is looking for a lasting legacy, then
perhaps there is none more durable than nuclear waste. Which
leader from history can say that people some 100,000 years after
he was gone still lived in fear of his rule?
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
56 AFP: Blair angers ecologists with push for new nuclear plants -
by Lachlan Carmichael Wed May 17, 8:06 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Environmentalists reacted angrily to Prime
Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blair's push to build a new
generation of British nuclear power plants, saying there were
other, better ways of ensuring reliable energy supplies and
combatting global warming.
In a speech to business leaders in London on Tuesday, Blair
said the need to combat climate change and reduce Britain's
dependence on foreign energy imports "put the replacement of
nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step
change on energy efficiency ... back on the agenda with a
vengeance".
But environmental groups -- and a former Blair minister --
reacted angrily to Blair's comments.
They argued that Britain can meet its future energy needs and
cut polluting emissions without building costly new nuclear
power plants, especially since no conclusive solution has been
found to deal with the problem of radioactive waste.
"To have new nuclear power is going to involve very large sums
of money. If nuclear power was so great, then you would have the
private sector willing to invest in it," former environment
minister Elliott Morley said.
"The reality is that economically the risks are great and the
returns are low," he told the Guardian newspaper.
Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,
said that given the 15 years it would take a nuclear power
station to come on stream, the cost of dealing with radioactive
waste and the threat of terrorist attacks, it would be
"irresponsible" to replace existing plants.
"The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear
power some time ago and certainly well before the government
launched its energy review," said Stephen Tindale, director of
environmental campaign group Greenpeace.
Keith Allott, head of climate change for environmental body
WWF-UK, echoed Tindale's remarks.
"All the work that we have done shows that we can keep the
lights on while seeing substantial reductions in our emissions
without resorting to new nuclear power," he told AFP.
A report for WWF earlier this month said the power sector could
reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2025, by cutting energy waste
and increasing renewable energy sources.
WWF has submitted the report to the government for its review on
future energy supplies, which was commissioned by Blair late
last year and is expected to recommend a revival of Britain's
nuclear power programme.
Blair made his speech to the Confederation of British Industry
(CBI) after received the first draft of an energy review by the
government, which is due to be published in July.
"Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy
security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in
the UK and around the world," Blair told business leaders at the
CBI's annual dinner.
"The facts are stark," warned the prime minister. "By 2025, if
current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our
targets to reduce CO2 emissions."
Carbon dioxide emissions are blamed for fuelling global warming
by trapping heat-retaining gases in the earth's atmosphere.
He said Britain would become heavily dependent on gas and at the
same time move from being 80-to-90 percent self-reliant in gas
to 80-to-90 percent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from
the Middle East, Africa and Russia.
These facts made it essential to consider building new nuclear
plants, encouraging energy savings and investing in renewable
energy sources.
The latter include wind, water and solar power, biomass, fuel
cells and hydropower.
"If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be
committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of
this country," Blair insisted.
Britain currently has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most
of them built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide around 25
percent of the country's electricity. Natural gas provides about
40 percent.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
57 AFP: Blair's call for new nuclear plants raises concerns about costs
Wed May 17, 8:51 PM ET
LONDON, (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> 's push for
new nuclear power plants has raised concerns about how to finance
them, amid predictions of "eye-wateringly large" costs,
newspapers reported.
Blair angered environmentalists with a speech Tuesday to
business leaders in which he called for a new generation of
British nuclear power plants in order to ensure both reliable
energy supplies and combat global warming.
However, The Guardian newspaper and the Financial Times said the
concern within the government is more to do with costs than
safety issues.
Cabinet sources quoted by The Guardian newspaper said the
Treasury produced "eye-wateringly large" estimates for the
cabinet, and they expected Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon
Brown to study the costs in the next two months.
Brown told BBC television meanwhile he agreed "absolutely" with
Blair's call for replacing Britain's ageing nuclear power
plants. "This will be a government decision, a government policy
and it will be announced very soon," he said.
Ministerial skeptics wanted detailed figures on the costs of
decommissioning existing as well as new stations, and they also
want figures on the capital costs for construction and disposal
of waste, according to The Guardian.
The cabinet sources told the Guardian that it was uncertain what
the Department of Trade and Industry meant when it said there
will be no taxpayers' subsidy to encourage the private sector to
build the new plants.
The sources said they "believe the government will be forced to
make guarantees, soft loans, or rig the market in a way that
crowds out the case for renewables," such as wind, water or
solar power.
The Financial Times reported that Blair wants a new generation
of nuclear power plants to provide at least a fifth of Britain's
power generation needs, with the help of private investment.
Blair will support building the plants on sites occupied by
existing reactors, which will accelerate construction, it said.
However, it added that there were questions about whether the
private sector will want to shoulder the cost without economic
incentives.
Industry experts at KPMG, it said, estimated that just
maintaining nuclear's 19 percent share in supplying Britain's
energy needs would require building 10 powerful 1,000 megawatt
reactors by 2020, at a cost of about 15 billion pounds (22
billion euros, 28.2 billion dollars).
The estimate for disposing nuclear waste carries a 70 billion
pound bill, it added.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
58 WCRAN: Industry ready to fuel nuclear-power rebirth, NAM head says
"The Waterbury Connecticut Republican American Newspaper"
389 Meadow Street, Waterbury, CT 06702 - (203) 574-3636
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
By TOM HENRY
Copyright © 2006 AP Wire
Former Michigan Gov. John Engler is expected to help pump a
little more life into America's nuclear industry on Thursday
when he delivers a pitch for more nuclear plants on behalf of
the nation's manufacturing sector.
Engler, now president and chief executive officer of the
Washington-based National Association of Manufacturers, is to
address more than 350 executives, including those from the
nation's largest utilities, in San Francisco.
The event is the annual conference of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the industry's chief lobbyist group on Capitol Hill.
Engler is being courted for an obvious reason: To help the
nuclear industry make a comeback.
The industry has been struggling to overcome the stigma of the
partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in
Pennsylvania in 1979; this year's 20th anniversary of the 1986
Chernobyl disaster near Kiev, Ukraine, and the near-rupture of
the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor head 30 miles east of Toledo,
Ohio, in 2002.
[''] Engler's support is the latest sign in the campaign to
revive the nuclear industry.
On April 24, NEI announced the formation of the Clean and Safe
Energy Coalition to ramp up its message. The coalition has 50
charter member organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Engler's group and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters.
A significant tandem will serve as co-chairs: Christine Todd
Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and the first U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator under the current
President Bush, and Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder who
has gained attention for pursuing more nuclear power as a means
of addressing global warming.
Contrary to what many people think, nuclear power didn't become
stagnant because of post-Three Mile Island regulations. Even the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is quick to point out that Wall
Street had a bigger influence. The construction era came to a
halt because projects came in millions of dollars over budget.
Such fears haven't discouraged Whitman. "Our country's
significant energy needs keep growing. We must diversify our
energy sources to meet these needs," she said.
Moore said nuclear power has proven itself "an environmentally
sound and safe energy choice." He advocates doubling America's
nuclear-energy production to curb greenhouse gases.
David Garman, a U.S. Department of Energy undersecretary, has
said nuclear power is such a sensitive issue that many public
utility boards won't put discussion about a new plant on their
agenda because it hurts their company stock, he said.
Nuclear provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity and is
second to coal, which produces half. Coal-fired power plants are
the largest source of greenhouse gases.
The nuclear industry also still has to overcome its biggest
hurdle: waste disposal. Nevada's Yucca Mountain has crossed many
regulatory hurdles to become the federal radioactive waste
disposal site, but is still years away from being developed.
All content except otherwise noted © 1997-2006
American-Republican Inc.
All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
59 PDM: International nuclear school to be opened in North Bohemia -
Prague Daily Monitor
Straz pod Ralskem, North Bohemia, May 16 (CTK) - A new
international nuclear training centre where experts can learn
about the methods of uranium mining will be opened in Straz pod
Ralskem by the Diamo state enterprise with support of the World
Nuclear University in London, the daily Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD)
writes in its local supplement today.
The first four-week course in the nuclear centre will take place
this September and October.
"We expect some 15 experts from China, India, Brazil, Argentina,
Kazakhstan as well as other countries to apply for the course,"
Jan Slezak, preparing the training centre, told MfD.
The uranium mining is attracting a tremendous interest in the
world at present, Slezak said.
"The uranium price has increased almost four timed during the
past three years. After the decline in mining during the past 20
years, one generation of experts [in uranium production] is
lacking," Slezak added.
Brazil would like its experts in Straz to enter the world
uranium market and Argentina is changing its nuclear programme.
China and India also plan to considerably increase the number of
nuclear power plants. Kazakhstan would like to become one of the
largest uranium producer in the world as from 2015, MfD adds.
Experts from Diamo along with lecturers from Czech and U.S.
schools will teach in the nuclear centre in Straz. Apart from
theory, the course participants will visit the still operating
uranium mine in Dolni Rozinky, north Bohemia, and go for study
trips abroad.
The major four-week course will be held twice or three times a
year, while two-week or three-week courses for managers in
nuclear energy are to be organised several times a year, Slezak
told the paper.
The Judiciary Academy was established in Straz pod Ralskem a
couple of years ago, but the Justice has Ministry relocated it
to Kromeriz, south Moravia.
hol/dr/pv
This story copyright 2005 CTK Czech News Agency.
Svoboda: Border protection complicates abolition of U.S. visas
[CTK]
[The Prague Daily Monitor uses the CTK news service, which
*****************************************************************
60 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear debate a test for Beazley -
By Samantha Maiden
May 18, 2006
LABOR faces a divisive internal debate on its opposition to
nuclear energy next month, with one of the nation's most
powerful unions planning to put the issue on the agenda of the
party's NSW state conference. In an early test of Kim Beazley's
opposition to nuclear energy, the Australian Workers Union is
spearheading the push to debate the policy by moving a motion to
have the NSW Government investigate the viability of nuclear
power.
The push is in defiance of the federal Opposition Leader's
warnings that a nuclear power industry in Australia "simply does
not stack up".
John Howard sought this week to continue the nuclear debate,
signalling a white paper to outline options including nuclear
power plants.
Yesterday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced he would
pre-empt a government energy review to back the replacement of
nuclear power plants to tackle global warming and rising
reliance on imported energy.
"These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a
big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency,
engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a
vengeance," he told business chiefs in London.
Australia's uranium industry, with 40 per cent of the world's
reserves, is best placed to provide yellowcake to Britain, which
joins China, India and even Indonesia as lucrative new export
markets.
The motion set to spark debate on nuclear energy has been
proposed by the NSW division of Bill Shorten's union, the AWU,
which has led the push to relax the ALP's policy on uranium
mining.
It calls on the Iemma Government "to undertake an investigation
into the use of nuclear technology in the provision of energy as
a supplement to existing sources in meeting the growing energy
demands of NSW".
Some party heavyweights are are even pushing for the nuclear
power debate to be pushed off the agenda at next month's meeting
in anticipation of debate at the ALP's national conference in
2007.
However, NSW AWU president Mick Madden said yesterday he was
well aware that any policy had to be formed at a national level
but said "there's nothing wrong with the debate starting".
"We're not looking for a brawl but we want a debate because
otherwise the conservatives just grab the agenda on this," Mr
Madden said. "We've heard the facts, that we have to look to
alternative energy sources and whether we go solar or go
nuclear. I think the sensible option is a combination."
The motion proposed by the AWU calls for debate on the
"efficiency and effectiveness of nuclear energy meeting future
energy demands of the state."
It also calls for investigation into the disposal of nuclear
waste and any by-products and concerns about worker and
community safety.
Former NSW Premier Bob Carr, a nuclear energy supporter,
previously warned climate change posed as great a risk as
terrorism.
However, AWU president Bill Ludwig said last night the question
of nuclear energy was ultimately for next year's national
conference to resolve.
"My view is: first things first. We've got to address the three
mines uranium policy," he said.
"The national position is we are pro-uranium mining, we haven't
debated nuclear power at a national level." Mr Shorten has
previously warned the "jury was still out" on nuclear energy but
it was time for a discussion.
Labor MP Martin Ferguson said yesterday Britain had no option
but "to go nuclear".
"It's a fact of life, it's going to be debated. But in terms of
Australia, we are so rich in resources it doesn't stack up," he
said.
"It stacks up in China, Japan, France but in Australia we've got
coal, gas, hydro and we've got solar which is under-utilised."
Mr Iemma declined to comment. A spokesman for Mr Beazley said he
did not support a nuclear power industry in Australia.
