*****************************************************************
05/23/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.122
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] US Pressure Yields Curbs on Iran by Europe
2 [NYTr] Bush FlipFlops on Iran Talks
3 FT.com: Iran - Washington hawks oppose EU3 plan for Iran
4 IRNA: Europe's proposal does not guarantee Iran's N-rights - daily -
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Ahmadinejad, Chavez talk on phone
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Asefi surprised at Saudi remarks
7 IRNA: Iran's N-activities under IAEA supervision - Asefi
8 IRNA: Iran's FM hopes Europe's offer to resolve nuclear dispute woul
9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear case tied to developing states' fate - Envoy
10 IRNA: China reiterates peaceful settlement of Iran's N-case
11 IRNA: Envoy's article on Iran's N-program published in Swiss daily -
12 Korea Herald: DJ hopes his visit will help nuke talks
13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Playing the North Korea Card by Kim Dae-j
14 Xinhua: China, ROK vice foreign ministers hold talks in Beijing
15 AFP: Annan wants greater effort on NKorea
16 Israel: The Invisible Nuclear State
17 RIA Novosti: Ex-nuclear minister's lawyers ask for charges to be dro
18 RIA Novosti: Court extends ex-nuclear minister Adamov detention to A
NUCLEAR REACTORS
19 US: Groups Respond to Bush's Visit to Limerick Nuclear Plant
20 US: NRC: NRC Inspection Team to Review Loss of Offsite Power Event A
21 NEWS.com.au: Town puts it hand up to host nuclear plant - SA -
22 NEWS.com.au: Beazley declares nuke war -
23 NEWS.com.au: Explain nuclear position, PM told
24 US: Deseret News: Utah power a bargain
25 NEWS.com.au: Labor won't go nuclear - Beazley -
26 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor is living in the past - minister -
27 US: Charlotte Observer: Federal investigators to visit nuclear plant
28 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Seabrook Nuclear Station
29 AU ABC: 'Ideal' east coast nuclear plant sites identified
30 AU ABC: Port Stephens Mayor says 'no' to nuclear power station
31 Independent: Blair attacked over 'secret nuclear agenda'
32 Xinhua: Pakistan, China to cooperate in peaceful use of nuke-tech -
33 US: The Mercury: Bush to visit Limerick nuclear plant
34 AU ABC: Nuclear energy debate a farce - Garrett
35 AU ABC: Campbell defends govt stance on nuclear energy
36 AU ABC: Federal Govt forced to expose secret committee on nuclear po
37 AU ABC: MPs debate nuclear merits.
38 AU ABC: Lateline: Nuclear debate heats up
NUCLEAR SECURITY
39 NEWS.com.au: Bomber nukes atomic plan - The Nuclear Debate -
NUCLEAR SAFETY
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
40 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium boom heads for bust
41 Sydney Morning Herald: Radioactive waste leaks into aquifer -
42 RIA Novosti: Russia hopes for U.S. business support on nuclear fuel
43 BBC: Fears raised
44 American Enterprise: The Slow Climb Up Yucca Mountain
45 Reuters: Pakistani lawmaker says nuclear waste dumped in open
46 UPI: Japan to swap nuclear waste with Britain
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
47 AP Wire: Audit suggests DOE facilities have too many vehicles in fle
48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Feds argue judge should overturn Hanford
49 Hanford News: Nuclear reservation tours planned
50 Hanford News: Hanford's U Plant cleanup plan honored
51 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
52 lamonitor.com: Group to sue over water
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] US Pressure Yields Curbs on Iran by Europe
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 23:14:30 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by MichaelP (activ-l)
The New York Times - May 22, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com
U.S. PRESSURE YIELDS CURBS ON IRAN IN EUROPE
Even without Security Council sanctions, the U.S. is using
antiterrorism and banking laws to pressure Iran and wants Europe to do the
same.
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, May 21 Prodded by the United States with threats of fines and
lost business, four of the biggest European banks have started curbing
their activities in Iran, even in the absence of a Security Council
resolution imposing economic sanctions on Iran for its suspected
nuclear weapons program.
Top Treasury and State Department officials have intensified their
efforts to limit Iran-related activities of major banks in Europe, the
United States and the Middle East in the past six months, invoking
antiterrorism and banking laws. They have also traveled to Europe and the
Middle East to drive home the risky nature of dealing with a country
that has repeatedly rebuffed Western demands over suspending uranium
enrichment, and to urge European countries to take similar steps.
Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and
financial intelligence, said: "We are seeing banks and other
institutions reassessing their ties to Iran. They are asking
themselves if they really want to be handling business for entities
owned by a government engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and support for terrorism."
The four European banks the UBS and Credit Suisse banks of
Switzerland, ABN Amro of the Netherlands, and HSBC, based in London
have made varying levels of disclosure about the limits on their
activities in Iran in the past six months. Almost all large European
banks have branches or bureaus in the United States, units that are
subject to American laws.
American officials said the United States had informed its European
allies about the new pressure exerted on the banks, and indeed had
asked these countries to join the effort. At the same time, the
Americans have not publicized the new pressure, partly out of concern it
could complicate efforts by European negotiators, who were still talking
with Iran about a package of incentives to suspend uranium enrichment.
It is not clear how curbed business with four of Europe's biggest
banks could adversely affect Iran. But some outside political and
economic experts say it is unlikely to do much damage considering Iran is
one of OPEC's leading producers and is earning hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of windfall profits daily from $70-a-barrel
petroleum.
The American prodding has not yet resulted in any fines or other
punishment. But UBS and ABN Amro are no strangers to the sting of
American financial penalties for dealing with countries that the
United States has wanted to isolate. UBS was fined $100 million by the
Federal Reserve two years ago for the unauthorized movement of dollars to
Iran and other countries like Libya and Yugoslavia, which were subject
to American trade sanctions at the time. Last December, ABN Amro was
fined $80 million for failure to comply with regulations against money
laundering and with economic sanctions against Libya and Iran from 1997 to
2004.
UBS now says it will no longer do direct business with any
individuals, businesses or banks in Iran. UBS also says it will not
finance exports or imports for any corporate clients in Iran. But the
bank has said that it would not stop doing business with clients who use
other means to transact business there. ABN Amro also says it has
minimized its activities in Iran.
"We have no representation in Iran," said Sierk Nawijn, a spokesman for
ABN Amro in Amsterdam. He added that although the bank does no
dollar-based business with Iran, it was participating in "a fairly
limited number of transactions" with it."
Georg Sntgerath, a spokesman for Credit Suisse in Zurich, said, "As of
January, we have said that we will not enter into any new business
relations with corporate clients in Iran." He said the decision, which
applied to Syria and some other countries, resulted from an assessment of
an "increased economic risk for our bank and our clients."
He said, however, that the bank would fulfill existing contracts with
businesses in Iran.
A United Nations Security Council resolution might restrict some of
those kinds of dealings.
The Americans have taken other steps to pressure Iran. With American
encouragement, Iran's rating as a business risk was raised last month by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30
leading countries with market economies.
At the same time, the defiance of the West by President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran has unsettled markets, and American officials have
said the climate of anxiety over the prospect of globally enforced
sanctions or even military action was having its own effect.
"I think there is a real and growing sense that there's a risk
associated with doing business with Iran, with lending Iran more money or
providing it with a line of credit," said Robert G. Joseph, the under
secretary of state for arms control and international security. "But I
would argue that their motive is market forces, more than any American
pressure."
Some European diplomats from countries with missions in Tehran say
that there are signs of an impact, despite the rise in oil prices.
Whatever the cause, Iran's economic growth has slowed to less than 5
percent, its stock market has dropped more than 20 percent in the past
year, new investments and construction have declined, and Iranians
have been sending their money abroad, or buying gold.
Iran has recently tried to counter diplomatic pressures over its
nuclear program with reminders to Europe that it was a good market,
with a good work force. In a regular weekly news conference on Sunday, the
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamidreza Assefi, urged Europe not to
take any steps that would jeopardize economic links with Iran.
"We have good ties with Europe, and a bad decision by Europeans over
Iran's nuclear program can undermine relations and will eventually
harm the Europeans," he said.
Many experts said it would be difficult to bar banks from conducting the
lucrative business of financing trade deals with Iran. Iran's largest
trading partners are Japan, China, Italy, Germany and France. All of
those nations have companies that use banks to finance letters of credit
to export machinery, commodities and other goods to Iran.
The laws being applied against banks are varied, and many of them also
apply to North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Sudan. A 1984 law requires a ban on
activities with any country declared a sponsor of terrorism.
Officials are also invoking the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 and a
directive signed by President Bush last year banning transactions with
those suspected of helping the spread of unconventional weapons.
Under that directive, the United States has identified six Iranian
entities, including its Aerospace Industries Organization, the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran and several private industrial groups, as off
limits to banks that operate under American protections and laws.
Mr. Joseph said the use of American banking regulations and
antiterrorism laws against European banks had been effective against
Iran and would have a greater effect "if we can get other countries to
take similar actions."
Some experts say they doubt that anything short of a sweeping oil
embargo, or a blockade of gasoline imports Iran imports about 40
percent of its gasoline could get Iran to change its behavior, and the
West is not contemplating such steps.
"I don't see that the pullout of a few European banks doing a
tremendous amount of damage," said Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the
International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization. "They're making
$300 million a day from oil revenues, and they can weather the storm."
