*****************************************************************
05/18/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.118
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Mocks European Nuclear Incentives
2 IRNA: Jordan strongly supporting Iran's N-program - Mottaki
3 AFP: Iran using Chinese-made feedstock for enriched uranium - diplom
4 IRNA: Nuclear research is Iran's legal right - Sudanese FM
5 IRNA: Iranian, Jordanian FMs stress peaceful use of nuclear energy -
6 IRNA: Iran's N-plan progressing under NPT - Iranian envoy 
7 Guardian Unlimited: South Korea Seeks Progress on Nuke Issue
8 Guardian Unlimited: US 'to soften North Korea approach'
9 AFP: North Korea must return to nuclear talks before any peace moves
10 AFP: Bush may offer new carrot to end Korean nuclear crisis 
11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Proposes New Nuclear Weapons Treaty
12 World Must Deal Now With Dangers Of Nuclear Proliferation, Annan War
13 [NYTr] Nuclear Hypocrites
14 Guardian Unlimited: Campaigners call for Blair to publish briefing
15 IBNLive: Boucher urges Cong to back nuke deal
16 AFP: Annan warns on 'sleepwalking' into nuclear world 
17 UPI: India to hold key pre-NSG talks
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
18 US: [NukeNet] GE Building Plant in NC to Make Nuclear Reactors
19 US: Columbian: In Our View - Trojan's Trouble
20 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Opinion: Nuclear Power Will Drive the Future - 
21 Guardian Unlimited: Another atomic age for Britain?
22 London Times: Why nuclear energy produces hot air - 
23 Helsingin Sanomat: Russia to build new nuclear reactors on shore of 
24 US: AP Wire: Ameren shuts down nuclear plant for second time in one 
25 Manila Times: OPINION > Ronnie, Winnie and nuclear power 
26 RIA Novosti: Russia needs nuclear market competition in U.S. - Kiriy
27 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk NPP in south Russia back online after shutdo
28 US: NRC: New Reactor Construction Inspection Center to be Establishe
29 BBC: Miliband faces nuclear challenge
30 Herald: The nuclear debate begins   
31 The Herald: Brown set to back Blair on nuclear power plans   
32 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet May 31
33 AFP: Blair's call for new nuclear plants raises concerns about costs
34 Comment is free: Conservatives must oppose nuclear
35 Xinhua: New nuclear power project launched in E. China   
36 TheStar.com: Nuclear power back in favour as energy future
37 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
38 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., So
39 Telegraph: Nuclear error: Britain's record revealed
40 Comment is free: Blair's toxic legacy
41 Comment is free: Why we need nuclear energy
42 UPI: India to start third nuclear reactor
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
43 US: post-gazette.com: A big blast from the past
44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Anderson calls on delegation to hear 
45 Telegraph: Exposure  (Bikini Island History)
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
46 US: Deseret News: PFS site - but no transport? Spent-fuel trucks may
47 US: Guardian Unlimited: Price of uranium soars
48 US: Dayton Daily News: House panel OKs $34.8M for cleanup of Mound s
49 US: Sac Bee: Aerojet to pay $25 million to settle pollutant lawsuit 
50 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed requests dismissal of charges
51 BBC: Wylfa life extension
52 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear agency nominee testifies
53 US: reviewjournal.com: Panel trims nuclear waste spending
54 openDemocracy: Nuclear-waste politics Rob Edwards - 
55 Scotsman.com: Amount of nuclear waste stored in Scotland is set to q
56 US: AU ABC: Bligh urges uranium industry to prove safety. 
57 Whitehaven News: MP hits out at false CORE claims
58 US: Deseret News: House panel OKs option of private nuclear waste
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
59 Rocky Mountain News: New probe at Flats
60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Northwest toting a lot of nuclear baggag
61 Tri-City Herald: DOE to halt strontium leaking toward river 
62 Tri-City Herald: PNNL gets increase in budget bill 
63 NewsBlaze: Remarks Prepared for Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Mocks European Nuclear Incentives
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 18, 2006 3:01 AM

AP Photo AMM101 

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. 

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said
the session was postponed because ``we're trying to put together
a package that would include incentives on one side and
penalties.'' 

``I don't think there is a full agreement on exactly what would
cormpise the package,'' he said. ``This is complex, multilateral
diplomacy. It takes a little bit of time.'' 

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
*****************************************************************
 2 IRNA: Jordan strongly supporting Iran's N-program - Mottaki
 
Damascus, May 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

Syria-Iran-FM 

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said here Thursday
that the Jordanian government and people had expressed strong
support for Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and the nation's
right to enjoy nuclear energy.

 Mottaki, who arrived in Damascus, Syria, on Thursday after
wrapping up a two-day visit to Jordan, made the remarks to
reporters at Damascus' international airport.

 "Jordanian officials also expressed their opposition to any
measure that would create tensions and crises in the region.
Iran praises Jordan for its stance in this regard," he said.

 Speaking of the results of his visit to Jordan, he said that
"the visit was an opportunity to brief Jordanian officials on
Iran's stance in its peaceful nuclear program."
 "The visit to Amman was upon the invitation of the Jordanian
foreign minister (Abdelelah al-Khatib). In my meetings with
Jordanian officials, the sides discussed avenues for bolstering
bilateral ties," Mottaki said.

 "Iran and Jordan, as two neighboring states of Iraq, also
exchanged views on latest developments in that country," he
added.

 He said he also held talks with Jordanian officials on ways to
help the Palestinian government and people. "Fortunately, the
sides had common stances on several issues."
 Talking about his visit to Syria, Mottaki said the purpose of
his visit was to continue his country's regular consultations
with Syria on various issues, particularly regional developments
and promotion of Tehran-Damascus relations.

 The Iranian foreign minister, heading a high-ranking delegation
from the foreign ministry, went straight into talks with Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad upon his arrival in Damascus.

 Mottaki is also scheduled to meet with Syrian Foreign Minister
Walid al-Moualem.

 Mottaki in Amman, Jordan, held meetings with King Abdullah,
Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib and Prime Minister Marouf
Bakheet.

*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Iran using Chinese-made feedstock for enriched uranium - diplomats - 

 by Michael Adler Thu May 18, 7:11 PM ET 		 	 

VIENNA (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranused stocks of high-quality uranium 
gas from China in order to hasten a breakthrough in enrichment 
for a programme the West fears could be hiding nuclear weapons 
work, diplomats told AFP. 

 "The Iranians have sought to accomplish a technological
achievement for political purposes and chose the Chinese
feedstock gas because of its quality, which ensures a better
(uranium) enrichment process," said a diplomat with access to
intelligence sources. 

The diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity
of the issue, said Iran had "wanted to declare it had done
uranium enrichment and were in a hurry," as they wanted to have
a fait accompli before the UN Security Council could move
against them once an April deadline fell. 

The Security Council had given Iran until April 28 to halt
enrichment, which makes fuel for nuclear power reactors but can
also produce the raw material for atomic bombs. 

A second diplomat said Iran had indeed used uranium hexafluoride
(UF6) gas supplied by China to feed a 164-centrifuge cascade, or
array of machines, that enriches uranium. 

But the diplomat said Iran had also tried out some of its own
UF6, which intelligence sources say is believed to contain
contaminants that can cause centrifuges to crash. 

Although Iranian UF6 has gotten better, the Iranians are "trying
to create facts on the ground that are not there,"
non-proliferation analyst David Albright said. He said the
Iranians have not yet mastered enrichment and still "have a lot
of tests to do.". 

The Iranians "did not use their own UF6 because they wanted to
be completely sure" they could turn out enriched uranium in
time, the first diplomat said. 

Iran defied the Council's calls, and the world body is now
deadlocked over whether to issue a resolution that would legally
oblige Iran to stop uranium enrichment. 

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday
ridiculed an EU plan to offer trade and technology incentives in
exchange for an agreement to halt the highly strategic
enrichment work. 

Iran had suspended enrichment-related work as part of talks with
the European Union" /> European Unionsince October 2003 on
guaranteeing that its nuclear program is peaceful but began
making UF6, which is processed from uranium ore, again last
August when talks broke down. 

Since September, they have made some 110 tons of the gas,
according to a report of the UN watchdog International Atomic
Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). 

If the entire quantity were enriched, it would yield enough
material for about 20 atom bombs, Albright said from his IISS
think-tank in Washington. 

Iran began feeding UF6 gas into centrifuges in February, thus
beginning the enrichment process, at a facility in Natanz in the
center of the country. 

On April 11, Tehran announced that it had actually made enriched
uranium but only to levels appropriate for reactor fuel, not for
weapons. 

The first diplomat said that Iran had made only "dozens of
grams" of enriched uranium, far from the 15-25 kilograms (30-55
pounds) needed to make a nuclear bomb. 

"It is a technological success, but it is politically that it is
very important," the diplomat said. 

Albright agreed with this analysis, saying: "Iran has barely
operated its cascade. It needs to operate the cascade much
longer and with much greater output" to show that it knows what
it is doing. 

He said that if Iran had operated the 164-centrifuge cascade
full-time for two weeks it would have produced two kilograms of
enriched uranium but is loading the centrifuges much less than
that. 

China began building a conversion facility in Isfahan in the
1990s to make UF6 and supplied Iran then with about a ton of the
gas but broke the contract in 1997 under US pressure. 

Iran completed the facility using Chinese designs. 

The second diplomat said the Iranians used Chinese feed but also
their own UF6, made in Isfahan, at the Natanz enrichment
facility, where they had built the 164-centrifuge cascade. 

"We think they used both, perhaps to compare the two, and
certainly to demonstrate to themselves that their own UF6 is
capable of being enriched without too many centrifuge problems,"
the diplomat said. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Nuclear research is Iran's legal right - Sudanese FM

Moscow, May 18, IRNA                                                                                                             

Sudan-Iran-Nuclear 

Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol said here Thursday that Iran, 
as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has the 
legal right to conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes.

 Akol, who is currently in Moscow, made the remarks while 
speaking to reporters at a press conference after meeting with 
senior Russian officials.

 Every country that is a signatory to the NPT has the right to 
engage in peaceful nuclear activities, he reiterated.

 Asked about his discussion with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei 
Lavrov on Iran's nuclear case, he said that Moscow and Khartoum 
have a common stance on the issue.

 Both sides stress the importance of settling Iran's nuclear case 
through diplomatic channels, he said.

 He said that his country had proposed to Russia that the goal of 
a Middle East region completely free from weapons of mass 
destruction should be implemented.

 Turning to another subject, Akol siad he had expressed his 
country's concerns over the situation in Iraq.

 Sudan supports the oppressed Iraqi people, including their right 
to determine their country's destiny, Akol said.

*****************************************************************
 5 IRNA: Iranian, Jordanian FMs stress peaceful use of nuclear energy -
      
 May 18, IRNA                                                                                                           

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Jordanian
counterpart, Abdelelah al-Khatib, here Wednesday stressed
Tehran's right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes.

 Mottaki, who was in Amman at the head of a high-ranking
politico-economic delegation, attended a joint press conference
with the Jordanian foreign minister.

 The Iranian minister, addressing reporters, praised the stand
of the Jordanian government and nation on Iran's legal right to
access peaceful nuclear energy.

 "A diplomatic solution through negotiation within the framework
of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and
regulations and not the UN Security Council will be the best way
to settle Iran's nuclear case.

 "This will also be the best way of ensuring recognition of the
country's rights and of advancing the goal of preventing the
proliferation of atomic weapons," Mottaki said.

 Echoing an argument previously raised by Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he said: "If nuclear energy is good, all
should enjoy it, and if it is bad, why are certain countries
allowed to have it?"
 Pointing to the objectives of his visit to Jordan, he said it
was a follow-up of subjects discussed in the meeting held in New
York between the Iranian president and Jordan's King Abdullah
focussing on the importance of expanding bilateral relations.

 He expressed hope Iran and Jordan can further bolster their
cooperation in the economic field and boost political
consultations at various levels.

 Mottaki said Iran "supports the political process toward
establishment of a popular government in Iraq and hopes peace
and stability will be restored in that Muslim and neighboring
country." He said opposing groups in Iraq were united in the
goal of establishing national unity, preserving the country's
territorial integrity and allowing participation of opposing
groups in running the country's affairs.

 "Putting the responsiblity of enforcing security in Iraq on the
government and drawing a timetable for withdrawal of foreign
forces from the country will lead to restoration of full
tranquility and security in the country," he said.

 The Iranian minister informed that Iran had proposed Tehran as
the next venue for the meeting of foreign ministers of Iraqi
neighboring states, along with Egypt, to be held next month.

 Pointing to the meeting held in Jordan on the issue of
Palestine, he praised the valuable efforts of the Jordanian
government and nation to host meetings and help the Palestinian
people in their difficulties over the past decades.

 "The sides stressed the importance of supporting the
Palestinian government that is the result of a democratic
election," Mottaki said.

 "We made no discussion on Hamas. We just spoke of support for
the Palestinian people," he added.

 The Jordanian minister, for his part, said his country backed
Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, and added that
all governments have the same right to access nuclear technology
under IAEA supervision.

 He urged parties to pursue a political or diplomatic solution
to Iran's nuclear case, saying the Middle East region has enough
problems of its own and cannot tolerate new crises.

 He said he had held talks with his Iranian counterpart on
bilateral ties, the security issue and regional developments,
including Iraq and Palestine, and added that these consultations
will continue.

 Al-Khatib, moreover, said that Iran and Jordan were two
neighbors of Iraq and that both their interests necessitated
continued security in Iraq.

 The Iranian foreign minister arrived in Amman, Jordan,
Wednesday noon for an official two-day visit to hold talks with
senior Jordanian officials.

 Mottaki held talks with King Abdullah, Prime Minister Marouf
Bakheet Abdelelah al-Khatib and Foreign Minister Abdelelah
al-Khatib.		 				 		 			

*****************************************************************
 6 IRNA: Iran's N-plan progressing under NPT - Iranian envoy 

Islamabad, May 18, IRNA                                                                                                                  

Pakistan-Envoy 

Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Mohammad Ibrahim Taherian on 
Thursday said his country wanted to make progress on its nuclear 
program within the framework of the nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty (NPT).

 He made the remarks at a meeting with Pakistan Senate Foreign 
Affairs Committee Chairman Mushahid Hussain Syed at the latter's 
chamber in Parliament House.

 Some other members of the committee also attended the meeting.

 Mushahid, who is also secretary-general of the ruling Pakistan 
Muslim League, said that President General Pervez Musharraf and 
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had repeatedly said that it was 
Iran's right to make use of nuclear technology for peaceful 
purposes.

 We want peace in the region, stability and security being the 
need of all countries in this part of the world, he maintained.

 He said that Pakistan stood for a negotiated settlement of the 
Iranian issue.

 Reciprocating his views, the Iranian envoy thanked the 
government of Pakistan and the committee chairman for his 
support, making it clear that his country wanted to benefit from 
nuclear technology by adhering to NPT regulations.

 Iran's moves are in line with international laws, he said,
adding that Iran desires peace and co-existence under the UN
charter and world conventions.

 He said his country will continue to face challenges posed by
imperialist forces with the help and cooperation of its friends
and achieve its targets.

 The envoy contended that threats or pressure would never compel
Iran to reverse its policies which it has declared to be for the
welfare of its people.

*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: South Korea Seeks Progress on Nuke Issue
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 18, 2006 11:16 AM

AP Photo SEL102 

By BO-MI LIM 

Associated Press Writer 

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Negotiations on a peace treaty to
formally end the state of war on the Korean Peninsula are likely
only after substantial progress is made on ending North Korea's
nuclear program, a senior South Korean official said Thursday. 

The New York Times reported Thursday that top advisers to
President Bush have recommended a broad new approach in dealing
with the communist state that would include beginning
negotiations on a peace treaty on a parallel track with
disarmament talks. 

A September agreement reached at six-party nuclear talks with
the North was based on a broad assumption that peace
negotiations would start when substantial progress was made on
ending the North's nuclear program, the South Korean official
said, requesting anonymity because of the sensitivity of the
issue. 

The official indicated such negotiations wouldn't start any time
soon. 

The North has long demanded a peace treaty with the United
States to replace a cease-fire negotiated with the U.S.-led
United Nations command, which fought to defend South Korea in
the 1950-53 Korean War, and China, which supported the North. 

The two Koreas remain technically at war since the conflict
ended in a cease-fire, not a formal treaty. 

The New York Times report said Bush is likely to approve the new
approach, but only if the North returns to the nuclear talks
that have been stalled since November. 

The U.S. Embassy in Seoul had no comment on the report. 

``It would be a big enough carrot for North Korea,'' said Baek
Seung-joo, a North Korea expert at the state-run Korea Institute
for Defense Analyses. ``By promising them a security guarantee,
the U.S. is giving North Koreans a cause to return to the
talks.'' 

The September agreement was the first solid achievement since
the six-party talks, which include the two Korea, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States, began in August 2003. 

Song Min-soon, South Korea's presidential security adviser and
former chief nuclear negotiator, said Thursday the agreement
provided a foundation for peace negotiations and ``when and how
this will be done is an issue to be discussed in the future.'' 

Pyongyang has refused to return to talks until Washington lifts
financial restrictions against the communist nation for alleged
illegal activity, including counterfeiting. The United States
says the issues are unrelated and that the North should return
without conditions. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: US 'to soften North Korea approach'
 
Staff and agencies
Thursday May 18, 2006 		 

The US is considering a major U-turn in its approach to North 
Korea that would see a push for regime change replaced by peace 
talks, it was reported today.

The softening of the US stance towards the communist country - 
which was included in George Bush's "axis of evil" - will take 
place even as efforts to dismantle its nuclear programme are 
under way, US administration officials and Asian diplomats 
revealed.

Aides told the New York Times Mr Bush was likely to approve the 
new approach as long as Pyongyang restarted multinational 
negotiations over its nuclear programme. The talks stalled in 
September.

The possible departure from Washington's hardline stance towards 
North Korea appears to have been partly triggered by growing 
concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

"There has been a sense that they can't leave Korea out there as 
a model for what the Iranians hope to become - a nuclear state 
that can say no to outside pressure," a senior official told the 
paper.

The beginning of negotiations on a peace treaty would represent
a fundamental shift in US policy. During his first term in
office, Mr Bush repeatedly said he would never tolerate a
nuclear North Korea.

However, faced with plummeting approval ratings among US voters,
the president has come under pressure to soften his approach
towards the North.

Earlier this week, the former US secretary of state Henry
Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post that "focusing on regime
change as the road to denuclearisation confuses the issue".

Although North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty to
replace the existing 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War,
it is unclear whether the country's leaders would take part in
any new discussions.

The two Koreas remain technically at war because the Korean
conflict ended in an armistice rather than a formal treaty.

The New York Times reported that Mr Bush's aides were hoping to
start negotiations over a formal treaty that would include the
original signatories of the armistice - China, North Korea and
the US. They would also add South Korea, which declined to sign
the original deal.

"I think it is fair to say that many in the administration have
come to the conclusion that dealing head on with the nuclear
problem is simply too difficult," an official told the paper.

"So the question is whether it would help to try to end the
perpetual state of war [since 1953]. It may be another way to
get there."

There is likely to be resistance in Pyongyang to any
negotiations involving political change, human rights and
opening up the country - issues Mr Bush has insisted would have
to be part of any talks.

A South Korean official later insisted that negotiations on a
peace treaty were likely only after substantial progress was
made on ending the North's nuclear programme.

During the talks that stalled in September - which also involved
the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia - North Korea
agreed to give up nuclear weapons in return for energy, economic
aid, more diplomatic recognition and a US promise not to attack.

However, a timetable for implementation was not agreed, and
further negotiations broke down.
 
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 9 AFP: North Korea must return to nuclear talks before any peace moves - US - 

 Thu May 18, 1:51 PM ET 		 	 

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AFP) - The United States said North Korea" 
/> must return to six-nation nuclear talks before any 
negotiations can be held on forging permanent peace on the Korean 
peninsula. 

 "The approach with North Korea has always been the same, which
is when North Korea comes back and participates in the six-party
talks then we can proceed," White House spokesman Tony Snow told
reporters aboard the presidential aircraft Air Force One. 

He was commenting on a report in The New York Times Thursday
that the administration of President George W. Bush" /> would
consider opening a parallel track of negotiations on a peace
treaty to replace the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. 

"Nothing happens until North Korea goes back and participates in
the six-party talks dealing with the possibility of developing
nuclear weapons, and to talk about any further steps would be
premature," Snow said. 

The New York Times, quoting the president's aides, said Bush "is
very likely to approve the new approach" hotly debated within
the different factions within the administration. 

The six-party nuclear talks, involving North Korea, South Korea"
/> , the United States, China, Japan and Russia and aimed at
ending North Korea's nuclear weapons drive, have been stalled
since November, when Washington imposed financial sanctions on
Pyongyang for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering. 

North Korea sought the removal of the sanctions as a
precondition for returning to talks but the United States has
refused to budge. 

pp/vs 

US-NKorea-nuclear-politics-peace 

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 10 AFP: Bush may offer new carrot to end Korean nuclear crisis 

 by P. Parameswaran Thu May 18, 3:51 AM ET 		 	 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The top US negotiator to stalled North Korean 
nuclear talks is to travel to China and South Korea" /> to 
possibly market a new plan by President George W. Bush" /> 's 
administration to end a four-year standoff with Pyongyang. 

 Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill will visit Beijing 
and Seoul on May 24-26 after an extensive Southeast Asian trip 
covering Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand beginning this week, 
the State Department said Wednesday. 

If North Korea" /> agrees to return to six-party talks stalled 
since November, Bush could allow a parallel track of negotiations 
on a peace treaty which would replace the 1953 armistice ending 
the Korean War, the New York Times reported Thursday. 

The newspaper, quoting the president's aides, said Bush "is very 
likely to approve the new approach" hotly debated within the 
different factions within the administration. 

North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty to put an end to 
the Korean War that left North and South Korea separated by a 
demilitarized zone. They remain technically at war to the present 
day. 

Korea was the first battleground of the Cold War. An estimated 
three million Koreans and over 50,000 US troops were killed 
during the 1950-1953 conflict. 

The Bush administration's new strategy to woo the North Koreans 
to the negotiating table may have been influenced in part by 
growing concerns about Iran" /> 's nuclear program, the New York 
Times said. 

"There is a sense that they can't leave Korea out there as a 
model for what the Iranians hope to become -- a nuclear state 
that can say no to outside pressure," one senior Asian official 
briefed on the administration's discussions was quoted saying. 