*****************************************************************
61 ITAR-TASS: Construction site for Leningrad NPP-2 selected
17.05.2006, 18.40
SOSNOVY BOR, Leningrad region, May 17 (Itar-Tass) -- The site
for the construction of the Leningrad nuclear power plant-2 has
been selected and the time when work will begin has been
determined.
The head of Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency, Sergei
Kiriyenko, said, “The site is located not far from the existing
Leningrad nuclear power plant.”
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
62 ITAR-TASS: Corporatisation of Russia nuclear sector launched – Kiriyenko
17.05.2006, 15.21
ST. PETERSBURG, May 17 (Itar-Tass) - The chief of the Federal
Agency of Atomic Energy, Sergei Kiriyenko, attended a meeting of
Rosenergoatom board of governors at the Linengradskaya plant.
“Forms of ownership will be changed during the restructuring of
the nuclear sector. The process of corporatisation of all
facilities of the nuclear sector has been launched,” he said at
the meeting.
Kiriyenko stressed that “all facilities of the nuclear sector
will remain in federal ownership one hundred percent”.
The facilities will by guarded by troops of the Interior
Ministry, Kiriyenko said.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
63 Livingstone: Nuclear an expensive and dangerous mistake
Nuclear power
[Politics.co.uk]
Wednesday, 17 May 2006 09:35
New nuclear power plants would be an expensive and dangerous
mistake, said the London mayor, after Tony Blair announced he
would put nuclear energy back on the agenda.
Ken Livingstone said polls showed nearly three quarters of
Londoners were opposed to building nuclear plants in their
locality.
Nuclear power threatened the environment, he said, citing the
Chernobyl fall-out and a lack of any safe method to deal with
nuclear waste as examples. He said even a doubling of nuclear
power stations would cut carbon emissions by just eight per cent.
Mr Livingstone urged the government to move from "inefficient
centralised power generation" to "decentralised combined, heat,
power and cooling", a programme of energy efficiency, more
investment in renewables and further measures to reduce
transport pollution.
"It will be the great misjudgment of our generation to go back
down the nuclear road, which would saddle our children and
grandchildren with the consequences," he said.
[End of story]
© 2006 www.Politics.co.uk. About Us | Editorial Policy |
Editorial Board | Privacy | Terms of Use
*****************************************************************
64 Telegraph: Foreigners will power UK's next nuclear age
Thursday 18 May 2006
[telegraph.co.uk]
If Britain is to build more nuclear power stations it will have
to look abroad for expertise because it no longer has the skills
to build reactors, writes Russell Hotten
When Tony Blair promised on Tuesday to put the building of
nuclear power stations "back on the agenda" few people doubted
that this was effectively a green light that Britain would
construct a new generation of reactors.
Although an energy review is not due for publication until July,
the industry believes that, one way of another, the prime
minister is intent on building more stations as the way to
guarantee energy supplies and tackle climate change.
According to someone who has advised the Government's energy
policy makers: "There's a mood in Whitehall that more nuclear
stations are the answer. It's the way things are going. I think
Britain will get them."
Yesterday, Areva, the French state-controlled group and the
world's largest builder of nuclear power stations, effectively
threw its hat into the ring, saying that it could have a new
series of reactors up and running by 2017.
Areva stands a good chance of getting any nuclear design and
build contacts - as the only serious rival, according to energy
experts, is Westinghouse, the US-based but Japanese-owned
company.
AECL, a Canadian company, has an outside chance of winning
contracts, but energy insiders say the Government has already
declared a preference for the PWRs - pressurised water reactors
- of Areva and Westinghouse.
The UK effectively ended its expertise in building reactors when
British Nuclear Fuels sold Westinghouse to Toshiba for $5.4bn.
It is, though, unlikely that the Government would award
contracts without insisting that UK companies played some part
in any construction consortium.
Amec, the UK engineering group, has nuclear project management
and decommissioning experience, but for one observer the firm
"has no pedigree in building power stations. Work on this would
have to go abroad".
Costain is another UK firm that could get a project management
role. But, again, foreign firms, such as America's Bechtel, are
seen as having more experience in this area.
So, as well as the political and regulatory hurdles of embarking
on a nuclear-build programme, this lack of indigenous experience
could also be a problem. British experts in the nuclear field
are a dwindling breed.
According to Prof Ian Fells, a leading expert on the industry:
"The teams of engineers that built Sizewell B in 1995 are all
retired or dead. We do not have the skills to build nuclear
power stations any more."
Although there is no immediate urgency to begin a new nuclear
programme, the industry believes that planning and setting a
timetable would have to start within three or four years if the
UK is to meet climate change targets and prepare for the
run-down of gas and oil stocks.
"That would at least give time to start building up the
knowledge base and bring back skills that have laid dormant,"
said an Amec spokesman. "There are still a lot of young
scientists coming into the industry."
Although small power stations are being phased out, the first
big closures, including Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B, start
being decommissioned in 2011, with the rest being taken out of
service by about 2023.
It is estimated that there is a need for up to 10 new stations,
though it is thought that the UK could build only two
simultaneously. When Areva spoke yesterday of building "a
series" of reactors by 2017, the number in mind was probably at
least four, which would keep the costs low.
The capital cost of a new nuclear plant depends on how quickly
the reactor can be built and whether economies of scale can be
achieved. Using a modular design will cut costs if several
reactors are built in sequence.
A nuclear station that Areva is building at Olkiluoto, in
Finland, is thought to cost about Ł2bn to Ł3bn. But a series of
four reactors, each using the same design, might cost as little
as Ł1.2bn per plant.
A modern PWR reactor should take about five years to build, but
could be as long as 10 years if unexpected project delays are
factored in - sending the interest payments on the capital
investment soaring. In comparison a gas-fired power station can
be built in around six to 18 months, so interest payments are
less of a problem.
In Finland, the backers of the Olkiluto nuclear project recently
admitted that it was about nine months behind schedule despite
being only one year into the construction programme.
It is possible that any new UK reactors would be built on the
sites of existing power stations, which would cut down on
planning delays. But, as the UK has found with many large-scale
construction projects, it has a poor record meeting deadlines.
At least the taxpayer won't be expected to pick up the direct
cost of a nuclear-build programme. The Government has made it
clear that the market - the power station construction companies
and the distributors who will buy the electricity - will be
expected to meet the costs.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
65 Telegraph: Opinion | Going nuclear is a half-baked strategy
18 May 2006
[telegraph.co.uk]
By Charles Clover
So what's new? The analysis doesn't appear to have changed since
the 2002 energy white paper: by 2025, we will be able to keep
the lights on only by importing gas from dodgy dictatorships and
we'll be struggling (then as now) to cut our greenhouse gas
emissions.
So Tony Blair saying that a new generation of nuclear power
stations is "back on the agenda with a vengeance" - before the
results of the energy review he commissioned last year have been
published - is rightly being met by a wall of disbelieving
silence.
Whatever you think about nuclear power - and personally I want
to do something about climate change and keep the lights on, in
whichever way it has to be done - it is difficult to avoid the
growing suspicion that we are both being distracted from the
Government's difficulties and sold a half-baked strategy that
will not solve the problems it is meant to.
Why, you may ask, has Mr Blair wasted four years before
confronting energy security, one of the biggest long-term issues
facing Britain? Why suddenly decide that Britain should play its
part in international efforts to reduce man-made climate change,
a month after ministers were unable to agree to the necessary
but challenging measures, eg to limit air travel, or to tax the
consumer for home heating? Remember, building more nuclear power
stations isn't going to meet Labour's manifesto commitment to a
20 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Climate change and energy security were actually at the top of
the agenda four years ago, but, let us remind ourselves, neither
Mr Blair nor his ministers had the courage to make the necessary
decisions.
Future historians may conclude that the invasion of Iraq in 2003
was a massive and unwarranted distraction from what Mr Blair
really should have been doing in Britain's interests - sorting
out where our energy was to come from and how we should lead the
world into a low-carbon future.
After the political questions comes a rash of more technical
ones, starting with "Has he actually got his analysis right?"
Judging by the snippets of the first draft of Malcolm Wicks's
energy review presented by Mr Blair to the CBI on Tuesday night,
it doesn't sound as if the Government has been listening very
hard to what a wide range of energy experts have been saying.
For instance, they have been stressing that this is supposed to
be an energy review, not an electricity review. What they mean
is that Britain uses more energy than is actually burnt in power
stations - in transport and in heating our homes.
Home heating tends increasingly to be gas, something that
building new nuclear power stations can do nothing about unless
we all rip out our boilers. Equally intractable, but the
fastest-rising source of CO2 emissions, is aviation.
Replacing all our present generation of nuclear power stations
will take a long time - perhaps 15 years by the time they have
been through the planning process - and after all that would
save a maximum of six per cent of our annual carbon dioxide
emissions by 2050.
So it is a mystery, if he really cares about the climate and
energy security, why Mr Blair is not talking about some of the
other options, too - the biggest of which is coal with carbon
dioxide recovery. It should be possible to pump all the carbon
dioxide emitted by coal-fired power stations into spent oil and
gas wells.
Britain is still a country built on coal - and fossil fuels are
still our cheapest electricity option. But strategic decisions
are needed now, because this could be happening by the time the
first of these new nuclear power stations is built.
The other question raised by Mr Blair's remarks this week is
whether the Government has grasped the potential of
microgeneration - rigging the market to favour the local
generation of electricity, with heat recovery, rather than big,
inefficient power stations that waste two thirds of the energy
created before it gets to your house.
Microgeneration means everything from solar panels to
ground-source heat pumps to micro combined heat and power plants
to small-scale wind generators and boilers that run on biofuels,
such as willow coppice. But, again, if you want every home to
have a wood-chip stove in 2015, you need to start now.
The smart money, from David Cameron to Greenpeace and large
parts of industry, has grasped that this energy review has been
a contest not between nuclear and renewables, but between
nuclear and microgeneration.
I emerged from a conversation with Mr Wicks, the energy
minister, at the time the Government published its feeble
microgeneration strategy, profoundly unconvinced that ministers
understood the economic, social and environmental potential of
giving power generation to the people.
Cynics - and there are far more of us now than there were in Mr
Blair's early years as Prime Minister - suspect that the real
reason Number 10 and the Treasury want nuclear power now is that
they want a "cost centre" to saddle with the Ł56 billion costs
of cleaning up our existing nuclear legacy when our current
revenue-raising Magnox stations close, rather than taking it out
of tax revenue.
Mr Blair was, until Tuesday night, in need of a few "big ideas"
to convince people that his Government was decisive and in
control. The problem with this one is that it actually isn't big
enough.
The reality is that nuclear is expensive, accident-prone and the
British public remains highly sceptical about it. If I were the
nuclear industry, I would be happier to hear Mr Blair
recommending the building of more nuclear power stations as part
of a lush salad of measures to banish our dependence on mad
Russians for ever and move to a low-carbon economy.
Anything less than that strikes me as the kind of uncooked
thinking likely to be seen off by a change of government, or a
spending review, long before it actually happens.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
66 Scotsman: Labour manifesto opens door for new Scots nuclear plants
[Scotsman.com News]
Thursday, 18th May 2006
A wind farm on hills above Hunterston power station, which may
be kept open beyond its shutdown date of 2011.
Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
+ Labour to contest Holyrood election with 'nuclear manifesto'
+ Decision marks change from previous Executive policy
+ Tony Blair has indicated he wants rapid decisions on new
power plants
Key quote "We don't want to go into the election saying we are
going to build new nuclear stations right now, because that
would turn the election into a referendum on nuclear power. But
it would be irresponsible to rule out something we might need to
meet Scotland's energy needs." - A 'Labour' source
Story in full
LABOUR'S manifesto for next year's Holyrood elections will pave
the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations in
Scotland, The Scotsman has learned.
Labour leaders have decided the party will contest the 2007
Scottish Parliament election under a policy of "keeping options
open" for the construction of new nuclear stations north of the
Border.
This marks a significant change from the Executive's current
position, which is to oppose any new nuclear plants until the
issue of waste has been resolved.
It will also establish a clear electoral fault- line between the
SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, all of whom will go
into the election opposing new nuclear stations, and Labour and
the Tories, both of whom will accept that they may be necessary
to meet Scotland's energy needs.
A senior Labour source revealed that plans were being drawn up
to give Labour a three-pronged energy policy for its manifesto.
This would involve:
• Pursuing the continued development of renewable energy.
• Extending the licences of the existing nuclear stations at
Hunterston and Torness.