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 [NYTr] Bush FlipFlops on Iran Talks
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:29:54 -0400 (EDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
IPS - May 19, 2006
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33303
Reversing Policy, U.S. "Froze" Iran Talks in March
by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, May 19 (IPS) - In yet another apparent episode of the inability
of the White House to steer a consistent diplomatic course in the Middle
East, a new report says that the George W. Bush administration ordered U.S.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in March to postpone indefinitely the talks with
Iran on Iraq for which Khalilzad had previously gotten White House approval.
The reversal of the earlier authorisation for talks with Iran has resulted
in a widening chasm between the United States and the other major powers on
how to reach a diplomatic solution with Iran on the nuclear issue.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported on Friday that Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice "froze" the talks on Iraq that the United States
and Iran had agreed to in mid-March, telling Khalilzad "it wasn't the right
time to meet".
Previously it had been reported that the talks had been postponed only until
the formation of a new government in Baghdad. Rice told reporters on the
plane to Berlin Mar. 29-30 that the talks would take place "sooner or
later", suggesting that Khalilzad was "very busy right now in Iraq". The new
report by Ignatius indicates, however, that it was a high-level political
decision in Washington not to proceed with the talks at all.
Ignatius also revealed that Khalilzad had held "several secret meetings with
an Iranian representative around the turn of the year". Such meetings were
presumably to try to convince Tehran to agree to higher-level talks on Iraq.
Although he cites no source for these revelations, Ignatius has broken news
in the past based on exclusive access to Khalilzad himself. Khalilzad has
also used the press in the past to try to overcome resistance to his own
policy initiatives from high-ranking officials in Washington.
The Post columnist attributes the March decision to scuttle the talks with
Iran to Rice's desire for close coordination of Iran strategy with the three
European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- which had been
conducting direct negotiations with Iran. But the decision had much less to
do with multilateral diplomacy on Iran than with the determination of Vice
Pres. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld to avoid anything
that legitimised the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That determination apparently overrode the preference of both Khalilzad and
Rice. Rice's initial comment, just before leaving for Sydney, Australia on
Mar. 16, was that talks with Iran on Iraq "could be useful".
By the time she had arrived in Sydney, however, White House National
Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley and an unnamed "senior U.S. official" had
denigrated the idea of such talks. Rice had apparently been informed that
such talks were unacceptable to powerful figures in the administration. "We
will see when and if those talks [with Iran] take place," she said in
Sydney.
The bilateral U.S.-Iranian talks on Iraq were certainly not cut off to
coordinate multilateral diplomacy on the Iranian nuclear issue more closely.
All those involved in the negotiations except the United States had agreed
by March that Washington needed to have direct negotiations with Tehran to
achieve a settlement of the conflict over Iran's nuclear programme.
On Mar. 8, after a meeting of the Governing Board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Director General Mohammed ElBaradei told the press,
"Throughout the spectrum, everybody underscored the need to look for a
comprehensive political settlement that takes account of all underlying
issues." And he added, "I believe that once we start to discuss security
issues, my personal view is that the U.S. should be engaged into [sic] a
dialogue."
The Europeans -- particularly France and Germany -- have long been dismayed
at Washington's refusal to enter into diplomatic dialogue with Iran on the
nuclear issue. They viewed the expected talks with Iran about stabilising
Iraq as an opportunity open up a channel for U.S.-Iran negotiations on
nuclear issues.
The most aggressive of the European three in pressing this point has been
Germany, whose Chancellor Angela Merkel the Bush administration had expected
to follow Washington's lead on Iran. Instead, the Merkel government has now
become the most aggressive of the European three in telling the United
States that it must agree to direct U.S. participation in negotiations with
Iran.
During a visit to Washington Apr. 3-4, German foreign minister Frank-Walter
Steinmeier told reporters he had advised Rice and Hadley that the talks he
understood were to occur between the United States and Iran should not be
limited to Iraq but should include the nuclear issue as well, according a
report by AFP and the German television network Deutsche Welle.
Steinmeier also said that British foreign minister Jack Straw joined him in
supporting direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations. Straw, who had infuriated
hardliners in the United States by referring to an attack on Iran as
"inconceivable" and unjustified, was replaced by Prime Minister Tony Blair
as foreign minister early this month.
In an interview with International Herald Tribune reporter Judy Dempsey in
late April, German defence minister Franz Josef Jung struck the same theme.
"This is our request to Washington: that it begins direct talks and from
there reach results," Jung said.. When Merkel arrived in Washington for a
meeting with Bush on May 3, the White House expected her to raise the issue
directly with Bush. A senior U.S. official told the Financial Times that
Bush would reaffirm U.S. opposition to direct negotiations with Iran should
she do so, according to a May 3 story.
France has taken the same view of the problem since at least last Jul. 5,
when French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy, standing next to
Condoleezza Rice, pledged that the European three would discuss with
Iranians "the security of their country".
Then he added, "And for this, we shall need the United States -- and we
shall talk with them before proposing the package -- making the proposal."
But Rice did not comment on his bid for an active U.S. role in negotiating
with Tehran, and no European proposal involving security was forthcoming.
The administration's refusal to meet with Iran is now at the heart of the
protracted discussions between the United States and the five other powers
on a common position on Iran. The European three, China and Russia have all
been insisting since a meeting in New York May 8 that the United States sign
on to a package of incentives to Iran that includes not only nuclear
technology but security guarantees for Iran, as reported by Philip Sherwill
of the London Telegraph May 9.
The U.S. stance, with its implicit rejection of substantive compromise with
Iran and its readiness to use force on the issue, is also the main reason
why Russia, China and Germany have made it clear they are opposed any U.N.
resolution that would levy sanctions against Iran.
Some in the administration may be open to an eventual shift of policy.
Newsweek reported May 15 that Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns had
"indicated to colleagues that he is mainly waiting for the right moment,
when America's leverage and its chances of success are maximised."
But Bush appears to be listening not to the diplomats but to the same
figures who vetoed the direct talks with Iran in March and have been
irrevocably opposed for more than four years to any dealings with Tehran.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His
latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in
Vietnam", was published in June 2005.
(END/2006)
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
3 FT.com: Iran - Washington hawks oppose EU3 plan for Iran
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Daniel Dombey in London
Published: May 23 2006 18:44 | Last updated: May 23 2006 18:44
Opposition by US “hawks” led by Dick Cheney, the
vice-president, is complicating efforts by the main European
powers to put together an agreed package of incentives aimed at
persuading Iran to suspend its nuclear fuel cycle programme,
according to diplomats and analysts in Washington.
London is hosting on Wednesday political directors of the
“EU3” of France, Germany and the UK, together with China,
Russia and the US to look at the twin tools of incentives and
sanctions.
Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, was said by one diplomat
to have “gone out on a limb” in an attempt to back the
EU3’s package of incentives but was facing resistance from Mr
Cheney who is playing a more visible role in US foreign policy.
Another diplomat said US internal divisions were holding up an
agreement with the Europeans.
Some European diplomats believe that Washington will back the
package – which includes guarantees for the construction of
light-water reactors in Iran, promises of nuclear fuel and a new
regional security forum – if Moscow endorses a tough chapter
seven United Nations Security Council resolution that would
require Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
US officials would not comment on Washington’s internal
debate. However, one official said the EU3 had only presented
certain elements of the proposed package to the US, including
the sale of a light-water nuclear reactor. The US did not
respond, he added.
Ms Rice has denied reports that the EU3 asked the US to provide
security assurances to Iran. Accusing Iran of being the
“central banker of terrorism”, she made clear that such
assurances were “not on the table”.
Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, has already rejected
what the EU3 is reported to be offering. Diplomats are doubtful
Iran will accept a deal that does not allow it to continue at
least small-scale uranium enrichment. The US and EU3 have ruled
that out.
Mr Cheney is said to oppose the notion of “rewarding bad
behaviour” following Iran’s alleged breaches of its nuclear
safeguards commitments. The hawks – who include John Bolton,
the US envoy to the UN, and Bob Joseph, a senior arms control
official – fear a repeat of a similar agreement reached with
North Korea in 1994 which did not stop the communist regime from
pursuing a secret weapons programme.
Ministers are still bruised from angry exchanges between Ms Rice
and Sergei Lavrov in New York two weeks ago when the Russian
foreign minister attacked US policy and condemned a tough speech
directed at Moscow by Mr Cheney.
Margaret Beckett, the newly appointed UK foreign secretary,
leaped to the defence of Nicholas Burns – the number three in
the State Department – when Mr Lavrov targeted him, according
to a western diplomat. Ministers should not attack civil
servants, Ms Beckett is said to have responded.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Europe's proposal does not guarantee Iran's N-rights - daily -
Damascus, May 23, IRNA
Iran-Europe-Nuclear
The Syrian state newspaper `Tishrin' on Tuesday said none of the
proposals presented by Europe to Iran have so far guaranteed
Iran's right to access nuclear technology in accordance with the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The daily, in an article published on Tuesday, said that so far
none of the proposals presented by Europe, Russia and other
countries have satisfied Iran.
The daily expressed concern over the continuing standoff
between Iran and the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council -- China, Russia, Britain, France and
the United States -- on Iran's nuclear activities.
The daily noted that Iran had taken major strides in its
nuclear program, successfully enriching uranium in particular,
and said Tehran would have every reason not to accept Europe's
latest proposal which would deprive it of its nuclear right.
It said the only concern of neo-conservatives of the US
Administration is materialization of their evil plots in the
region and the world.