Western nations are spearheading efforts to draw up a package of 
incentives for Iran to stop enriching uranium, a process which 
could be diverted to build a nuclear weapon. Tehran says it only 
wants to generate energy. 

The United States is seeking sanctions from the UN Security 
Council, but it has failed to win support and has given its 
European allies "a couple of weeks" to draft a fresh approach. 

Asian diplomats said the nuclear issue would be a key topic of 
discussions during Hill's trip to China and South Korea, both of 
which had been banking on US flexibility to jump start the 
nuclear negotiations. 

The six-party talks -- involving the two Koreas, the United 
States, China, Japan and Russia -- ran into trouble when 
Washington imposed financial sanctions on North Korea for alleged 
counterfeiting and money laundering. 

North Korea protested, calling for the removal of the sanctions
as a precondition for returning to talks but the United States
has refused to budge, thanks to hawks in the Bush administration
bent on pursuing a hardline policy on the Stalinist state. 

Experts believe it would be difficult to jumpstart the six-party
talks if the United States does not lift the financial
sanctions, which Pyongyang says breached the spirit of a
landmark September 2005 agreement under which it agreed in
principle to abandon nuclear weapons in return for security,
diplomatic and energy aid guarantees. 

Charles Pritchard, former top US negotiator with North Korea,
said the "high point" of the six-party talks was "just prior" to
September agreement. 

"Everything has gone downhill since then," he said at a
Washington forum Wednesday. 

Before the September agreement, Hill had "great deal of
flexibility and authority to actually negotiate in a serious
manner," Pritchard said, suggesting the administration's
hardline stance had led a trimming of Hill's negotiating powers. 

Despite the pessimism, Pritchard said, the United States should
capitalize on the six-party process to forge a permanent
security mechanism to achieve permanent peace for the Korean
peninsula. 

Yang Bojiang, a Chinese scholar at Washington-based Brookings
Institution, said an apparent stumbling block to the six-party
talks was the "serious lack of cooperation" among the different
groups within the Bush administration. 

He called for the setting up of a "liaison organization" among
the six nations aimed at implementing the September agreement. 

Alexander Vorontsov, a Russian scholar at Brookings, said Moscow
was eager for the six-party talks to succeed -- not only to
resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis but develop a
multilateral security forum for Northeast Asia. 	 		 			

Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Proposes New Nuclear Weapons Treaty

From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 18, 2006 11:16 PM

AP Photo VAH102 

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS 

Associated Press Writer 

GENEVA (AP) - The United States proposed a treaty Thursday it
said would curb proliferation of nuclear weapons and improve the
world's leverage against ``hard cases'' like Iran and North
Korea by banning production of weapons-grade uranium and
plutonium. 

Stephen G. Rademaker, acting U.S. assistant secretary of state
for arms control, told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament
that it should aim to approve a treaty by September. 

He said current measures to prevent terrorists and governments
from developing weapons of mass destruction may be insufficient
``in the case of governments that are absolutely determined to
acquire such weapons.'' 

Rademaker said Iran was ``an obvious case in point,'' and that
the Islamic republic and North Korea were ``the hard cases.'' 

The proposal contains no verification measures and stockpiles of
fissile material would not be affected, allowing existing
nuclear powers to build weapons with their reserves. 

And with Iran and North Korea accused by Washington of flouting
current international accords on nuclear weapons development,
Rademaker did not specify how the United States thought the new
agreement would help. 

In Washington, Wade Boese, research director at the private Arms
Control Association, said the United States, Russia, France and
Britain already have officially declared they have stopped
production for nuclear weapons and China is understood to have
done so as well. 

``The value of the agreement would be getting India, Pakistan,
Israel, North Korea and potentially Iran to sign on to this
agreement, but the likelihood is very small,'' Boese said. 

One reason, he said, is the lack of verification measures, which
most countries at the conference want in any treaty. ``It is
essentially a nonstarter'' Boese said. ``The prospect of
negotiations starting on this is about nil.'' 

Hamid Eslamizad, a senior official at Iran's mission in Geneva,
questioned the link between the proposed treaty and Iran's
nuclear ambitions. 

Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful, Eslamizad said, a position
he maintained was supported by findings of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. 

Rademaker responded that Iran was merely repeating its usual
defense against accusations that its purportedly civilian
nuclear program is cover for building a bomb. 

The stripped-down U.S. proposal - only 3 pages long - leaves out
verification measures to avoid years of protracted negotiations
and get the treaty passed faster. Rademaker said U.S. officials
thought it better just to sign the treaty and rely on countries
to abide by it. 

The proposal says governments could use ``national means'' - or
intelligence - to detect violations by other countries and
report them to all treaty members or to the Security Council. 

Rademaker said the proposal has widespread support and should be
taken up by the conference, which has not written a treaty for
10 years. 

North Korea claimed in 2004 to have harvested plutonium from a
pool of 8,000 spent nuclear rods for weapons material -
something that apparently would be illegal under the treaty as
proposed. 

The U.S. initiative appeared to have less relevance to the
nuclear tensions with Iran because it does not propose banning
uranium enrichment outright. 

Tehran has enriched small amounts of uranium at levels far below
the purity used to make the fissile cores of nuclear warheads.
Tehran has said it does not intend to enrich uranium above the
low levels needed to create fuel for a civilian power plant. But
once a nation masters enrichment technology, it can potentially
create material for a weapons program - which the United States
and other nations claim is Iran's ultimate goal. 

The U.S. proposal would go into force with the approval of the
five permanent members of the Security Council - Britain, China,
France, Russia and the United States. 

Other nations said they welcomed the U.S. initiative but
indicated differences with the approach. 

Both China and Russia said progress on fissile materials should
not come at the expense of other treaty proposals. The two
countries have proposed a treaty to ban weapons in outer space,
which is clearly aimed at the United States' anti-missile
program. 

Britain and France said they were ready to start negotiating a
new fissile material treaty, while India and nuclear rival
Pakistan said they saw the proposal as a positive step. 

Johann Kellerman of the South Africa delegation said that ``to
be truly credible'' the treaty should curb existing stockpiles
of fissile material rather than just banning the production of
new plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 

Otherwise, he said, ``a complete halt of the production of
fissile material would nevertheless leave enough of the material
available to further increase, and not decrease, the number of
nuclear weapons.'' 

---- 

Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid in Washington
and George Jahn in Vienna, Austria contributed to this report. 
		 	 	   

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 12 World Must Deal Now With Dangers Of Nuclear Proliferation, Annan Warns
 
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 15:01:07 -0400


 
WORLD MUST DEAL NOW WITH DANGERS OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, ANNAN 
WARNS
New York, May 18 2006  3:00PM
The world seems to be “sleepwalking” down a path in which more and 
more States feel obliged to obtain nuclear weapons even as militant 
groups seek the means to carry out nuclear terrorism, United 
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned today.

In a wide-ranging <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10466.doc.htm">speech 
at the University of Tokyo, Japan, in which he 
touched on the security threats facing the world and efforts to 
overhaul the UN itself to face the challenges of the 21st century, 
Mr. Annan reiterated his frequently voiced criticism of the international 
community for twice failing last year to strengthen the 
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

And he called for reasoned, tenacious diplomacy to solve the two 
main State atomic issues facing the world today – the nuclear programmes 
of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) and 
Iran. 

“We seem to have reached a crossroads, he said. “Before us lie two 
very divergent courses. One path can take us to a world in which 
the proliferation of nuclear weapons is restricted, and reversed, 
through trust, dialogue and negotiated agreement, with international 
guarantees ensuring the supply of nuclear fuel for peaceful 
purposes, thereby advancing development and economic well-being,” 
he declared.

“The other path leads to a world in which rapidly growing numbers 
of States feel obliged to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and 
in which non-State actors acquire the means to carry out nuclear 
terrorism.

“The international community seems almost to be sleepwalking down 
the latter path – not by conscious choice but rather through miscalculation, 
sterile debate and the paralysis of multilateral mechanisms 
for confidence-building and conflict resolution,” he added.

He held Japan up as a beacon of the message that nuclear weapons 
are not essential for greatness. “Japan's great success as a nation, 
while adhering to the self-imposed standard of not manufacturing 
or possessing nuclear weapons, has sent a powerful message around 
the world.

“You have shown that a State does not need nuclear weapons to be 
‘normal.’ Nor does it need to be armed to the teeth in order to exercise 
influence. The sources of true greatness lie elsewhere.”

He said the failure of last year’s NPT review conference in May and 
the World Summit in September to agree on more robust inspections 
by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), establish 
incentives for countries to forgo enrichment and reprocessing of 
fissile materials, and meet disarmament requirements sent “a terrible 
signal.”

The NPT regime faces a twin crisis of compliance and confidence between 
nuclear weapon States who committed to disarmament and non-nuclear 
States that have agreed not to acquire or manufacture nuclear 
weapons, and to accept on-site verification in return for access 
to nuclear energy. “Today, each of these pillars has been put 
“To these old challenges have been added new ones, above all the 
vulnerability exposed by the extensive trafficking in nuclear technology 
and know-how by the (Pakistani) scientist A.Q. Khan and others,” 
Mr. Annan added, calling for universal adoption of an IAEA 
protocol allowing for enhanced on-the-spot inspections and of Security 
Council measures to keep nuclear technology and materials 
out of terrorists’ hands.

As for the DPRK’s nuclear weapons programme, there is no viable alternative 
to the six-party talks in Beijing. “The international 
community must do everything possible to move the process forward 
and resolve the situation peacefully.” 

On Iran, the IAEA has still not been able to verify that its nuclear 
programme is purely for peaceful purposes. “We should redouble 
our diplomatic efforts to convince the Iranians that it is in their 
own interest to do this,” he said, citing European initiatives 
and Russia’s offer to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian soil.

Turning to UN reform, Mr. Annan noted the urgent and as-yet unfulfilled 
need to expand the 15-member Security Council to reflect today's 
geopolitical realities, and cited progress in other areas 
such as the establishment of a new, strengthened Human Rights Council, 
the new Peacebuilding Commission, and the $450-billion Central 
Emergency Response Fund to provide speedier humanitarian aid.

“This is a crucial time in the life of the international community, 
and the United Nations,” he said in concluding remarks. “More 
than ever before, the human race faces global problems – from poverty 
and inequality to climate change and bird flu, from terrorism 
and AIDS to genocide and the odious traffic in human lives and 
bodies of human beings. We need to come together and work out global 
solutions.”
 2006-05-18 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/
*****************************************************************
 13 [NYTr] Nuclear Hypocrites
 
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:53:13 -0500 (CDT)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
CounterPunch - May 18, 2006
http://www.counterpunch.org/ruder05182006.html

Nuclear Hypocrites:

World's Biggest Nuclear Bully Demands Disarmament from Iran

By ERIC RUDER

For weeks, the mainstream media have been filled with accusations that
Iran's nuclear program presents an alarming threat to the U.S. and the
world. And a string of U.S. officials are threatening military action
against Iran for refusing to "cooperate."

Dick Cheney promised that Iran would suffer "meaningful consequences" if it
refused to abandon its nuclear program--words slightly less stark but no
less menacing than U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) John Bolton's
threat of "tangible and painful consequences."

But the media have ignored some essential facts about the brewing "crisis"
between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. is striving to get a UN Security Council resolution demanding that
Iran stop its nuclear program. But the truth is that Iran hasn't violated
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or any other international
obligations.

"Let me remind everybody that nothing Iran is accused of doing is illegal,"
said Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who challenged the Bush
drive to war against Iraq, in an interview last month. "We're condemning
Iran for doing that which is permitted under a treaty which it has signed
and entered into in force, and has UN inspectors on the ground verifying
Iranian compliance."

The NPT explicitly allows nations to enrich uranium to provide energy for
civilian power plants. But the U.S. refuses to believe Iran's many pledges
that its nuclear facilities are for this purpose and endlessly repeats the
claim that Iran could field a nuclear weapon soon.

Iran's announcement in April that it had successfully set up 164 centrifuges
to enrich uranium spurred U.S. officials to assert that Iran could produce a
nuclear weapons in 16 days--an absurd claim slavishly repeated by the U.S.
media.

In reality, Iran would need 16,000 of these centrifuges to refine enough
uranium for a weapon--and Iran doesn't have enough uranium for this purpose.
Although Iran has indigenous uranium deposits, they are contaminated by the
element molybdenum, which Iran does not have the technology to remove.

A more realistic approximation came in the 2005 U.S. National Intelligence
Estimate, which stated that Iran is at least 10 years away from being able
to produce a nuclear weapon. And this assessment depends on two key
assumptions--that Iran already has an active nuclear weapons program, and
that the "international atmosphere" were conducive to Iran obtaining the
necessary raw materials and technical support--neither of which are true.

In an attempt to defuse the controversy around its nuclear program, Iran
offered to limit itself to procuring no more than 3,000 centrifuges--an
offer that the U.S. refused to accept.

* * *

While Iran hasn't violated the provisions of the NPT, the same can't be said
of the U.S.

Kennedy-era Defense Secretary Robert McNamara declared last year that the
U.S. is nothing short of a "nuclear outlaw." "I would characterize current
U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and
dreadfully dangerous," said McNamara.

Since 1999, when the Senate rejected the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the U.S.
has developed a new generation of "mini-nukes," also called "bunker
busters," which U.S. officials have openly threatened to use against Iran--a
clear violation of international law and the NPT.

The U.S. is in flagrant violation of the NPT's provisions calling on nuclear
powers "to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons,
the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from
national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery."

According to the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
(FAIR), "Thirty-seven years after agreeing to these conditions, the
U.S.--the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons against human
beings--spends $40 billion a year to field, maintain and modernize nuclear
forces, including an arsenal of 10,000 warheads, 2,000 of which are on
hair-trigger alert."

Of that number, the U.S. has some 480 nuclear weapons based in
Europe--making it the only nuclear power that still deploys nuclear warheads
outside its borders. U.S. war plans include the strategic handover of 180 of
these weapons to other non-nuclear countries, such as Germany, Italy and
Turkey, for deployment by their militaries--another clear violation of NPT
provisions.

And, according to FAIR, "When details of a secret White House planning
document, called the Nuclear Posture Review, were leaked in 2002, they
revealed that the Bush administration intended to create and test new
nuclear weapons, and outlined a broad array of contingencies under which the
U.S. might use nuclear weapons.

"Among these contingencies: Using nuclear weapons against countries with no
nuclear weapons capacity, such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. (To be fair,
Presidential Directive 60, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, had
earlier added these countries to nuclear targeting lists, canceling
assurances that went back to 1978 that the U.S. would not use nuclear force
against a non-nuclear country.)"

* * *

The U.S. refusal to consider Iran's proposal to make the Middle East a
nuclear-free zone exposes what all the U.S. hype about Iran's supposed
nuclear weapons program is really about.

On the surface, Iran's proposal appears to fit U.S. aims. In fact, the U.S.
used UN Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which for
"establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction"
as justification for its 2003 war on Iraq.

But Israel is currently the only nuclear power in the Middle East--with an
arsenal of some 300 nuclear weapons. The U.S. doesn't want to eliminate
nuclear weapons in the Middle East--so long as they remain in the hands of
an ally.

That's why the U.S. gave a green light to Iran's nuclear program back in the
1970s, before the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, Muhammed Reza Pahlavi, was
overthrown by a popular uprising in 1979.

"The White House staffers, who are trying to deny Iran the right to develop
its own nuclear energy capacity, have conveniently forgotten that the United
States was the midwife to the Iranian nuclear program 30 years ago," wrote
nuclear weapons expert William Beeman in January. "Every aspect of Iran's
current nuclear development was approved and encouraged by Washington in the
1970s. President Gerald Ford offered Iran a full nuclear cycle in 1976, and
the only reactor currently about to become operative, the reactor in
Bushire, was started before the Iranian revolution with U.S. approval."

Today, the U.S. faces different circumstances--some of its own making.

The disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq not only failed to cement Washington's
hold on the country's huge oil reserves and give it a strategic foothold of
the Middle East, but it brought to power Shiite religious parties with ties
to Iran's Shiite establishment. This inadvertently strengthened Iran's
influence in Iraq and the region, creating fears in the U.S. and among its
Arab allies of a "Shiite crescent," stretching from Iran through Iraq to
Lebanon and Syria.

So when the U.S. raises alarms about Iran's nuclear program, it's the
responsibility of the antiwar movement to raise even louder alarms about
U.S. aggression.

"[B]e careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament,
weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen," said Ritter in an April
interview with San Diego CityBeat. "The Bush administration does not have
policy of disarmament vis-`-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime
change...

"It's the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn't care
what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created
the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception,
selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was
invasion that got rid of Saddam."

The U.S. wants to sell its war in Iran by using the language of nuclear
disarmament. But its threats to use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike,
its support for a nuclear-armed Israel and its own massive nuclear arsenal
make the U.S. itself the biggest threat to peace and justice in the Middle
East and around the world.

Eric Ruder writes for the Socialist Worker.

       
                                *
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 14 Guardian Unlimited: Campaigners call for Blair to publish briefing
 
John Vidal, environment editor

Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian 		 

Environmental campaigners called on Tony Blair yesterday to 
publish a briefing he used to justify hints that he would approve 
a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Friends of the Earth filed a freedom of information request on 
the "first cut" of the government's energy review - due to report 
before the summer.

Mr Blair told business leaders yesterday the "stark" facts he had 
been shown meant the nuclear question was "back on the agenda 
with a vengeance". He told MPs at question time that ruling out 
more use of the technology in the future would be "a collective 
dereliction of duty".

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the energy 
review appeared to be a "sham" to mask Mr Blair's determination 
to press ahead with nuclear energy.

"Tony Blair has completely undermined the government's energy
review by endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations,"
he said.

"He must publish details of the briefing he received from the
DTI, which he has now made so public, so that we can have a
transparent and open debate on this issue," Mr Juniper said.
"The UK should be leading the way in developing a sustainable
energy strategy for the 21st century, rather than championing
dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear power."

Nuclear power is only just coming back on to the European and
American energy agenda after decades in the wilderness after the
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents. Mr Blair's
declaration makes him the latest in a growing band of leaders
taking their countries down the nuclear path.

According to the World Nuclear Association 16 countries, not
including Iran, now have proposals to build 107 new civil
reactors. The majority are in Asia. Of 27 nuclear stations now
under construction worldwide, 16 are in China, India, Japan and
South Korea. India is considering building more than 20 plants
in the next 15 years and China at least 40. South Africa has
said it wants 24 reactors. No new nuclear station has been
ordered in the US for 25 years, and only one European reactor is
under construction, in Finland. Sweden and Belgium are more or
less committed to phasing out existing plants and Austria,
Denmark and Ireland have stated policies against nuclear energy.

Building costs are the biggest stumbling block to new plants and
Mr Blair will be looking carefully at the kind of sweeteners
that President George Bush is providing in the US.

Up to 12 stations are being considered in the US and the energy
bill, signed in 2005, includes "risk insurance" money for the
first six builders of plants.

Up to $500m (£400m) has been promised to builders of the first
two and $250m for each of the next four

The industry is also using climate change as the intellectual
launchpad for its revival. When up and running, the power
generated is practically emission-free and therefore highly
attractive to countries finding it hard to meet their global
warming obligations.

What is less recognised is that if the emissions from building
stations, decomissioning them and extracting the uranium to fuel
them are factored in, nuclear power is not always much cleaner
than some fossil fuel power.
 
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
*****************************************************************
 15 IBNLive: Boucher urges Cong to back nuke deal
 
Posted Thursday , May 18, 2006 at 17:19                           

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia 
Richard Boucher has urged the Congress to support and implement 
US-India civilian nuclear deal. 

The United States want to move the nuclear deal faster. 

"We look at the US Congress as a full partner in this endeavor. 
Their support for this is crucial and we look forward to 
continuing to work closely with them to ensure that we grasp this 
important opportunity," Boucher said yesterday. 

Testifying before the House International Subcommittee on Asia 
and the Pacific, he said," We don't claim the nuke deal is 
perfect. We claim it provides a net gain for non-proliferation." 


"It brings India into alignment with non-proliferation efforts 
worldwide." 

He told the Subcommittee, headed by Republican Congressman Jim 
Leach, that implementing this initiative is a top priority for 
both the countries. 

Dispelling all concerns about the deal and the criticism it has 
evoked in certain quarters, Boucher said the significance of the 
initiative should not be underestimated. 

India has pledged, for the first time, to submit its entire civil 
nuclear programme for international inspection and to take on 
significant new non-proliferation commitments in exchange for 
full civil nuclear cooperation with the international community. 

"With this initiative, the world expects India to be a full 
partner in non-proliferation and India expects the world to help 
it meet its growing energy needs," Boucher said. 

Making out a strong case for the Congress to endorse the deal, he 
said India has already done much to meet the non-proliferation 
goals. 

Copyright © IBNLive.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 AFP: Annan warns on 'sleepwalking' into nuclear world 

 Thursday May 18, 08:21 AM 

By by Shaun Tandon 

  [UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (L) with Japanese Prime 
Minister Junichiro Koizumi]   
  

TOKYO (AFP) - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has appealed for
better diplomacy on Iran and North Korea, warning against
"sleepwalking" into a world where all nations feel they need
nuclear weapons.

Annan, visiting Japan on a five-nation tour of Asia, said that
all sides had to tone down the fiery rhetoric over Iran and
negotiate face-to-face, and called to resume six-nation
disarmament talks with Pyongyang.

In a speech at the University of Tokyo, Annan said the world
appeared "to have (Advertisement)
 [ src=] reached a crossroads" on whether nations should
restrict nuclear weapons or feel obliged to possess them.

"The international community seems almost to be sleepwalking
down the latter path -- not by conscious choice but rather
through miscalculation, sterile debate and the paralysis of
multilateral mechanisms for confidence-building and conflict
resolution," he said.

Annan regretted that two international meetings last year failed
to strengthen the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has
become the bedrock of efforts against nuclear weapons.

"This sent a terrible signal," Annan said, adding that each
pillar of the treaty "has been put into doubt."

"While some progress toward disarmament has taken place, nuclear
weapons worldwide still number in the thousands, many of them on
hair-trigger alert," he said.

He warned to brace for new challenges, such as nuclear
proliferation of the type carried out by disgraced Pakistani
scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

"Perhaps most damaging of all, there is also a perception that
the possession of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction
offers the best protection against being attacked," Annan said.