• "Keeping options open" on the construction of new nuclear
power stations.
By accepting the basic principle of new nuclear power stations
in this way, the Labour manifesto will reflect the views of the
Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Trades Union Congress,
both of which voted earlier this year to back new nuclear
stations.
The Labour source explained
: "We don't want to go into the election saying we are going to
build new nuclear stations right now, because that would turn
the election into a referendum on nuclear power. But it would be
irresponsible to rule out something we might need to meet
Scotland's energy needs."
The depth of the division between the two coalition parties on
this issue was made clear by Nora Radcliffe, the Liberal
Democrat environment spokeswoman, who stressed her party's
implacable opposition to new nuclear stations yesterday.
She said: "The Liberal Democrats have a tough, clear and
consistent position - in Scotland and across the UK. We oppose
new nuclear power."
The existing nuclear power stations at Hunterston and Torness
provide 37 per cent of Scotland's energy and Labour managers are
aware that it will be extremely difficult to cover this simply
by an expansion of renewable energy.
This is why the policy of extending the lives of the existing
stations will be a key part of the Labour platform.
Hunterston is due to be shut down in 2011, but Bill Coley, the
chief executive of British Energy, has already made it clear he
wants to extend its life by another ten years.
Torness is not due to shut until 2023 and its owners are likely
to apply for a ten-year extension to its licence as well.
Some in the Labour Party hope extending the lives of the
existing stations will be enough to meet Scotland's energy needs
without building any new stations.
But the party leadership has decided to open the door to new
nuclear stations, just in case they are needed, but without
explicitly calling for new stations to be built.
Jack McConnell, the First Minister, wants to delay any decisions
on a new generation of nuclear stations until after next May's
elections, but Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, is picking up the
pace at Westminster and Mr McConnell may have to confront the
issue before then.
Earlier this week, Mr Blair said the nuclear issue was back on
the agenda "with a vengeance", and yesterday Downing Street made
it clear that Mr Blair did not want a decision on new nuclear
power plants delayed too long.
Last updated: 17-May-06 00:06 BST
*****************************************************************
67 Comment is free: Nine nuclear questions
"Guardian Unlimited" />
guardian.co.uk
[John Vidal]
Will the prime minister answer them? He appears to have made his
mind up without considering the evidence.
May 17, 2006 04:25 PM
I have followed the nuclear debate since I was 13. My school
chums were nearly all the children of the first nuclear
scientists at what is now Sellafield and I learned at first hand
from their dads how the technology would provide Britain and the
world with limitless elecricity "too cheap to meter". I really
believed them.
Since then I have talked at length to people whose lives were
destroyed at Chernobyl, to City financiers, environmental
activists, engineers and others who believe the technology safe
and viable; to the chiefs of electricity companies worried about
meeting energy gaps, renewable power people as well as energy
conservation groups, construction companies, politicians, civil
servants and waste experts. Just about everyone, indeed,
involved in the industry.
But about the only man whose whose point of view I really do not
understand or respect right now is Tony Blair's. Here's a few
questions I would ask of the man whose mind seems to have been
made up without considering the evidence.
1. Can you tell us straight out how much is a new nuclear
programme is really going to cost Britain? Not just to build,
but to decommission and to clean up?
2. What guarantees do you expect government to have to give the
City to provide the money to build more nuclear stations?
3. How much and for many years will you have to subsidise the
industry? How will this affect future fuel prices?
4. Why cannot governmnent commission and publish research
comparing the costs of providing 20% of Britain's electricity by
nuclear power to that of providing it by renewables, or by
energy saving, or a mix of technologies? If you have, can we see
it?
5. Why is it impossible, ever, to believe any nuclear industry
figures? Can we really believe anything we are told about costs,
output, accidents,or performance?
6. How much would it cost to upgrade every building in Britain
to the highest energy-saving standard?
7. How can Britain justify creating another ÂŁ50billion or more
of dangerous nuclear waste when no-one knows what to do with the
waste created from 50 years?
8. Whose advice are you really taking? Your highly pro-nuclear
chief scientist, Sir David King, is a chemist who admits he
knows nothing about finance, and seems more of a political
figure. The industry is clearly biased. The DTI has always
supported nuclear power. The CBI knows little.
9. Why cannot there be an open and transparent debate? If this
is so important, which I believe it is, why cannot parliament
decide? Indeed, why not have a referendum?
Earlier this year I went to Chernobyl. It shook me deeply and
unexpectedly to find tens of thousands of square miles made
uninhabitable by the accident and hospitals full of people of
all ages suffering from radiation sicknesses and cancers. We
asked the industry regulator, a nuclear physicist, whether such
an accident could ever happen again. She said she was alarmed by
the deterioraration in the standards of nuclear power stations
in the former Soviet Union.
But she reminded us that the second worst accident ever to take
place in a nuclear plant was in Britain, in 195, at Windscalein
Cumbria, when Britain escaped only by an inch an accident just
as serious. Britain, she said, could have been made
uninhabitable for ... perhaps for ever.
Of course another accident is unlikely, I said to myself. Of
course technology and fail-safe devices improve. But with
nuclear power you are really talking about a technology whose
impact lasts for ever. No civilisation has ever lasted more than
a few thousands years, but nuclear fuel and waste is dangerous
for hundreds of thousands of years, deep into unimaginable time.
In this uncertain world, it is actually the most certain thing
of all. That's its attraction. And why it is also so fearsome.
Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
68 Comment is free: How much will you pay?
> [James Meek]
That's the simple question for those who believe that nuclear
energy is the way forward for Britain.
May 17, 2006 03:34 PM |
If you believe nuclear power is dangerous or immoral under any
circumstances, read no further; your mind's made up. Dust off
your wellies and anoraks, crank up the photocopier and the
server, start designing your stickers - you've got a lot of
protesting to do over the next 10 years if you want to prevent
new nuclear reactors springing up like mushrooms (not, we hope,
as mushroom clouds) the length and breadth of the British Isles.
If, on the other hand, you're prepared to believe modern nuclear
power stations can be built to be safe (and I lean towards that
view), and you believe they could be a good way of ensuring
Britain's energy security while minimising harm to the
environment, read on. My question is simple: how much are you
prepared to pay?
The British nuclear lobby's campaign for a new generation of
reactors, which has bought into, has two parts. One, the
publicly louder but less important part, is to argue the
environmental, safety, employment and energy security case for
nuclear. The second, by far the most important part, is to
obscure the fact that nuclear power is to get by without
subsidies.
From the way the nuclear debate is being reported in the British
media - even, it has to be said, the Guardian - the public could
be forgiven for thinking that there is a law in Britain against
building nuclear power stations. There isn't. So why is the
private sector not busily building them, here, or in the United
States? And what is it that the nuclear lobby wants from the
government to enable its new reactors to get built, if the
government has no legal objection to them?
The answer, of course, is money. When I asked Keith Parker, the
former DTI civil servant who is now chief executive of the
Nuclear Industry Association, what it wanted the government to
do in order to get new reactors built, he gave me a four-point
wish list - to shorten the planning application process for
reactors, to pay for inspectors to certify new reactor designs,
to support a complete programme of ten identical reactors to
lower costs, and to guarantee a minimum price for nuclear
electricity.
I say four points, but actually this seemed to me like three
mice and one elephant. I asked him if, by a guaranteed minimum
price, he meant subsidies. He said no, he didn't. I asked him
what the difference was. He couldn't explain in a way which made
sense. And, indeed, for the government to guarantee a minimum
price for nuclear electricity over the 40-odd year lifespan of a
nuclear power station appears to differ from a "subsidy" only in
a semantic sense.
Just to be clear, then - what the now mainly private nuclear
industry is seeking is a 40-year deal with a government whose
term expires in four years by which if it can generate
electricity at a profit, it keeps the profit, but if it
generates electricity at a loss, the public makes up the
difference. How good does a nuclear future sound now? About as
good as the Common Agricultural Policy, with which it has much
in common.
Let's be fair. It's unlikely that nuclear reactors would be
subsidised directly by the Treasury. They would be subsidised
directly by us when we pay our electricity bills. A nuclear tax
would be hidden in the bill.
The nuclear lobby would argue that there is already a renewable
energy tax concealed in electricity bills. This is quite true.
Electricity suppliers pass on to you and me and businesses the
extra cost to them of buying electricity they're obliged to buy
from wind farms and other renewable sources. The government
would simply add a "nuclear obligation" to the existing
renewables obligation.
But there's a difference. Wind power is becoming steadily
cheaper, after less than a decade of its widespread use. The
downward curve of cost has become so embarrassingly steep that
the anti-wind lobby now has a new stick to beat wind farms with.
Embarrassing - but also a positive sign for the wind lobby that
it is heading for the point where it could become commercially
competitive without any subsidies. After a half-century of
development and experience, the nuclear industry is nowhere near
such a steep success curve. Why hand it another half-century of
subsidies when the first 50 years didn't work?
No-one should be under any illusions that wind and tidal power
by themselves, vital as they are, let alone wave, biofuels and
solar energy, are going to solve Britain's energy and pollution
problems in the next two generations, and the country seems to
be institutionally and psychologically incapable of taking the
straightforward steps required to speed up energy efficiency and
microgeneration. But this government does seem to be curiously
anti-clean coal; and in the coming debate on nuclear, let those
who believe it's safe and good for the planet please not pretend
that it is anything other than an alternative.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
69 AU ABC: Articulate: Chernobyl: Ghost of the Soviet Union.
ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corp)
By Gary Kemble. Posted: Thursday, May 18 2006 .
(Photo: Ellen Datlow)
Ellen Datlow is one of the most respected and awarded editors in
speculative fiction. Also a keen photographer, in April she
documented her visitto Chernobyl and Pripyat.
"It's like the ghost of the Soviet Union, it's the emblem of
what went wrong," she said, referring to the meltdown on April
26, 1986, which spewed radioactive material over parts of the
western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia,
the British Isles, and eastern North America.
"The sarcophagus [built around the reactor to contain the
radiation] is not stable, they have to finish cleaning up inside
before it's ever stable and once it's stabilised they have to
build a permanent sarcophagus.
"The people who work inside can only work for 18 minutes at a
time, so it's still dangerous."
+ ABC Online Home Page© 2006 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
70 UPI: Blair gives backing to nuclear power
United Press International - Intl. Intelligence -
5/17/2006 2:31:00 PM -0400
LONDON, May 17 (UPI) -- Environmental campaigners railed against
British Prime Minister Tony Blair Wednesday after he gave his
backing to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Pre-empting the outcome of the government's ongoing energy
review, Blair told an audience at the Confederation of British
Industry Tuesday evening that the "stark" facts he had been
shown meant that nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a
vengeance."
Opponents of nuclear power said that his comments confirmed
their belief that the energy review was nothing more than a
smokescreen for a decision the prime minister had already taken.
Almost all of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants are due to
come offline by 2020, leaving an energy shortfall. Advocates of
the nuclear option contend that it is essential to tackle
climate change and ensure energy security, however critics,
including the government's own advisory body the Sustainable
Development Commission, say it is both unsuitable and
unnecessary.
Blair's stance provoked a furious reaction from anti-nuclear
lobbyists and the Labor mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who
said that choosing the nuclear route would prove "the greatest
misjudgement of our generation."
Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper said it was
increasingly obvious that the energy review had been a "complete
sham."
It was clear that Blair was "fixated" with nuclear power and was
determined to oversee a new generation of nuclear reactors
rather than investing in clean and sustainable options that
already existed and leading Britain to a carbon-free,
nuclear-free economy, he said.
Greenpeace Director Stephen Tindale said: "Nuclear power
presents a real terrorist threat, costs a stupid amount of
money, doesn't help in the fight against climate change and
certainly won't plug the energy gap. To put this hazard back on
the agenda is recklessly incompetent."
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
71 News & Star: Nuclear option just the start
Published on 17/05/2006
West Cumbria has been part of the government’s nuclear family
for more than half a century.
So Tony Blair’s announcement last night that a new generation
of nuclear power stations will be built has naturally led to the
assumption that one of them will be at Sellafield.
While we welcome the prospect of jobs for west Cumbria, there is
a danger that a new nuclear power station there could be seen as
the solution to the area’s economic problems.
This is far from the truth. The former Sellafield reactor at
Calder Hall is currently being decommissioned and thousands of
job losses are expected over the next few years.
In March consultants told Cumbria county councillors that any new
reactor at Sellafield would create between 600 and 1,000 jobs –
a fraction of those being lost.