They have chosen war and destruction to materialize their goals
without thinking of the consequences, it said.
*****************************************************************
5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Ahmadinejad, Chavez talk on phone
2006/05/23
Tehran, May 23 - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanked his
Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez in a phone talk on Monday
night for his country's strong support for Iran's righteous
nuclear stand.
The two presidents during the phone talks once again backed each
other's political stands on various international issues and
both agreed on the need to further strengthen comprehensive
bilateral ties.
The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran once again thanked
President Chavez and the Venezuelan government and people for
supporting Iran's absolute right to nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, adding, "We have lots of shared objectives and ideals."
Ahmadinejad added, "Those objectives have formed strong bonds
between our two nations, under such conditions that the ill
wishers of Iran and Venezuela keep getting weaker day after
day."
The Iranian President emphasized, "Independent governments of
the world can secure their nation's interests relying on
strengthening solidarity among themselves and acting
harmoniously at international scenes."
He reiterated, "Pursuing our absolute right to have full access
to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, we would keep on in
accordance with the related laws, and relying on strong logic,
quite sure that victory would be our nation's, as well as all
other free and independent nations'."
The Venezuelan President, too, once again voiced his country's
trong support for Iran's peaceful nuclear drive, arguing, "You
are definitely right in suggesting that relying on the
independent countries' unity we would succeed in resisting
against the pressure imposed by international oppressor powers."
Chavez added, "Such a unity could also accelerate the
international community's move towards better understanding,
holding meaningful dialogues, and lasting world peace."
Addressing President Ahmadinejad, he added, "I am sure the
leader of the Islamic Revolution and your good self could
relying on strong wisdom push forth Iran's move towards
mastering the nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and I am
sure the Iranian nation would emerge victorious from this
crisis."
The Venezuelan President at the end of the phone talk emphasized
the need to strengthen and pursue the process of the two
countries' joint projects.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
*****************************************************************
6 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Asefi surprised at Saudi remarks
2006/05/23
Tehran, May 23 - Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hamid-Reza Asefi
said Tuesday that he was taken aback by repeated, unrealistic
remarks made recently by the Saudi Arabian officials regarding
Islamic Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear programs.
Asefi reiterated that Iran's nuclear program is under close
supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
experts.
Iran has always moved in the way of confidence building in this
regard, he added.
"Iran has never tried to make atomic bomb. We expect Saudi
officials not to be influenced by some unfounded allegations
made by certain countries.
The Spokesman reaffirmed Iran's wishes that a region free from
nuclear weapons would be established, adding that use of
peaceful nuclear technology is the legitimate right of all
countries including Iran.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: Iran's N-activities under IAEA supervision - Asefi
Tehran, May 23, IRNA
Iran-Asefi-Nuclear
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi here Tuesday again
stressed that Iran's nuclear activities were being conducted
under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
supervision.
Asefi was remarking with surprise over repeated, erroneous
statements made by Saudi officials recently on Iran's peaceful
nuclear activities.
"Iran has taken measures to build confidence (on its peaceful
nuclear program), he said.
"Iran never intended to build atomic bombs and has no need to
do so. We expect Saudi officials not to be influenced by the
false claims of others," Asefi added.
He said that while Iran supports the campaign for a region free
from weapons of mass destruction, the right to pursue nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes was a right of all countries,
including Iran.
"It seems certain people have forgotten the nuclear weapons of
the Zionist regime but wants to put Iran under pressure because
it insists on its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes." He said the Islamic Republic of Iran should hold
consultations with Persian Gulf littoral states to allay fears
over its nuclear program, adding that direct talks would be the
best means of airing opposing views.
Pointing to an upcoming visit of Omani Foreign Minister Youssef
bin Alawi bin Abdullah to Tehran, he noted that the Omani
minister had previously visited Iran and the two countries have
"good ties." "Officials of the two sides have exchanged several
visits within the framework of bilateral relations and regional
cooperation." 2327/2321/1414
*****************************************************************
8 IRNA: Iran's FM hopes Europe's offer to resolve nuclear dispute would
be comprehensive
Tehran, May 23, IRNA
Iran-Europe-Nuclear issue
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here Tuesday expressed hope
Europe's latest proposal to try to resolve the standoff on
Iran's nuclear program would be comprehensive and protect the
interests of both sides.
Mottaki was speaking to IRNA on the sidelines of a conference
held here dubbed `Basij (voluntary forces) and Foreign Policy'.
"We hope the offer will preserve the rights of the Islamic
Republic of Iran as well as remove the concerns of other states.
"We are seriously calling for a diplomatic solution to our
nuclear case through negotiation and within the framework of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the objective of
removing concerns as well as observing the rights of Iran," he
said.
Asked why Europe has not formally presented the proposal to
Iran when it has already been seen and talked about by
international media people, the minister said: "We diplomats
strive to be optimistic when dealing with issues. With this
outlook, we hope the European side will try to present a
balanced offer."
He reiterated that the "Islamic Republic of Iran will never
renounce its nuclear rights under whatever circumstances." But
he said Iran has not received a formal offer from Europe.
"If we receive Europe's formal offer, we will discuss it and
announce the results to the nation," Mottaki said.
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: Iran's nuclear case tied to developing states' fate - Envoy
Pretoria, May 23, IRNA
Iran-S Africa-Envoy-Nuclear
Iran's nuclear case is tied to the fate of developing states in
terms of acquiring modern technologies, as a precondition for
success of their development plans, Iran's Ambassador to South
Africa, Mohammad-Ali Qane'zadeh said on Tuesday.
"The United States and nuclear powers do not want other
countries to break their monopoly on nuclear technology because
any success in this regard will pave the way for scientific and
technical independence of other states," the envoy told IRNA.
"The plan to take out Iran's nuclear case from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is the main
body to discuss peaceful nuclear activities, was a dangerous
turning point which threatened efforts by independent peoples to
make use of the technology in the future.
"Developing states should do their utmost to correct the
diversion caused by nuclear powers and prevent strengthening of
monopolistic policies of Western powers.
"The anti-Iran policies of the US and its allies, being pursued
under pretext of Tehran's peaceful nuclear activities, have
threatened credit of international treaties and reputable bodies
and faced the world with danger of unilateral policies of
hegemonic powers," he said.
Qane'zadeh added, "Iran has always acted based on its
commitments within the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the
IAEA Safeguards. Currently, it does not make any demands beyond
the framework set for the NPT signatories."
In response to those who called for Iran's confidence-building
measures in the international community, he said, "Creation of
an atmosphere of understanding and tranquility is the
pre-condition for confidence-building measures.
"But the US prevents creation of such an atmosphere in the
region through its hostile policies.
"Iran is always ready to hold talks to settle remaining issues
related to its peaceful nuclear activities. It puts diplomacy on
top of its foreign policy to remove ambiguities."
The ambassador pointed to the US hostile policies in the Middle
East, saying, "Despite the US claims, the country's policies of
establishing international security and fighting terrorism
produced adverse consequences.
US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased
bolstered terrorism in the region, he said, adding that the
issue has overshadowed the prospects of global economy.
Any move which might exacerbate the current crisis in the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf region would leave dangerous
impacts on world economy and security and this is why world
countries cannot remain indifferent towards the issue, he said.
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: China reiterates peaceful settlement of Iran's N-case
Beijing, May 23, IRNA
China-Iran-Nuclear
China believes there is still room to settle Iran's nuclear case
through negotiation, State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan said here
Monday.
During a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Tang
said that the Iran nuclear issue was connected to the need for a
structure that would guarantee non-proliferation of weapons of
mass
destruction.
He urged serious attention on issues of peace and stability in
the Middle East, hinting at a surge in oil prices if the current
crisis goes unresolved and energy supplies are threatened.
The official called on all sides to continue talks and
consultations to enhance mutual confidence and reach a
reasonable compromise.
Annan, for his part, stressed strengthening of cooperation and
coordination between China and the UN on Iran's nuclear case.
He highlighted the special importance of Iran's cooperation in
resolving the nuclear crisis whichm he said, has profound
effects on peace and stability in the Middle East and the world
as a whole.
*****************************************************************
11 IRNA: Envoy's article on Iran's N-program published in Swiss daily -
Vienna, May 23, IRNA
Switzerland-Iran-Daily
The Swiss daily `Der Bund' in its Monday edition published an
article written by Iranian Ambassador to Bern Majid Ravanchi
defending his country's nuclear program.
The article gave a history of Iran's nuclear activities and
called for segregating myth from reality in discussions on the
ongoing dispute on Iran's nuclear activities.
It recalled the start of Iran's nuclear activities even before
the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the offer of Western states to
build nuclear power stations for Iran and its signing of the
Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970 as some of the realities
surrounding its nuclear program.
Referring to the importance of nuclear energy as an alternative
source to meet the country's growing demand for energy, the
article pointed out that gaining access to nuclear power was
also important for meeting marious medical and agricultural
needs.
Ravanchi, in his article, referred to the Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei's condemnation of weapons of mass
destruction and argued that while sanctions were being
threatened on Iran by states which themselves have atomic
weapons, Iran "does not regard access to such weapons as a
contributing factor to regional security and development."
The article also pointed to the fact that inspections carried
out by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's
nuclear facilities over the past three years had not produced
any evidence pointing to any illegal nuclear activity on the
part of Iran.
Nonetheless, it pointed out, certain countries insist on their
demand that Iran halt its nuclear activities, including research
and development (R), in the nuclear field.