He hailed the approach of Japan, the world's second largest
economy, which is the only nation to have suffered nuclear
attack and remains officially pacifist.

"You have shown that a state does not need nuclear weapons to be
normal. Nor does it need to be armed to the teeth in order to
exercise influence," Annan said.

The NPT had established only five nuclear powers -- Britain,
China, France, the then-Soviet Union and the United States --
and nearly all other countries signed on.

Rivals India and Pakistan both declared themselves nuclear
powers in 1998 and are not part of the treaty, nor is Israel,
which has never acknowledged having the atomic bomb but widely
believed to have it.

North Korea pulled out of the treaty in 2003 to world shock and
last year claimed to have nuclear weapons.

More recently, Iran has threatened to quit the treaty and said
it has enriched uranium -- which Western nations believe is to
develop weapons.

The European Union has said it is preparing a "bold package" of
incentives for Iran to give up its nuclear program. But Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already ridiculed the idea.

"There is also a need to lower the temperature and refrain from
actions and rhetoric that could further inflame the situation,"
Annan said about the Iranian crisis.

"The only way forward is through negotiations with all parties
sitting at the table, face-to-face," he said.

North Korea has refused to return to six-nation disarmament
talks since November, protesting US financial sanctions against
the impoverished regime over money laundering and counterfeiting.

"Still, there is no viable alternative to the six-party talks.
The international community must do everything possible to move
the process forward and resolve the situation peacefully," Annan
said. 

  + - AFP 
*****************************************************************
 17 UPI: India to hold key pre-NSG talks
     
 United Press International - Energy - 

5/18/2006 10:47:00 AM -0400                             

NEW DELHI, May 18 (UPI) -- Ahead of the crucial meeting of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, India is planning talks with the United
States, Britain and France. 

The Indian Express newspaper said Thursday this hurriedly
arranged discussion will focus on the strategy to be taken at
the May 29 NSG meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at which the
exemption for civil nuclear cooperation with India is on the
agenda. These three countries will push India's case. 

"Official-level consultations will have two joint secretaries
from the foreign ministry, one dealing with the Americas
division, the other with disarmament. They will hold
consultations with their counterparts from the three countries,"
said the Indian Foreign Office. 

It said Washington would be represented by Donald Camp, the U.S.
principal deputy assistant secretary for South and Central Asian
affairs. A senior Indian diplomat said the meeting would lay the
grounds for a possible interaction next month between Foreign
Secretary Shayam Saran and U.S. Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. 

News reports said NSG members were cautious in their response,
preferring to wait for the United States to act first. But the
understanding is that the movement in the NSG could actually
hasten matters in U.S. Congress, as that would mean that other
countries may be able to trade with India. So the effort will be
to broaden support for India. 

A French diplomat said open support from Germany and Italy will
go a long way in getting the rest of Europe on board. He said
the two countries are very important for France to succeed in
lobbying for India within the NSG.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 18 [NukeNet] GE Building Plant in NC to Make Nuclear Reactors
 
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:03:29 -0700


<x-flowed>
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/24-05172006-657743.html

GE Building Plant to Make Nuclear Reactors

The Associated Press
May 17, 2006 3:19 PM

WILMINGTON, N.C. - GE Energy, which moved its nuclear business from
California to Wilmington three years ago, has broken ground here on a
plant
here that will focus on developing a new line of nuclear reactors for
the
international market.

The high price of oil is one trigger behind the rush to tap the
fast-growing
market overseas, especially in China and India, GE officials said.

Nuclear energy has a real opportunity to help the "developing world get
on
with its business," David Calhoun, GE infrastructure president and CEO,
said
during Tuesday's groundbreaking.

Along with GE, Areva Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the French-owned
nuclear
company, and Westinghouse Electric Co. are also looking abroad. GE
Energy is
the nuclear engineering and consulting business of General Electric
Corp.

The nuclear powerhouses are also counting on billions of dollars in
federal
subsidies, global warming concerns and rising energy costs to bolster
the
construction of nuclear plants in the U.S.

Two North Carolina-based utilities also are moving forward with nuclear
projects to meet rising energy demand in their service areas.

Combined, Raleigh-based Progress Energy and Duke Power in Charlotte plan
to
license a total of six new reactors in the Carolinas and Florida.

GE's 2003 investment in Wilmington includes the promise of 400 jobs in
return for more than $11 million in state and local incentives at its
1,650-acre Castle Hayne nuclear facility, which makes fuel rods and
parts
for nuclear reactors.

So far, it has hired 250 engineers, project managers and support staff
toward that goal and still plans to hire the remaining 150 workers.

The latest project, a 40,000-square-foot complex that's expected to open
this November, could bring hundreds more jobs than required by the
incentive
program, said Andrew White, GE's chief executive of the nuclear energy
business.

"If this nuclear reactor business takes off in the United States, we
could
be talking about 500 to 1,000 new jobs here," White said.

Neither Progress Energy Inc. nor Duke Power Co., the electric utility
subsidiary Duke Energy Corp., have selected GE's advanced reactor
design.
They both have picked Westinghouse's competing model that has the
advantage
of already being approved by the NRC.

While the GE model isn't expected to gain regulatory approval in the
U.S.
for another year or two, other utilities plan to license the GE model at
three sites.

"We're assuming we'll get new orders for plants that will pay back this
huge
investment," White said. "A company like GE has the wherewithal to take
this
kind of swing."

The renewed effort put into nuclear energy has attracted opposition from
groups that say they'll focus public awareness on the problems of the
first
generation of American nuclear plants.

N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network contends that Progress
Energy's
Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County is one of the nation's most
dangerous nuclear facilities. That's despite the site's high safety
rating
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Utilities say the new reactors are different from the mechanical
operating
systems in plants built in the 1970s and 1980s.

The new reactors are all fully digitized and highly automated, officials
said.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 Columbian: In Our View - Trojan's Trouble

Columbian.com - Serving Clark County, Washington

Thursday, May 18, 2006
           
Columbian editorial writers                             

When the landmark cooling tower on the Trojan nuclear power
plant meets its dynamite-induced demise Sunday, it will be the
exclamation point on a timeline of trouble for its principal
owner, Portland General Electric. 

At 499 feet (the Seattle Space Needle is 605 feet), the gray,
gracefully curved tower on the Oregon side of the Columbia River
35 miles downstream from Vancouver has stood sentinel since
1973. After Mount St. Helens, the tower is probably the
second-most distinguishable landmark visible from Interstate 5
between the state Capitol dome and Mount Hood. 

But while we might cheer the "Trojan Implosion" at about 7 a.m.
Sunday, we also cheer what the plant was intended to mean for
the Northwest. We hope that the potential for peaceful nuclear
power will not figuratively end up in the Trojan tower's
41,000-ton mountain of rubble. 

From a time before the plant came on line in December 1975, more
than a year later than originally planned, until its closure in
1993, several years earlier than its license allowed, Trojan
made for bad news, much of it owing to fears of nuclear
accidents. Those fears were legitimized by occasional tiny leaks
and exacerbated by secrecy about those leaks. 

And, there were outcries about the cost compared to
hydroelectric power, and about what the discharge of water from
the cooling tower into the river would do to fish. Famed
consumer advocate Ralph Nader was among critics. 

There was even a theory advanced by an Indiana University
professor that a crime wave would follow on the heels of the
plant's opening. G.D. Hanks told an audience in Corvallis, Ore.,
that his research indicated a connection between violent crime
and nuclear power plant emissions. 

The plant gave rise to a political protest movement and the
Trojan Decommissioning Alliance. There were Oregon ballot
efforts to shut it down. PGE waged a $4 million campaign to
defeat the measures, but then closed the troubled plant anyway
in January 1993 and began laying off the 1,300 workers. 

So, Sunday morning's blast and collapse will no doubt elicit
cheers and cries of "good riddance." And, for this particular
plant, those cries may be deserved. 

But nuclear power's potential should not be blown to the winds
along with Trojan's dust. 

According to the federal Department of Energy, nuclear power
plants account for about one-fifth of the electricity generated
in the United States, from 104 reactors at 66 different sites.
There's just one in Washington, at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation. 

According to the DOE, a uranium pellet the size of a fingertip
produces as much energy as 150 gallons of oil. (For a simple
explanation of how it works, see: www.eia.doe.gov/kids
/energyfacts and click on "Uranium (Nuclear)." 

One of the side stories in the Trojan saga is the plan Clark
Public Utilities once had for co-ownership of a nuclear plant.
In 1967, Clark and Cowlitz County PUDs hooked up to buy 125
acres immediately south of the Port of Kalama with the intention
of building a nuclear plant there. But, whoops, those plans died
without much of a whimper when other nuclear projects in the
state went bankrupt before construction was complete. 

Even though there are valid reasons to be cautious about nuclear
plants in this country at this time, we ought not relegate the
idea to the Trojan dustbin. 		

  Â©2006 Columbian.com. All Rights Reserved - Use of this site
*****************************************************************
 20 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Opinion: Nuclear Power Will Drive the Future - 

International Herald Tribune"
  
  May 18, 2006

OPINION

Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and advantages over other 
sources.

From the minute the alarm clock goes off in the morning, our
lives are fueled by electricity. We are amazed at the seemingly
endless parade of new, life-improving and life-saving
technologies. But too little attention is paid to the looming
shortage of energy needed to power them. We take for granted
that the lights will come on at the flip of a switch.

The Department of Energy projects that the United States will
need 45 percent more electricity by 2030. Where is this going to
come from? Energy conservation, greater efficiencies in the
production of natural gas, oil, coal and hydro power, and a
genuine commitment to renewables such as wind, solar, and
geothermal power will be needed.

Across America today, companies are reducing their demands for
power without slowing their growth, but those efforts won't be
enough in and of themselves. We will continue to need a mix of
power sources, and nuclear energy must play an increased role in
supplying America's growing demand for electricity.

Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and advantages over
other sources.

It's cleaner. Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the
environment - air, land, water and wildlife - of any major
energy source. It produces no harmful greenhouse gases or
controlled air pollutants, its waste byproducts are isolated
from the environment, and it requires less land to produce the
same amount of electricity as other electricity sources.

It's safe. Strict government regulations and continuous training
by the industry ensure that the safety of operations and the
security of facilities exceed the highest standards of any
American industry.

It's cheaper. Nuclear plants are the most efficient on the
electricity grid, and nuclear power has the lowest production
cost of all major sources of electricity other than hydropower.

Public support for nuclear energy has never been stronger. A
recent nationwide poll by Bisconti Research found that 86
percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of
meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that
utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the
next decade.

The business and manufacturing community is supportive,
recognizing the value of a cost-effective, reliable and
predictable energy source, and the numerous indirect benefits
nuclear energy offers, such as economic growth, job creation and
technology innovation. And nuclear energy has garnered solid
backing from policy makers, evidenced by the desire to host new
nuclear plants among state and county officials and bipartisan
congressional support for new nuclear plants in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.

Americans don't pay much attention to energy issues beyond the
cost. It still comes as a surprise to many Americans that
nuclear energy already powers one of every five U.S. homes and
businesses, and that some states, including New Jersey,
Illinois, New Hampshire and South Carolina, rely on nuclear
energy for more than half of their electricity.

The world's finite supply of natural resources requires that we
focus on a diverse energy portfolio that includes clean,
affordable and sustainable solutions. Nuclear energy is one of
those solutions. We have joined together to lead the Clean and
Safe Energy Coalition.

The coalition will help raise awareness of the benefits of clean
and safe nuclear energy and continue to build support for
nuclear energy as a component of a comprehensive plan to meet
America's future electricity needs.

We must plan today to meet our energy needs of tomorrow in a
manner that protects the environment. Building new nuclear
plants and expanding existing facilities takes time. Working
together, we must broaden and advance the national dialogue to
include the issues of rising electricity demand, energy
conservation and efficiency.

We must educate the public about the merits of nuclear energy,
including both the benefits of nuclear plants and the challenges
that remain, including a federal facility for managing spent
nuclear fuel rods. We will have this dialogue with community
leaders, academics, environmentalists, businesses and policy
makers at every level to set the stage for the next generation
of nuclear energy.

We must act now to secure our energy future. 2030 is closer than
we think. 

Christine Todd Whitman is a former Environmental Protection
Agency administrator and the former governor of New Jersey.
Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is
now chairman and chief scientist at Greenspirit Strategies. This
article first appeared in The Boston Globe.

This article has been provided by IHT.com as part of a special
agreement with SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2006
All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 21 Guardian Unlimited: Another atomic age for Britain?
 
Letters 

Thursday May 18, 2006
The Guardian 		 

The prime minister's speech to the CBI was balanced and 
well-considered (Blair presses the nuclear button, May 17). He 
has come to the rational conclusion that, if we want future 
energy security without relying entirely on fossil fuels, nuclear 
must be part of the mix. France already generates the majority of 
its power by this route. Finland has recently committed to 
building a new reactor. Britain is right to follow.

Power generation from renewables should also be part of the mix,
but these too require subsidies (one criticism levelled at
nuclear) and, more importantly, are intermittent. For this
reason alone, they can never make more than a relatively minor
contribution, with the base load supplied by a mixture of fossil
fuels (oil, gas and coal) and nuclear. And if we really want to
reduce the carbon intensity of our economy, nuclear generation
is the only proven option. There are pros and cons to all
solutions. But, in the real world, we have to make balanced
decisions based on an analysis of risks and benefits.

 Martin Livermore
 Scientific Alliance

It would seem Tony Blair has confirmed his decision to embark on 
the unnecessary road to nuclear power without giving any 
consideration to the alternatives. There are 21 renewable 
technologies available in the UK that are affordable, safe and 
clean and do not threaten the planet. But Blair's reluctance to 
explore these possibilities means he may never realise that the 
UK has the ability to meet its electricity needs three times over 
with the use of wind power at sea alone.

Instead of paying for nuclear power Blair should be investing in
a future of renewable energy, devoting his attention to fixing
the "technical problems" he sees with wind and solar power.
Nuclear power doesn't provide a solution to climate change and
can only bring danger and disruption to the UK.
 Jean Lambert MEP
 Green party, London

In his CBI speech Tony Blair unveiled two justifications for
becoming an atomic aficionado: exigencies of security of energy
supply and pressures of climate change. Is our gas depletion
rate more rapid than predicted earlier? This underpins the very
need for an energy review, launched in January this year. For
example, energy minister Malcolm Wicks wrote in his foreword to
the review: "The UK has become a net importer of gas sooner than
expected."

Yet the same Mr Wicks told parliament in a written answer in
February that while the 2003 energy white paper did not
specifically forecast the rate of depletion of UK gas, it did
say that "it is ... likely that the UK will become a net
importer of gas on an annual basis by around 2006". He explained
that this was "in line with the projections of outside
analysts". So it would seem that to start asserting in 2006 that
the UK is running out of gas earlier than the 2003 white paper
predicted is inaccurate, and provides a misleading justification
for the energy review.

In another - much better informed - speech last week to the
annual meeting of the parliamentary renewable and sustainable
energy group, US energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins put it
appositely: "If nuclear power is the answer, you have asked the
wrong question."

 Dr David Lowry
 Stoneleigh, Surrey

When looked at rather simply, Blair's nuclear power plan is
certainly an attractive proposition. At the point of electricity
generation, nuclear is apparently clean, (barring spillage,
explosions etc), and cheap. Yet at current rates of extraction,
it has been said that there is about 80 to 100 years worth of
economically obtainable uranium - but the Uranium Information
Centre of Australia indicates that there is only 50 years worth
worldwide, and then we have to look at different technologies of
extraction and usage. This is the same problem as the oil and
gas industries face now, and 50 years is not very far away.
Never mind the true economics or the potential environmental
damage - resource-wise, the nuclear option is simply a stop-gap.
 Tim Rose
 London

Your article (New figures reveal scale of industry's impact on
climate, May 16) missed a crucial point. Although heavy industry
is indeed responsible for significant carbon emissions, the
fastest growth in emissions is within the service sector, where
they are predicted to rise by 20% by 2020. This sector, as well
as light industry, falls outside the remit of the EU emissions
trading scheme (ETS). A new UK consumption-based ETS could
address large organisations in these sectors and deliver deep
cuts in carbon emissions. Companies would obtain permits through
a simple auction process. Through cutting carbon and energy use,
businesses can fight climate change and reduce spiralling energy
bills - a win-win situation. Trading schemes can and will work.
It is in business's best interest for the EU ETS to operate
effectively and the current framework has to be improved.

 Michael Rea
 Director of strategy, The Carbon Trust

Your report singles out Drax power station as the "single
biggest polluting site in the UK". It is important to point out
that Drax is the largest of the UK's 16 ongoing coal-fired power
stations, generating around 7% of the UK's electricity. The
station is fitted with flue gas desulperisation technology that
removes 90% of the sulphur dioxide emissions from the flue
gases. It is also saving half a million tonnes of CO2 each year
through co-firing renewable biomass materials and there is the
potential to save much more. Further advances in the
environmental performance of coal-fired plants can and should be
made. Carbon capture and storage and a new generation of clean
coal-power stations can provide clean, cheap and abundant
electricity for the consumer.

 Tony Lodge
 London
 
   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
*****************************************************************
 22 London Times: Why nuclear energy produces hot air - 

Comment - Times Online

Why nuclear energy produces hot air
Joan Ruddock

The Prime Minister is wrong. Our electricity needs can be met 
from renewable sources

THE PRIME MINISTER wants to persuade us that Britain has no 
alternative but to build a new generation of nuclear power 
stations. He is wrong.

The focus on nuclear distorts the energy debate. Securing energy 
supplies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are rightly at the 
top of the political agenda, but they have to be considered in 
relation to the whole energy mix and not just to the 8 per cent 
provided by nuclear power. The Prime Minister says the facts are 
stark, and contrasts past self-sufficiency in gas with future 
dependence on imports. He mentions the Middle East, Africa and 
Russia. Everything seems designed to alarm, yet the gradual 
decline of North Sea gas has been known for decades and British 
multinationals are investing heavily in new infrastructure to 
ensure imports come from diverse sources.

Just a year ago, the Department of Trade and Industry announced a 
deal with Norway that "could secure up to 20 per cent of the UK's 
future gas demand". From Russia, we get about 1 per cent of our 
supply through the European interconnector. Regardless of the 
future of nuclear, Britain will have a very considerable demand 
for gas and most will be imported, in common with almost all our 
European neighbours.

The nuclear debate must be seen for what it is - a debate about 
electricity, which accounts for only 18 per cent of total energy 
consumed. As obsolete power stations are closed, nuclear's 
contribution will fall from 19 per cent of electricity generated 
today to 7 per cent by 2020. This is the basis of the powerful 
nuclear industry's campaign to "keep the lights on".

No one can underestimate the importance of the domestic 
electricity supply but the lights will have to be kept on by 
other means. The gap opening up over the next 15 years will be 
filled from non-nuclear sources. Why? Because even with an 
accelerated planning process no nuclear power stations could be 
built in time.

New nuclear build can contribute nothing to energy security nor 
to climate change over the crucial period between now and 2020. 
Perhaps acknowledging this paradox, the Prime Minister cited 2025 
as the year when there would be a dramatic gap in our targets to 
reduce CO2 emissions if current policy remained unchanged.

But current policy can and should be changed. CO2 emissions 
depend both on the amount and the type of energy we use. The 
scope for energy efficiency and conservation is huge. The 
Government itself estimated that the use of current commercially 
available energy-efficiency measures could reduce energy demand 
by 30 per cent in the economy as a whole. Take Woking Borough 
Council: over 14 years it reduced energy demand by nearly 50 per 
cent and made CO2 savings of 77 per cent. It has demonstrated 
conclusively that change can be brought about by green 
procurement, by basic energy conservation, community use of 
combined heat and power, biomass, photovoltaics, electric 
vehicles and even fuel cells.

The Prime Minister has rightly called for a step change in energy 
efficiency. But it is only by moving to new low-carbon 
technologies that we can reach our target of 60 per cent CO2 
reductions by 2050. It is argued that nuclear is essential to 
this low carbon future. It is not. It is possible now to 
calculate CO2 emissions from new nuclear on-stream in 2024. The 
Sustainable Development Commission found a mere 4 per cent CO2 
advantage in nuclear over gas.

But there is no reason to choose gas as a substitute for nuclear. 
Alternative technologies are available. Over the past decade 
Germany has demonstrated what can be achieved. Its wind power 
already exceeds our nuclear capacity and its solar energy is 
rapidly catching up. Although the UK target of 10 per cent of 
electricity generated from renewable sources by 2010 is likely to 
fall slightly short, our own wind power industry is growing 
faster than predicted.

Renewable forms of energy are almost limitless in their 
potential. They are flexible and offer good security of supply. 
Nuclear, by contrast, requires uranium to be mined and 
transported, produces toxic waste and poses a potential terrorist 
threat. There is also no agreement on the cost of new nuclear 
build. Britain has no recent experience of building plants and 
new designs would have to be imported. Tackling the existing 
legacy of nuclear waste is likely to cost the taxpayer at least 
œ70 billion.

Significantly, the Nuclear Industry Association recommends that 
the Treasury should guarantee a minimum price for electricity 
over the 40- year lifetime of each reactor. This is a choice we 
don't need to make. Nuclear power is now an old technology 
dependent on a centralised system of control and distribution. It 
takes energy policy in the reverse direction from the new clean 
and green technologies that can provide more decentralised and 
secure systems. Incentives are now in place to accelerate the 
development in renewables, combined heat and power and 
microgeneration.

Government task forces abound - the latest reported that biomass 
could meet 6 per cent of electricity demand by 2020. A policy to 
create a low-carbon future embracing all sectors of the economy 
would be popular and inspiring. If the Government chooses the 
nuclear path it will divide the country when public opinion has 
never been so concerned about the environment nor so ready to 
accept that behaviour change is necessary.

Joan Ruddock is Labour MP for Lewisham Deptford


sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. 

Copyright 2006                 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 23 Helsingin Sanomat: Russia to build new nuclear reactors on shore of Gulf of Finland 

Friday 19.5.2006 	 	   

Russia has announced that it will begin construction of a new 
commercial nuclear power plant next to the ageing Sosnovyi Bor 
installation, which is to be phased out. The location is near St. 
Petersburg on the shore of the Gulf of Finland. The Finnish 
Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety believes that the first 
reactor of the new plant is scheduled for completion in 2013. 
According to Sergei Kirilyenko, the head of Russias Atomic Agency 
Administration, the new plant would help ease the threat of an 
electricity shortage in the St. Petersburg area. Initially, the 
reactor would generate electricity for domestic use only. The 
prospect of an energy shortage in Northwest Russia has been used 
as an argument against setting up an underwater electric cable 
for the import of electricity from Russia to Finland.
      