Then there is the on-going need for the west of the county to
diversify. If a new power station is built it would make sense to
have other industries in the area for Sellafield to send the
power to.
A new nuclear power station could be part of a range of
transforming projects, such as hospitals, schools, housing and
transport.
Getting the infrastructure right is a key part of making west
Cumbria an area that companies of all kinds are keen to invest
in.
*****************************************************************
72 News & Star: Blair pledge on nuclear power
Published on 17/05/2006
PRIME Minister Tony Blair has pledged to give the go-ahead for a
new generation of nuclear power stations.
The announcement last night has raised hopes that nuclear plants
could be built at Sellafield and at Chapelcross, near Annan,
replacing power stations that have already closed.
Unions say that each new power station would create 3,000 to
4,000 jobs during construction and up to 400 full-time jobs once
it opens.
Copeland Labour MP Jamie Reed has been lobbying hard to persuade
the Government to back nuclear power.
He said: “I’m delighted. This is something I’ve been
working on for over a year with No. 10 and the Department for
Trade and Industry.
“Tony Blair has put the interests of the country, the
environment and the planet ahead of Parliamentary political
interests.”
In a speech to the CBI, Mr Blair said Britain needed nuclear
power to help reduce carbon emissions and reliance on imported
gas.
He said: “By 2025, if current policy is unchanged, there will
be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. We will become heavily dependent on gas, mostly from
the Middle East, Africa and Russia.
“These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a
big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency,
back on the agenda with a vengeance.”
Mr Reed will now argue the case for one of the new power stations
to be built at Sellafield in west Cumbria.
He said that a survey of the most suitable sites nationwide
showed that Sellafield was among the top six.
Mr Reed added: “It is inconceivable that any green-field sites
will chosen.
“Existing sites have connections to the national grid, and they
have communities that understand the risks and benefits of
nuclear energy.”
The MP believes it will take at least 10 years to build and
commission each new nuclear power plant. He wants any new power
station in west Cumbria to be timed so that new jobs come on
stream just as others are lost as reprocessing winds down at
Sellafield.
Unions have also welcomed Mr Blair’s statement.
Peter Kane, GMB branch secretary at Sellafield, said: “It
appears to be good news for the industry and hopefully it’s
good news for west Cumbria. Hopefully we can get one in west
Cumbria.”
Anti-nuclear groups have condemned the Prime Minister’s
announcement.
They have accused him of pre-judging the Government’s energy
review.
Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace, said: “The Prime
Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time
ago, and certainly well before the Government launched its energy
review.
“The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already
been taken.”
Gordon Campbell, the chairman of BNFL, said before the last
general election in 2005 that he expected a future Labour
government to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
*****************************************************************
73 Deseret News: Rocky wants N. Utah talks on blast
[deseretnews.com]
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
Northern Utah residents who could be affected by the Divine
Strake explosion at the Nevada Test Site should be allowed to
comment in public hearings, says Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson.
Divine Strake is the planned detonation of 700 tons of
conventional explosives, which recently was delayed until June
23 or later. Politicians and members of the public have
protested the explosion. Among the concerns expressed are that:
• Radioactive material from previous nuclear tests at the
NTS might be kicked up and drift in the air.
• Detonating conventional explosives that weigh too much
to be lifted by a bomber could be a prelude to developing a new
nuclear "bunker buster" bomb.
Before leaving for Sweden, Anderson wrote to Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, calling for
hearings in northern Utah on the explosion.
Anderson is proposing that the Defense Department hold
public meetings in Salt Lake City and along the Wasatch Front.
The meetings would inform the public about the issues and
collect comments, according to a press release from Anderson's
office.
Alyson Heyrend, Mathe- son's spokeswoman, said the
congressman had a briefing with the head of the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, which is sponsoring the test. He told the
congressman that the DTRA planned to hold town meetings in Utah
and Nevada.
"Matheson told them that they would want to put the
information out there regarding health and safety," she said.
However, details about where the meetings would be held were not
discussed.
Now that Anderson had made a request for meetings in
northern Utah, she said, she believes the state's congressional
delegation will "think about the request."
Hatch was not available for comment late Tuesday.
The letters express Anderson's concern about exploding
the bomb. He said he understands that the Defense Department, at
the urging of the letters' recipients, "has now agreed to
schedule public meetings" in Nevada and southern Utah.
"I write to urge that you press the Department of Defense
to hold public meetings in northern Utah as well," he wrote.
Nearly 80 percent of Utahns live along the Wasatch Front,
he noted. "As parties who might be directly impacted by these
tests, the residents of northern Utah deserve the same
consideration and opportunity to comment on this critical issue
before the scheduled test proceeds."
Anderson wrote that his staff could help arrange a
downtown location for meetings in Salt Lake City.
E-mail: bau@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
74 Record Online: Radiation overexposure at Indian Point
www.recordonline.com
May 17, 2006
Buchanan
Indian Point officials are looking into how a contract worker
was overexposed to radiation during a scheduled reactor
refueling earlier this month.
Jim Steets, a spokesman for the nuclear power plant in
Westchester County, said an employee received a dose of 474
millirem May 4 while replacing a steel sleeve at the bottom of
the Indian Point 2 reactor. The amount was 58 percent higher
than health and safety officials had anticipated for the job.
"There were no health or safety consequences from it," Steets
said of the exposure. He did not identify the employee. "We're
looking into certain work practices that would have ensured he
would only have received the 300 as planned."
Nuclear power plant employees are carefully monitored for
radiation exposure. Steets said Indian Point employees cannot
receive more than 5,000 millirem in a given year.
Greg Bruno
Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record,
serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills.
of use| Privacy
© Orange County Publications. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
75 Hawk Eye: IAAP worker home care firm arrives
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST
Meeting today will explain how exposed workers can take
advantage of program offered by PCM.
By KILEY MILLER kmiller@thehawkeye.com
Representatives from a Denver company offering in–home nursing
care to former nuclear weapons workers will explain their
services at a meeting in Burlington today.
Officials from Professional Case Management expect up to 140
people at the gathering at 3 p.m. at the Best Western Pzazz Fun
City.
The company contracts with the Department of Labor to care for
former nuclear workers with cancer or beryllium disease.
PCM has focused in the past on uranium miners in the Mountain
West.
But a decision by Congress last year to grant automatic
compensation and medical benefits to Iowa Army Ammunition Plant
workers with job–related illnesses lured the company to this
area.
Vice President Mike Nisbet said Tuesday that PCM could be up and
running in the area within two weeks.
Registered and licensed practical nurses hired locally would
visit former workers in their homes.
The program requires a doctor's referral and is restricted to
workers already found eligible for compensation through the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.
Care can range from as little as one visit a month to around the
clock monitoring such as that provided by a hospice workers at
the end of life.
On a visit to Burlington in March, Nisbet said his company is
the only in–home care provider licensed by the labor department
under the compensation program.
That means patients never see a bill. Instead, PCM forwards all
charges onto the federal government.
Three other company officials will accompany Nisbet at today's
meeting, including Alfonso Trujillo, who will oversee Iowa
operations, and Community Relations Coordinator Ray Malito.
Before coming to PCM earlier this month, Malito handled
compensation claims from Iowa workers and their families as
manager of the labor department's Denver Resource Center.
Activists Paula Graham and Lasca Yerington, sisters who had
several family members die of cancer after working at the
ammunition plant, will be honored at the meeting by the PCM
contingent for their work to help others win compensation.
The Atomic Energy Commission followed by the Department of
Energy built and tested nuclear weapons components at the 19,000
acre Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown during the early
decades of the Cold War.
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
76 PVT: Native Americans protest planned non-nuclear blast at test site
Pahrump Valley Times
May 17, 2006
By MARK WAITE
Indian protesters carrying signs in front of Scolari's
Supermarket include, from left, Rudy Lozada of Battle Mountain,
Darlene Graham of Duckwater, Eddie Raymus of Fallon, an
unidentified protester, Sonia Carleto, a resident of the Yomba
Indian Reservation, and Michael Smith, a member of the Yomba
Shoshone tribe.-->
Darlene Graham, a resident of the Duckwater Indian Reservation
in northeastern Nye County, said she never understood why her
32-year-old brother died of throat cancer back in 1983. He
didn't smoke.
Graham suspects the testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada
Test Site in the 1950s killed her brother. The family grew their
own vegetables and butchered their own cattle, she said, on
ground that could have been contaminated. She raised her nephew
and niece.
"They told me I could apply for compensation for my nephew and
niece after my brother passed away," Graham said. "I filled out
all my paperwork and they said it was the wrong type of cancer.
Because of my brother I'm doing this protest. What's happening
on our land."
Duckwater residents aren't usually thought of as downwinders,
the people who lived downwind of above-ground nuclear bomb
blasts in the 1950s. Most people think of Utahns.
But Graham was one of a handful of Indians protesting the
proposed Divine Strake bomb blast, scheduled for June 23. They
fear it will stir up old radioactive material.
A few protesters held signs in front of Tonopah's Scolari's
Supermarket May 9 and walked down Main Street the following day.
They plan to protest the blast in communities along U.S. Highway
95 including Goldfield, Beatty, Lathrop Wells and Mercury.
Protesters carried sweet-smelling sage, a cow's horns and were
beating a drum.
The protest includes overall issues of Indian rights, including
the Treaty of Ruby Valley, which dates to 1864.
"Seventy million acres is Shoshone land we're still fighting
for," said Johnnie Bobb of Austin.
The National Nuclear Security Administration reported a finding
of no significant impact had been issued Jan. 30 for the Divine
Strake test.
It will be a detonation of 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate
fuel oil-emulsion, a blasting agent, placed in a charge hole 32
feet in diameter and 36 feet deep, set off by 30 pounds of C-4
explosive to initiate the detonation.
The device has been used before at the U.S. Department of
Defense's White Sands facility in New Mexico, according to the
environmental assessment. It will be the equivalent of 593 tons
of TNT.
The explosion will be at an uncontaminated site within the
Nevada Test Site, the EA states.
"The site of the proposed Divine Strake detonation (the U16b
tunnel) has never been used for any type of nuclear testing
activity, and radioactive contamination does not exist within
the area impacted by the blast. Therefore the proposed action
would not result in the suspension or dispersion of radioactive
materials or human exposure to radioactive materials."
Health physicist Lynn Aspaugh, who contributed to a National
Academy of Sciences report on the proposed test, told the Las
Vegas Review-Journal, "Personally I doubt that enough
radioactive materials would be re-suspended so that it could be
measured above background (radiation) down wind of the NTS."
But residents remain skeptical. Several dozen southern Utah
residents demonstrated against the explosion Saturday in St.
George, Utah.
Arvilla Mascarenas, a member of the Shoshone Duckwater tribe,
said she doesn't know of anything "divine" about the blast. She
signed on as one of the Duckwater Reservation residents
appealing the blast in U.S. District Court. The government
assessment doesn't seem to assure her.
"I don't understand why everything that's happening down at the
test site is happening," Mascarenas said. "Why do they want to
set off this 700-pound blast? It's going to bring up everything
from the soil below from the nuclear blasts they set off in the
'50s. It's going to be floating in our air again. We're going to
have more people getting sick.
"Do they think the Shoshone people don't matter? They say it's
not going to be dangerous but still they want to be testing this
stuff. If it's going to hurt our people here, why do they want
to set it off? Do they want to kill more people?"
Mascarenas said she lived in Duckwater until she was 8 years
old, then moved away. She moved to the Logandale-Glendale area
in northeastern Clark county for 10 years where she said more
people were dying of cancer. Mascarenas said her nephew died of
leukemia in his late teens, her sister-in-law died when she was
in her 30s.
"I hope they don't go through with it," she said. "It's just a
little bunch of people that are complaining. The big shots in
Washington they do what they want. So you don't have a choice."
Jack LaMotte, another Duckwater Reservation resident, also
signed on as a plaintiff opposing the test. LaMotte, who said he
has worked with Citizen Alert, an anti-nuclear organization, and
the Dann sisters in Crescent Valley, a group fighting for Indian
rights.
LaMotte said a lot of people on the Duckwater Reservation were
exposed to fallout from nuclear tests in the 1950s.
"Why don't they wait until the wind blows south?" LaMotte said.
"Why don't they wait to blow it over Vegas if it's that safe and
no problem?
"That's what I think. They say there's not going to be any kind
of harmful chemicals coming out here, so why don't they just
send it over Vegas? Prevailing winds are always going to the
east. Is it because we're the poorer part of the area?"