There are hidden motives behind their demand, it added.
"The opposition of certain countries to Iran's right to pursue
nuclear energy in accordance with the NPT and under IAEA
supervision proves these states are against Iran's access to
technology for development. Their desire is to monopolize
nuclear technology." The article concluded by saying Iran will
not renounce its right to produce nuclear energy, including
uranium enrichment, for peaceful purposes inside its territory
while remaining committed to its commitments under the NPT."
*****************************************************************
12 Korea Herald: DJ hopes his visit will help nuke talks
Former President Kim Dae-jung yesterday said he hoped his visit
to Pyongyang next month would offer a boost to the stalled
nuclear talks that have been suspended since last November.
"I hope that the visit to North Korea at the end of next month
would help inter-Korean exchanges, the six-party talks and
promote the peaceful and cooperative structure on the Korean
Peninsula," Kim said at a seminar hosted by a private institute.
Kim is to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il for the second
time next month, six years after their historic summit in
Pyongyang.
He expressed concern over the stalled nuclear talks and other
issues that he said were worsening the relationship between the
United States and North Korea.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
2006.05.24
*****************************************************************
13 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Playing the North Korea Card by Kim Dae-joong
> Updated May.23,2006 20:42 KST
The sudden flurry of remarks about North Korea from leaders of
the administration starting with President Roh Moo-hyun has been
suspicious. As the United States' financial sanctions over the
North's dollar counterfeiting and pressure over its human rights
abuses started to bite and prospects for six-nation talks on the
Norths nuclear program became increasingly dim, the
administration's approach to the North suddenly changed. Korea
and the U.S. are poised to start free trade negotiations into
the bargain, so there has been speculation that Roh is
refocusing his mind on a legacy of late-term achievements. But
the administration, whose North Korea policies seemed to have
entered a temporary lull, started making overtures to Pyongyang
quite suddenly.
In the wake of Roh's remarks in Mongolia that he is ready to
make many concessions to North Korea and offer institutional
and material assistance, Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said
an inter-Korean summit should be held within the year, adding he
opposes any attempt to force regime change in the North.
"Provided the North gives a reason the people can agree to, the
entire W1.2 trillion (US$1.2 billion) of the Inter-Korean
Cooperation Fund can be used," he bragged. At a breakfast
meeting, Lee said, "A very delicate situation change is taking
place on the Korean Peninsula," which, he added, should be
regarded as a challenge and opportunity. On Sunday, he called
for a decisive momentum bringing about a sea-change in
inter-Korean relations within the year. In only about a dozen
days, enormous tasks and promises have been put before us.
Matters are not confined to remarks from the top. At the
inter-Korean generals meeting, Pyongyang raised its demands to
redraw the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea, the maritime
extension of the armistice line. Our side hinted at a "sign of
concession," as if it were ready to seek an alternative to the
NLL. The heads of the pro-Seoul Korean Residents Union in Japan
or Mindan and the pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean
Residents in Japan or Chongryon embraced each other, and shortly
afterwards we heard that Mindan will stop helping North Korean
refugees. In the protests against the U.S. base expansion in
Pyeongtaek, activists assaulted South Korean troops. Everything
the prime minister, defense minister and ruling party lawmakers
did and said made people heave a deep sigh and ask themselves
whether is this really the Republic of Korea. The timing of
former president Kim Dae-jung's impending visit to Pyongyang is
also peculiar. It is sad to feel as if South Korea's last line
of defense is being eroded.
Meanwhile, North Koreas Committee for the Peaceful Unification
of the Fatherland on Thursday issued a statement to its "South
Korean compatriots," asserting that if the Grand National Party
wins in the May 31 local elections, the country will see "a
regime of warmongers servile to the U.S. " "The correct judgment
and choice is to cast peace votes for candidates of the June 15
peace forces, we are instructed -- a reference to the 2000
Joint Declaration and those thought to act in its spirit.
Uriminzokkiri, a North Korean web site, said a few days later,
"If the way is paved for the GNP to seize power, the entire
nation will suffer the ravages from America's shameless war
schemes."
Now we know our answer. No dialogue as exquisite and timely as
this can be accidental. The administration's sudden nods and
winks to Pyongyang, it is sufficiently clear, mean that it hopes
to win by playing the North Korea card.
For Kim Jong-il and his regime, the possibility that a
conservative government will take over after the next election
is the worst-case scenario. Pyongyang has had enormous help from
the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations. Nay, it goes
beyond help to erecting it a base in the South. If the
conservatives come to power and the Bush administration's and
Japan's efforts against the North persisted, it would rock the
Kim Jong-il regime to the core. The terror attack on Grand
National Party chairwoman Park Geun-hye can thus be seen as part
of a conspiracy to thwart her presidential aspirations and
change the expected outcome of the next presidential elections.
The leaders of our government cannot be unaware of that. Their
overtures to Pyongyang, offering concessions and aid, are hardly
pure of motive. Now, our politicians from both sides have often
attempted to swing the situation their way by playing the North
Korea card. It is a fact that the North Korean regime,
meanwhile, has consolidated its foothold in the South, taking
advantage of a climate here that is all too receptive to it.
Things look little different now, except in their substance. In
the past it was largely a question of feints and propaganda when
the North Korea card was being played. Now it is a sustained
process of giving away things, one by one, that we should never
concede on or abandon, and thereby reducing public resistance to
the game.
*****************************************************************
14 Xinhua: China, ROK vice foreign ministers hold talks in Beijing
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-23 23:57:09
BEIJING, May 23 (Xinhua) -- Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu
Dawei and his counterpart Yu Myung-hwan of the Republic of Korea
held talks here on Tuesday, discussing the Korean Peninsula
nuclear issue.
The two vice foreign ministers agreed to continue promoting
the process of the six-party talks on the issue, according to
sources with the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
The sources said the two sides called on all parties
involved in the issue to take active measures to properly handle
the existing problems and remove obstacles for early resumption
and progress of the six-party talks. Enditem
Editor: Luan Shanglin
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Annan wants greater effort on NKorea
by Cindy Sui Tue May 23, 3:23 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan" /> Kofi Annanhas
called for a doubling of efforts to end the North Korean nuclear
stalemate and urged East Asia's feuding neighbors to find ways to
ease their tensions.
Wrapping up a five-day visit to China, Annan gave a speech at
Peking University pressing the international community to work
much harder to rein in North Korea" /> North Korea's nuclear
ambitions.
"We can not allow the current stalemate to continue. All parties
will need to redouble their efforts," Annan said.
Annan singled out China, which is host of the drawn-out
six-nation talks on the issue and believed to be the country
that has the most influence in Pyongyang, as having a critical
role.
"China's ongoing leadership will be essential to ensure that
multilateral diplomatic efforts result in a (Korean) peninsula
free from nuclear weapons," he said.
The talks, involving North and South Korea" /> South Korea, the
United States, Russia, China and Japan, stalled after Washington
imposed financial sanctions on Pyongyang in November last year
for alleged counterfeiting and money laundering.
North Korea has said it will not return to the talks until the
sanctions are removed, but the United States has refused to
budge.
North Korea had agreed in principle at the previous round of
talks in September to abandon its nuclear weapons program in
return for security, diplomatic and energy aid guarantees.
Annan, who met with Chinese President Hu Jintao" /> Hu Jintaoand
Premier Wen Jiabao during his stay, said he had spent a "good
deal of time" discussing nuclear non-proliferation with them.
He said they specifically focused on North Korea and Iran" />
Iran.
In his wide-ranging address, Annan also said China, South Korea
and Japan should try to work together more closely in areas of
mutual concern to find ways of easing their long-standing
tensions.
"As a start this could include protecting the environment in
this part of the world. They could also combine their efforts to
advance a green revolution in Africa," Annan said.
"All this could help pave the way for improved relations and in
so doing help them to realize their immense individual and
collective potential."
Annan, who visited South Korea and Japan before traveling to
China, has made the historical enmities of the three nations a
priority on his Asian tour.
In Tokyo last week, Annan called on the three to "put their past
to rest".
China and South Korea continue to harbor resentment over Japan's
invasions of their countries in the 20th century.
They are particularly infuriated over Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Tokyo's Yasukuni war
shrine, which honors 2.5 million Japanese war dead including 14
top war criminals.
Annan also praised China's economic development but warned that
"huge challenges" remained for the Asian nation, particularly in
addressing the widening wealth gap between urban and rural
areas.
"Somehow the rural poor must be enabled to share in China's
amazing economic growth," he said.
"Urgent efforts are (also) needed to fight the spread of HIV" />
HIV- AIDS" /> AIDS, and measures to protect the environment are
equally crucial."
After his speech, Annan was due visit the site of the main
Olympic stadium for the 2008 Beijing Games. He was then due to
fly to Vietnam for the next leg of the tour before heading on to
Thailand.
Copyright 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
16 Israel: The Invisible Nuclear State
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:03:41 -0500 (CDT)
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Why Won't the U.S. Acknowledge Israel's Nuclear Weapons?
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert meets with U.S. President Bush today
and speaks to a joint meeting of both chambers of Congress on Wednesday.
The U.S. government does not publicly acknowledge Israel's nuclear
weapons arsenal.