Kirilyenko says that the plant would have at least two reactors 
of 1,100 megawatts each. Commenting on the report, Finlands 
Minister for Trade and Industry Mauri Pekkarinen (Centre) said 
that the construction of the reactor is a matter purely for the 
Russians. In a television interview on Wednesday, Pekkarinen 
added that Finland would be pleased if Russia would replace its 
old nuclear technology with new facilities. 

*****************************************************************
 24 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.



*****************************************************************
 25 Manila Times: OPINION > Ronnie, Winnie and nuclear power 
	 	
Friday, May 19, 2006   
      
T.G.I.Ftc "T.G.I.F" 

By Rene Saguisagtc "By Rene Saguisag" 

 RONNIE VELASCO, in his newly published memoirs, Trailblazing,
the Quest for Energy Self-Reliance, opens by ad-homineming “the
anti-Marcos opposition” for “the tragedy of the Bataan Nuclear
Power Plant.” 

But, Raffy Recto, a true-blue Marcos loyalist, also opposed the 
plant. Ronnie started on the wrong foot. If nuclear power became 
“a bad word,” it was due to him, Marcos, Disini and Westinghouse, 
who created a bias against it because of the way they mishandled 
the issue in their time. 

In Winnie Monsod’s BusinessWorld piece on May 11, she said in 
praise of Ronnie’s memoirs: “But where he is at his most 
compelling is in his discussion of why mothballing the Bataan 
Nuclear Power Plant [while continuing to pay the debt] was the 
worst decision after EDSA 1.” I do not recall her objecting to my 
mothball proposal in 1986 but I do agree with her, and Ronnie, 
that we had a shot at not paying the odious nuclear plant loan. 
It was not that simple though. Westinghouse had been paid and we 
would have to deal with lenders all over the world. The plant saw 
the US Export-Import Bank loaning us $644 million, the single 
biggest sum it had packaged on any project, as of then, despite 
the fact that objective data showed that we had no capacity to 
repay the same. 

There was hardly any comfort in the unsympathetic comment
attributed to then Eximbank chairman, Bill Casey, in that “[i]f
they [Westinghouse] charge too much, the Philippines has to pay
for it . . . [t]hey have to protect themselves from being
fleeced. We cannot nor would we do it for them.” 

The price reportedly promp­ted Ting Paterno—Ronnie traces this
to Ramon Ravanzo, Napo­cor GM, based on a 1992 local column but,
on January 14, 1978, The New York Times attributed it to Ting—to
say in a memo that we were getting “one reactor for the price of
two.” I had a brod (from Rizal High and Mapua) and a brod-in-law
(from La Salle and UP) in Bechtel then. 

The latter came at the time but could not see where a huge sum
was to go, and decided not to get involved. Not Bechtel’s
culture. 

Winnie said Ronnie credited martial law for our progress. My
take is that it destroyed our values, institutions and
processes. He helped ruin the ethical infrastructure we needed
then and need now. I hope Bert Romulo, Gary Teves and Peter
Favila learn from Ronnie’s memoirs and understand what “trust
deficit” means. Ronnie said he had “refused to be drawn into
discussing issues of corruption and simply focused on [his]
job.” He naively trusted Citibank. 

Ronnie mentioned “that beautiful house on top of a ridge” used
by the Americans at the plant against which he railed. But, what
about his own beautiful house nearby in Montemar, where
materials from the plant were allegedly used, brought in by
local fishermen as it was not accessible by land? 

Such gossip or scuttlebutt in fact is widespread. 

I live with tales of what I own all over. The fact is I have yet
to sleep under a roof of a house I can call my own. Some might
give me benefit of the doubt on money. Ronnie is seen as a rich
guy who became richer while in power following the template of
those who parlay public office to become richer and end up with
dented credibility in their memoirs, which, as the Durants say,
would be vanity anyway (as in the case of vain columnists). 

I headed the nuclear power panels in the Palace and the Senate.

No one took issue with me. Even Raffy was on our side. If we had
decided to operate the plant that even Marcos dared not, where
would we have been? 

Macoy and Ronnie could have done it but did not. Earlier, Macoy
even created in 1979 the Puno Commission where Sen. Lorenzo
Tañada and Joker Arroyo shone. 

Given the zeitgeist, we were not wrong in 1986. The Chernobyl
tragedy in April 1986—an incredible deus ex machina—made my
position so easy to sell in the Cabinet and elsewhere. Whether
FVR, Erap or GMA should have revisited the issue Macoy and Cory
would not touch is something Ronnie rues. 

Man is a rational animal but a San Beda teacher would say that
in fact he is more of an emotional one in the real world. A
disconnect between the leadership and the people means trouble. 
Count Herminio Disini is on slow trial here in the Sandiganbayan
which has a special division only for Erap and special treatment
for rich presidential cronies, it seems. 

Am I open to nuclear power? Maybe only after UP is able to
enroll students without having them queue at the crack of dawn.
Among its outstanding alumni is my friend, Senator Miriam, who
wants to return to the time when a deal can be made by a Disini.
Without an obstructionist Senate and with a rubber-stamp
something, one can be a superchief executive, a supercourt, a
superlegislature and a one-woman continuing constitutional
convention.   

 The Manila Times Web Admin.                      
*****************************************************************
 26 RIA Novosti: Russia needs nuclear market competition in U.S. - Kiriyenko
 
18/ 05/ 2006                                  

MOSCOW, May 18 (RIA Novosti) - Russia needs open competition on
the U.S. nuclear market, not concessions, the head of Russia's
nuclear agency said Thursday. 

Sergei Kiriyenko is set to visit the United States May 18-24 to
hold talks with U.S. companies and the Department of Energy, in
particular with regard to restrictions on Russian companies on
the U.S. market. 

"In the United States, we will certainly discuss the lifting of
discriminatory restrictions on access to the U.S. market for
Russian nuclear products and services. We need no indulgences -
we need open competition on this market," Kiriyenko said. 

Russia is currently allowed to operate on the U.S. market only
through special intermediary agents, and restrictions on imports
from Russia of low-enriched uranium have been in force since the
Soviet era. 

Difficulties began in 1991 when Russia started supplying a large
amount of natural uranium to clients worldwide, including the
U.S., bringing down prices and provoking anti-dumping
procedures. 

© 2005 RIA Novosti   
*****************************************************************
 27 RIA Novosti: Volgodonsk NPP in south Russia back online after shutdown
 
18/ 05/ 2006                                  

ROSTOV-ON-DON, May 18 (RIA Novosti) - Reactor No. 1 at the
Volgodonsk nuclear power plant in south European Russia has been
restarted after an unplanned shutdown, a plant spokesman said
Thursday.

 The reactor was stopped Wednesday afternoon to repair a
malfunction in its turbo generator.

 "The reactor was launched today at 8.30 a.m. Moscow time [4.30
a.m. GMT] after the membrane of the turbo generator was
replaced," he said. "In the morning, the electric power was 750
MW and [it] has now reached 1,000 [MW]."

 Nuclear power monopoly Rosenergoatom said earlier, "There were
no violations of secure usage of the Volgodonsk NPP. 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   
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: New Reactor Construction Inspection Center to be Established in NRC’s Atlanta Regional
Office 

News Release - 2006-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-067     May 17, 2006   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission plans to establish a dedicated 
organization in its Region II office in Atlanta to be the center 
of all inspection activity for expected new nuclear power plants. 

The Construction Inspection Program will be responsible for 
day-to-day onsite inspections and specialized inspection 
resources supporting the agencys oversight of any new nuclear 
power plant construction for the entire country. The Commission 
has given the Atlanta offices Regional Administrator, William 
Travers, the responsibility of managing the programs inception, 
while maintaining the offices focus on ensuring safe operation of 
nuclear power plants in the region. 

This approach will make sure inspection methods are consistent 
across the country, and allow us to quickly incorporate lessons 
learned into the entire program, said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz. 
Thorough inspections will help ensure any new nuclear power 
plants are built to meet our requirements for protecting the 
publics health and safety. 

The Commission has directed the NRCs Executive Director for 
Operations, Luis Reyes, to review the program at least annually 
to ensure that the safety oversight of operating facilities is 
not adversely affected and to consider alternatives, as 
appropriate, to address developments in the actual construction 
of new facilities. The NRC is expecting several applications for 
new nuclear power plants in late 2007 and early 2008, with 
construction activities possible after significant agency review. 
The agency is currently evaluating and planning the resources and 
staffing needed to implement the inspection program.   

Last revised Wednesday, May 17, 2006       
*****************************************************************
 29 BBC: Miliband faces nuclear challenge
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 18 May 2006
 
[David Miliband]                                

Mr Miliband was made environment secretary in the reshuffle                                                          

The new environment secretary has been challenged to speak up for 
his department amid claims it has become marginalised in the 
nuclear power row. 

David Miliband came under pressure in questions from his 
Conservative shadow, Peter Ainsworth. 

Downing Street said there was no "cost free" way to tackle the 
energy gap amid criticism nuclear was too expensive. 

Mr Miliband has said he is open-minded on nuclear energy and 
pledged to speak up for his department. 

He took over from Margaret Beckett at the Department for 
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in this month's Cabinet 
reshuffle. 

Meanwhile it has been revealed there have been 57 occurrences at 
existing nuclear sites around Britain since 1997, 11 of which 
were serious enough to be classed as "incidents" or "serious 
incidents", according to figures released by the government. 

Problems ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failures to 
contamination of ground water or employee clothing and a fire. 

A DTI spokesman said: "Few of the documented 'incidents' are of 
any serious danger. Even the most serious incident - the widely 
reported leakage at the Thorp plant detected last year - was 
contained and posed no threat to staff, public or environment." 

'Energy gap' 

The prime minister's official spokesman meanwhile said the 
government would look at "everything" in its search to secure the 
future of energy in the UK. 

"There isn't a cost-free option. There's no one-club, free, 
solution to this. We have to look at everything," the spokesman 
said. 

"There is an energy gap, there is an issue about not meeting the 
CO2 emissions targets and therefore we have to address it." 

This week Tony Blair announced nuclear power was "on the agenda 
with a vengeance". 

But several in the Cabinet are members of the Socialist 
Environment and Resource Association (Sera), which is 
anti-nuclear. 

They include Mrs Beckett, who is now foreign secretary, Labour 
chairman Hazel Blears, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and Mr 
Miliband. 

Sera also counts among its members key Gordon Brown allies 
including Ed Balls, recently elevated to a job at the Treasury, 
and Andrew Smith. 

But it is Mr Miliband's name on the list of supporters that will 
raise most eyebrows. 

Open-minded 

It was widely speculated in the wake of the reshuffle Mrs Beckett 
was moved from Defra to the Foreign Office partly because of her 
opposition to nuclear power. 

In the wake of Mr Blair's comments Mr Miliband said: "I am 
open-minded about how we meet the climate change challenge. 

"Obviously the benefit of nuclear power is that it emits zero 
carbons but obviously there are costs associated with nuclear 
power and there are also waste issues, which are very important." 

Former Environment Minister Elliot Morley, who left the 
government in the reshuffle, used an interview with the Guardian 
to highlight the costs issue: "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. 

'Cul-de-sac' 

Mr Blair's comments were widely seen as pre-empting the outcome 
of the ongoing energy review. 

Sera's submission to the review includes a call for "no new 
nuclear power stations". 

Another former Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, and Mr 
Morley have joined forces submitting a parliamentary motion 
saying the case has not been made to begin building new nuclear 
power stations. 

Lib Dem environment spokesman Chris Huhne said he believed 
nuclear power would be a "wrong turning". 

"You can see that not a single nuclear power station has been 
built anywhere in the world without lashings of government 
subsidy since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," he said. 
*****************************************************************
 30 Herald: The nuclear debate begins   

Web Issue 2531     May 18 2006      

  Editorial Comment     May 18 2006   
    
  For a generation, energy policy has simmered quietly on the
political backburner. Post-Chernobyl, no party would risk
electoral suicide by backing a new generation of nuclear power
stations and the British public continued to squander
electricity as if there were no tomorrow. Suddenly tomorrow is
here. Spiralling energy prices, declining domestic production,
instability in the world's oil and gas markets, and concern
about global warming have combined to make power supplies a
burning issue. Such is the urgency of the Westminster
government's quest for a coherent energy policy, that after the
briefest of glances at the first draft of the domestic energy
review, the prime minister was telling the CBI this week that
nuclear generation is "back on the agenda with a vengeance".
Though Mr Blair can be criticised for pre-empting the review and
consultation, he is right to put this hot potato back on the
menu. It is one Jack McConnell has bent backwards to avoid for
fear of alienating his coalition partners.

 Though the first new nuclear stations probably would be built
close to population centres in England rather than Scotland -
which historically overproduces power - Scots need to be part of
a debate on this issue. We depend on nuclear for 40% of our
energy needs - double the percentage for the whole UK. When
Torness and Hunterston are eventually decommissioned, what will
replace them?

 The crux of the scientific argument can be characterised as
"the David and Jonathan Debate". The government's chief
scientist, Sir David King, believes that nuclear is a sine qua
non, without which Britain faces a huge energy gap when old
nuclear stations are decommissioned; that even if Britain meets
its ambitious renewables target, the country cannot meet its
carbon dioxide reduction targets without it. The threat of
regular power cuts and empty petrol tanks outweighs the risks
associated with nuclear waste disposal, he argues. 

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the government's sustainable
development commission, disputes the looming energy gap. If
Britain stopped being "unbelievably profligate" with energy and
set its face against nuclear because of insurmountable problems
with waste, more effort and investment would go into maximising
production from wind, wave, tidal and solar power. 

Both sides dispute the other's figures. Recent opinion polls
appear to indicate that the British public is becoming more
pro-nuclear, partly because the turbines and pylons required for
windpower are so unpopular. Yesterday, the French company,
Areva, estimated that it could have new British nuclear reactors
up and running by 2017, provided the planning process is
streamlined. They are probably being optimistic but, either way,
all of a sudden, the timeframe for making this crucial decision
looks tight. Nobody is pretending that nuclear power can be the
only ingredient in Britain's energy cake, but can we afford to
rule it out of the mix? While open to persuasion, we remain to
be convinced.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 31 The Herald: Brown set to back Blair on nuclear power plans   

Web Issue 2531     May 18 2006      

  CATHERINE MacLEOD and DOUGLAS FRASER     May 18 2006   
    
  Gordon Brown is backing Tony Blair's plans to build a new
generation of nuclear power stations, even before the costs and
benefits have been fully assessed.

 Sources close to the chancellor, who could be in No 10 Downing
Street when the plants are built, said he agrees that a nuclear
element must be part of the solution to Britain's energy needs,
as the prime minister made clear in a keynote speech on Tuesday.

 When the energy review is completed in July, the chancellor is
expected to throw his weight behind Mr Blair's efforts to
persuade the public of the merits of nuclear power.

 The balance of cost and benefit was questioned yesterday by
Elliot Morley, the environment minister sacked last week, with
suspicions that was over his nuclear scepticism. He said a true
picture would prove the case for better energy efficiency and
for renewables. 

Katy Clark, the Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, which
includes the Hunterston plant, added her voice to the renewables
lobby. She told The Herald: "Before we accept a nuclear element
to the energy package, we have to ensure we are doing absolutely
everything to develop other sources of energy."

 In the Commons, Mike Weir, MP for Angus, accused the prime
minister of trying to bounce the country into building a new
generation of nuclear stations before there was a solution to
the disposal of past and future waste. 
Mr Blair repeated that failure to plan ahead would be a
"dereliction of duty" to future generations.

 The chancellor's support is important in limiting the potential
for the issue to split Labour, though it has a different
complexion in Scotland, where the devolved institutions have two
chances - on both planning and regulatory grounds - to veto a
new plant. That would be at a licensed site: Hunterston, Torness
in East Lothian, or Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire. 
With Chapelcross already being decommissioned, Hunterston is
scheduled to shut down in six years, while Torness keeps going
until 2023.

 If current plants are retired without replacement, gas would be
the source of more than half Britain's electricity needs. But,
as with oil, it contributes to carbon emissions at a time when
Britain is committed to the interests of global environmental
protection.

 Another option could be coal. Although notoriously dirty, new
technology means sharply reduced emissions in the newest
coal-burning plants being installed elsewhere. It may also work
alongside "carbon capture", a technique being developed for
pumping emissions into emptying oil wells.

 The energy review on which the government will produce its
conclusions is focused on nuclear power because its technology
is proven, and assiduous lobbying argues it is safer than it was
when Chernobyl's technology was being built.

 But it is politics that is likely to decide the nuclear future
of Scotland. Labour officially backs it, but has sceptics such
as Jack McConnell, while the LibDems take an increasingly
hostile stance, in line with the Greens and Scottish Socialists.
Conservatives are in favour.

 It is clear no decision will be required of MSPs before next
May's election, but that means the issue will feature in the
campaign and could be a deal-breaker in coalition talks.
   
  Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet May 31- June 1 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2006-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 06-068     May 17, 2006   

Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting May 31-June
1 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, two draft
final generic letters, Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown Circuit Analysis
Spurious Actuations and Inaccessible or Underground Cable
Failures that Disable Accident Mitigation Systems. The committee
will also discuss the NRCs new reactor licensing activities. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at
8:30 a.m. each day and end at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday and 7 p.m.
on Thursday. A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web
site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2006/. 

Anyone with questions or those wanting to make public statements
during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364. To pursue videoconferencing services, contact
Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. 

The ACRS advises the Commission on licensing and operating of
nuclear power plants and related safety issues.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, May 17, 2006 	   
*****************************************************************
 33 AFP: Blair's call for new nuclear plants raises concerns about costs
     
 Thu May 18, 6:02 AM ET 		 	 

LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> Tony Blair's push 
for new nuclear power plants has raised concerns about how to 
finance them, amid predictions of "eye-wateringly large" costs. 

 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
*****************************************************************
 34 Comment is free: Conservatives must oppose nuclear

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree> Peter Franklin[Peter Franklin] 

Nuclear power is state power and should be opposed from the
Right. 

Peter Franklin


WebfeedsMay 18, 2006 03:05 PM | Printer Friendly Version

As any hunt saboteur knows, one way of throwing the hounds off
the scent is to spread some foul smelling substance on the
ground. Tony Blair has applied much the same method to his own
fight for survival. With the press pack baying for his blood, he
is trying his best to distract them. First we had his support
for vivisection, and now we have his support for nuclear power. 

"Back with a vegeance," he says. Though vengeance for what, he
doesn't say. According to yesterday's 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."

Indeed. But let's start with a major challenge facing all
environmentalists: That posed by nuclear power which is promoted
as low carbon form of energy. Up to a point, this is true. But
it is equally true, if not more so, of various other
technologies - many of which are less expensive than nuclear.
Thus subsidising nuclear in preference to these cheaper
alternatives represents a "carbon opportunity cost". The
economics, and politics, of nuclear will inevitably displace
Government effort in more promising areas - especially energy
efficiency. 

Now, on to Tony Blair's more compelling argument - that we need
nuclear in order to ensure Britain's energy security. This is
one that causes real problems for Tories, who don't want to be
seen as soft on the national interest. In this respect, the
Russian threatto cut gas supplies to Ukraine was an enormous
boon to the nuclear lobby. 

However, entirely the wrong lessons were drawn from that
particular crisis. There was nothing special about Russia's
behaviour. When governments gain a stranglehold over vital
energy supplies they invariably abuse their position to the
detriment of taxpayers, trading partners and the environment. 

Thus we need to be aware that no form of energy is quite so
prone to centralised state control as nuclear power. The safety
and security implications necessitate intense political
oversight and the economics require massive and permanent
interference with the workings of the market. Even if ostensibly
privatised, nuclear power companies can't be allowed to go bust.
Which is why, in Britain's case, our nuclear assets were sold
off without the liabilities - for which we, as taxpayers, remain
responsible. Thus it us that will pick up the tab for the
disposal of nuclear waste and the decommissioning of old plant,
a total cost of tens of billions of pounds. Meanwhile it is the
nuclear industry that will make the profits... except when they
don't, in which case the taxpayer will be touched for further
billions, as has already happened. 

A new generation of nuclear power stations will perpetuate this
rotten deal for decades to come. Indeed, it could get worse. One
shudders to think what Faustian pact New Labour will strike in
order to secure the necessary investment. Each nuclear power
station represents an upfront capital commitment of over a
billion pounds, almost certainly a long way over. Moreover, so
called "first of a kind costs" dictate that stations are built
in job lots, so the investment required rises by an order of
magnitude. In other words, the decision to go nuclear will
entail the creation of a new monopoly, with guaranteed profits
and special favours of all descriptions, including free and
unlimited public liability insurance. 

All good free marketeers should be feeling sick at the prospect
- but cheer up, at least it isn't the radiation! And, anyway,
this state-powered raid on the market place is surely worth the
pain if it ensures our security. No? 

Unfortunately, it won't even do that. The decision to go nuclear
will have comparitively little impact on our fossil fuel
dependence. Our existing nuclear capacity, does not, as if often
claimed, contribute 20-something per cent of our energy needs.
The true figure is about four per cent and falling as our old
n-stations are decommissioned. By the time that replacement
plant can come online, Britain's energy supply will be at least
98 per cent non-nuclear. 

Even if we were to replace our entire nuclear-generating
capacity with gas-fired plant, (and there are better
alternatives) this would increase our dependency on gas by just
one quarter. This is for the simple reason that most gas in
Britain isn't used for generating electricity, but for heating,
cooking and other applications. 

If one were to use nuclear to significantly reduce Britain's
dependency on gas, then one would need not only to replace our
current nuclear capacity but to increase it many times -
something which New Labour's energy review is highly unlikely to
propose. 

In short, the Prime Minister's national security argument is a
sham. Conservatives should not buy into it. And yet the
underlying concern is still valid, so what should the Tories be
proposing instead? 

In the short term we need to diversify our gas importation
infrastructure. In the respect, the market is already delivering
with new pipelines to Norway and liquified natural gas (LNG)
terminals in Wales and Kent. We need more of this and some
decent gas storage capacity too; but will private industry keep
on investing if the markets are rigged in favour of nuclear
power? Gordon Brown's windfall taxes are already doing enough to
shake investor confidence. 