Many people on the isolated Duckwater reservation don't find
out about planned experiments at the test site until it's too
late, LaMotte said. The Duckwater reservation is 15 miles off
U.S. Highway 6 at Currant, or about 150 miles northeast of
Tonopah.
"Out here in Duckwater not too many people we know get the
newspaper ... we're pretty isolated. A lot of the information by
the time I hear about it it's already old news. Once people
found out what's going on, why do they wait until the wind blows
north? That's what a lot of people said.
"Everybody knows what a zillion pounds of explosives is going
to do. Why do it? Just to film it? They're using the same stuff
in Oklahoma City that blew up that building. Just because
they're making it bigger, you can use a computer and have
simulations. It's just a waste of money, its jeopardizing
people's health. When nuclear blasts went off they said the same
thing and up here some people can remember that white ash and
playing around in it when they were kids."
The National Nuclear Safety Administration said the explosion
will be to test the bunker-busting ability of the blast.
The Western States Legal Foundation charges that the Defense
Department February 2006 budget states the program will go
nuclear in the future.
The Indian rights organization states that Divine Strake "will
develop a planning tool that will improve the war fighter's
confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield
necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing
collateral damage."
Sonia Carleto, a resident of the Yomba Indian Reservation in
northern Nye County, said most motorists passing by have been
supportive, honking their horns or waving. "You have your few,
unfriendly people, but not many," she said.
"Many people think it's not going to affect me," Carleto said.
"It may not affect that one person, as an individual, but it
will affect their families, mark my words."
Johnnie Bobb, an Austin resident, was concerned about
protecting the long-term environment of Mother Earth.
"It's very important for us to keep it clean. Even if people
say they've been here 15 years and nothing happened to me."
For comment or questions, please e-mail
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
77 [NukeNet] Temporary Nuclear Storage May Be Needed Re Yucca
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 19:50:46 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Nuclear-Waste.html
Temporary Nuclear Storage May Be Needed
a.. Sign In to E-Mail This
b.. Print
c.. Save
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 16, 2006
Filed at 5:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration says it
is willing to store temporarily nuclear power
plant waste somewhere other than the delayed Yucca
Mountain project in Nevada but needs congressional
approval to do so.
Paul Golan, the Energy Department official in
charge of the project, said the department
''continues to have an open mind about interim
storage'' of the thousands of tons of used reactor
fuel now kept at nuclear power plants in 31
states.
Golan noted at a Senate hearing Tuesday that $30
million has been included in a House
appropriations bill for examining temporary
acceptance of some of the waste, pending the
completion of the Nevada facility.
The nuclear industry and government officials have
talked of putting some of the waste at federal
facilities run by the Energy Department as part of
its nuclear weapons program.
Golan, talking to reporters after he testified
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, decline to suggest an interim site,
saying that's a decision ''that's going to have to
involve a public dialogue.''
The federal government is obligated under
contractual agreement with individual utilities to
take the used reactor fuel. A federal storage site
was to have been available by 1998.
The Yucca Mountain facility, 90 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, won't meet a 2010 completion target and
is years behind schedule. Golan declined to give a
completion date or even a target of when the
department will submit a license for the waste
dump to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
A schedule and strategy for a license application
will be made this summer, he said.
Even if the dump opened in 2010 -- which had been
the target up until a few years ago -- the
government could be liable for $2 billion to $3
billion in damages ''and the liability will grow''
for any additional delays, Golan said.
Several senators were sharply critical of the long
delays in the Yucca facility, which was given a
final go-ahead by Congress in 2002.
Utilities have paid $18 billion into a nuclear
waste fund in anticipation the government would
take the waste, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.,
complained, ''and there still isn't a canister in
the ground.''
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., blamed Nevada
officials -- who have vigorously fought the Yucca
project in court and in Congress -- for the delays
and directed his criticism at Robert Loux, head of
the state agency that has spearheaded the fight
against the waste dump.
''Flogging Nevada certainly isn't the answer,''
Loux later told reporters. ''I believe any state
would do the same thing'' if asked to accept the
nation's nuclear waste.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the committee's
chairman and among the biggest boosters of nuclear
power in Congress, suggested the Yucca design may
already be outdated and irrelevant in light of the
administration's desire to return to reprocessing
nuclear fuel.
''Confusion is rampant and the time frames are all
out of whack,'' said Domenici.
If fuel reprocessing -- or recycling, as Domenici
and the administration prefer to call it --
becomes reality, ''we will need a completely
different Yucca Mountain,'' he said.
If fuel is recycled, a repository no longer will
have to hold complete fuel rods, including the
isotopes that will remain dangerous for a million
years. Instead it will be used to dispose of
material that will lose its radioactivity in a few
hundred years.
The administration plan for Yucca at this time
assumes no design change to accommodate
reprocessing, said Golan, even as he acknowledged
that the proposed facility -- which is being
designed to hold 77,000 tons of waste -- will fall
short of what will be needed.
The Energy Department has begun making preliminary
assessments about a second repository. Golan said
there are more than 50,000 tons of used reactor
fuel at power plants today and that amount will
double during the lifetime of the operating
reactors.
Nevada long has argued that it has no confidence
the Energy Department will develop a safe and
environmentally protective waste repository.
Golan said there is ''a strong international
scientific consensus that the best and safest
option for dealing with this waste is geologic
isolation'' and that the volcanic ridge at Yucca
Mountain is suitable for such a repository.
More Articles in National »
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
78 Deseret News: Proposals could let nuclear wastes in Utah
[deseretnews.com]
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
No decisions made as senators weigh options
By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Utah could see a few forms of nuclear waste come to
the state if plans discussed at a Senate hearing Tuesday move
ahead.
Approval of a federal interim storage facility for
commercial nuclear fuel could move fuel rods to the Private Fuel
Storage site on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation —
and a plan to recycle nuclear waste could make additional waste
eligible to be stored at EnergySolutions' facilities.
Neither idea has been approved nor given money to proceed
just yet, but Congress has options to make either proposal work.
At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
hearing Tuesday, Paul Golan, the government's top Yucca Mountain
official, said "the department continues to have an open mind on
interim storage."
He said the department does not believe it has the
authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 — the law
that guides the government's plan to store nuclear waste at
Nevada's Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas — to
move ahead with interim storage, but if Congress allowed it, the
department would be open to the discussion.
"Interim storage is less important than moving Yucca
Mountain forward, but we understand that the commercial
utilities are running in to a storage situation." Golan said.
Storage problems are what led several utilities to
develop plans to make their own interim facility known as
Private Fuel Storage in Tooele County. Yucca was supposed to
open in 1998, but legal, technical and financial problems have
delayed it year after year.
PFS is looking for interested utilities to help construct
the site now that it has its license approved. It also still
needs approval from the Bureau of Land Management to build a
transfer facility for waste brought in by truck. Utah's
congressional delegation blocked a potential railroad on public
land by including the starting point in a Wilderness Area
designed to protect the Utah Test and Training Range.
The department is supposed to release a new schedule for
Yucca in the summer, Golan said. That will give utilities an
estimated opening date so they will know how much longer they
will have to store waste at the nuclear power plants — or look
at other options.
Golan would not name a specific location on where an
interim site would go.
"That's a question that I think will involve a public
dialogue," Golan said.
If Congress approved interim storage, PFS would not
instantly become the interim storage site. But because it has a
Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to store commercial spent
fuel, it could be an attractive location — even with the
transportation obstacles it faces.
"As it is the only licensed facility in the nation, it
creates the very real possibility that high-level waste could be
sent to Utah," said Vanessa Pierce, program director at the
Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah.
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said if the federal government
wanted to become a customer and move waste to the site, "we are
willing." Chairman John Parkyn sent a letter to Congress earlier
this year outlining that option, but the consortium has received
no formal response, she said.
"We are a strong supporter of a change to the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act that would allow interim storage," she said,
although she was not sure what the recent discussion on interim
storage means for PFS.
The House Energy and Water Development spending bill,
which includes the Yucca budget, contains $30 million for an
interim storage site if Congress allowed the department to
create one. The bill is before the House Appropriations
Committee today and then will await a floor vote.
Congress could create the interim option as part of a
multipart Yucca Mountain bill created by the administration that
would affect the project in a number of ways if passed.
At Tuesday's hearing, Committee Chairman Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., who introduced the Senate's version of the
bill, said it does not address interim storage and said he would
work to find "common ground to answer the spent fuel question."
Domenici has been a champion of interim storage in the
past, even writing in a book he wrote on nuclear power in 2004
that he would revive a push for interim storage.
He said nuclear waste could stay at nuclear power plants
for decades longer, because the country "will need a completely
different Yucca Mountain" to store waste generated from
reprocessing rather than as it is today.
"We are not going to be putting spent fuel rods in Yucca
Mountain," he said.
Domenici, who is also the chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee that writes the Senate's version of
the energy spending bill, said he will fully fund the
administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and "look for
more" dollars to support the reprocessing proposal, nicknamed
GNEP. The administration asked for $250 million for the effort,
but the House spending bill only includes $150 million for it.
"We've got to recycle," he said.
The administration has stressed that a reprocessing plan
would not eliminate the need for Yucca but could change what is
put in there.
But Pierce said "reprocessing only repackages nuclear
waste, it doesn't eliminate nuclear waste."
She said a federal reprocessing plan could create waste
that could be put in EnergySolutions' facilities, although the
exact type and classification of it is still debatable.
"No one wants to be honest about what a boondoggle
reprocessing is," she said.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
79 reviewjournal.com: Senators snap over mixed messages on Yucca project
May 17, 2006
Paul Golan of the Department of Energy, second from left,
flanked by Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Chairman John
Garrick, left, and acting EPA Administrator William Wehrum,
right, testifies Tuesday on Capitol Hill before the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Yucca
Mountain project.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- There are remaining technical questions about the
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the
Department of Energy is making progress on them, a science
expert said.
No way, insisted an official for the state of Nevada. DOE "is
bogged down in a morass of technical, legal and managerial
problems, and it is unrealistic to imagine the project can pull
itself out."
Meanwhile, an Energy Department executive said more time is
needed for a project redesign. But at the same time, DOE is
setting up a task force to study the need for a second
repository since the first one is projected to be full almost as
soon as it might open.
The widely divergent messages aired at a congressional hearing
on Tuesday finally caused several senators to snap in
frustration and issue some of the sharpest criticism to date
over delays at Yucca Mountain. One senator said he will step up
efforts to reshape the repository program to reflect a new
emphasis on waste reprocessing.
"Confusion is rampant; time frames are all out of whack," said
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the chairman of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee. Domenici said he called the
hearing to assess progress "or lack of progress" at the Nevada
site.
Many lawmakers thought Yucca Mountain was settled when Congress
voted for the site in 2002. "Except we now find this is not the
case at all," Domenici said, as the Energy Department has faced
legal and quality assurance setbacks and undertook a redesign
last fall.
"I'm not here to pour water on anybody's parade but at what
point do we think we need to look at something else" while Yucca
Mountain "spins its wheels," asked Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.
The Energy Department has not issued a revised Yucca schedule
yet, with experts saying it could be 2015 or 2020 before nuclear
waste might be accepted at the site.
"In terms of why this is so hard, the simple fact is this has
never been done anyplace anywhere around the world" with the
safety requirements DOE must meet, said Paul Golan, acting
director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management.
Golan said delay was partly due to DOE redirecting toward a
design that would use a single canister style to ship, store and
dispose of nuclear waste. Golan said the change would simplify
fuel handling and make it safer.
But Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., noted DOE abandoned a similar
multipurpose canister a decade ago. And Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.,
a repository advocate, charged DOE "has dragged its feet from
the beginning."
"Congress has an obligation to get the job done and we don't
need bureaucrats to get in the way constantly," Bunning said.
"Changing from one canister to another? Using that excuse to say
we are going to start over? Give me a break ... and now we are
talking about a second repository? Do you know how foolish that
looks to the American people?"
Bunning also blamed Nevada for delays, saying DOE has taken
extra time "to ensure the people of Nevada are as safe as
possible. It would be more productive for all of us to work with
DOE to complete this project as safely and quickly as possible."
Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,
rejected the advice. He said Kentucky would react the same as
Nevada in fighting what it considers an unsafe endeavor.
"Flogging Nevada certainly isn't the answer," Loux said
afterward.
Loux contended Yucca Mountain was found to be flawed around 1995
but the government moved forward anyway while covering up
problems.
"DOE decided to compensate for the bad site with better
packaging," Loux said.