MORDECHAI VANUNU, vmjc1954@gmail.com, http://www.vanunu.com
Vanunu is a former Israeli nuclear technician who in 1986 revealed
through the Sunday Times of London the existence of Israel's nuclear
weapons. He said today: "The nuclear weapons in the Mideast are not in
Iraq, they are not in Iran -- they are in Israel. ... The Middle East is
now moving towards a nuclear weapons race; with Iran moving to do what
Israel produced in the last 40 years. I did my best 20 years ago to
prevent this situation of a future nuclear weapons war in the Middle
East. The best solution for the Middle East would be if it were free
from all nuclear weapons."
After revealing Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, Vanunu was
kidnapped from Rome and jailed by the Israeli government. For over 11
years, he was in solitary confinement. In April 2004, he was released
from prison but continues to be under severe travel limits and other
restrictions. Said Vanunu: "I hope the Israeli government will respect
my human rights and let me leave. I want to go to the United States."
Vanunu, who is in Jerusalem, has been frequently nominated for the Nobel
Peace Prize.
ROBERT NORRIS, rnorris@nrdc.org, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear
Norris is senior research associate with the Natural Resources
Defense Council and director of the Nuclear Weapons Databook Project. He
said today: "Israel has nuclear weapons and has probably had them for
more than 30 years. The standard estimate is 100 nuclear weapons. The
U.S. government does not publicly acknowledge that Israel possesses
nuclear weapons, though it's clear from declassified archival documents
that the U.S. government was concerned about this going back to the
Kennedy administration." Norris is co-editor of the "Nuclear Weapons
Databook" series, a five-volume encyclopedia of nuclear weapons; he also
co-writes the "Nuclear Notebook" column for the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
17 RIA Novosti: Ex-nuclear minister's lawyers ask for charges to be dropped
23/ 05/ 2006
MOSCOW, May 23 (RIA Novosti) - Lawyers acting for a former
Russian nuclear power minister, Yevgeny Adamov, asked Tuesday
that prosecutors drop embezzlement and abuse of office charges
against their client.
The Prosecutor General's Office officially charged Adamov, 67,
on December 31, 2005, after a long battle to secure his
extradition from Switzerland. He has been held in custody since
his return to Russia.
"Lawyers [Timofei] Gridnev and [Genri] Reznik filed a motion to
halt the criminal case against Adamov as his actions did not
constitute a crime," a Moscow City Court representative said.
Prosecutors in the case asked Moscow City Court to extend
Adamov's detention by two more months until August 8, claiming
that the defense had not yet finished studying the case
materials. Defense lawyers said they had finished studying the
criminal case on Monday and signed a protocol to that effect.
The U.S. accused Adamov, who served as nuclear power minister
1998-2001, of misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for
nuclear safety projects. He would have faced 60 years in prison
if convicted in the U.S.
On October 3, the Swiss Federal Justice Department announced it
would extradite the former minister to the U.S., but Adamov's
defense team filed an appeal with the Federal Tribunal,
Switzerland's Supreme Court, in Lausanne in November.
2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
18 RIA Novosti: Court extends ex-nuclear minister Adamov detention to Aug.8
23/ 05/ 2006
MOSCOW, May 23 (RIA Novosti) - Moscow City Court Tuesday
extended the custody of former nuclear minister Yevgeny Adamov,
facing charges of embezzlement and abuse of office, until August
8.
Prosecutors had demanded Adamov, 67, be remanded in custody,
although defense lawyers said Tuesday all charges should be
dropped.
Prosecutors asked Moscow City Court to extend Adamov's detention
by two more months, claiming that the defense had not yet
finished studying the case materials. Defense lawyers said they
had finished studying the criminal case on Monday and signed a
protocol to that effect.
Prosecutor Valery Lakhtin said the former minister was a leader
of an organized criminal group whose members were on an
international wanted list.
He said custody was a necessary measure that would prevent
Adamov from influencing witnesses.
"According to the Federal Security Service, Adamov is planning
to drag out the case," he added.
Adamov denied the accusation in court, saying that he was
interested in a quick investigation.
"Prosecutors have no documents proving my guilt and no
witnesses. Accordingly, I have no reasons to influence
witnesses," he said.
Adamov's lawyer Genri Reznik said, "Only Adamov could have
prevented his extradition to the U.S. Having agreed to a
simplified extradition procedure, he ensured his return to
Russia."
Reznik condemned the prosecutors' position as lawlessness,
saying that his client's detention was illegal.
"This is an intentional, willful and slow killing of Adamov,"
Reznik said adding that his client had already suffered two
heart attacks in jail.
The U.S. accused Adamov, who served as nuclear power minister
1998-2001, of misappropriating $9 million given to Russia for
nuclear safety projects. He would have faced 60 years in prison
if convicted in the U.S.
On October 3, the Swiss Federal Justice Department announced it
would extradite the former minister to the U.S., but Adamov's
defense team filed an appeal with the Federal Tribunal,
Switzerland's Supreme Court, in Lausanne in November. The
Tribunal ruled to send Adamov to Russia.
2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
19 Groups Respond to Bush's Visit to Limerick Nuclear Plant
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:48:16 -0700
For Immediate Release:
May 23, 2006
For More Information:
Nathan Willcox, PennEnvironment, 215-732-5897
Eric Epstein, Three Mile Island Alert, 717-541-1101
Joe Mangano, Radiation and Public Health Project, 610-666-2985
Donna Cuthbert, Alliance for a Clean Environment, 610-326-2387
PA Groups Urge Bush to Abandon Support for Nuclear Power
Groups Respond to Presidents Visit to Limerick Plant with Calls for
Cleaner, Safer Energy Plan
PennsylvaniaA coalition of Pennsylvania groups responded today to
President Bushs planned visit to the Limerick nuclear power plant tomorrow
by calling on the Bush administration to abandon its support of nuclear
power, and instead promote a smarter, cleaner energy future.
Pennsylvania is the birthplace and cemetery for commercial nuclear power
in America. Shippingport went on line in 1954, Three Mile Island melted
down in 1979 and Peach Bottom was the first plant closed in 1987 due to
operator misconduct, said Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island
Alert, Inc. (tmia.com) a safe energy group based in Harrisburg and founded
in 1977.
After living in the shadow of nuclear plants like Limerick for decades,
Pennsylvanians know all too well that nuclear power is not the answer to
our energy problems, said Nathan Willcox, Energy & Clean Air Advocate for
PennEnvironment. Its time for the Bush administration to stop pushing
more taxpayer handouts for the nuclear industry, and instead start
harnessing innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
It is especially troubling that President Bush would select the Limerick
plant to tout the safety of nuclear power, said Joseph Mangano MPH MBA,
National Coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health Project research
group. We found that the local rate of childhood cancer in the 1990s was
77% above the state and national rates, and we are concerned that toxic
emissions from Limerick are causing local cancer rates to rise.
Within 70 miles of the Limerick nuclear power plant, there are 11 operating
nuclear power reactors, creating one of the highest concentrations of
nuclear reactors in the country. The groups expressed their opposition to
any new nuclear power plants because they are expensive, dangerous and
generate highly radioactive waste. A Department of Energy study found that
75 U.S. nuclear power plants experienced construction cost overruns
totaling $100 billion. The Energy Information Administration estimates that
it will take at least nine years to build a new nuclear power plant.
Mr. Epstein observed, Nuclear power has become the Bush Administration's
poster child for corporate socialism and Pennsylvania is the most expensive
ward. PECO rate payers are paying for Limericks $5 billion construction
cost overruns and are subject to the highest electric rates in
Pennsylvania. Mr. Epstein added, Exelon has argued that Limerick, which
cost $6.8 billion to build, has a tax value of less than zero.
While statesincluding Pennsylvaniahave led the way in promoting renewable
energy like wind and solar, Congress and the Bush administration have
continued to funnel subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. An
analysis of the energy bill signed by the President last summer shows that
the oil and gas industry would receive at least $4 billion in new
subsidies, while the nuclear industry would get at least $12 billion. There
were no provisions in the bill to increase gas mileage standards for cars
and trucks, or to guarantee an increase in renewable energy generation.
Instead of pouring more taxpayer dollars into expensive and dangerous
nuclear power plants that wont come online for a decade, the Bush
administration should be supporting common-sense solutionslike energy
efficiency and increased gas mileage standardsthat can help solve our
energy problems today, concluded PennEnvironments Willcox.
--
Please note our new address!
*****************************
Nathan Willcox
Energy & Clean Air Advocate
PennEnvironment
1420 Walnut Street, Suite 650
Philadelphia, PA 19102
P: (215) 732-5897 F: (215) 732-4599
nwillcox@PennEnvironment.org
****************************
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: NRC Inspection Team to Review Loss of Offsite Power Event At Catawba Nuclear Power
Plant in South Carolina
News Release - Region II - 2006-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-031
May 23, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D.
Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending a team of
inspectors to the Catawba nuclear power plant, operated by Duke
Energy Corporation near Rock Hill, S.C., to review circumstances
associated with an unexpected loss of power from offsite sources
to both of the facilitys nuclear reactors on Saturday, May 20.
Emergency onsite power sources operated to support the reactor
shutdown.
NRC officials said preliminary information indicated an
electrical fault in the Catawba switch yard caused several
electrical circuit breakers to open, resulting in a loss of
offsite electrical power to both reactors. Both units underwent
automatic shutdowns from 100 percent power when their reactor
protection systems reacted to the loss of offsite power as
designed.
As required by the plants emergency plan, the company on
Saturday declared an Unusual Event, the lowest of four emergency
classifications, at 2:14 p.m. (EDT). The company terminated the
declaration of an Unusual Event on Sunday, May 21, at 1:40 a.m.