However, the only long-term solution is to end our dependency on
all forms of polluting energy - whether fossil or nuclear. We
need to raise Britain's abysmal energy efficiency standards; do
more to promote the use of energy crops and micro-generation;
attract serious money into offshore wind, wave and tidal power
so that the North Sea can continue to supply Britain with
energy. These are the technologies of the future - diverse,
localised and fiercely competitive. Not all of them are ready
for the market, but all are making progress in that direction.
Given enough early support and then a government that gets out
of the way, they will enable individuals and companies to take
control of their own energy needs. 

This is an agenda that is both green and Conservative. David
Cameron should embrace it wholeheartedly and expose the gaping
holes in New Labour's nuclear vision.
 

About webfeeds  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 35 Xinhua: New nuclear power project launched in E. China   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-18 16:39:59   

    BEIJING, May 18 (Xinhua) -- A joint venture company for
construction of a new nuclear power project was inaugurated
Thursday in Fuzhou City, east China's Fujian Province,
symbolizing the start of preparation for the nuclear project. 

    The project, named Fuqing nuclear power station, is a joint
venture between two major Chinese energy companies -- the China
National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and the China Huadian
Corporation. 

    CNNC holds 51 percent of the stake while Huadian Fujian
Power Generation Co. Ltd., the local subsidiary of Huadian,
holds 49 percent. 

    The station will house six generating units, each of 1
gigawat. 

    The hydrological and geological conditions, transmission
distance and surrounding environment were suitable for a nuclear
plant, said a CNNC official. 

    The new project was expected to supply power for economic
growth west to the coast, said the official. 

    Huadian, one of China's five major state-owned electricity
producers, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with CNNC,
the country's leading nuclear power producer. 

    The newly established company will take charge of the
development, construction and operation of the Fuqing nuclear
power project. 

    The company is still awaiting approval of feasibility
studies and site examinations before starting construction, said
the CNNC official. Enditem   

      Editor: Yan Zhonghua   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 36 TheStar.com: Nuclear power back in favour as energy future

Thu May. 18, 2006. | Updated at 02:19 PM 

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 
yesterday.

 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 
new plant, with four nuclear reactors, would cost about $6.6 
billion.

 Nuclear power accounts for 16 per cent to 17 per cent of 
Russia's electricity generation, and the Kremlin has set a target 
to raise that to a quarter by 2030. 

From the Star's wire services

Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of
any material from www.thestar.comis strictly prohibited without
*****************************************************************
 37 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
 
                         FR Doc E6-7572 
[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)] [Notices] 
[Page 28889-28890] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18my06-90]                         
 
Units 1 and 2; Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 
and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is 
considering issuance of exemptions from Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.71(e)(4), for Facility 
Operating License Nos. DPR- 24, DPR-27, DPR-42, and DPR-60, 
issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC, the licensee), 
for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 1 
and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, and the Prairie 
Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP), Units 1 and 2, located 
in Goodhue County, Minnesota. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 
51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and 
finding of no significant impact.
 
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action 
The proposed actions would exempt the licensee from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of 
revisions to the updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The 
updated FSAR at PINGP is called the Updated Safety Analysis 
Report (USAR). Under the proposed exemptions, the licensee would 
submit updates to the updated FSARs once per fuel cycle, within 6 
months following completion of each PBNP, Unit 1, refueling 
outage and within 6 months of each PINGP, Unit 2, refueling 
outage, respectively, not to exceed 24 months from the last 
submittal for either site. PBNP and PINGP are two-unit sites, 
each site sharing a common updated FSAR.
 
The proposed actions are in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated October 12, 2005.
 
The Need for the Proposed Action Section 50.71(e)(4) requires 
licensees to submit updates to their FSARs annually or within 6 
months after each refueling outage provided that the interval 
between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since the 
units for each site share a common FSAR, the licensee must update 
the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling 
outage for each unit. The underlying purpose of the rule was to 
relieve licensees of the burden of filing annual FSAR revisions 
while ensuring that such revisions are made at least every 24 
months. The NRC reduced the burden, in part, by permitting a 
licensee to submit its FSAR revisions 6 months after refueling 
outages for its facility, but it did not provide in the rule for 
multiple-unit facilities sharing a common FSAR. Rather, the NRC 
stated, ``[w]ith respect to the concern about multiple facilities 
sharing a common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility 
for scheduling updates on a case-by-case basis'' (57 FR 39355). 
Allowing the exemptions would keep the updated FSARs current 
within 24 months of the last revision, while reducing the burden 
on the licensee.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has 
completed its evaluation of the proposed actions and concludes 
that they involve administrative activities unrelated to plant 
operation, and therefore there would be no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
 
The proposed actions will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being 
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site.
 
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent 
released off site. There is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed actions.
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
actions do not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
They do not affect non-radiological plant effluents and have no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed actions.
 
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action 
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the 
``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would 
result in no change in current environmental impacts. The 
environmental impacts of the proposed actions and the alternative 
action are similar.
 
Alternative Use of Resources The proposed actions do not involve 
the use of any different resources than those previously 
considered in the Final Environmental Statement for PBNP, dated 
May 1972; in NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, ``Generic Environmental 
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [regarding 
PBNP],'' dated August 2005; and in the Final Environmental 
Statement for PINGP, dated May 1973.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated 
policy, the staff consulted with the Wisconsin State official, 
Mr. J. Kitsembel of the Public Service Commission, on April
 
[[Page 28890]] 24, 2006, and with the Minnesota State official, 
Ms. D. Pile of the Commerce Department, on April 26, 2006, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed actions. The 
State officials had no comments.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the 
environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed 
actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
actions.
 
For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 12, 2005. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from 
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, .
 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems 
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the 
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 
301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to .
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Carl F. Lyon, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7572 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 38 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
 
                         FR Doc E6-7573 
[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)] [Notices] 
[Page 28888-28889] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18my06-89]                         
 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, 
Inc., Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the 
request of Entergy Operations, Inc., et al. (the licensee) to 
withdraw its application for proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-29 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, 
Unit 1, located in Claiborne County, Mississippi, dated June 27, 
2005.
 
 
[[Page 28889]] The proposed amendment would have revised the 
Facility Operating License to change Technical Specification 
3.6.1.3, Required Actions A.1 and B.1, to add closed relief 
valves as acceptable isolation devices provided that the relief 
setpoint is greater than 1.5 times containment design pressure 
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment, published in the Federal Register on 
August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51381). However, by letter dated May 5, 
2006, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 27, 2005, and the licensee's 
letter dated May 5, 2006, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records 
will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th 
day of May 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Bhalchandra Vaidya, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, 
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-7573 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 39 Telegraph: Nuclear error: Britain's record revealed
 
  [telegraph.co.uk]       

(Filed: 18/05/2006)
 
Tony Blair's hopes of winning public support for a new generation 
of nuclear power stations have taken a knock after it was 
revealed that there have been 57 incidents at existing sites 
around Britain since 1997. 

[Sizewell B power station] 
  
Sizewell B power station

The problems ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failures
to contamination of ground water or employees' clothes and a
fire. 

Eleven of the events were serious enough to be classed as an
"incident" or "serious incident" on international nuclear
measures, said Norman Baker, a Liberal Democrat MP who obtained
the figures from the energy minister Malcolm Wicks. 

The Health and Safety Executive regularly publishes details of
incidents at nuclear installations which are serious enough to
be reported to ministers. 

Today's figures bring together all such incidents since 1997,
but do not cover any events relating to transportation of
nuclear materials. 

Mr Baker said: "It is extremely worrying that there have been
such a high number of incidents since 1997 in the UK's nuclear
facilities, especially as the Government is now considering new
nuclear build. 

"Nuclear power is uneconomic, environmentally damaging and
clearly there are serious concerns about safety." 

Mr Blair gave the strongest signal yet that he intends to give
the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power plants when he
told the CBI on Tuesday that the issue was "back on the agenda
with a vengeance". 

The Prime Minister was accused by critics of pre-empting the
Government's Energy Review, which is due for publication next
month. 

But he told MPs yesterday it would be a "collective dereliction
of duty" if politicians failed to engage with the question of
nuclear power in the face of Britain's increasing dependence on
foreign energy sources. 

The three incidents recorded last year all took place at the
Sellafield site in Cumbria, including a large leak of highly
radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp
reprocessing plant in the April. High radiation was also
detected in the Hales storage plant and three staff were
contaminated while carrying out maintenance. 

Two incidents were recorded in 2004 - a release of radioactivity
at Bradwell, in Essex, and a flange leakage at Hartlepool - but
none the previous year. 

 © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
 40 Comment is free: Blair's toxic legacy

> [Jeremy Leggett] 
 
It could have been renewable energy, but the PM has decided 
nuclear waste will provide him with a more enduring monument. 

May 18, 2006 02:55 PM | 

When the prime minister visited my company in September 2004, he
faced an interesting challenge: in the afternoon he was to give
a major speech on global warming announcing his to make climate
change one of the two main themes of his G8 presidency; in the
morning he wanted a company active in the anti-greenhouse
business in which to pose for the national media. 

In the absence of a nuclear plant close to Westminster, he chose
a solar company. No 10 thought a round-table discussion with a
group of young green business people would fit the PR bill. It
would be on the record, with cameras and tape recorders rolling.
What the PM and his team didn't know, however, was that there
was a high degree of scepticism and latent hostility to him in
the group. 

By that time there was already a yawning chasm between what
Blair said about climate change and what he actually did about
it. My team members had sweated through several life-threatening
episodes of miserly, stop-start, drip-fed UK government support
for their embryonic industry while watching sustained support at
much higher levels turbo-charge competitors in Germany, Japan
and elsewhere. 

How should they deal with this, they asked me. Be yourselves, I
replied - just don't mention the war. 

The anti-terrorist branch interviewed me, the sniffer dogs
toured the office, and the man himself arrived, national media
in tow. He proceeded to charm all present, oozing sincerity,
firm in the detail of his intentions. Not a mention of nuclear;
plenty about how the government was going to lead in the use of
solar and other renewable technologies. He left my team
impressed and full of hope. 

Twenty months on, the drip-feed has stuttered on. We have had to
lobby hard for every extension of government subsidy while the
subsidies are still measured in a few paltry millions.
California and Japan, meanwhile, measure their subsidies in
billions, and Germany in the policy equivalent of billions. The
only billions Mr Blair seems willing to consider are those that
would need to be thrown at the nuclear industry in order to prop
up its voodoo economics and paper over its unresolved waste
issues. 

I showed Tony Blair our solar roof tiles that day: a pair of PV
and thermal tiles, still in development, that provide heat and
power in your roof. I thought I was showing him the future, or a
microcosm of it, a future in which energy-efficient buildings
could become their own power plants without the need even for
gas or coal power stations, much less nuclear ones. I thought he
got it. 

I am told he worries about his legacy. How strange that he
chooses nuclear power and identity cards over renewable energy.
Even if he gets his wish, the half dozen or so nuclear plants
that eventually open will start work far off in the future, way
beyond his watch. He won't get the credit. 

Yet my company and others like it can go out, with the right
partners in the construction industry, and put up buildings that
cut greenhouse gas emissions deeply in a matter of weeks or even
days. More than half Britain's greenhouse emissions derive from
buildings. 

So here's to six more Sizewells on the flood-threatened coasts
of Britain some time after 2020, when it is too late to make any
difference about global warming even if they really did cut
emissions; here's to many tonnes more high-level waste with no
known safe repository; here's to more opportunities for the
legions of hate-filled people Tony Blair has spawned with his
illegal war, who dream, as we know, of weapons far more terrible
than fuel-laden jumbos; Here's to a legacy for Tony Blair. 

This entry was tagged with the following keywords: nuclear
energy power tonyblair sizewell sustainableenergy environment 
Comments
 
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be
registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
 MerkinOnParis
 
  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 41 Comment is free: Why we need nuclear energy

> [Bernard J Bulkin] 
 
Building new nuclear plants wouldn't solve all our problems, but
it'd be a step in the right direction. 

May 18, 2006 10:46 AM | 

The prime minister has spoken about the need for new nuclear
power stations, and on balance I think we need to support him in
this. Whatever arguments for and against have and can be made,
the most persuasive one in favour was probably made by Mr Putin
on New Year's Day when he . Still, there is more to this than
just energy security. A lot more. 

What was important about the prime minister's speech was that he
argued that in the future we will need energy efficiency,
renewables and nuclear. I agree. New nuclear power stations
alone are not an answer to any question. Electricity is only one
part of the climate problem, and only one part of our use of
gas. It is material, and if we don't opt for new nuclear energy
sources we will have to opt for quite a bit more of something
else. But nuclear energy on its own does not solve any problem. 

What we do know is that the CO2 savings from replacing the
approximately 20% of our electricity we get from nuclear today
with a new generation of plants would have about the same impact
on our greenhouse gas emissions as getting 20% of our
electricity from wind; also a good and material way to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. 

It seems to me that a good way to speak about nuclear power for
the UK is this: we need one more generation of nuclear power
plants. By the time they are built and run and decommissioned,
we will need to have advanced any number of technologies to the
point where they can generate our electricity more cleanly and
more cost effectively. But today nuclear can still fill a big
part of the electricity supply, something between 20% and 40%. 

There is an argument about cost, and the question of whether the
government needs to guarantee a price to the builders of new
nuclear. I think this is essentially an argument about how we
dispatch and sell wholesale electricity in the UK. The current
arrangements favour those who can bring supply on and off
depending on demand. Nuclear fulfils a different role - it is
the constant baseload that we want on all the time. It seems to
me that it is right that baseload be sold on a different basis
to electricity that meets a different need. That is all the
government should be prepared to negotiate. 

Some are arguing that the answer is continuing with coal-fired
power generation with carbon capture. This is an idea, but still
far from a commercial reality; and it entirely fails to address
the health and safety issues associated with coal mining. 

There is really only one outstanding issue for nuclear energy,
and that is . It is accepted that new plants produce much less
waste than the old ones, but we still need a good, viable
long-term solution. The government should be obligated to
provide this convincingly before it starts new construction. Not
easy, but it can - and should - be done. 


  Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. 
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
 42 UPI: India to start third nuclear reactor
     
   United Press International - Energy - 

5/18/2006 10:41:00 AM -0400

NEW DELHI, May 18 (UPI) -- India has said it will next week
commission a third reactor with a capacity of 540 MWe at the
Tarapur atomic power project. 

The Hindu newspaper said Thursday the third reactor is a locally
built pressurized heavy water reactor that uses natural uranium
as fuel, and heavy water as both moderator and coolant. 

Engineers of the Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. have already
loaded natural uranium fuel bundles into the reactor. 

"We have completed the bulk of heavy water charging into the
reactor. We are testing the shutdown systems extensively. We
will complete this testing in a day's time," said S.K. Jain,
chairman and managing director of NPCIL. 

He said the results of this exercise would be intimated to the
atomic energy regulatory board, which monitors safety in nuclear
power utilities. Jain said the board will then give the final
permission to NPCIL for commissioning the third unit. 

The station director of Tarapur Atomic Power Project O.P. Goyal
said fuel loading into the reactor was completed. 

"The primary heat transport system and the moderator were filled
with heavy water," he said. 

Goyal said the reactor would be filled with 550 tons of heavy
water, adding: "It had 392 coolant channels, each housing 13
bundles of natural uranium fuel. Each bundle weighed 24
kilograms. As of now, everything is all right." 

He said the fourth unit, also with a capacity of 540 MWe, was
commissioned in March 2005 and is operating smoothly. Fifteen
NPCIL nuclear power reactors are operating in various parts of
the county. TAPP-3 will be the 16th unit. Seven more are under
construction.

 														
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
		 									advertisement
*****************************************************************
 43 post-gazette.com: A big blast from the past

South Park girl has tale of nuclear test published nationally
 
Thursday, May 18, 2006 By Al Lowe

Ken Peairs, of Duquesne, had never spoken publicly about seeing
sheep blinded by the blast of an atomic cannon named Atomic
Annie on May 25, 1953.

 But he spoke about it in question and answer form to Courtney
Kutsek, 14, of South Park, who wrote about it for the Weekly
Reader Magazine, which is circulated to more than 7 million
schoolchildren in 50,000 schools throughout the United States.

 Courtney's interview was published in the May 5 issue of the
Reader's Current Events section, and she received a $100 savings
bond for it. She was one of three national winners of the
Current Events Eyewitness to History Contest.

 "I was so happy to see it in print," said Courtney, an
eighth-grader. "All my teachers congratulated me."

 "She did a pretty good job of recording the incident," said Mr.
Peairs, 73.

 "This is the most I ever talked about it. But I find my 15
minutes of fame goes by very quickly," he joked.

 When it happened, he told his family, "no one realized that it
was a major event.

 "I remember seeing blinded, bleeding sheep with their wool and
flesh burnt off of the side that faced the blast. And there was
a 50-ton tank that rolled over."

 Courtney reported that Mr. Peairs was drafted in February 1953
and that he and five others were chosen for specialized training
in atomic warfare. They were flown to Needles, Ariz., and bused
to the Nevada Proving Grounds near Yucca Flats.

 His assignment was to drive a truck and to take 20 soldiers to
the blast perimeter where Atomic Annie would be tested and
fired. "They were waiting for the right weather and had a big
concern over wind conditions."

 Rabbits and sheep were tethered to the ground to see the
effects on their skin and bodies.

 He told the Weekly Reader that 700 observers and 600 troops
were transported to bunkers and trenches in the blast vicinity.
The group included high-ranking Armed Forces officers and
members of Congress. 

He and his passengers were in a trench five miles away from the
blast site. They were ordered to kneel down with their faces
away from the blast and to cover their eyes.

 The cannon weighed 47 tons and was transported to the site
between front and rear tractors.

 Soldiers fired a nuclear shell at 8:30 a.m. and "there was a
flash a thousand times brighter than a camera flash.

 "After that flash, we were ordered to stand up. It felt like
someone had passed a hot iron directly over my neck. Following
the heat was the loudest explosion you could imagine. So loud,
we dove to the ground. 

"Two minutes later, we were told to open our eyes. There was a
large mushroom cloud with three ice caps formed above it."

 "I had respect for it," he said later. "It left an impression
on us. I didn't go around bragging about it."

 After his stint in the Army, Mr. Peairs worked as a safety
engineer for Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical, later purchased
by Hercules Co. He retired in 1995.

 He and his wife, Louise, will mark their 50th wedding
anniversary in June. They have two daughters: Kristine Connelly,
of Elizabeth Township, and Karen Peairs, of Whitehall.

 Mr. Peairs met Courtney's father, George, at the chemical firm
and also knew her mother, Sharon, who had worked there. Mr.
Peairs told Courtney's father stories about the atomic blast. He
related the stories to Courtney.

 Courtney's current career plan is to become a lawyer who
specializes in protecting copyrights. 

Besides writing, other interests include the ballet; she once
took classes at Pittsburgh Youth Ballet.

 Courtney didn't know much about nuclear testing and researched
it on the Internet.

 "It was sad about the sheep being blinded. I don't think that
would happen nowadays," she said.

 "I think back then they knew very little about the effects of
such a blast. What we got was equal to what would be a couple
hundred chest X-rays now. I don't think anyone intended anything
harmful," Mr. Peairs said. 

(Al Lowe is a freelance writer. ) 			
			 			 			 			
Copyright ©1997-2006 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 44 Salt Lake Tribune: Anderson calls on delegation to hear 
test-blast concerns 

Article Last Updated: 05/18/2006 01:39:02 AM MDT 

By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune 

Northern Utahns who are concerned about the experimental 
explosion set next month for the Nevada Test Site deserve to be 
heard, says Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. 

So, he called on the state's congressional delegation 
Tuesday to push for public hearings about the "Divine Strake" 
test in northern communities as well as southern Utah, where 
they are already planned. 

"While many Utah residents own property and recreate in 
southern Utah, the vast majority of Utahns - nearly 80 percent - 
live along the Wasatch Front," he said in letters to the 
lawmakers. 

"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." 

There has been no word from the National Nuclear Security 
Administration or the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the two 
federal offices planning the blast, on when and where public 
hearings might be held. 

Last week, they postponed the test date by three weeks, to no
earlier than June 23. The delay became necessary when lawyers 
were left scrambling to answer environmental questions raised by 
Utah lawmakers, Nevada environmental officials and plaintiffs in 
a federal lawsuit brought by two Utahns and members of a Nevada 
Indian tribe. 

Many people say the agencies have failed to produce basic 
data that prove harmful debris from the test will not drift into 
Utah the way atomic fallout drifted during past government tests 
in Nevada. The federal government insists nobody will be harmed. 

In addition, U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, has publicly 
questioned whether the explosion is a precursor to new 
nuclear-bomb tests, although 700 tons of ammonium nitrate-fuel 
oil explosives, the stuff of conventional bombs, will be used in 
Divine Strake. 

Sam Guevara, the mayor's chief of staff, said Anderson is 
willing to coordinate and host any meetings. 