The Bush administration has asked Congress to pass a bill that
would speed repository licensing and groundwork in Nevada.
But Domenici said that approach is outdated. He said he will
reshape the bill to reflect the Department of Energy's new push
into nuclear waste reprocessing, which could alter the form and
reduce the radiotoxicity of the waste shipped into the mountain
if development is successful.
"It is going to be clear we will not be putting spent fuel rods
into Yucca Mountain," Domenici said.
Domenici said the bill also contained a "big vacuum" in that it
does not allow waste to be removed from power plants and stored
at temporary locations while work continues in Nevada. Golan
said DOE is open to the idea of temporary storage if Congress
authorizes interim sites.
The Energy Department got an endorsement from John Garrick,
chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a
panel of independent science experts.
The board "believes that the DOE has made meaningful progress
over the last year," Garrick testified. Although the group has
questioned DOE's grasp of certain geology and corrosion matters,
"The board believes that the technical work is doable."
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
80 Platts: US won't use Yucca Mountain to store unrecycled waste: Domenici
Washington (Platts)--16May2006
The United States will not store unrecycled spent nuclear fuel at
the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository and must instead
work to develop recycling and interim storage plans, Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici
said Tuesday.
Speaking at a hearing on Yucca Mountain legislation, the New
Mexico Republican said it would be difficult to craft a bill
addressing problems that will take so long to solve. But he said
reprocessing and interim storage programs will have to be in
place before the Nevada repository is opened, and estimated that
it could take the country 25 years to develop the programs. The
senator said a short-term solution is to leave the waste at
reactor sites, where it is currently stored.
"We are not going to be putting the spent fuel rods in Yucca
Mountain to me it is quite obvious," Domenici said. "We are kind
of kidding ourselves but we don't want to give up" on building
the repository.
Domenici, who is developing his own legislation after
introducing earlier this year an administration proposal at the
White House's request, said Nevada will likely not object to
Yucca Mountain after the waste has been recycled. He said the
administration's bill falls short because it doesn't present a
complete solution to the nuclear waste problem.
"Confusion is rampant, time frames are all out of whack and
the administration's bill has a big vacuum in it because it does
not address interim storage," Domenici said. He added that the
licensing process envisioned by the Department of Energy in the
administration bill "may not be relevant" because of the
different characteristics of waste that would be stored there
once waste is recycled.
---Dan Whitten, daniel_whitten@platts.com
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
81 BUCHAREST DAILY NEWS: Radioactive waste nearby Bucharest not dangerous
No 485 Date: Thursday, May 18, 2006
Denisa Maruntoiu
The radioactive waste found on the Magurele platform nearby
Bucharest is not endangering the population's health and the
area is under permanent surveillance, according to the general
manager of the Horia Hulubei National Institute for Nuclear
Engineering and Physic Research, Nicolae Victor Zamfir.
However, Zamfir said that in order to get rid of the waste, the
Institute needs much more money than it currently has.
Zamfir explained that there are still problems concerning the
management of the "historical" radioactive wastage and of the
"orphan sources," but that these issues are soon to be solved in
accordance with a plan that has already been approved.
According to Zamfir, Romania's progress in the field of the
anti-radioactive waste projects seem to bother certain people
who are trying to denigrate the Institute's image.
Zamfir said that among the people who are trying to throw mud on
his institute's image might be real estate agents who are trying
to artificially lower the prices in the area.
However Zamfir said that there might also be those who intend to
destabilize Romania's energy autonomy.
In addition, Zamfir said that the "actions of denigration"
severely affect the work of the 400 researchers currently
working on the platform. "Because of the wrong information
reported by the media some young scientists refused to come and
work here," pointed out Zamfir.
As for the quantity of radioactive waste, Zamfir said there are
currently 750 units deposited at Magurele and that over 2,200
units were taken to the National Radioactive Waste Storage House
in Bihor County.
According to the head of the Magurele institute, another 300
units will be reconditioned by 2007, but that he will need an
additional amount of 650,000 euros in order to fully solve the
problem.
Copyright © 2004-2006 Bucharest Daily News
*****************************************************************
82 ITAR-TASS: Russia corporation wins Czech tender for nuclear fuel deliveries
17.05.2006, 13.12
MOSCOW, May 17 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian corporation TVEL has
won at an international tender for fuel deliveries for the Czech
Republic’s nuclear power plant Temelin.
“On Tuesday, representatives of the Czech power company CEZ and
the Russian corporation signed the contract for fuel deliveries
for two reactors of the nuclear power plant Temelin,” a TVEL
official told ITAR-TASS.
The contract has been signed for ten years, over which TVEL is
to deliver about 400 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
An initial number of fuel rods is expected to be delivered at
the end of 2009.
“It is refined nuclear fuel of TVSA+ type with a more rigid
structure that ensures a higher safety and reliability of
operation of the reactor and greater economy of fuel; it will
improve economic parameters of the nuclear electric plant
operation as a whole,” TVEL acting director Anton Badenkov said.
Modified fuel of this type had been successfully tested at
Russia’s Kalinin nuclear power plant.
The tender for deliveries of fuel for VVER-1000 reactors of the
Temelin plant was announced in 2004.
US company Westinghouse, which is supplying fuel for both
Temelin reactors at present, competed with the Russian
corporation in the biddings.
The TVEL official said that the “contract for fuel deliveries
will be supplemented by other agreements that will provide a
possibility of continuing the improvement of fuel and carrying
out the further optimisation of economic parameters of the
plant’s operation, as in the case with another Czech nuclear
power plant, Dukovani”.
TVEL is already supplying fuel for all of its four energy units
with VVER-440 reactors.
The Russian corporation won at biddings for fuel deliveries for
Dukovani in 2001.
The contract was signed for the years to 2018.
Beginning from 2003, modified fuel has been delivered to the
Dukovani plant. The use of it allows the transition from a
three-year fuel campaign to a five-year one.
This yields an economic effect sized billions of koruna and
saves areas for fuel storage.
TVEL also delivers nuclear fuel for the research reactor VR-1 at
the faculty of nuclear physics of the Czech Technological
University in Prague and the research reactor LVR-15 of the
Institute of Nuclear Research in Rzez.
The Russian corporation controls about 17 percent of the world
nuclear fuel market.
Every sixth energy reactor in the world works on nuclear fuel of
the TVEL brand.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
83 E&E D: Domenici delivers new message on future of Yucca Mountain -
Mary O'Driscoll
E&E Daily
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
NUCLEAR POWER: Domenici delivers new message on future of Yucca
Mountain
Mary O'Driscoll, E&E Daily senior reporter
This story builds on a version that first appeared in
yesterday's E&ENews PM.
The chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee dropped the equivalent of a bomb on the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository yesterday when he said the site will
never receive spent nuclear fuel rods.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said lengthy project delays at the
Nevada site will require fitting the repository into the Bush
administration's ambitious Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
waste reprocessing and recycling program. Domenici told
reporters nuclear utilities likely will have to store their used
fuel on-site "for quite some time" before either some interim
storage plan begins or GNEP recycling plants are operating.
The time frame, he said, "might be longer" than what the
utilities had intended for using on-site used fuel storage
facilities.
On the issue of GNEP, which House energy appropriators last week
cut by $100 million from the proposed $250 million fiscal year
2007 budget, Domenici said he intends to "fully fund" and
possibly add more money for the controversial program.
"I want to see if I can look around" for more GNEP funding, said
Domenici, who also chairs the Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee.
The outcome of the GNEP program over the next 24 months, he
added, "is going to determine what kind of an ultimate
repository we need."
Clearly, he added, "we are not going to be putting spent fuel
rods in Yucca Mountain. To me, that quite obviously won't work."
That talk immediately raised speculation that he could be
opening the door to funding GNEP with the nuclear waste trust
fund, the multibillion-dollar pot of money created by
assessments on ratepayers of nuclear utilities for building the
Yucca Mountain repository.
But he acknowledged that would require work to change the law
regarding interim storage of nuclear waste. Though DOE offered
legislation last month to jump-start the Yucca Mountain process,
it omitted any mention of interim storage. Domenici called that
"a big vacuum" in the bill.
Reid: No victory
Domenici is an enthusiastic backer of both GNEP and Yucca
Mountain and frequently spars with Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid (D-Nev.), ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, over the
levels of funding for the repository. But he said extensive
delays at Yucca Mountain are forcing a reassessment. Originally
set to open in 1998, Congress gave final approval for the site
in 2002, and Nevada will be challenging every aspect of the
program from here on out.
Congress and DOE, Domenici said, "must reconcile Yucca Mountain
and GNEP [and] take advantage of the unavoidable delays to
pursue the new recycling technology that will increase capacity
at Yucca Mountain." The recycled waste, which would be stored at
Yucca Mountain, has less volume and radioactivity and therefore
more of it can be stored in the underground caverns.
Reid welcomed Domenici's remarks, saying in an interview
yesterday that of anyone, Domenici "understands how much things
cost, and he's a realist."
But Reid would not claim victory on Yucca Mountain just yet.
"In Yucca Mountain, there are no victories," he said. "I'm happy
this is happening, but we will keep on fighting. We will keep
our guard up and see what happens."
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) called Domenici "ahead of a lot of
senators. He's been going in that direction for some time.
"This is a very important person to be saying these things,"
Ensign said.
When asked about Domenici's comments, Paul Golan, acting
director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, noted that DOE will spend $2 billion to $3 billion
through 2010 in payments to utilities that successfully sued the
department for its failure to take the waste as it had promised
in 1998. He said the department would continue to work on the
Yucca program but also would talk to Domenici and other
lawmakers on issues such as interim storage.
Redesign questions
DOE this summer will release new redesigns of the repository and
the multiple-use casks into which the waste would be placed for
transport and storage. Also expected is a new schedule for
filing its license application for the repository, but DOE is
not expected to file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
before 2008.
But Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Waste
Projects, testified at yesterday's hearing that a recent
statement by DOE officials at a meeting of the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board revealed the department will not have a
final design ready for its casks for another six years.
That, Loux said, means that DOE should not be filing its license
application until it gets the final cask design. That could put
off the license application to 2012, which in turn could further
put off the opening date for the repository.
"It's inconceivable that they could submit a license application
before then," he told reporters after the hearing, signaling it
is one key area that Nevada could use in its legal fight against
the repository.
Golan countered that was "one person's opinion, not my opinion,"
and added that the department could file its application
beforehand and amend it when the cask design is complete.
Lawmakers blame Nevada
Loux felt the wrath of lawmakers who complained about Nevada's
continuous fight against the repository. Sens. Richard Burr
(R-N.C.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho) took
turns bashing Nevada for not working with DOE to improve the
project, a stance that Loux did not deny -- and indeed
emphasized when he said the state would challenge DOE's fitness
to file the license application.
"We're not doing anything your state wouldn't do," Loux told
Bunning after the senator accused state officials of causing the
delays through legal and regulatory challenges to the program.
"Unfortunately, you're wrong," Bunning replied, adding that when
Kentucky was approached to host Energy Department programs, it
"didn't resist" and now is home of one Superfund site for which
the state will be responsible forever.
Craig, whose home state of Idaho now houses much of the
defense-related wastes that would head to Yucca Mountain once it
opens, hit Loux for calling DOE an "out of control agency,"
calling it "bad rhetoric." DOE and NRC "are probably the most
controlled agencies we have," he added.
He also blamed Nevada and its congressional delegation for
delays at the site, and for working to keep Yucca Mountain from
opening. "We will work around you," Craig said, calling the
repository the "safest [repository] ever designed by man."
*****************************************************************
84 NJ: Yucca Plan Hits Another Snag, Domenici Sees Long Delay -
National Journal
By Darren Goode
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Domenici said
Tuesday that Congress might need to restructure the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository project because there is no
plan to recycle a growing number of spent fuel rods that would
otherwise be stored there.
Such a move would mean further delay for a project that is
already behind schedule, even as Congress and the Bush
administration are starting to think about the need for a second
waste-storage site.
"I think I'm telling you that everything is delayed for a long
time," Domenici said. "Confusion is rampant. Timelines are all
out of whack."
Following his committee's hearing on the status of the stalled
project, Domenici said it has "become quite clear we're not
going to be putting the spent fuel rods in Yucca Mountain. I
think we're going to have to put recycling in the legislative
process that involves Yucca Mountain."
Domenici does not want to put spent nuclear fuel rods at the
Nevada site because only about 5 percent of their energy has
been used when they come out of a reactor. "Recycling is
ultimately responsible for what kind of repository we need,"
Domenici said. "It will certainly be a different Yucca Mountain
than we have been talking about."