(EDT) following restoration of normal power.
The NRC said a special Augmented Inspection Team, used by the
NRC to review more serious events, will arrive at the site on
Tuesday, May 23 to review circumstances associated with the
event.
Both reactors at Catawba remain safely shut down and are being
monitored by NRC resident inspectors stationed at the plant.
Last revised Tuesday, May 23, 2006
*****************************************************************
21 NEWS.com.au: Town puts it hand up to host nuclear plant - SA -
By Michael Owen
May 24, 2006
MT GAMBIER - officially Australia's Tidiest Town and world
renowned for its Blue Lake - wants to be considered as the site
for the country's first nuclear power plant. Mt Gambier mayor
Steve Perryman last night told The Advertiser that the South
Australian city should be considered in any debate on suitable
sites for proposed nuclear power plants.
He was responding to a report which named a number of sites
around Australia as being suitable for a nuclear power plant.
The Australia Institute, an independent think tank, said
Victoria's Westernport Bay and NSW's Port Stephens were the
prime sites.
Other likely sites included Wollongong in NSW, the Sunshine
Coast in Queensland and Victoria's Port Phillip Bay and Portland
- 116km from Mt Gambier.
Mr Perryman said nuclear power was an option for the state's
South-East, rather than renewable energy sources such as wind
farms and solar power.
"I would not dismiss a nuclear power plant for Mt Gambier," Mr
Perryman said."It needs to be an option for us. We need to have
a thorough debate about the issue.
"I'm no expert, but I know that nuclear energy is widely used
throughout Europe and I don't dismiss it."
But he said before campaigning could begin for a nuclear power
plant to be built in Mt Gambier, the community had to be better
informed.
Mt Gambier MP Rory McEwen was yesterday more cautious, but
supported Mr Perryman's desire for debate.
"I think it's appropriate we have a debate about nuclear power
as an option but it's far too early in that debate to be talking
about possible sites," Mr McEwen said.
The Canberra-based Australia Institute is an independent
think-tank dedicated to develop and conduct research and policy
analysis.
Its executive director, Dr Clive Hamilton, said after consulting
several energy experts, a limited number of suitable sites for
proposed nuclear power plants were identified.
Dr Hamilton said any potential site in Australia would require
access to very large volumes of cooling water, and that
countries such as Canada had built nuclear power stations on the
shores of the Great Lakes.
Mt Gambier has its 75m deep Blue Lake.
The prospect of a home-grown nuclear industry, including
enrichment of uranium, was raised on Sunday by Prime Minister
John Howard, who called for a full debate on all aspects of the
nuclear cycle.
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley yesterday announced there
would be no nuclear industry under a Labor Government.
"The economics don't stack up. We have abundant resources of
alternative energy," Mr Beazley said.
"Waste disposal issues are unresolved and there are important
national security issues to be considered."
Momentum is growing within Government ranks for a national
debate on the issue.
Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer told Parliament
yesterday nuclear energy needed to be considered as an
alternative fuel source as the world tackled the problem of
greenhouse gas emissions.
"New thinking is needed, new technologies are needed and all
forms of energy need to be considered."
However, Environment Minister Ian Campbell said any nuclear
industry would not be established in Australia for a long time.
"My assessments of the economics of nuclear power have not
changed - I suspect it would be a long, long way down the
track," Mr Campbell said. "We really don't know - it'll depend
on a lot of factors that are outside our control."
"Let's have an informed debate about it." Search
for more stories on this topic on , our news archive service.
*****************************************************************
22 NEWS.com.au: Beazley declares nuke war -
By Samantha Maiden
May 24, 2006
KIM Beazley plans to fight the next election on nuclear energy by
ruling out nuclear power stations in Australia as Labor also
considers dumping its policy of no new uranium mines. The
Opposition Leader yesterday said that despite John Howard's
belief that nuclear power was inevitable, there would be "no
nuclear power in Australia under a Beazley government".
Senior Labor frontbenchers believe that while taking a stand on
the most contentious and economically questionable aspect of the
debate, Mr Beazley is moving towards backing the scrapping of the
party's no-new-mines policy in favour of new safety protections
surrounding overseas exports.
Mr Beazley's position signals three fronts in the nuclear debate
- whether to expand Australia's uranium mines beyond three mines,
whether to consider "value-added" exports such as uranium
enrichment in Australia and whether to build nuclear power
plants.
"The economics don't stack up. We have abundant sources of
alternative energy, waste disposal issues are unresolved and
there are important national security issues to be considered,"
Mr Beazley said.
There is already dispute within the Government over whether
Australia should build nuclear power plants and the partyroom
yesterday urged the Prime Minister's uranium taskforce also to
consider Australia's responsibility for storing high-level
nuclear waste.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane believes uranium enrichment
plants could be operational in Australia within five years, which
he admits highlights the need to consider how to treat the toxic
waste.
Enriched uranium is a key component of many nuclear power plants
and is much more valuable than the yellowcake Australia now
exports for processing.
Acting Prime Minister Peter Costello warned yesterday that
Australia would be a "mug" to ignore opportunities to expand
uranium exports, but remained sceptical that nuclear energy was
commercially viable yet.
"If it becomes commercial, we should have it. That is, there's
no in-principle objection to nuclear energy," he said.
"(But) You'd be a mug if you had the opportunity to sell
Australia's (uranium) and you didn't take it up. It'd be like
leaving the iron ore in the ground or the gas in the ground."
In the Coalition partyroom, several Liberal MPs went further,
calling for debate on the controversial option of Australia
leasing nuclear fuel rods to the world and storing the waste -
for a price.
Northern Territory MP Dave Tollner said Australia had the unique
combination of geological and political stability and a
responsibility as a "good global citizen".
"We can't be selling 40 per cent of the world's uranium without
having some sort of interest in how nuclear waste is stored," he
said. Previous attempts to establish even a low-level
radioactive waste dump have sparked a community backlash.
However, West Australian Liberal MP Barry Haase said Australia
should also consider storing high-level radioactive waste and
was in the perfect position to "charge like a wounded bull for
those services".
"I think we are internationally well placed to provide monitored
storage of waste," he said.
Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey said Australia should consider a
nuclear industry where "we lease the world fuel rods and charge
a price that includes supervision and waste storage".
"We are the ideal repository for those spent fuel rods for the
simple reason we have the best geological stability and we also
have political stability," he said.
"I'd prefer to know it was in a safe repository in Australia."
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, who disputes claims that a nuclear
power plant was not yet economically viable, also backed the
option of storing high-level waste. "There's probably hundreds
of billions of dollars a year if we took all the world's waste
but obviously it's something Australian society is going to have
to grapple with and decide if they want," he said.
"With the technology that I think we should look at in Australia
- the so-called Generation4 reactors - it will be cheaper
again," Mr Jensen said.
Mr Howard is expected to announce a wide-ranging inquiry into
nuclear issues after he returns from his overseas trip tomorrow.
It would consider an expansion of uranium mining, as well as
uranium enrichment in Australia and nuclear power.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet officials confirmed to
a Senate estimates hearing yesterday that an interdepartmental
committee was established last year to consider the nuclear
issue.
Another committee, called the Uranium Industry Framework
Interdepartmental Committee, had representatives from a range of
departments including finance, industry, the tax office, foreign
affairs and trade, and education.
Mr Beazley's tough stand on nuclear power was issued as part of
a joint statement with his resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson,
who was advocating a debate on the issue last year.
"Australians are uncomfortable with the prospect of a nuclear
nation under John Howard, and this is made worse by his refusal
to clarify his plans," Mr Beazley and Mr Ferguson said.
This is a clear sign that Labor believes the nuclear industry is
unpopular with the electorate.
However, Mr Howard said last week he believed nuclear power was
inevitable. Search for more stories on this
*****************************************************************
23 NEWS.com.au: Explain nuclear position, PM told
From: AAP
May 24, 2006
LABOR is calling on Prime Minister John Howard to come clean on
whether he wants a nuclear power industry in Australia. The ALP
has promised it will not be introducing nuclear power if it wins
the next federal election.
The Opposition yesterday moved to distinguish itself from the
Government, which wants a national discussion on nuclear issues.
Mr Howard has generated growing momentum within Government
ranks for a major debate on nuclear issues, including power
generation and enrichment and uranium mining.
But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has promised there will not
be nuclear power in Australia if Labor wins the next federal
election.
"We have abundant sources of alternative energy, waste disposal
issues are unresolved, and there are important national security
issues to be considered," he said.
"For these reasons Labor doesn't support nuclear power in
Australia."
Labor called on Mr Howard to make clear his position on nuclear
power.
The ALP clearly believes the issue is unpopular with the
electorate, while Mr Howard believes public opinion is shifting.
The biggest problem for any government wanting to introduce
nuclear power is likely to be finding a location for a reactor
in the face of opposition from residents and local councils.
Left-wing thinktank The Australia Institute believes Victoria's
Westernport Bay and NSW's Port Stephens are the most likely
locations for Australia's first nuclear power plant.
It named the NSW central coast, the NSW coast south of
Wollongong, the Sunshine Coast in Queensland and Port Phillip
Bay and Portland in Victoria as other possible locations.
*****************************************************************
24 Deseret News: Utah power a bargain
[deseretnews.com]
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Despite rises, state's prices well below U.S.