"It [Divine Strake's safety] has been a question," he said. 
"We are concerned." 

fahys@sltrib.com 

Â© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 45 Telegraph: Exposure  (Bikini Island History)

Calcutta : Opinion
 
Thursday, May 18, 2006

In March 1946, inhabitants of Bikini Atoll were shifted from
their homes 125 miles east to Rongerik Atoll. The US would be
testing nuclear devices off Bikini.
																																										 														 				
The Marshall Islands had once been peaceful. From the early 20th
century, the Japanese began to use the islands in a military
build-up to World War II. The remote island cluster had become
strategic. In February 1944, the Americans seized them in a
blood-soaked battle. The following year the US decided to use
Bikini for tests. 																																										
														 				 								 																														
Rongerik was tiny and infertile. American food supplies soon ran
out and the Bikinians did not get enough to eat. Yet no expense
was spared to film the blasts of Able and Baker, the first two
atomic bombs under Operation Crossroads. By 1947, the Bikinians
were starving, while Micronesia was designated a UN Strategic
Trust Territory to be administered by the US. This arrangement
lasted till 1991. 																																										
														 				 								 																														
Shocked at the Bikinians’ state, investigators urged the US to
shift them. Moved to Kili Island in 1948, they were again dogged
by starvation. Irregular supplies from the Americans did not
help. By 1957, food shortage was acute. Some were then sent to
Jaluit Atoll. 																																										
														 				 								 																														
On March 1, 1954, the US had detonated the hydrogen bomb, Bravo,
in Operation Castle, on a reef in Bikini. Bravo was a thousand
times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Its radioactive cloud spread over 7,000 square miles.
																																										 														 				
								 																														
The Marshallese, unknowing, watched a second sun blooming in the
sky. In the fallout, radioactive ash covered the ground even on
Rongelap Atoll, far east from Bikini, and turned the water
yellow. People fell sick of radiation poisoning, and the whole
region was irradiated. The 23 men on Fukuryu maru, a Japanese
fishing ship nearby, were covered with “gritty white ash”. The
first death among them was in September.
																																										 														 				
								 																														
Ninety per cent of the children under 12 at the time of Bravo
developed thyroid tumours. People suffered from leukaemia,
cancer of the oesophagus, stomach, intestines, pancreas and
bone. By 2002, a US trust fund had paid out $79 million to 1,808
islanders, but it was rather slow. Forty-six per cent of the
islanders had died. 																																										
														 				 								 																														
Shortage of food on Kili made the Americans decide to shift the
Bikinians back to their atoll in 1967, after cleaning up
radioactive debris. The Bikinians were unwilling at first,
because of the conflicting reports on levels of radiological
contamination. 																																										
														 				 								 																														
But quite a few of them were back in their homeland by 1975. It
was clear that water, and the food grown on the island, were
highly radioactive. That year Bikinians filed their first
lawsuit in the US federal court, demanding a complete scientific
survey of Bikini and the northern Marshall islands. Radiation in
human beings was found to be far above the permissible level.
The islanders left again, in 1978.
																																										 														 				
								 																														
In the Eighties, the US government awarded the Bikinians two
trust funds as compensation for land. The nuclear claims
tribunal released another award in 2001 against the Bikinians’
lawsuit for damage to their lands and people. But the tribunal
does not have money to pay the claims. The Bikinians filed
another case this April against the US government, for failing
in its obligations. Only a fraction has been paid so far for
radiological cleanup, loss of use, hardship and suffering.
																																										 														 				
								 																														
In 1994, the US department of energy released a list which
showed that the 82 tests in Bikini, Enewetak and Johnston atolls
between 1946 and 1962 had the total blast power of at least
128,704 kilotons of TNT, equal to 8,580 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
																																										 														 				
								 																														
The inhabitants of Bikini Atoll, like those from Rongelap and
others, have not been able to go home. They still live in
different parts of the world.
																																										 											 					  
   Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved.    
*****************************************************************
 46 Deseret News: PFS site - but no transport? Spent-fuel trucks may be
too big for Skull Valley road 

[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, May 18, 2006 
By Joe Bauman 

Deseret Morning News 

"Humongous" slow-moving trucks weighing 225 tons would haul casks
of highly radioactive fuel, hogging the narrow Skull Valley road 
in Tooele County, if the Private Fuel Storage facility is built. 

['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic 

That was the word from Denise Chancellor, assistant Utah attorney
general, Wednesday while briefing the Legislature's Natural 
Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee. 

Legislators viewed schematics prepared by the Utah 
Department of Transportation, showing the size of the trucks, 
each of which would haul a load of 10 metric tons from a rail 
unloading facility near I-80 to the PFS plant on the Goshute 
Indian Reservation in Skull Valley, 26 miles away. 

Most of the weight would consist of the heavy protective 
transportation cask housing spent fuel rods. 

Originally, PFS planned to build a spur rail line from 
the Union Pacific railroad track to its site. But Congress moved 
to block that by designating the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area, 
effectively barring a rail-hauling option. So PFS would have to 
haul the waste by truck from the railroad to the storage site. 

One truck "will take up basically all of the road," she 
said. 

The schematic showed a truck straddling the road's center 
line to avoid driving at the edge of the pavement. 

The route, U-196, is in "sad shape," Chancellor added. 
Varying from 20 to 22 feet across, often without a shoulder, it 
is a main thoroughfare to Dugway Proving Ground. It is also an 
escape route that would be used if an accident happened at the 
Army's chemical weapons incinerator, located near Stockton, 
Tooele County. 

PFS is licensed to haul casks that weigh 10 metric tons. 
The trucks would have up to 100 tires, and the vehicles are only 
a few inches shorter than an overpass they would need to clear. 

It's unprecedented for so much of the highly radioactive 
spent fuel rods, up to 40,000 tons, to be stored in one place, 
she said. 

Should PFS become a reality, nuclear waste will be 
shipped by rail through Salt Lake City en route to Tooele 
County, she said. About 697,000 Utahns live within five miles of 
the route. 

The casks would be unloaded and placed on trucks at an 
intermodal transfer facility to be built about where the 
frontage road meets I-80. 

Trucks would be between 150 and 180 feet long and 12 feet 
wide, according to the state's official comments on PFS's 
application to build a route from U-196 to the site. The project 
is expected to generate rail shipments of up to 4,000 casks of 
spent nuclear fuel. 

"The anticipated interstate cask shipping rate is 
expected to be 100-200 casks per year, consisting of one to 
three casks per shipment. The heavy haul shipping rate along 
Skull Valley Road could be as high as six round trips per week 
or 312 trips per year. 

Chancellor said the proposed Yucca Mountain permanent 
repository for such fuel can hold 70,000 metric tons of 
high-level waste, with 3,000 metric tons set aside for military 
waste and the rest from power companies. Already, the country's 
waste amounts to 60,000 metric tons with 2,000 metric tons 
generated annually. 

By 2046, she said, 115,000 metric tons will have 
accumulated, based on existing nuclear reactors. The state would 
like to see this waste stored at the reactor sites in dry casks 
like those planned for PFS, until the country comes up with a 
permanent solution. 

The stated purpose of PFS is to serve as a temporary 
facility to house waste until a permanent site is built. But 
Rep. Roger E. Barrus, R-Centerville, the committee's 
co-chairman, said that with so much waste piling up, nobody 
should be fooled into thinking PFS really would be temporary. 

"It's a no-brainer," he said. 

Meanwhile, Pam Schuller, the BLM planning coordinator who 
has been tallying comments on the right-of-way issue, said 
Tuesday that the count is still progressing. The last time a 
figure was released after the end of the public comment period 
on May 8, the number of statements counted was 4,300. 

"I'm still getting some in the mail," Schuller told the 
Deseret Morning News. Some are postmarked before the end of the 
comment period, some after. She is weeding out those that cannot 
be considered. 

The count is complicated because some people were so 
anxious to comment that the same person would send an e-mail, 
fax and letter. As far as the BLM is concerned, "that's one 
comment, not three." Others might hit the e-mail "send" button 
six times. 

Schuller added, "I'm still pulling duplicates." 

E-mail: bau@desnews.com			 		 		 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 47 Guardian Unlimited: Price of uranium soars
 
Terry Macalister

Thursday May 18, 2006
 		 
Britain's planned nuclear programme could be hampered by a lack 
of fuel as the price of uranium soars on world markets.

This reflects fears of future shortages after a resurgence of 
interest in nuclear power - not just in Britain but also in 
Finland, France and the US, where new plants are going ahead. 
China wants to build as many as 30 plants by 2020, helping to 
push the price of uranium oxide from a low of $6.70 a pound at 
the start of 2001 to $41.50 yesterday.

 			 		 			 			Article continues
"There is a great expectation that there is not going to be 
enough uranium to feed the new nuclear power stations being built 
all over the world and that is what has driven the price up," 
said Charles Kernot, mining analyst at Seymour Pearce in London.

Big mining companies such as BHP Billiton have started a scramble 
to increase their stocks and output. There has also been a boom 
in exploration companies raising money on stock markets.

Canada is the world's biggest uranium producer, supplying 11,800
tonnes a year. Australia is No 2 with 7,900 tonnes and
Kazakhstan is next with 4,300 tonnes. Cameco runs the biggest
mine in the world, at McArthur River in Canada.

Some mines have been highly controversial and among them was
Jabaluka - on sacred Aboriginal land in Australia - which has
now been closed by the operator, Rio Tinto. The company also has
a controversial joint venture with Iran which mines for uranium
at Rössing in Namibia.

There are safety concerns about mining uranium, which can be
harmful to health. New supplies are found by flying aircraft
over areas believed to contain uranium and taking radioactivity
readings. Any potential prospects are then drilled and might
eventually be exploited by open cast mining or by pumping acid
underground to dissolve the uranium before pushing it back up to
the surface in concentrated form. This "yellowcake" is put
through extractor plants and shipped to users.

Uranium, named after the planet Uranus, was discovered in 1789
by a German chemist. It is thought to have originated in the
universe more than 6.6m years ago.
 
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 48 Dayton Daily News: House panel OKs $34.8M for cleanup of Mound site

By Dayton Daily News 	 	 		 		 		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	

WASHINGTON  The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday
approved a $30 billion bill funding water and energy projects
that includes $34.8 million for the Miamisburg Mound site and
money for several other local projects. Tools

The Mound money will primarily go for post-closure and
post-cleanup costs, according to the office of U.S. Rep. Mike
Turner, R-Centerville. 

U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Springfield, chairs the House Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, which
oversees the bill. Other area projects include: 

• $1.25 million to develop 250 acres around the planned Austin
Road interchange to lure economic development. 

• $400,000 to design a stream location as part of the Salem Mall
redevelopment. 

• $4.05 million for five water and sewer projects in Hobson's
district, including $250,000 for the Greene County Beavercreek
water and sewer project and $1.2 million for a waterline
extension in Clark County. 

• $853,000 for operation and maintenance at the Clarence J.
Brown Dam in Clark County. 

• $1 million to build diesel-electric hybrid trucks for a
national pilot program at International Truck and Engine Crop.
and Eaton Corp. They will be built at International's
Springfield plant. 

• $8.2 million for Springfield's Nextedge Applied Research and
Technology Park, including $2 million for infrastructure
improvements and $6.2 million to design and build a pilot
supercomputing platform that can link data sources into
intelligence information for the federal government. 

• $100,000 for Biomass Research at Wilberforce and Central
State. 

• $4 million for scientific and technical programs at
Wilberforce and CSU aimed at promoting diversity and recruiting
scientific and technical staff for the National Nuclear Security
Administration and its national laboratories. Each school will
get $2 million. 

The bill goes to the House for approval. 	 

DaytonDailyNews.com: Contact Us | Advertise | Rated with ICRA|

Copyright ©2006 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All

By using DaytonDailyNews.com, you accept the terms of our
*****************************************************************
 49 Sac Bee: Aerojet to pay $25 million to settle pollutant lawsuit - 

sacbee.com
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Greg Voetsch, with wife Doris, and his family settled with
Aerojet two years ago in a similar contaminant case. Doris has
developed several cancers, and a recurrence of breast cancer.

Sacramento Bee/Anne Chadwick Williams   

Aerojet-General Corp. has agreed to pay a $25 million settlement 
after a jury found the defense contractor responsible for the 
deaths of three former Rancho Cordova residents and the illnesses 
of four others who drank tap water contaminated with rocket fuel.

 A Sacramento Superior Court jury awarded more than $14 million
in damages to the plaintiffs last week following a twomonth
trial. Aerojet officials, faced with possible punitive damages,
agreed Friday to settle the case for an additional $11 million.

 Aerojet's parent company, GenCorp, disclosed the deal Monday in
a financial report to shareholders, saying the payment would be
made over three years, with the first installment due next month.

 The jury found Aerojet "was negligent with respect to its
operations, chemical handling, treatment and/or disposal
process" of toxic chemicals.

 "I was very impressed with the intelligence and attention span
of the jury," said Gary Praglin, a Los Angeles lawyer
representing the plaintiffs.

 Praglin declined comment on the settlement Tuesday, saying the
agreement prohibits disclosure of details by all involved,
including the survivors of the diseased. GenCorp officials
disagreed with the jury's verdict.

 "We don't believe that the litigation had merit, andwedon't
believe the verdict that they reached was supported by the
evidence represented in the trial," said Linda Cutler, a GenCorp
spokeswoman.

 "In evaluating our legal optionswemutually agreed to settle at
the $25 million and move on," Cutler said.

 The jury's findings pertained to Aerojet's operations in the
1960s and 1970s when the key clean-water and hazardous-materials
laws were in their infancy and utilities did not routinely
monitor drinking water for the chemicals Aerojet dumped. At the
time, Aerojet disposed of residual rocket fuel and metalcleaning
solvents in unlined open pits, allowing the contaminants to seep
through the soil and into the groundwater tapped for Rancho
Cordova homes.

 The case involved three water contaminants linked to Aerojet
operations: perchlorate, an oxidizing component of solid rocket
propellant known to cause thyroid disorders; NDMA, a
cancercausing combustion product of liquid rocket fuel; and
trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent that has been
linked to brain damage, liver cancer, skin diseases and immune
disorders.

 The jury found Aerojet's negligence "was a substantial factor"
in causing thyroid disease in the four surviving plaintiffs and
in causing the deaths of three others from lymphoma, a cancer of
the blood, and melanoma, a skin cancer, according to the
verdict. The individual damages awarded ranged from $150,000 to
$5 million. The suit was filed in the late 1990s on behalf of
the stricken or their survivors: Cheryl Fischer- Smith, who died
as a result of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; Pamela Lowndes who
succumbed to melanoma; Deangela Smith, Terilynne Steinman and
Joan Van Den Berg, for their thyroid disorders; Donna Marinelli,
who has thyroid cancer; and her father, Anthony Marinelli, who
died of lymphoma.

 "The settlement these people got was real nice, but it will not
pay for the suffering they went through," said Greg Voetsch, 72,
whose family reached itsown settlement about two years ago in a
similar case against Aerojet. Before moving to Rancho Cordova in
1970, the family lived in the Los Angeles County city of Azusa -
in the shadow of another Aerojet plant. The water supplying that
neighborhood has been found to be polluted with perchlorate and
TCE.

 In the 1980s, Voetsch said his wife, Doris, 70, developed
breast cancer. Voetsch said he has had thyroid cancer as have
two of his daughters.

 Then early this year, after the family bought a new car and
began making home improvements with the settlement money,
doctors began to find one cancer after another in Doris Voetsch,
first in her colon, then her lungs, then her throat and, most
recently, a recurrence of breast cancer that led to a full
mastectomy.

 "This stuff doesn't end with the settlement," Voestch said.
Rancho Cordova was the first of what are now dozens of
communities across the country where perchlorate from military
operations, aerospace industries and fireworks manufacturers has
been detected at worrisome levels in water supplies.

 California has by far the most extensive perchlorate
contamination in the country, with nearly 300 affected wells.
Today, the Arden-Cordova Water Service and the Sacramento County
Water Agency have 14 fewer wells to serve 60,000 Rancho Cordova
residents because of Aerojet pollution. Regulators and affected
industries have been wrestling over setting a "safe" limit of
perchlorate in drinking water.

 Aerojet currently operates nine groundwater cleanup systems
that pump and treat about 20 million gallons per day, Cutler
said.

 The company has invested about $250 million in the
investigation and cleanup of the groundwater pollution in the
past 25 years, reducing contamination in wells to levels state
and federal regulators consider safe, Cutler said. Completion of
the groundwater cleanup, however, is still decades away.

 
About the writer:
 
  + The Bee's Chris Bowman can be reached at (916) 321-1069 or
cbowman@sacbee.com. Bee researcher Sheila Kern contributed to
this report. 	
[ border=]  	
Current outline of plume and contaminated areas. The migrating
plume of contaminated groundwater found responsible deaths and
illnesses in a recently settled case has spread considerably.
Aerojet's cleanup efforts, however, have sharply reduced the
concentration of pollutants. 

[The Sacramento Bee]
*****************************************************************
 50 Bradenton Herald: Lockheed requests dismissal of charges

05/18/2006 | 

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin Corp. has asked a court to dismiss
most of Tallevast residents' lawsuit against the company for
damages they say they have suffered from underground
contamination leaking from a plant Lockheed once owned. 

Lockheed's attorneys claim residents have failed to support four
of their six charges against the company with facts. 

"Plaintiffs seek relief, which, as a matter of law, they cannot
receive," L. Norman Vaughan-Birch wrote in the motion filed
April 25 in the 12th Judicial Circuit. Vaughn-Birch, of the
Sarasota law firm of Kirk-Pinkerton, Pa., is on Lockheed's legal
team, along with attorneys from Crowell &Moring LLP of
Washington, D.C. 

"The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has for
years been actively and aggressively working with Lockheed
Martin to remediate the Tallevast site and its environs,"
Vaughan-Birch wrote. The injunctions residents seek would
conflict with those remediation efforts, Vaughan-Birch said. 

Although Lockheed reported the contamination to county and state
officials in 2000, as required by law, neither Lockheed nor the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection nor Manatee
County informed Tallevast residents of the toxic plume. 

Residents did not learn of the toxins in their community until
three years later when drilling teams arrived to dig wells to
test the groundwater surrounding the plant. 

Those tests revealed that some of Tallevast residents' private
drinking water and irrigation wells were contaminated. 

Bruce Denson and Ed Cottingham, members of the legal team
representing Tallevast residents, could not be reached for
comment. 

Tallevast leaders have talked with their legal team about the
motion, said Wanda Washington, vice president of Family Oriented
Community United Strong, and are awaiting their attorneys'
response. 

Lockheed's latest test data indicate the plume stemming from the
former Loral American Beryllium Co. facility at 1600 Tallevast
Road now covers 200 acres, including the backyards of residents
of the small historic community. 

As the owner of the facility when the contamination was
discovered, Lockheed has responsibility for cleaning up the mess
even though the company alleges it had nothing to do with the
operations that caused the leak. 

To date, 323 Tallevast residents have signed onto the suit filed
Sept. 1 against Lockheed and other parties connected to the
plant, claiming they have suffered property damage and emotional
distress because of the contamination spewing from the plant. 

Lockheed's activities, the plaintiffs allege, have resulted in
the intentional, incidental or accidental release of hazardous
chemicals that have put their community and health at risk. 

A second lawsuit citing the same charges on behalf of 31 more
residents was filed Nov. 11. 

The plaintiffs in both lawsuits charge Lockheed with the
following complaints: 1. A common law strict liability complaint
alleging abnormally dangerous actions on the part of Lockheed. 

2. Violation of a Florida statute that governs the release and
discharge of hazardous chemicals. 

3. Negligence and breach of duty in the release of those
chemicals and failing to adequately inform and warn residents. 

4. Trespass, because those chemicals invaded the property of
residents. 

5. Private nuisance, because the chemicals interfered with and
impaired residents' use of their property. 

6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrage
stemming from Lockheed's failure to inform residents. 

Vaughan-Birch's memorandum makes Lockheed's case for dismissal
of charges 1,4,5 and 6. 

The motion also includes a second memorandum making the same
case for dismissal on behalf of Wire Pro Inc., WPI Sarasota
Division Inc. and BESCD LLC, the current operators and owners of
the former beryllium plant, who are also named as defendants in
both Tallevast lawsuits. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. 

HERALD WATCHDOG 

*****************************************************************
 51 BBC: Wylfa life extension
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 18 May 2006
 
[Wylfa]                                 

Wylfa, which opened in 1971, is due close in four years' time                                                               

There is unlikely to be an extension to the life of Wylfa nuclear 
power station on Anglesey, a committee of Welsh MPs has been 
told. 

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) blamed the costs 
involved of keeping it open, in evidence to the Welsh Affairs 
Select Committee. 

Wylfa is due to close in 2010. 

The island's council had called for Wylfa to continue in 
operation but has since backed the idea of Anglesey having a 
second nuclear station. 

The existing power station supplies electricity directly to the 
metal smelting plant Anglesey Aluminium in Holyhead. 

Both plants are major employers on the island and a report has 
claimed the planned closure of the power station in 2010 would 
lead to both sites shutting, with a combined loss of 1,500 jobs. 

Metal casing 

Councillors on Anglesey had originally called for a two-year stay 
of execution for Wylfa and ultimately for a new nuclear power 
station - Wylfa B - to be built on the island, near Cemaes. 

	 		

			
                                                        [Wylfa 
power station]                           The nuclear plant uses 
magnox fuel                                                             

		 	 	 

In January this year, Enterprise Minister Andrew Davies confirmed 
he had asked the UK Government to look at keeping Wylfa open 
beyond 2010. 

But giving evidence to the Welsh Select Committee on Wednesday, 
the NDA's regional director Brian Burnett said Wylfa's future was 
linked to operations at other sites. 

He said the fuel used in the ageing magnox reactors uses a 
special magnesium metal casing but the factory making them had 
ceased production. 

The body's engineering director, Richard White, responding to a 
question from Ynys Mon MP Albert Owen, said the NDA was in the 
process of carrying out a feasibility study on the costs of 
continuing power generation at the plant beyond 2010. 

'Economic arguments' 

He said: "At the moment I think it would be fair to say that it's 
looking unlikely that an overall positive business case would be 
generated. 

"When you take account of the costs of a Wylfa, Springfield and 
Sellafield operation extension and what all that means, against 
even optimistic views of the electricity pricing, it's not 
looking positive at the moment." 

Mr Owen said: "There are strong economic arguments to keep it 
open but it's always likely to be difficult and the NDA's report 
is likely to say that those technical difficulties are going to 
be a massive challenge for them." 

Both Wylfa and the Anglesey Aluminium works were developed in the 
early 1970s. 
*****************************************************************
 52 reviewjournal.com: Nuclear agency nominee testifies
 
  May 18, 2006

Job would require decisions on repository        

By ALISON VEKSHIN <br/>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- A Bush administration official with Yucca Mountain 
ties came one step closer to becoming the next chairman of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission after breezing through a Senate 
confirmation hearing Wednesday. 

Dale Klein fielded questions from a Senate panel considering him 
for a post that would make him a key player in licensing the 
proposed nuclear waste repository. 

Yucca Mountain came up only once during the hearing of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. James Jeffords, 
I-Vt., asked Klein about "adding new expertise to the commission 
that it has not traditionally had" to process a license 
application. 

"Any time you have a regulatory body like the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, it's certainly important to have a very technically
qualified staff to be able to review and evaluate the issues
both for Yucca Mountain or for reactor safety," Klein told
Jeffords. "If confirmed, I would hope that the NRC would be able
to respond to a timely application with the right qualified
individuals." 

Repository foes say Klein could not be impartial in considering
a license for Yucca Mountain because he took part in a pro-Yucca
advertising campaign 15 years ago in Nevada. 

Klein appeared in a series of television ads produced by the
American Nuclear Energy Council that began airing in October
1991 as part of the "Nevada Initiative." 

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., have said
they will reserve judgment until they talk with Klein. 

A former associate dean in the College of Engineering at the
University of Texas, Klein is the assistant to the secretary of
defense for nuclear, biological and chemical programs. 