This could mean trying to combine the Bush administration's new
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, which aims to expand
global nuclear energy production and the reprocessing of spent
nuclear fuel, and the Yucca project, Domenici said. He said
there is time to do this without further delaying the Yucca
project because it is already moving slowly.
Congress approved Yucca Mountain as the site of the repository
in 2002 but the Energy Department has not yet applied for an
operating license. Department officials say they will announce a
schedule this summer for submitting that application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Energy Department last month sent Congress a long-awaited
plan to modify and expedite completion of the repository,
including lifting the current statutory limit on the amount of
waste that could be stored there, expediting federal licensing
and environmental reviews and withdrawing land around the site
from public use.
While Domenici is a big supporter of the global partnership, it
has been criticized by Democrats and other Republicans as too
far reaching and expensive. Critics also say it might offset
nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
The House Appropriations Committee today is marking up a FY07
Energy and Water spending bill that undercuts the
administration's $250 million initial request for the global
partnership by $96 million. Still. Domenici pledged to "fully
fund it and ... see if I can look around and find more money."
While recycling spent nuclear fuel would ideally reduce the
amount of waste needed to be stored at Yucca, there is growing
interest in establishing a second national repository, even as
the Yucca project remains stalled.
The Energy Department estimates more than 100.000 metric tons of
spent nuclear fuel will be generated by existing reactors and is
advocating that the 70.000 metric ton cap at Yucca be loosened.
Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., calculated that the United States
will reach that limit by 2010. "What's next?" Burr asked at the
hearing. "At what point do we collectively ... look at this and
say we've got to think about something else."
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., blamed both the Energy Department and
EPA for dragging their feet. "We're to the limit of what we can
even put in," Bunning said. "And now you're talking about a
second repository? Do you know how foolish that looks to the
American public?"
Paul Golan, acting director of the Energy Department's Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste, told reporters after the hearing
that he assembled a task force Monday to make an initial report
in July about selecting a second site.
Waste is stored at more than 120 temporary locations in 39
states. The House FY07 Energy and Water spending bill includes
$30 million for interim storage on top of the $544.5 million the
Bush administration has requested for the Yucca project next
year.
Golan told the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Tuesday
that "the department continues to have an open mind on interim
storage."
But he also said the administration lacks the authorization to
proceed with an interim storage plan.
*****************************************************************
85 Wall Street Journal: Waste Disposal Lights Up Nuclear Debate
Spain Encounters Stiff Opposition From Environmentalists to
Above-Ground Storage Plan
By Keith Johnson
Madrid
Nuclear Energy Is back in fashion around the world, thanks to
high oil prices, soaring electricity demand and restrictions on
emissions of greenhouse gases from traditional power generation.
But there is a lingering problem on which the debate hinges: No
one knows what to do with tons of radioactive waste generated by
the reactors.
Spain hopes to solve the problem by storing dangerous waste
above ground, rather than deep under the earth or temporarily
inside nuclear reactors. Spain and a growing number of countries
studying above-ground storage facilities are encountering stiff
opposition from environmental groups, who fear it will leave
radioactive waste exposed to disruptions such as natural
disasters or terrorism.
Other nations that are considering additional nuclear capacity
face big bills or indecision. The U.S. has spent about $20
billion carving out an underground storage facility beneath
Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Though the facility isn't operational
yet, existing waste in the U.S. will already stretch it almost
to capacity. France, which gets almost 80% of its electricity
from nuclear reactors, spent the past 15 years studying where to
put high-level waste before reaching a decision this year—to
spend another 15 years studying it. In Japan, authorities favor
reprocessing spent uranium fuel rods, a costly and inefficient
process, partly as a way to skirt public "not in my backyard"
sentiment.
Spain says its proposed above-ground storage can isolate uranium
rods for more than a century. At an estimated cost of about €5
billion, or roughly $6.5 billion, in today's currency values
over the first 60 years of its life, the facility offers a
cheaper and more feasible alternative to longer-term storage
facilities like Yucca Mountain. It could pave the way for an
expansion of Spain's fleet of nuclear-power reactors, which
provides about a quarter of the country's electricity.
Spain's waste effort, recently approved by the Spanish
Parliament, faces tough scrutiny. Because the facility is
engineered to guarantee radiation containment for a century, an
upcoming generation could face the thorny question of what to do
with the waste. Meanwhile, environmental groups like Greenpeace
and Ecologists in Action argue that a centralized storage
facility will be vulnerable and increase the risk of accidents
as authorities shuttle waste cross-country on special trains.
"There is no technical solution to the waste problem. The only
things being proposed are Band-Aid ideas," says Carlos Bravo,
director of nuclear issues at the Spanish arm of Greenpeace,
which opposes nuclear power.
James Curtiss, a former commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission who says he is watching Spain's progress,
says such criticisms mark a shift in the world-wide debate from
reactor safety to storage safety. "Instead of physically scaling
the reactors, environmentalists have taken to assaulting
waste-storage proposals," said Mr. Curtiss, now a partner with
Winston & Strawn in Washington who works on licensing nuclear
facilities. '
Nuclear power has been a contentious issue in Spain, where power
demand has surged and a governmental commission called this
month to reduce the country's demand on foreign energy supplies.
Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who in his campaign
pledged to phase out nuclear energy, may spell out as soon as
tomorrow his government's plans for nuclear energy.
The technology needed to store high-level waste has existed for
years, says Alejandro Pino, president of Empresa Nacional de
Residuos Radioactivos SA, or Enresa, the public company that
manages all of Spain's radioactive waste and spearheaded the new
project. "But there was never the political will to do something
about it until now." he says, citing high oil prices and strict
emissions caps under the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse-gas
emissions.
Uranium-fuel rods, which power reactors, need to be replaced
every few years. Such high-level waste stays radioactive for
tens of thousands of years. Currently, most spent fuel rods in
the U.S and Europe are temporarily stored in pools inside
reactors. In the U.S. and Finland, authorities think the best
solution is to eventually seal off the waste deep underground.
Spain says its solution is cheaper and allows technicians to
monitor and retrieve the waste if needed. While the facilities
could serve as secure storage for more than a century, their
design specifications can't guarantee it for much longer than
that. The Spanish design draws on similar above-ground
facilities in Switzerland and the Netherlands, as well as years
of expertise gleaned from Spain's low-level waste facility near
Cordoba.
Although the Bush administration is considering an above-ground
temporary storage facility, the industry is still betting on
deep geological storage as the eventual solution. Mr. Pino
argues that insistence is a white elephant. "Surface storage
buys you 100 years and leaves you money to explore other
solutions," he says.
*****************************************************************
86 Ensign: ENSIGN: DOMENICI REMARKS CAST FURTHER DOUBT ON YUCCA
United States Senator John Ensign
PROJECT: 05/16/2006
Ensign released the following statement today in reaction to
comments by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) that new recycling technology
should be pursued because of Yucca Mountain’s problems and
delays.
“Delays, questionable science, fraud and mismanagement have
brought the misguided Yucca Mountain project to the point that
its most enthusiastic supporters are beginning to doubt it will
ever become reality,” Ensign said. “When the Chairman of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee starts talking openly
about recycling technology, it’s a day for Yucca opponents to
celebrate. I’m encouraged by the Chairman’s embrace of
recycling technology and look forward to working with him on
it.”
Following a committee oversight hearing on Yucca Mountain,
Senator Domenici said that delays in the Yucca Mountain project
should be used to explore new recycling technologies.
*****************************************************************
87 KLASTV.com: Temporary Storage For Nation's Nuclear Waste Debated
News for Las Vegas, Nevada |
Nevada is getting criticism on it's fight against Yucca
Mountain's nuclear waste repository.
There are so many legal challenges to the project that the
underground storage of nuclear waste won't happen until at least
2010, and some senators say that is because Nevada does not have
the best interests of the country in mind.
The Bush Administration says it is willing to store nuclear
power plant waste somewhere other than Yucca Mountain
temporarily but needs congressional approval to do so.
An official from the Department of Energy told a senate panel
Tuesday that $30 million has been included in a House
appropriations bill for examining temporary storage of some of
the waste pending the completion of the Nevada facility.
The DoE it expects to have a timetable for its license
application for the nuclear waste repository sometime this
summer and says it will take whatever steps necessary to ensure
that the application is based on sound science.
Also present at the hearing, were senators in support of Yucca
Mountain who expressed frustration over how long it's taking to
resolve the issues with the project.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
88 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Congress weighs slowdown of Hanford work
[seattlepi.com]
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
By LISA STIFFLER P-I REPORTER
After publicly expressing disapproval over the numerous setbacks
and cost overruns plaguing the Hanford cleanup, members of
Congress are proposing $1.8 billion for the project next year --
but with strings.
Lawmakers want the Energy Department to abandon its potentially
risky, accelerated approach that has construction of a treatment
facility under way while the overall design is just 70 percent
completed.
Instead, they want to adopt a more conservative, though possibly
slower, process for building the multibillion-dollar complex to
clean up nuclear waste.
The budget proposal puts the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
charge of monitoring and confirming the safety of the plant
being erected near the banks of the Columbia River. The
commission, which oversees commercial facilities, would bolster
the weaker oversight offered by the federal board currently
tracking the effort.
Congress also is calling for revisions in the agreement between
the Energy Department and the contractor for the treatment
plant, Bechtel National Inc., to ensure better performance.
The House budget proposal says the project to turn into glass
millions of gallons of radioactive and toxic waste being stored
in leak-prone underground tanks "has a long and sordid history,"
including "cost overruns and mismanagement."
"Years of revolving door DOE officials, continual promises to
improve management controls and oversight, and skyrocketing
costs have led the committee to the point where it no longer has
confidence in the department's estimates in the (waste treatment
plant) nor in the department's ability to manage its way back on
this project," the proposal states.
The budget is expected to be passed out of the House
Appropriations Committee today and will go to the full chamber
for a vote. The Senate is working on its own budget.
"We couldn't be happier," said Tom Carpenter, director of
nuclear oversight for the Government Accountability Project, a
citizen watchdog group. "We think they got it right; they're
right on target. We're big supporters of this plant, but it has
to be done right."
[advertising] The price tag for the tank waste facility
mushroomed from $4.3 billion when Bechtel won the contract in
2000 to a recently released estimate of more than $11 billion.
The plant was expected to start operating in 2011, but now won't
be running until 2017 or later.
The waste was generated over decades of plutonium production at
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, near the Tri-Cities. A
baseball-sized chunk of the radioactive material was dropped on
Nagasaki, Japan, on Aug. 9, 1945.
Since the early 1990s, the site has been focused on cleanup. The
cost inflation for the treatment plant is blamed on factors that
include reviews of plans to make sure the plant can withstand
potential earthquakes, problems with the quality of the
engineering work and an increase in the cost of raw materials
such as concrete and steel.
Building has stopped on large parts of the project because of
engineering problems.
Over the years, critics have attacked the project's
"design-build" approach, which means that construction started
before engineers had finished the facility's blueprints.
The buildings needed to treat the tank waste are about 70
percent designed, state officials said Tuesday. The proposed
House budget orders construction to stay on hold until the plans
are 90 percent done. It's unclear what that means to the
timeline for completion.
"It sounds like an easy question, but it isn't," said John
Britton, a Bechtel spokesman. "We don't have the resources to
spare to chase that down right now."
Government officials were largely mum on the budget proposal,
but the state Ecology Department expressed concerns.
"We don't want this to result in more costs because it resulted
in delays," said Joye Redfield-Wilder, an Ecology spokeswoman.
Carpenter cautioned that the tremendous challenges and risks
posed by the endeavor require patience.
"I understand the need for speed, but this is a complicated,
one-of-a-kind facility," he said. "It's worth taking the time to
do it right." P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at
206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com.
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA
98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
89 SFNM: State accepts Los Alamos plan to study chromium contamination
Santa Fe New Mexican.
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 16, 2006
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - The state Environment Department has
accepted a plan submitted by Los Alamos National Laboratory to
determine the extent of chromium contamination in groundwater in
Los Alamos County.
Environment Secretary Ron Curry said in a news release that the
lab's study will help the state understand the size and scope of
the contamination.
"Once that information is gathered, any remediation required can
be undertaken quickly and effectively," he said.
Los Alamos submitted the plan after the National Nuclear
Security Administration, which oversees the lab, reported
chromium levels in a well _ called R-28 _ in Mortendad Canyon
last December. However, the lab said chromium has not been found
in drinking water wells.