By Dave Anderton Deseret Morning News
The average retail price of electricity in Utah is on the rise,
but prices still remain lower than the national average,
according to a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration.
['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic
In 2005, residential electricity rates in Utah rose to an average
of 7.59 cents per kilowatt-hour, up from 7.21 cents per kwh in
2004.
Eleven other states had average residential electricity
prices lower than Utah's, according to the report.
West Virginia had the cheapest electricity rates in the
nation at 6.21 cents per kwh. Hawaii was the most expensive at
20.66 cents per kwh. The U.S. average in 2005 was 9.42 cents per
kwh, up from 8.97 cents in 2004.
Dave Eskelsen, a spokesman for PacifiCorp, Utah's largest
retail provider of electricity, said a combination of factors
keep the state's electricity prices low.
"Our coal-fired units are a big part of that," Eskelsen
said. "But there are, of course, transmission and distribution
aspects to that as well."
According to the report, about 94 percent of Utah's
electric power generation comes from coal. Nearly 4 percent of
the state's electricity was generated by natural gas-fired
plants.
Oregon and Washington, also states served by PacifiCorp,
had lower electricity prices than Utah mainly because of their
hydroelectric power plants, Eskelsen said.
Despite today's low prices, electricity in Utah likely
will grow more expensive for customers of PacifiCorp, which in
March asked Utah regulators for a $197 million rate increase,
the largest ever requested in the utility's history and
amounting to a $10 monthly increase for a typical residential
customer using 753 kwh. Since then, the Portland-based utility
which does business in Utah as Utah Power and is owned by Warren
Buffett's MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. has revised its rate
request downward to $194 million.
David Irvine, a Salt Lake attorney and former Utah public
service commissioner, said more electricity coming from natural
gas-fired power plants being built in the state will drive up
prices.
"At some point it's not improbable that Utah is going to
have to face the question of whether nuclear generation in the
long run is going to be less expensive than coal or natural
gas," Irvine said. "That's a tough, tough policy issue, but with
expanding populations and the price of gas going where it is
headed, I think that is a fair question that somebody ought to
be looking at."
Unlike coal-fired or natural gas-fired power plants,
nuclear power plants generate electricity without creating air
emissions.
One person looking seriously at nuclear power is Rep.
Brad Daw, R-Orem.
Daw was instrumental in adding language to a state energy
bill signed into law this year that promotes the study of
nuclear power generation in Utah.
"I think we should see a nuclear power plant in Utah,"
said Daw, who added that there are legitimate issues about
nuclear waste, but those issues largely exist because the U.S.
does not reprocess spent fuel rods.
"If we reprocess the spent fuel, there would be no
nuclear waste," Daw said. "I see this more as a way to generate
electricity for Utah, but also as the way for Utah to export
electricity and bring some sorely needed revenue in for
different programs in Utah."
E-mail: danderton@desnews.com
2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /]
*****************************************************************
25 NEWS.com.au: Labor won't go nuclear - Beazley -
From: AAP
May 24, 2006
LABOR would vehemently oppose the Federal Government's push
towards nuclear power generation, Opposition leader Kim Beazley
said today. Prime Minister John Howard, who has called for a
full-blooded debate on the nuclear issue, says it's wrong for
Labor to make a decision before hearing all the facts.
There'll be no nuclear power under a Beazley Labor
government, Mr Beazley said.
The economics of this do not stack up without the application
of things like carbons emissions taxes to alternative methods of
power generation.
The Government is not able at the moment to find a location
for disposal of low-level (nuclear) waste. How would they find
one for high-level waste?
And I'm also worried about national security implications.
Mr Beazley said the Prime Minister needed to restore certainty in
communities after potential sites for nuclear reactors were named
by The Australian Institute.
The think tank says Victoria's Westernport Bay and NSW's Port
Stephens are the most likely locations for Australia's first
nuclear power plant.
It named the NSW central coast, the NSW coast south of
Wollongong, the Sunshine Coast in Queensland and Port Phillip Bay
and Portland in Victoria as other possible locations.
John Howard now needs to rule out ... those locations as
potential areas of sites for nuclear power stations, Mr Beazley
said.
He needs to restore certainty to the folk in those areas who
will now be concerned.
When he makes his announcements, he needs to be clear-cut
exactly where it is that he intends to put the reactors and
exactly where it is that he intends to dispose of the high-level
waste.
Mr Beazley reiterated that under Labor, the Australian public
could be assured that there would be no nuclear power generation.
We ... in the Labor party are clear-cut on this, elect a Labor
government, there'll be no nuclear power generation in this
country.
Nuclear power generation, as far as we're concerned, is
absolutely off the table. Search for more
*****************************************************************
26 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor is living in the past - minister -
www.smh.com.au
May 24, 2006 - 8:39AM
Environment Minister Ian Campbell has accused the Labor Party of
living in the past for opposing nuclear power generation in
Australia.
Senator Campbell's comments follow Opposition Leader Kim
Beazley's pledge not to introduce nuclear power if he wins the
next federal election.
Speculation about the viability of a nuclear industry was
sparked after Prime Minister John Howard called for an open
debate on the controversial issue.
Senator Campbell said Mr Beazley's decision was a populist move
designed to appeal to outdated preconceptions.
"Mr Beazley wants to appeal to 1970s ideological prejudices and
ignore the realities of what's needed in the modern world -
which is secure energy supplies, with roughly 50 to 60 per
cent-reduced greenhouse gas emissions," Senator Campbell told
reporters.
"(If) he thinks he can garner a few votes on that, then it's a
sad reflection of the policy malaise of the Australian Labor
Party in the new millennium."
He accused Labor of jeopardising Australia's future prosperity
and ignoring the developing world's desperate need for more
energy.
"It's absolutely pivotal to job security in Australia that we
have secure energy at competitive prices, and it's important to
the developed world to have secure energy," Senator Campbell
said.
"It's a matter of life and death in places like Africa and Asia,
where you have people dying because they don't have energy
reticulated to them.
"They can't turn the lights on, they don't have power (and) they
don't have refrigeration."
Senator Campbell then rounded on left-wing think tank The
Australia Institute, which has named Wollongong, the Sunshine
Coast and Port Phillip Bay, among others, as potential sites for
nuclear reactors.
"I think the Australian Labor party and their comrades in The
Australia Institute are really not interested in any sort of
debate - they are interested in scaremongering," Senator
Campbell said.
"(The proposed sites) are about as relevant as The Australia
Institute suggesting we put a nuclear power station on Old
Parliament House - it's a bit of a game, and it doesn't treat
the problem seriously."
2006 AAP
*****************************************************************
27 Charlotte Observer: Federal investigators to visit nuclear plant
| 05/23/2006 |
Team trying to find out what led to emergency shutdown of
reactors
BRUCE HENDERSON
A team of federal investigators will visit the Catawba nuclear
plant on Lake Wylie today to learn what led to the emergency
shutdown this weekend of both of the plant's reactors.
Duke Energy declared an "unusual event," the lowest of four
emergency stages, Saturday afternoon when the plant lost its
off-site power source.
The reactors automatically shut down with the power loss, the
first time both have "tripped" in the plant's 20-year operating
history. Diesel generators kicked on to supply backup power.
"The plant responded as it should have," Duke spokeswoman Rita
Sipe said Monday. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the
public was not in danger.
No leaks were detected from the reactors' steam generators,
through which radioactive water circulates. Off-site power was
restored about six hours later, on Saturday night.
Duke said the problem occurred in the plant's switchyard, which
sends electricity generated at Catawba toward customers and also
brings electricity into the plant.
Ken Clark, an NRC spokesman in Atlanta, said an electrical fault
in the switchyard opened a circuit breaker. What's unclear, he
said, is why 12 other circuit breakers also opened, severing the
connection to offsite power.
"This is a type of event that we would not expect to occur,"
Clark said.
Bruce Henderson: (704) 358-5051.
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Seabrook Nuclear Station
News Release - 2006-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-070 May 23, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by FPL
Energy Seabrook to increase the generating capacity of Seabrook
Station by 1.7 percent. The NRC staff determined that FPL could
safely increase the reactors power output primarily through
increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy. NRC staff also
reviewed FPL evaluations that showed the plants design can
handle the increased power level.
The NRC's safety evaluation of the plants proposed power uprate
focused on several areas, including nuclear steam supply
systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical
systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences,
operations, and other technical specification changes.
The power uprate for the unit, located 13 miles south of
Portsmouth, N.H., will increase its generating capacity from
approximately 1,173 to 1,193 megawatts electric. FPL intends to
operate Seabrook at the higher power level following its spring
refueling operations.
NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate
application in the Federal Register, providing the public an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or
hearing requests were received by the NRC. The agencys
evaluation of the Seabrook uprate will be available through the
NRCs ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML061360034
on this Web page: .
Last revised Tuesday, May 23, 2006
*****************************************************************
29 AU ABC: 'Ideal' east coast nuclear plant sites identified
ABC New South Wales | Local News | Story
Tuesday, 23 May 2006. 17:55 (AEDT)Tuesday, 23 May 2006. 16:55
Nuclear power ... the Australia Institute has kicked off the
debate about location.
A new study has identified several areas on Australia's east
coast, including Wollongong, where a nuclear power plant could
be built if the Federal Government decides that a nuclear
industry is the way of the future.
The Australia Institute has consulted experts who say that the
plant will need to be located on the coast, near transmission
lines and be near a major centre with good rail and port access.