Klein would become chairman of the five-member Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which has 3,300 employees and a $760
million budget. 

Klein testitifed, "The challenges ahead for the NRC are
substantial: dealing with the impending wave of applications for
new reactors, overseeing their construction, and simultaneously
ensuring the existing plants receive the high standard of
regulatory oversight set by the NRC is extremely important." 

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the committee's chairman, said when
the panel votes on Klein's nomination it also will decide on the
nominations of NRC Commissioners Gregory Jaczko and Peter Lyons,
serving under appointments that expire at year's end. 	   

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
 Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 53 reviewjournal.com: Panel trims nuclear waste spending
 
May 18, 2006

By STEVE TETREAULT <br/>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
	
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers took another bite out of the Bush 
administration's plan to reprocess nuclear waste on Wednesday, 
cutting an additional $30 million from the president's budget 
request for the initiative. 

The House Appropriations Committee reduced spending on the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, to $120 million for the 2007 
fiscal year, less than half what President Bush requested. 

The president's original budget of $250 million was first cut to 
$150 million by a subcommittee last week. 

The additional $30 million in savings was redirected by an 
amendment into programs that help low-income families make their 
homes more energy-efficient. The move came as the committee 
approved an annual spending bill for the Department of Energy. 

Committee leaders said the Department of Energy failed to provide 
enough details about the costs, schedules and development plans 
for GNEP, as well as what kinds of waste that reprocessing would 
produce. 

The Bush administration has proposed advanced research and 
development of facilities where spent nuclear fuel might be 
"recycled" for further use, while its waste products could be 
smaller in volume and less toxic for burial at the Yucca Mountain 
site in Nevada. 

GNEP critics say the reprocessing being considered by the Bush 
administration is unaffordable and unreliable. The Natural 
Resources Defense Council estimated costs likely to mount to $30 
billion to $40 billion over 15 years while the promise of the 
technology is far from certain. 

The House action is likely to set up a GNEP conflict in coming 
months when the Senate takes up Energy Department spending. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a committee chairman and GNEP 
proponent, said this week he plans to allocate all the money the 
president requested, "and look to see if I can find some more." 

The energy spending bill also contained $544.5 million to 
continue development of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca. 

The committee added $30 million for the Department of Energy to 
begin selecting one or more temporary waste storage sites while 
work continues at Yucca. The money would not be spent until 
Congress passed a follow-up bill authorizing DOE to set up 
interim storage.           

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 54 openDemocracy: Nuclear-waste politics Rob Edwards - 

Rob Edwards 

18 - 5 - 2006 

 The short-term attention-span of politicians works against the 
long-term environmental thinking the issue of nuclear waste 
needs, says Rob Edwards. [ width=]                                                                        

It's the timescales that are so daunting. Take plutonium-239,
for instance, created by nuclear reactors with a half-life of
24,100 years. A sizeable lump is going to take hundreds of
thousands of years to decay. 

Looking backwards, that takes us somewhere before the dawn of
humankind. Looking forwards, we are into the realms of science
fiction. Put the problem to a politician with a tenure of five
years or less, and it's easy to see what will happen – nothing. 

That, in brutal summary, is nuclear-waste policy in most
countries. The nuclear industry's creation of radioactive wastes
- so dangerous that they've got to be isolated from the
environment for unimaginable reaches of time - inevitably
produces political paralysis. 

Hence the United States’s twenty-three-year-old plan to dispose
of spent fuel from reactors at the heart of Yucca mountain in
the Nevada desert has been delayed by fierce political and legal
opposition. Progress has not been helped by a scientific scandal
over the falsifying of geological data. 

Japan is looking at possible sites but does not expect to open a
repository before 2035. A European Union proposal that
nuclear-waste sites should be operational by 2018 had to be
ditched because most member-states haven't a hope of meeting
such a deadline. 

Even the two most advanced countries – Sweden and Finland – are
still more than a decade away from actually putting any
radioactive waste down a hole. Sweden is hoping to choose a site
in 2011 and open it by 2017, while tunnels are being blasted at
Olkiluoto near Turku in Finland with the aim of having a
repository in 2020. 

But the paralysis is most obvious in one of the countries that
first let the nuclear genie out of the bottle – the United
Kingdom. More than fifty-five years after military reactors at
Windscale in Cumbria first started producing waste, it is still
in temporary stores with no final disposal in sight. 

Rob Edwards is a freelance environmental journalist with the
Sunday Herald and New Scientist. His blog, containing over 200
articles, is here 

Also by Rob Edwards in openDemocracy: 

"Chernobyl’s death toll: twisting the facts" 
(26 April 2006)   

The "deep disposal" solution 

The nuclear-waste problem was first highlighted in Britain by
the royal commission on environmental pollution in 1976. "It
would be morally wrong to commit future generations to the
consequences of fission power on a massive scale," it said,
"unless it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at
least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes
for the indefinite future." 

Since then three separate government programmes aimed at finding
sites where waste could be buried have been abandoned – in 1981,
1987 and 1997. The last two attempts, both of which were
rejected in the run-up to general elections, were masterminded
by the nuclear industry radioactive waste executive (Nirex). 

Despite this, Nirex has survived. In 2005 it ended more than two
decades as a creature of the nuclear industry by annexing itself
to government. But it remains wedded to what it calls its "deep
disposal concept" – the idea that the UK's nuclear waste will,
sooner or later, end up in a hole in the ground. 

Recent revelations suggest that Nirex may have been somewhat
over-enthusiastic in its pursuit of this goal. In 2004 it was
trying to work out its approach to a new body set up by the
government to recommend disposal options for the UK's 470,000
cubic metres of waste – the committee on radioactive waste
management (CoRWM). 

A draft media and public affairs strategy from that year,
released to Greenpeace under the freedom of information act, has
been posted on the anti-nuclear website, nuclearspin.org. It
revealed that Nirex was considering exerting "third party
pressure" to win CoRWM round to the idea of deep disposal. 

The strategy listed more than sixty "suggested targets"
including leading politicians in London and Edinburgh, political
advisers, councillors and journalists. Oral briefings with key
figures would enable Nirex "to engage in a more candid dialogue
about CoRWM", it said. 

But it was with government departments that Nirex had
"experienced the greatest amount of frustration", the strategy
disclosed. Civil servants were accused of "viewing Nirex as a
'problem' and seeking to keep us wrapped up". So, it argued,
"heavy political pressure needs to be brought to bear". 

Worse, Nirex was advised by a consultant, Allan Rogers, to
"enlist" politicians sympathetic to its cause and to "isolate"
those who were hostile. "We have to be sure that opinion leaders
are carefully recruited and groomed", he said. 

The aim was to convince "target groups" that deep underground
disposal was the best way forward "otherwise there can be no
future development of the nuclear industry", Rogers argued. 

Although Nirex claims it didn't use these tactics, three years
on it seems to have won the argument, raising questions over
whether it warped the process. With only one dissenter, CoRWM
has now issued draft recommendations in favour of deep disposal. 

As a result the government will be left with little option other
than to restart the search for a disposal site. In other words,
after three decades of discussions and investigations, British
policy is exactly back where it began. 

The British prime minister, Tony Blair, will try and use CoRWM's
final report, expected in July, to help clear the way for a new
nuclear-power programme. But this would be an abuse, with even
the committee's chairman, Gordon MacKerron, stressing that its
recommendations should not be seen as a "green light" for
building new reactors. 

So far no one in government looks likely to draw the obvious
conclusion, which applies worldwide. As there is still no
solution to the problem of nuclear waste, there should be no new
nuclear-power programme. What was "morally wrong" for the royal
commission in 1976 is still morally wrong in 2006. 
	   			 		

No2nuclearpower: history of nuclear waste 

Nirex: radioactive waste management 

World Nuclear Association 			 		   	 		      		 	

death toll: twisting the facts 						 					   			

Nuclear-waste politics 2006 The short-term attention-span of 
politicians works against the long-term environmental thinking 
the issue of nuclear waste needs, says Rob Edwards. Rob Edwards 
Rob Edwards + + 

This article is published by Rob Edwards, and openDemocracy.net
under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of
charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following
these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your
department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for
permissionand fees. Some articles on this site are published
under different terms. 	 	   	 	
*****************************************************************
 55 Scotsman.com: Amount of nuclear waste stored in Scotland is set to quadruple
 
[Scotsman.com News]             Friday, 19th May 2006                    

Most of the waste is held at Dounreay in the Highlands.

 Picture: Andrew Milligan/PA    
  + [icon: Printer] Printer friendly 	
  + [icon: Email] Send to friend 	 

Amount of nuclear waste stored in Scotland is set to quadruple

HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR 

THE amount of radioactive waste stored in Scotland will
quadruple in the next eight years, MSPs were told yesterday. 

The nuclear waste company Nirex said 14,000 cubic metres of low
and intermediate radioactive waste was stored north of the
Border currently - a figure that would rise to 54,000 cubic
metres, by 2014 and 82,000 cubic metres by 2020. 

Bruce Crawford, for the SNP, raised the Nirex forecasts in
parliament yesterday, arguing that Scotland could not afford to
build any new nuclear power stations. 

Most of the waste is held at Dounreay with some at the nuclear
power stations at Torness, Hunterston and Chapelcross, and
smaller amounts at Rosyth Royal Naval dockyard. 

A spokesman for Nirex admitted there would be a sharp rise in
radioactive material stored in Scotland over the next few years,
but he said this was largely because of decommissioning existing
reactors. 

"Some of the power stations are coming to the end of the line
and are being de-commissioned. There will be material from the
building, pipes and metal which has become irradiated - we are
talking about stuff which is not waste at the moment," he said. 

Mr Crawford asked Rhona Brankin, the deputy environment
minister, if she was aware of the amount of nuclear waste being
held in Scotland and official predictions for its growth. "Given
this massive increase in radioactive waste, will you accept that
it is absolutely obvious that the last thing Scotland needs now
is a massive increase in its nuclear waste as a result of new
nuclear power stations?" 

Ms Brankin said the Executive was working closely with the
committee on radioactive waste management and added: "I can only
reiterate that the issue of building new nuclear power stations
will not be considered until the issue of radioactive waste has
been resolved." 

Low-level waste, such as gloves, overalls or lab equipment,
accounts for 94 per cent of all the radioactive waste in
Britain. This is mainly disposed of in Cumbria, but there are
almost 6,000 cubic metres of it at Dounreay and 448 cubic metres
at Rosyth. 

Intermediate-level waste accounts for the rest. It is stored
mainly at the sites of production and there is 6,670 cubic
metres of it in Scotland, most at Dounreay (3,770 cubic metres)
and (1,360 cubic metres) at Hunterston A. There is no high-level
waste - from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel - in Scotland. 

Earlier, Jack McConnell gave his broadest hint yet that new
nuclear power stations might be needed in Scotland. 

Goaded by Nicola Sturgeon, SNP leader at Holyrood, that he was
failing to show leadership by not declaring whether he backed a
new generation of nuclear power stations, the First Minister
replied: "It would be an absolute dereliction of duty as far as
I am concerned for me to rule out options for the future for
Scotland. 

"I believe it's very important that as part of this debate, we
need to address the fact that if there were not nuclear power
stations in Scotland that [energy] gap would have to be
addressed in some other way." 

While Mr McConnell appears to be inching towards new nuclear
power stations, Tony Blair is taking a much more robust view,
insisting that nuclear power is back on the agenda "with a
vengeance". 

The Prime Minister's determination to pursue new nuclear
stations suffered a blow yesterday with figures showing there
had been 57 alerts at nuclear power stations over the past
decade, including at least one in Scotland. This was the
discovery of radioactivity in boreholes at the Hunterston B
reactor in 2001. 

Last updated: 18-May-06 00:08 BST                       
 	
*****************************************************************
 56 AU ABC: Bligh urges uranium industry to prove safety. 

18/05/2006. ABC News Online
 	
Acting Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has challenged uranium
miners to use science to convince Australians that their
industry is safe.

 Ms Bligh has told the Queensland Media Club the Government is
seeking clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

 She says companies that want to explore for and mine uranium
must work with scientists to lobby politicians and the public.

 "Convincing them that the safety concerns that existed two
decades ago, that we are somehow now in a position to resolve
them," she said.

 "I don't think unless we address that concern and we're out
there talking the science and we're out there convincing people,
frankly I think it's going to be some time in this country
before we will see uranium being mined [in Queensland]." 


*****************************************************************
 57 Whitehaven News: MP hits out at false CORE claims

Published on 18/05/2006                                                                                                                                              
                                                        
COPELANDâ€™S Labour MP, Jamie Reed, has criticised the recent 
spate of propaganda from anti-nuclear pressure groups.
 
He said: â€œI take particular exception to recent claims from
CORE that Sellafield â€˜may have been responsible for some of
the thyroid problems in Cumbria.â€™ There is not one shred of
evidence to support this claim.
 
â€œItâ€™s about time that the anti-nuclear lobby stopped trying
to demonise West Cumbria and West Cumbrians â€“ weâ€™re sick and
tired of it. 

â€œRecently, Greenpeace criticised the Â£18 million cash
injection into the local health economy by the NDA describing it
as being â€˜like the feudal system.â€™ Where was the Greenpeace
cheque? Where is their support for the area? They are extremely
well funded so how about donating some of their money â€“ with
no strings â€“ to the cause of regeneration in West Cumbria? At
the same time, they should publish a list of their funders so
that the general public can see exactly who it is that funds
these groups. 

â€œThe people of West Cumbria are expendable to these groups.
Our economy is of no interest to them, our ambitions and
aspirations are of no interest to them and our well-being is of
no interest to them. 

â€œThese groups will happily terrorise the people of West
Cumbria and Britain with scaremongering propaganda about the
nuclear industry so that they may influence the Governmentâ€™s
energy review. They have no regard for the consequences of their
cheap campaigns or the reputation of the area.
 
â€œIf any industry in West Cumbria posed a threat to the health,
safety or wellbeing of its employees or the general public then
I would be the first to campaign for its closure. 

â€œEnough is enough â€“ these groups should limit their claims
to scientific fact.â€ 

The CORE claims centred on Cumbria showing a 12-fold rise in
thyroid cancer cases.
 
*****************************************************************
 58 Deseret News: House panel OKs option of private nuclear waste
facility 

[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, May 18, 2006 

By Suzanne Struglinski 

Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department can consider a private 
facility for temporarily storing nuclear waste before the federal
repository at Yucca Mountain is ready to receive it, the House 
Appropriations Committee decided Wednesday. 

That means Private Fuel Storage, a nuclear waste storage 
site in Tooele County, could be an option for interim nuclear 
waste storage if Congress allows the Energy Department to go 
ahead with temporary storage. 

The committee approved the $30 billion energy and water 
spending bill and its accompanying report, which slammed the 
Energy Department's progress — or lack thereof — on the Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste storage project in Nevada. The report 
said the committee would accept any further delay in the Yucca 
project "only if it accompanied interim storage beginning this 
decade." 

The report said the department needs to address the 
problems of accumulating fuel at commercial nuclear reactors and 
the government's growing liability for the waste awaiting 
permanent storage. It included $30 million for interim waste 
storage if Congress would authorize the department to move ahead 
with it. 

"The only constructive way to address these problems in 
the near term is for the department actually to begin to move 
spent fuel away from commercial reactor site and into some 
version of interim storage," the report said. "These interim 
storage sites may be located on DOE property, but the department 
should also investigate the availability of other federal and 
private sites." 

PFS officials are being cautious in their assessment of 
recent talk on interim storage. Spokeswoman Sue Martin said the 
consortium would be willing to work with the DOE. 

But this week's debate is different from the smaller 
debate that took place on interim storage last year. House 
Appropriations Energy and Water Development Chairman David 
Hobson, R-Ohio, told Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, during a floor 
debate a year ago, "I do not see any reason for the secretary to 
consider making a private site or a site on tribal land into a 
DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for the secretary to 
evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites." 

Bishop and the rest of the Utah House delegation sent a 
letter to Hobson last month reminding him of the statement. 

Utah's congressional delegation and the state government 
strongly opposed any plan to bring nuclear waste in Utah for 
storage. Beyond transportation risks associated with taking 
waste through the state, once waste is brought to Utah the fear 
is it would stay there permanently. 

Private Fuel Storage, a licensed nuclear waste storage 
site on Goshute Indian Reservation land in Tooele County, has 
asked the Energy Department to pay to move commercial spent fuel 
to the site and is still talking with utilities to see if any 
would be interested in helping finance the project. Several 
original investors backed out last year and the site still faces 
transportation obstacles. 

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has repeatedly said that 
PFS is not part of the department's overall strategy for 
handling nuclear waste. It is not clear if an approval by 
Congress to go ahead with interim storage could change that 
strategy. 

The Energy Department was supposed to take nuclear power 
plant waste in 1998 and put it into the Yucca Mountain 
repository planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nuclear 
power users pay a fee for their electricity that goes into a 
special fund designed specifically to pay for the storage site. 

But Yucca remains far from finished so the nuclear 
utilities have sued the department for the delay. The department 
estimates that every year Yucca is delayed beyond its subsequent 
2010 opening date, it will cost the federal government $1 
billion per year "with a conservative estimate of $500 million 
in legal liability and $500 million to monitor and guard defense 
spent fuel and high level radioactive waste at DOE sites," 
according to the report. 

Hobson said after Wednesday's meeting that the department 
should put out a request for proposals and see who would be 
interested in storing the waste. The request could be for 
interim storage itself or for part of the administration's new 
plan to reprocess used nuclear fuel through the Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership. 

Hobson stressed that he wants any interim storage program 
to be integrated with a reprocessing effort. 

"In this committee's view, if any site refuses to provide 
interim storage as needed to support the operation of an 
integrated recycling facility, at whatever scale, then that site 
should be eliminated from all further consideration under GNEP," 
according to the report. 

The committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Peter 
Visclosky, D-Ohio, that slashed an additional $30 million from 
GNEP and put it toward funding for energy conservation and 
weatherization activities. The administration asked for $250 
million to fund GNEP activities. The bill originally contained 
$150 million, but that amendment dropped it to $120 million. 

© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] 
*****************************************************************
 59 Rocky Mountain News: New probe at Flats
                                
Contractor accused of pitching gear to speed site cleanup

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News

May 18, 2006

Federal inspectors said Wednesday they are reopening an 
investigation into allegations that the contractor that cleaned 
up Rocky Flats threw away massive amounts of new tools and 
equipment to collect $170 million in bonuses for its fast and 
efficient work. 

"After further consideration, we have decided to reopen this
matter," said Marilyn Richardson, spokeswoman for the Department
of Energy's Office of Inspector General. She would not elaborate
on the statement or discuss why the decision was made. 

The turnabout follows an April 22 Rocky Mountain News report on
the complaints of several former workers at the site who said
the contractor, Kaiser-Hill, engaged in the hurried disposal of
usable tools and supplies. 

The materials, often still in unopened packaging and probably
worth millions of dollars, were tossed as part of the company's
strategy to quickly clear the former nuclear weapons plant 16
miles west of Denver, the workers alleged. 

The News reported that workers said they saw a wide range of
equipment pitched into waste containers for burial at disposal
sites in Utah and Nevada. Items included motors, paint sprayers,
jackhammers and drills, along with myriad plumbing and
electrical supplies. 

The story quoted one worker, 30-year employee Barb Smith,
describing the level of waste as "the ugliest thing I'd ever
seen." 

John Corsi, a spokesman for Kaiser-Hill, said the company was
unaware that federal inspectors were re-examining the matter.
Corsi, as he did in the previous News story, challenged the
claim that Kaiser- Hill disposed of useful equipment in the rush
to finish the job. 

He said that proving some material wasn't contaminated with
radioactivity was costly and time-consuming. The company, he
said, followed strict government guidelines in dealing with the
equipment. 

In addition, Corsi pointed out, the company auctioned off more
than 1 million pieces of equipment, bringing in about $6
million. 

"The government had rigorous standards, and we followed those
standards," he said. "If the inspector general is going to look
into it, I'm quite confident we're going to come out unscathed." 

Corsi added that the company made "conservative decisions on the
disposition of property that were cost-driven . . . every dollar
we saved the taxpayer, we earned 25 cents. There would be no
incentives for us to throw valuable equipment away." 

But several workers said they witnessed rampant waste,
particularly in the latter phases of the cleanup, when managers
didn't want to lose time trying to find proper homes for so much
material. 

Kaiser-Hill's contract with DOE was built around speed. In its
second cleanup contract with the agency, signed in 2000,
Kaiser-Hill earned rewards based on how much its costs came in
under the target budget of $3.96 billion, and for beating a
March 2006 deadline for finishing the job. 

Most of the $170 million in bonuses the company earned were for
coming in under the target budget by more than $400 million. But
those cost savings, much of which came through cutting payroll,
were tied directly to cleaning up the site quickly, a DOE
official familiar with the contract previously explained to the
News. 

"It's not very conceivable that any company could have reduced
costs in any other fashion than finishing early, so the two are
very closely linked," Charlie Dan, a contracting officer with
DOE, said in April. 

Steven Weber, a former Rocky Flats worker who first complained
to the inspector general's office about what he believed were
wasteful practices in 2004, said he is suspicious about the
OIG's desire to reopen the case. 

In his view, the agency never investigated the matter in the
first place. 

That's because during the OIG's initial investigation,
inspectors never interviewed Weber or other Flats workers about
their allegations, he said. 

"There's no way they could have investigated anything without
interviewing (other workers) or myself, who filed the
(complaint)," Weber said. 

"How could they do an (investigation) without talking to the
complainants?" 

Kaiser-Hill, too, was never made aware of an investigation into
the waste allegations, Corsi said. 

But another document suggested there may have been some kind of
investigation: In a January e-mail to Weber, an OIG official
said the agency had "reviewed your concerns regarding the waste
of DOE property and mismanagement at Rocky Flats. Our review did
not reveal waste of DOE property in this instance." 

That same month, the News sought documents produced by the OIG
investigation under the Freedom of Information Act. The
documents were never provided. On Wednesday, an OIG official
said the News' request would be turned down because the case was
being reopened. 

"We are looking at the allegations again," said Adrienne Martin,
of the inspector general's office. 

Separately, Weber asked OIG for copies of documents related to
the investigation into his complaints. But he, too, has never
been provided any paperwork. 