The chromium levels found in R-28 were more than four times the
federal drinking water standard and eight times the state's
groundwater standard.
Prolonged exposure to chromium can cause liver and kidney damage
and has been linked to types of cancer.
Kathy DeLucas, a lab spokeswoman, said Monday the lab has already
started an "aggressive investigation of the sources and the
extent of the chromium contamination."
New data from 19 monitoring and supply wells near R-28 confirm
that drinking water supplies are not affected by chromium, she
said.
"We're working closely with Los Alamos County to ensure adequate
monitoring of the drinking water supply is implemented," DeLucas
said.
The state accepted the lab's plan with some modifications. The
Environment Department said the lab has 90 days to submit a
revised work plan that includes the department's modifications
to the initial plan.
Among its modifications, the department is requiring the lab to
drill a new well to determine how deep the chromium
contamination is in the regional aquifer near well R-28.
The new well is expected to provide valuable information about
protecting the nearest municipal drinking water supply well,
less than a mile from R-28.
Sources of manmade chromium contamination include corrosion of
stainless steel, chrome plating, leather tanning and use in
water-cooling systems associated with power plants.
Los Alamos officials said the most likely source of the
contamination is the use of chromium water-cooling systems at
the lab between the 1950s and 1970s. The lab stopped using
chromium in cooling towers in the early 1970s.
©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions
*****************************************************************
90 TheNewsTribune.com: GAO recommends slow Hanford cleanup |
Tacoma, WA
The Associated Press
Published: May 16th, 2006 01:00 AM
RICHLAND, Benton County Continuing to delay construction of a
waste treatment plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation could
save money and reduce delays when the plant begins operating,
the Government Accountability Office said.
State officials, however, are questioning the wisdom of any
action that might slow the project.
The vitrification plant is being built at Hanford to convert
millions of gallons of radioactive waste into glasslike logs for
permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. The waste, the
remnants of plutonium production for the nations nuclear
weapons arsenal, is now stored in leaking underground tanks near
the Columbia River.
The plant is being designed as its being built a fast-track
approach that some have blamed for significant delays and cost
increases. The project is billions of dollars over budget and
years behind schedule.
The Government Accountability Office, Congress investigative
arm, has recommended that 90 percent of the design be completed
before construction resumes on two parts of the plant.
Design of the plant is more than 70 percent complete, with about
30 percent of construction complete.
The U.S. Department of Energy, which manages cleanup at the
reservation, halted construction on the High Level Waste
Facility and Pretreatment Facility this year because of a
reduced budget and technical and management problems.
In the past, many nuclear plants were built on a fast-track
approach, and as a result, their costs were much higher, said
Tom Perry of the Government Accountability Office.
The new standard in the nuclear industry is to complete the
design before construction begins.
Our view is the record is not very good on the fast-track
approach, not only for this facility but for other nuclear
facilities across the nation, said Bill Swick of the GAO.
State officials countered that nothing has been fast about the
project so far, and the aging underground tanks holding the
radioactive waste waiting to be processed are deteriorating.
At this time were two decades beyond the reasonable objectives
everyone signed up for, said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal
project manager for the Washington state Department of Ecology,
said Friday at a meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board.
Theres a difference in urgency in building a plant to supply
power and getting millions of gallons of radioactive waste out
of aging underground tanks, Dahl said.
The Energy Department was supposed to be turning waste into
glass in 1999, but the deadline to have the plant operating has
been pushed back four times. The plant now is not expected to be
operating before 2018 based on the fast-track approach.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or
redistributed.
1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
© Copyright 2006 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy
Company
*****************************************************************
91 Chattanoogan: Oak Ridge Projects Get Full Funding In Energy And Water Bill -
5/17/2006 -
Chattanoogan.com
Congressman Zach Wamp (R-TN) announced today the House
Appropriations Committee has approved the Energy and Water bill
for Fiscal Year 2007 to fund "critical missions" in Oak Ridge at
nearly $3 billion.
“East Tennessee is home to many important priorities of the
federal government and it will continue to be strong and
productive in the coming year,” Congressman Wamp said. “This year
has been tough, but this bill demonstrates that Washington
recognizes how important the Tennessee Valley is for America and
our interests around the world.”
Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) will be fully funded at $171.4
million and the super computing program at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL), a national leader in computational sciences,
received $83 million for hardware to support the Department of
Energy’s high-speed computational research.
The Spallation Neutron Source will help strengthen America’s
economic competitiveness by providing the next generation of
materials research, he said. One of the world’s largest science
projects, the $1.4 billion SNS is being constructed on time and
on budget, it was stated.
The project was tested on April 28, and this year’s full funding
of the SNS will make possible the transition from construction to
operation.
Rep. Wamp said, "When fully operational, research at the SNS has
the potential for discoveries in a broad variety of materials. In
Tennessee, the research could lead to lighter and more
fuel-efficient automobiles, superconducting wires that carry more
power for TVA and reduce electricity costs, and new drug delivery
systems that release a medicine precisely when needed by the
body."
“The SNS has received an unprecedented level of support from the
Congress, two Administrations and the scientific community,” ORNL
Director Jeff Wadsworth said. “Our goal now is to reward that
confidence with scientific breakthroughs that can literally
reshape our lives.”
Likewise, the supercomputing advances being made at ORNL’s
National Leadership Computing Facility has it on the path to
becoming the world’s most powerful center for unclassified
computing, he said. This year’s appropriation will make possible
100 trillion calculations per second, or 100 “teraflops,” by
year’s end. The goal is to reach 250 teraflops in 2007 and 1000
trillion calculations per second, or one “petaflop,” by 2008.
Rep. Wamp said, "This enormous computing power will enable Oak
Ridge scientists to handle the volume of data required for new
discoveries in energy, climate change, and drug design."
“High-performance computing will be the foundation for almost all
scientific research in the coming years,” Mr. Wadsworth said.
“With the help of the Department of Energy and the Tennessee
congressional delegation, Tennessee is positioned for some time
to come to be among the world’s leaders in computing.”
The Energy and Water spending bill also provided $43 million more
than the Administration’s request for Y-12 National Security
Complex in Oak Ridge for readiness and facilities, while security
at Y-12 received $25 million above the Administration’s request.
The Department of Energy’s request for environmental management
funding and other Oak Ridge cleanup activities were fully funded
as those operations were allotted $40 million over the 2006
budget, an 8 percent increase. Of these funds, $25 million will
be used for cleanup of Building 3019 and $15 million will be
expended on ORNL’s Central Campus Closure Project.
The Energy and Water spending bill provides a total of $2.928
billion for Oak Ridge and now moves to the full House for
approval.
"From the national security challenges we face as we pursue
America’s enemies in the Global War on Terror to the robust
technology-based economy grounded in this scientific and
infrastructure investment, this bill is very good for the
Tennessee Valley and, most importantly, good for America,"
Congressman Wamp said.
(423) 266-2325
© 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by Three HD
*****************************************************************
92 KnoxNews: Workers 'overwhelmingly' reject benefit plan changes
By Associated Press
May 17, 2006
ERWIN, Tenn. - Union workers at a nuclear fuel facility in Erwin
went on strike after rejecting a proposed contract in a dispute
over employee benefits.
Nearly 370 members of the United Steelworkers union at Nuclear
Fuel Services listened to the proposed six-year contract offered
by the company, but workers "overwhelmingly" voted against it,
said Roger Birchfield, union president.
Birchfield declined to release the vote tally.
The proposed contract would have changed workers' retirement and
health insurance plans.
"The company basically, for new employees, would eliminate our
pension plan," Birchfield said. "That's a very big issue for us.
Our pension and our insurance are near and dear."
The insurance proposal included raising co-payments from
retirees.
"The company believes it made a fair and reasonable offer to the
union on benefits and wages," Doug Buck, vice president of human
resources, said in a statement. "The company is hopeful that
once the union employees have fully reviewed and evaluated the
offer, they will also agree that it's a positive and
constructive proposal."
No additional bargaining sessions have been scheduled.
The facility has held contracts to supply nuclear fuel for
military and commercial uses. It is converting highly enriched
uranium into fuel used at the Tennessee Valley Authority's
Browns Ferry nuclear power plant in Alabama.
NFS spokesman Tony Treadway said the privately held company's
344 salaried workers would run the facility, but he could not
say how that would affect operations.
The last strike at the facility in 1985 lasted for 11 1/2
months, but neither the company nor the union would speculate on
how long this strike would last.
The union's previous four-year contract expired Monday night,
and Birchfield said the workers planned to picket Tuesday
outside the company's headquarters.
Copyright 2006, Associated Press. All rights reserved.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
93 Knox News: Munger: Cleanup contractor's fee drops; is more
trouble on the horizon?
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
May 17, 2006
Bechtel Jacobs Co., the environmental cleanup manager in Oak
Ridge, has struggled the past couple of years, and that's been
reflected in news reports - accidents, safety lapses, project
delays - and other ways, including the money it receives from the
government.
After some twisting and turning over a period of months, the U.S.
Department of Energy finally released the fiscal 2005 fee
determinations for the Oak Ridge contractor.
For the year, Bechtel Jacobs received about $8 million out of a
pool of $22.4 million.
DOE last November released the figures for the first three
quarters of 2005, but - for whatever reason - didn't want to
release the year-end total or the fourth-quarter numbers. As it
turned out, the company was paid only $886,076 for the final
quarter of fiscal 2005, which concluded Sept. 30.
Bechtel Jacobs will earn most of its money at the tail end of the
contract, but the contractor is paid regular increments according
to the perceived progress in meeting the cleanup milestones.
The 2005 results were not sparkling, down steeply from 2004 -
when the company received $18.5 million out of a fee pool of
$22.4 million.
Asked about the drop in fee, Bechtel Jacobs spokesman Chuck
Jenkins replied: "Aside from confirming DOE's figures, Bechtel
Jacobs will have no additional comment at this time."
John Shewairy of DOE noted that Bechtel Jacobs successfully
completed its first major milestone, getting rid of legacy wastes
at the nuclear facilities, and is expected to reach the next
milestone - cleanup in the Melton Valley area - on time.
However, he confirmed that Bechtel Jacobs is likely to be about
six months late in completing the biggest project, involving the
decommissioning of the former K-25 uranium-enrichment site. That
actually is a more positive assessment than other estimates that
suggested the project was nine or 10 months behind schedule.
On another contract note, DOE's Oak Ridge office plans to award
a contract for information technology services on or about June
23.
It's about time.
This procurement has been in process for nearly two years. The
contract proposals were submitted to DOE in early 2005, and
since then the federal offering has been amended 18 times.
I'm sure that drove the bidders crazy. Even worse, Oak Ridge
workers had to sit on needles while their future was juggled
again and again.
Shewairy, DOE's public affairs director, said the process was
complicated by a number of factors, such as changing the IT
contract to a small-business competition.
Also, DOE opted to have discussions with all bidders in the
competitive range instead of selecting a winner based on the
original proposals.
Shewairy said that decision was in the government's best
interest. He said the discussions were designed to help the
evaluation board better understand the strengths of those
bidding and to assure that the contract provisions had been
adequately conveyed to the bidders.
That's just one of the reasons for the slow-go.
According to Shewairy, procurements of the size and complexity
of the Oak Ridge IT contract require the approval of DOE
headquarters in Washington at each major milestone in the
process.
"The length of time for HQ's review at each stage of the process
varies," he said in an e-mail response to questions.
It would seem this process has finally reached the point of
exhaustion. Hooray.
When workers discovered holes in the floor at the Y-12 nuclear
weapons plant, it was more than a cosmetic issue.
The pinholes in the stainless-steel floor were termed a
criticality safety deficiency in a weekly report issued April 21
by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board staff at Y-12.
That's apparently because it was in an area of the plant where
enriched uranium operations are conducted. The discovery
prompted BWXT, the plant's contractor, to restrict the transfers
of liquid material until the problem was corrected.
Mike Monnett, BWXT's public affairs chief, confirmed that the
concern would be if liquids were spilled and seeped through the
holes. Under a worst case, that could result in loss of control
of the fissile material and pose the threat of nuclear
criticality.
The problem, as reported by the board staff, was that the
restriction wasn't communicated well, and a transfer of liquid
material did occur in that area.
Monnett said the holes in the floor, which he referred to as
tiny, never posed a safety concern, and workers have since
welded them shut.
There was a problem, however, with the conduct of operations,
and that was troublesome to BWXT, he said.
"We're doing a detailed review of the lessons learned," Monnett
said.
Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for
the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************