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5048 				 				 	 -->

     2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Northwest toting a lot of nuclear baggage

[seattlepi.com]     

Thursday, May 18, 2006 

By BILL VIRGIN

P-I COLUMNIST

If the schedule holds, the 499-foot cooling tower at PGE's Trojan 
nuclear power plant, located on the Oregon side of the Columbia 
River south of Longview, will be demolished Sunday at 7 a.m. 

The timing is interesting, coming as it does at a time when 
nuclear energy is gaining favor as an option for meeting the 
increased demand for electricity and doing so in a less 
environmentally damaging way than some alternatives. 

This would be the point at which the intrepid columnist would try 
to connect a couple of dots to produce a trend line and 
conjecture from that about the possible expansion of nuclear 
power to meet growing demand for electricity in the region. 

This is not that column. 

For starters, the demolition itself really doesn't work very
well as a symbol about what is or isn't going on with nuclear
power. Even though the familiar conical shape of the concrete
cooling tower is used by cartoonists and TV crews as a lazy
shorthand for nuclear plants, that type of cooling tower has
nothing specifically to do with nuclear power. You can find the
same style of cooling tower at coal-fired plants throughout the
Midwest and Appalachia. And Trojan hasn't produced a watt of
electricity since 1993; the reactor vessel was shipped off to
Hanford in 1999. 

The bigger issue is the Northwest's own unhappy experience with
nuclear power, the resulting legacy being that "ambivalent"
would be an overly generous estimation of the region's interest
in nuclear as a way to keep the lights on. 

You would have better odds of finding a Seattle politician
advocating that the Sonics be given a brand new arena, no
conditions or contributions attached, than of finding someone on
the Northwest energy and utility scene lobbying for new
development of nuclear power. 

Here, for example, is what the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council's regional plan has to say on the subject: Because the
next generation of nuclear technology won't be commercially
deployable until 2020, "this technology was not further
evaluated in this plan." 

If nuclear were considered, Energy Northwest might be one
logical candidate to build a new plant, because it operates the
region's only operating commercial generator, at Hanford. But
Energy Northwest says it's concentrating on developing a plant
at Kalama that would use synthetic gas (derived from coal or
petroleum coke) as well as expanding an existing wind project
near Kennewick and developing a new one in Lincoln County. 

[advertising] "We stop short of ruling (nuclear) out of our
future entirely," says spokesman Brad Peck, but for now "we're
not pursuing it." 

Other parts of the country and the world are, in fact, pursuing
the idea. More than a half-dozen utilities, mostly in the
Southeast, are moving ahead with plans for new nuclear plants,
reports the Nuclear Energy Institute in a recent newsletter. The
trade group also says several states have passed or are
considering legislation or resolutions to encourage more
development of nuclear plants. Overseas, British Prime Minister
Tony Blair indicated his country is seriously considering a new
generation of nuclear plants to replace older ones and to meet
new demand, according to Bloomberg News. 

There are some attractions to nuclear plants. Says the power
council's regional plan: "Nuclear plants could be attractive
under conditions of sustained high natural gas prices and
aggressive greenhouse gas control. Other factors favoring
nuclear generation would be failure to develop economic means of
reducing or sequestering the (carbon dioxide) production of
coal-based generation, and difficulty expanding transmission to
access new wind or coal resources." 

But nuclear has some big drawbacks. The first is safety, or at
least the image of safety. The problem can be summed up in a few
words: Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. You can produce all the
studies you want about the relevance of those accidents to
nuclear power today, or what the long-term effects of either
were, but the mere mention of them is enough to immediately lose
a large part of the audience and make much of the rest highly
suspicious. 

Then there's the issue of what to do with the spent fuel rods
and other contaminated stuff. The battle about development of a
storage facility in Nevada has had a half-life nearly a long as
the nuclear material itself. 

Nuclear power faces a third impediment in the Northwest: the
catastrophic financial experience. Energy Northwest is the
successor to the Washington Public Power Supply System, and the
one plant it operates is what's left of an ambitious plan to
build five reactors, three at Hanford and two at Satsop in Grays
Harbor County. What resulted was not power "too cheap to meter"
(the promise made in the early days of atomic energy) but a
multibillion-dollar municipalbond default that loomed over the
region's finances, the electric utility industry and all large
construction projects for years afterward. 

And that wasn't the only unpleasantness. Puget Power (now Puget
Sound Energy) went through a long fight in an attempt to build
two nuclear plants in Skagit County before dropping the idea.
The Trojan plant was plagued throughout its existence with
controversy over its location and construction. 

Thus it will be the brave -- or foolhardy -- man or woman who
proposes a new nuclear project in the region. As long as the
region can cobble together enough conservation, wind,
cogeneration, methane from landfills and manure piles and
whatever other ideas are out there, and at reasonable prices, no
one is likely to be tempted to offer such a plan. 

The Trojan cooling tower may be coming down this weekend, but
prospects for additional nuclear power in this region were
reduced to rubble years ago. P-I reporter Bill Virgin can be
reached at 206-448-8319 or billvirgin@seattlepi.com. His column
appears Tuesdays and Thursdays.                 

Jobs | Contact Us | Home Delivery [

Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 
(206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 61 Tri-City Herald: DOE to halt strontium leaking toward river 

Published Thursday, May 18th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The Department of Energy plans to begin laying a trap next week
for wayward radioactive strontium that's leaking into the
Columbia River. 

The current method for removing the strontium is having little
effect, even though DOE is spending up to $1 million a year on
it. The contaminated water is pumped out of the ground,
strontium is removed and the cleaned water is reinjected back
into the ground. 

Newly developed technology should cost about the same, yet
protect the river over the next 270 years. 

Rather than removing the strontium, chemical barriers injected
into the ground would bind it in place along the river banks
until its radioactivity decays naturally. 

The simplicity of the technique is a plus, Jane Hedges said as
she stood Wednesday on the banks of the Columbia River on top of
what is one of Hanford's most worrisome plumes of underground
contamination. Hedges is nuclear waste program manager for the
Washington State Department of Ecology, 

When Hanford's N Reactor was irradiating fuel to produce
plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program, up to 2,000
gallons per minute of contaminated water was discharged into
soil near the reactor. Water that had circulated over the fuel
and picked up strontium 90 isotopes continued to be discharged
800 feet from the river until 1992. 

Now, the area has an underground plume of about three-fifths of
a square mile with strontium contamination that's 1,000 times
the drinking water standard. It's a threat to humans and the
environment. 

"Our body can't distinguish it from calcium," said Mike
Thompson, project lead for DOE. It replaces calcium in the bones
and can lead to cancer of the bone, skin and blood. 

DOE's been operating a pump and treat program for 10 years to
remove strontium, for lack of a better technology. The program
has helped reduce the flow of ground water into the river that
can carry along the strontium. 

But at a pumping rate of 60 gallons per minute, the system
removes about 0.2 curies per year, or about 10 times less than
the amount removed by natural radioactive decay. 

About 35 technologies were studied before building a chemical
barrier was picked as the most promising four years ago, said
John Price, the Department of Ecology's project manager for
environmental restoration. 

The intent is to inject a calcium phosphate mineral, or apatite
mineral, that occurs naturally in Earth's crust into wells along
the bank of the Columbia River near N Reactor. It will form a
chemical barrier that will stretch about 300 feet along the
Columbia in the area of the worst contamination. 

When strontium hits the mineral, it should bond and remain in
place until most of its radioactivity is gone 270 years from
now. 

Half of the radioactivity of strontium decays every 28.6 years.
With some of the strontium already in the ground for 30 years,
scientists are figuring it will require another 270 years for
the strontium to decay to meet drinking water standards. 

But finding a way to spread the apatite mineral into a uniform
barrier has been a problem. Apatite tends to settle out quickly
when injected into the ground, rather than moving with the water
to form a barrier that spreads from injection well to injection
well. 

That problem was solved by Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory. 

By coating the apatite with citrate, it flows with the water
until bacteria in the soil eat away the coating after it has
spread along the river, Price said. The apatite is injected as a
liquid that gels, then forms crystals. 

The first apatite injection is planned for next week, said Dick
Wilde, Fluor Hanford vice president for ground water projects.
It will help Fluor calculate pressure and volume for the
injections that will build the apatite barrier about 30 feet
from the river. The barrier will spread to within 15 to 20 feet
of the river. 

The first full injection is planned for June to build a barrier
to stop strontium in ground water from reaching the river. Next
year a second, higher concentration injection is planned to
catch strontium in the soil above the ground water between the
initial apatite barrier and the river. 

If needed, coyote willow could be planted along the river bank
to remove any strontium not blocked at the apatite barrier. The
roots would suck up the contaminated water until the willow is
harvested as contaminated waste. 

The apatite barrier is considered a pilot project and will be
re-evaluated in 2008. 

"This should give us some real answers about the strontium
waste," Hedges said. "This is a high priority for us." 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 62 Tri-City Herald: PNNL gets increase in budget bill 

Published Thursday, May 18th, 2006 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

An extra $17 million included in a House budget bill would help
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory move into new laboratory
and office space sooner and save cleanup dollars. 

The House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday approved almost
$25 million for new lab space and a Hanford budget of about $1.8
billion for fiscal year 2007. 

Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., requested the increase for PNNL from
about $8 million proposed for the transition to new buildings by
the Bush administration. The additional money spent in 2007
could save more than $100 million in cleanup costs, Hastings
said in a statement. 

PNNL now uses space in Hanford's 300 Area just north of Richland
for nearly 1,000 scientists and workers. But DOE has awarded a
contract to tear down all the buildings in the 300 Area to
Washington Closure Hanford as part of the cleanup of the Hanford
nuclear reservation. 

Some of the buildings date from World War II, and many of them
and the ground and utilities under them are contaminated. 

From World War II through the Cold War, the 300 Area was used to
form uranium into fuel that was irradiated in Hanford reactors.
Research also was conducted there on the production of plutonium
from the fuel for the nation's nuclear weapons program. 

In December, PNNL was given an extra 15 to 17 months to have new
buildings ready and vacate Hanford's 300 Area, extending the
deadline until late 2010. 

That delay would increase the cost of cleanup by about $227
million, Pat Pettiette, president of Washington Closure Hanford,
said at the nuclear caucus briefing in Washington, D.C., this
spring. 

But at least $100 million could be trimmed from that figure by
increasing spending in 2007 on replacement facilities for the
national lab in Richland. 

"The cost of building the replacement lab is the same, but
finishing cleanup of the 300 Area sooner could save over $100
million for other cleanup priorities at Hanford," Hastings said. 

Cleanup of the 300 Area could be completed eight months earlier
than planned in December. 

With DOE approval, PNNL would be able to leave some of the 300
Area buildings in 2009 to move into the first two planned
replacement facilities, the Biological Science Facility and the
Computational Sciences Facility. 

All the facilities would be vacated in late 2010 to move the
rest of PNNL's workers into the other two planned buildings, the
Physical Sciences Facility and an expansion of the Life Sciences
Facility. 

The increased funding "would allow for a much more orderly
transfer and save the taxpayer money by allowing cleanup to be
done sooner," said Mike Lawrence, assistant laboratory director
for campus development. 

Hastings secured $11 million for planning and design work for
replacement lab space in 2004 and added $18 million to that in
2005. 

The DOE budget for the next year could go before the full House
for a vote as soon as next week. The Senate has yet to start
considering the DOE budget for fiscal year 2007. 

In addition: 

Under the House version of the Hanford cleanup budget, Congress
is requiring major management changes at Hanford's vitrification
plant, the Waste Treatment Plant, and providing less money for
the project than requested by the Bush administration. 

"We do increase funding for other cleanup activities at Hanford,
particularly to prevent contamination from reaching the Columbia
River," said Rep. David Hobson, chairman of the Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee, during the budget hearing
Wednesday. 

The budget includes an additional $20 million to develop
technology to clean up ground water contamination, an increase
that won praise from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 

The House budget bill also includes $20 million above the
administration request to continue testing bulk vitrification as
a supplemental way to glassify waste, $7.5 million for the
Volpentest HAMMER training center and $500,000 for preservation
of B Reactor as a museum. 

But it cuts spending for the vitrification plant from the $690
million proposed by the administration to $600 million. 

"We need to see from DOE what $600 million means in terms of
progress," said Jane Hedges, nuclear waste program manager for
the Department of Ecology. "Our key is to keep progress moving
forward on the project." 

The $600 million is more than the $526 million budget for the
vitrification plant this year, but planning for the plant's
construction was based on a steady budget of $690 million
annually. It's being built to turn some of Hanford's worst waste
into a stable glass form for disposal. 

With the plant years behind schedule and billions over budget,
the House is calling for Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversight
of the project and a continued delay in construction on key
parts of the plant until the design is 90 percent complete. 

© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 63 NewsBlaze: Remarks Prepared for Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you here today. I hope I 
speak for many of you in this room when I tell you that I am 
excited. I am excited about the prospects for nuclear power in 
this country and abroad. 

This is a time of remarkable opportunity for the American nuclear 
power industry. 

How we act to take advantage of this opportunity-more 
specifically, how the industry players respond to this 
opportunity-will have enormous consequences for the American 
energy sector, for our economy, for our national security, and 
indeed for the entire world for generations to come. 

That is why President Bush, Secretary Bodman, and the rest of us 
at the Department of Energy are doing everything we can to 
support and encourage the expansion of safe, emissions-free 
nuclear power. 

That commitment is most recently evidenced by the successful 
establishment and confirmation of a new Assistant Secretary for 
Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy-the first time the 
head of nuclear energy at DOE has held that rank in 14 years. 

I don't think Dennis Spurgeon needs an introduction to this 
crowd, but if you'll bear with me for a moment, I'd like to take 
this opportunity to brag about what I consider to be one of the 
Department's best acquisitions in years. 

From his service with the U.S. Navy, to his time with the Atomic 
Energy Commission, and of course his distinguished work in the 
nuclear industry, Dennis has proven himself to be a talented 
manager and an enthusiastic advocate for nuclear power. 

The Secretary and I are pleased to bring an individual of his 
talent to DOE, and I know you will find him to be an energetic 
and helpful voice in the Administration. 

You heard the President outline his agenda for increased nuclear 
power a few moments ago. 

I'd like to elaborate on his vision by speaking to the three key 
elements of this Administration's nuclear power policy agenda. We 
want to do three things: 

1. Create an environment where new nuclear power plants will be 
built here in the U.S. as soon as possible. 

2. License Yucca Mountain and move spent fuel. 

3. Develop the advanced recycling technologies that will be 
necessary to a growing nuclear sector, and reorder the global 
nuclear enterprise to develop and implement a global fuel leasing 
and assurances regime...this is our proposed Global Nuclear 
Energy Partnership. 

All three objectives are complimentary and necessary to the 
others. 

But let me go back to the first point (and an essential first 
step to any real nuclear future)-this Administration's commitment 
to the construction of new nuclear plants. 

Over the past few years, this Administration has sought to shape 
an environment more conducive to new nuclear plant construction. 

In principle, we have worked to remove various barriers 
preventing new plants from being built here in the U.S. For 
example, we are meeting our goals under the $1.1 billion Nuclear 
Power 2010 program, including having made good progress on Early 
Site Permitting and our successful work leading toward certified, 
standardized, plant designs. 

With the President's signature on last year's long-awaited Energy 
Policy Act, several other barriers were eliminated, and new 
incentives provided: 

+ The bill extended The Price Anderson indemnity program through 
2025 

+ The bill made available federal risk insurance to the first six 
new nuclear plants. (In fact, just last week our Department 
issued the interim final rule that establishes the two-step 
process for obtaining this insurance.) 

+ And the bill made available production tax credits and loan 
guarantees to further lessen the financial risk the first few 
movers may be exposed to. 

With these efforts, we believe we have gone a long towards 
creating an environment where new nuclear power plants will be 
built here in the U.S. as soon as possible. That is step one, and 
it was an important one. 

This brings me to the second element of the Administration's 
nuclear power policy agenda-licensing Yucca Mountain and moving 
spent fuel as soon as possible. 

This Administration is committed to doing just that, and has 
recently submitted to Congress legislation to enable us to fully 
implement the 2002 decision to build a repository at Yucca 
Mountain. 

We have proposed in the legislation to eliminate the current 
statutory 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity in order to 
allow maximum use of the mountain's technical capacity, while 
continuing to provide for the safe isolation of the nation's 
entire commercial spent nuclear fuel inventory. 

We also propose a more streamlined NRC licensing process and for 
initiation of infrastructure activities-including safety and 
other upgrades to enable earlier start-up of operations. 

Additional provisions are designed to consolidate duplicative 
environmental reviews, and reform the funding stream to ensure 
that the money from nuclear ratepayers goes directly to the 
project. 

We have made significant improvements to the program during the 
last year. And we are developing a licensing approach that we 
will be able to pursue with high confidence of success. We have 
within our ability to pass the Yucca Mountain legislation and 
have the project on a success path before this Administration is 
over. We must succeed. 

This brings me to the third element of the Administration's 
nuclear power policy agenda: Our proposal to develop the advanced 
recycling technologies that will be necessary to a growing 
nuclear sector, and reorder the global nuclear enterprise to 
develop and implement a global fuel leasing and assurances 
regime...this is our proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. 

The President has stated a policy goal of promoting a great 
expansion of nuclear power-here in the United States, as I have 
discussed-but also around the world. The reasons for this are 
obvious. The Department of Energy projects total world energy 
demand to more than double by 2050. Looking only at electricity 
demand, projections indicate an increase of over 75% in global 
electricity consumption in the next two decades. 

Nuclear power is the only mature technology of significant 
potential to provide large amounts of completely emissions-free 
base load power to meet this need.... resulting in significant 
benefits for clean development, reducing world greenhouse gas 
intensities, pollution abatement, and the security that comes 
from greater energy diversity. 

But nuclear power, with all of its potential for mankind, carries 
with it two enduring challenges: (1) what do we do with the 
increasing amounts of spent nuclear fuel? and (2) how can we 
prevent the proliferation of fuel cycle technologies that can 
lead to weaponization? 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership seeks to address and 
minimize those two challenges by developing technologies to 
recycle the spent fuel in a more proliferation resistant manner 
and by supporting a reordering of the global nuclear enterprise 
to encourage the leasing of fuel from fuel cycle states in a way 
that presents strong commercial incentives against new states 
building their own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is really about identifying 
the policies, developing the technologies, and building the 
international regimes that would manage and promote a dramatic 
growth in nuclear generation in a way that enhances our waste 
management and non-proliferation objectives. 

Regarding our policy on spent nuclear fuel, the United States 
stopped old-form reprocessing in the 1970's, principally because 
it could be used to produce pure plutonium. 

But the rest of the major nuclear economies (France, the United 
Kingdom, Russia, Japan, and others) continued on without us. We 
now have a world-wide buildup of nearly 250 metric tons of 
separated plutonium, vast amounts of spent fuel, and we risk the 
continued spread of fuel cycle technology. 

In 1982, when our current Nuclear Waste Policy Act was first 
enacted, and in 1987 when it was significantly amended, the 
prospects for new nuclear generation where such that we could 
avoid a reconsideration of our government's decision to abandon 
recycling of spent fuel. But today, with good prospects for new 
builds, and an even greater need for new builds, we must rethink 
the wisdom of our current once-thru spent fuel policy. We must 
move to recycling. 

We still need Yucca Mountain. And Yucca Mountain is the best 
location in the US for a permanent geologic repository. But the 
capacity of YM as currently configured will be oversubscribed by 
2010. 

Think about this, if nuclear power remains only at only 20% of 
U.S. electricity generation over the course of the century, we 
will have to build the equivalent of 9 Yucca Mountains. 

This Administration believes the wiser course is to recycle the 
used fuel coming out of the reactors, reducing its quantity and 
radiotoxicity so that only one Yucca Mountain will likely be 
required. 

To be successful in this endeavor we seek to develop and 
demonstrate the key enabling technologies in partnership with 
other nations that possess the full elements of the fuel cycle. 
We will seek to: 

+ Greatly accelerate our work in the research, development and 
demonstration of advanced recycling. 

+ Pursue the R that will allow us to produce and qualify 
actinide-based fuel. 

+ And demonstrate at engineering scale an advanced burner
reactor to extract the energy potential out of recycled fuel,
while reducing the radiotoxicity of the waste in repeated
cycles. 

But we will also seek to work with those nations to establish a 
Reliable Fuel Services Framework under which fuel supplier 
nations would choose to operate both nuclear power plants and 
fuel production and handling facilities, while providing reliable 
fuel services to user nations that choose to operate only the 
nuclear power plants themselves. 

In exchange for the assured fuel supplies on attractive
commercial terms, the user nations would have to agree to
suspend any investments in enrichment or reprocessing. 

Other crucial elements of GNEP include R on the use of small 
reactors worldwide, particularly in the developing world, and the 
development and promotion of advanced safeguards and best 
practices. 

In conclusion, we are proposing that the United States lead the 
transformation to a new, safer and more secure approach to 
nuclear energy...an approach that brings the benefits of nuclear 
energy to the world while reducing vulnerabilities from 
proliferation and nuclear waste. 

We are in a stronger position to shape the future if we are a 
part of it. 

Of course challenges remain in demonstrating the GNEP 
technologies. But without bold action, the world will have more 
plutonium, more spent fuel, more proliferation, more carbon and 
less energy at home and abroad. 

In closing, nuclear power is not a silver bullet, but it is part 
of a broader energy strategy that when combined with advancements 
in energy efficiency, clean coal, carbon sequestration, and 
renewables, can and will make a difference in the security, 
environmental, and energy challenges we face. 

Now most of the words in this speech have been dedicated to what 
the government is doing. I think that is an appropriate topic for 
a speech from me. But I know, as you know, that it is really not 
the government that has brought us to the doorstep of the nuclear 
renaissance. More than anything, the safety and operational 
record of the industry over the last decade have put nuclear 
power back on the table. 

And it will not be the government that will make the nuclear 
renaissance happen. We have our role-to shape the playing field, 
provide regulatory certainty, meet our spent fuel obligations, 
and pursue the R and international arrangements to shape a more 
rational nuclear future. But it is you...it is you - the 
industry...the investors...the builders. Only you have the power 
to really make it happen. 

The President, Secretary Bodman, and I have only 977 days left to 
build momentum for the energy policy course I have outlined here 
today. It is in the national interest, and I believe, in the 
industry interest. 

Let me conclude by congratulating you for holding this important 
conference. I think history will bear out the importance of this 
time. 

Thank you for your attention, and for the invitation to share my 
thoughts with you this morning. 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy 

judythpiazza@gmail.com
 Copyright © 2006, NewsBlaze, Daily News
   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************