The institute's Dr Clive Hamilton says the area south of
Wollongong, the central coast of NSW and Port Stephens along
with the Sunshine Coast and other areas in Queensland and
Victoria would be ideal.
"You can't have a nuclear industry without specifying where the
nuclear power plants are likely to be," he said.
"We're really taking up the Prime Minister's challenge to have a
debate about nuclear power in Australia.
"We want to make it an honest debate and to start talking about
where you would put the nuclear power plants if they were to be
built."
Dr Hamilton says the nuclear debate so far has only touched the
surface.
"Wherever a nuclear power plant is built in Australia, some
people aren't going to like it, that's just an inevitability,"
he said.
"I think if we're going to have a serious nuclear debate rather
than just a false debate then we need to start to talk about the
reality of building nuclear power plants which, in the end,
comes down to location."
Meanwhile, the Democrats will move to establish a Senate inquiry
into Australia's nuclear energy future, saying the Federal
Government is looking into the matter in secret.
At a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra, departmental
officials have revealed that the Government has set up a
committee to further examine nuclear power.
Democrats Leader Lyn Allison says it is extraordinary that the
Government did not make the details of the committee public.
"It's very clear to the Democrats that we're looking here at a
very secret, narrow and possibly a biased inquiry," she said.
"If that's where it is going, in fact we'll be moving as soon as
we can to establish a Senate inquiry into this, we think it
needs to be open, it needs to be public."
The Federal Government has admitted it has set up a secret
committee to examine the economics and science of nuclear power.
During a Senate estimates committee, officers with the
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet confirmed that the
committee was formed recently.
Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, says the
information has not been made public because of the sensitivity
of the issue.
"This hasn't been announced, the work's been done
behind-the-scenes because the Government knows that this is
indeed a very dangerous path for Australia to go on," he said.
Related Audio
Govt admits it has already set up a committee to examine nuclear
power issues.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has confirmed the
existence of a committee and that is investigating the issues
related to nuclear power. MP3RealMedia 28k+WinMedia 28k+
*****************************************************************
30 AU ABC: Port Stephens Mayor says 'no' to nuclear power station
08:05 (ACDT)Wednesday, 24 May 2006. 05:05 (AWST)
The Mayor of Port Stephens council, on the New South Wales'
central coast, has rejected the findings of a report which
identifies the area as an ideal site for a future nuclear power
plant.
The Australia Institute has suggested Port Stephens, the central
and south coasts, and sites in Queensland and Victoria would be
suitable if the Government decides to pursue nuclear energy.
It says a nuclear plant would need to be on the coast, close to
rail and port facilities and near transmission lines.
But Mayor Craig Baumann says he would never support the idea.
"I just don't like the idea of any power station, something like
Vailes Point being stuck on the shores of Port Stephens," he
said.
"Obviously the power station should be close to transport,
obviously large volumes of water and the grid that it's meant to
service.
"I'd suggest that they move the ships out of Garden Island and
stick it right in the middle of Sydney."
*****************************************************************
31 Independent: Blair attacked over 'secret nuclear agenda'
By Andy McSmith
Published: 24 May 2006
Tony Blair has come under a double attack from his allies for
the way he introduced nuclear power to the political agenda. He
was told that his announcement had aroused suspicions that there
is a "secret agenda" behind government policy.
One of the critics was the former environment secretary Stephen
Byers, normally seen as a Blairite, who warned yesterday that
the Government will now find it very difficult to achieve
general agreement on where Britain should turn for its future
energy supplies. Mr Byers said: "There are decisions being taken
that some people believe prove there is a hidden agenda."
His remarks were echoed by Sir Jonathon Porritt, the
Government's leading adviser on alternative energy sources, who
told a committee of MPs that Mr Blair's announcement was "not
clever".
The Prime Minister told industrialists this month that civil
nuclear power was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". This
was taken as a sign that he has already decided on the outcome
of a major government review of future energy supplies, although
the review is not complete.
2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
32 Xinhua: Pakistan, China to cooperate in peaceful use of nuke-tech - PM
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-05-23 18:53:38
ISLAMABAD, May 23 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz on Tuesday said that Pakistan and China were
working towards further expansion of cooperation in the peaceful
use of nuclear technology for electricity generation, according
to the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP).
A significant area of cooperation between Pakistan and China
has been the harnessing of nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes under international safeguards -- for the production of
electricity, Aziz said while inaugurating a seminar marking the
55 years of Pakistan-China relations.
Over the past 55 years, our all-weather and time-tested
friendship has become higher than the highest mountains and
deeper than the deepest oceans, Aziz was quoted as saying.
The Pakistan-China friendship is designed to promote
security and cooperation with their neighbors as well as their
global partners, he added.
Aziz underlined the need for both sides to redouble their
efforts for the protection and promotion of international peace
and security in a multi-polar system confronted with serious
challenges such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, regional
conflicts and the energy crisis as well as environmental
degradation. Enditem
Editor: Pliny Han
Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 The Mercury: Bush to visit Limerick nuclear plant
Wednesday 24 May, 2006
W. Bush will tour Exelon Nuclears Limerick Generating Station
Wednesday and address workers there.
His visit was announced in an Exelon press release that said Bush
is visiting the plant "to speak about Americas energy policy."
"We look forward to the opportunity to provide President Bush
with a tour of our site to show him first-hand our safe, clean,
reliable operations," Chris Crane, Exelons chief nuclear
officer, said in the release.
"This administration has done a great deal to advance nuclear
technology as a safe, cost-effective alternative to other energy
sources," John Rowe, chairman, president and CEO of Exelon Corp.
said in the release.
Exelon spokesman Ralph DeSantis said the White House contacted
Exelon to suggest Bushs visit to the Limerick plant.
It will be Bushs second visit to the greater Pottstown area. He
made a swing through Pottstown during his 2004 reelection
campaign.
It will also be his second visit to a nuclear power plant. Bush
is the first president to visit a nuclear power plant since
Jimmy Carter visited Three Mile Island, a name now synonymous
with the nations worst nuclear accident.
Exelon workers were busy Monday making preparations for Bushs
visit.
DeSantis said increased security measures were being undertaken,
but said he could not discuss the specifics.
Bush has long held that the country, which has not built a new
nuclear plant since the 1970s, should build new nuclear plants
as an alternative to fossil fuels and as a way for the U.S. to
achieve energy independence from foreign oil.
He often points out that while the U.S. has not commissioned a
new nuclear power plant in 30 years, France built 78 during the
same period and derives 78 percent of its energy from nuclear
plants.
The United States has 103 nuclear plants -- Limerick being one
of the newest -- which provide about 20 percent of the nations
energy.
Bush has also asked Congress for $250 million for research into
re-processing spent nuclear fuel in a way that makes it more
difficult to use the plutonium by-product to make nuclear
weapons.
It was the danger of nuclear proliferation that prompted
presidents Ford and Carter to ban the practice, leaving the
United States as one of the few, if not the only, major consumer
of nuclear power that does not reprocess its fuel.
Some, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, remain
concerned about Bushs proposal because they still consider it a
risk of increased proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly
in the hands of terrorists.
But Bush has proposed working with countries like Russia,
France, Japan and Britain to share information and innovations
made by civilian firms that have made technical advances in the
reprocessing field.
He has also proposed establishing a system to supply nuclear
fuel to other nations, part of a "Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership" he proposed for the 2007 budget.
Discussions of re-processing fuel are relevant to the Limerick
plant, which is currently seeking township planning approval for
a "dry cask" storage system to hold its spent fuel rods.
U.S. reactors generate about 2,000 tons of high-level waste in
every year of operation.
Long stored in pools in the interior of the plant, the pool at
the Limerick facility is fast filling up with fuel.
And because the long-delayed federal storage facility for
nuclear fuel beneath Nevadas Yucca Mountain is years away,
Limerick has joined other, older, nuclear plants that have begun
to store their older fuel inside concrete and steel casks on
plant grounds.
Although Exelon plans to need no more than 24 casks there, it
has planned a storage facility that can house nearly 100.
Bushs visit would be the first to an Exelon facility. "We
consider it to be an honor," DeSantis said.
The Mercury 2006
*****************************************************************
34 AU ABC: Nuclear energy debate a farce - Garrett
AM - Tuesday, 23 May , 2006 08:06:00
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
TONY EASTLEY: ALP Parliamentary Secretary and former Midnight
Oil frontman, Peter Garrett, says the Prime Minister's promotion
of a debate on nuclear energy is a farce.
Mr Garrett says if John Howard were serious about the greenhouse
gas issue the Government would have announced a major funding
commitment in the Budget.
He says he's astonished at the Government's suggestion that
Australia could be enriching its own uranium within five to 10
years, when so little has been done to encourage renewable
energy.
Peter Garrett spoke to Chief Political Correspondent Catherine
McGrath.
PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister's creating one of his great
false debates, flying kites, making mischief and covering up for
the fact that he's done absolutely zip on climate change
nothing in the Budget for it; abolished the Australian
greenhouse office. We've seen half a billion dollars worth of
investment in windfarms and alternative technologies go overseas
because of this Government's lack of action.
The Prime Minister comes back from America as a nukes
enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his
own deficiencies.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: There are two issues here too, because
there's not only the question of nuclear power, now the
Government is also talking about the possibility of enrichment
as a separate possibility.
Ian Macfarlane told this program yesterday that within five to
10 years enrichment could be happening in Australia.
PETER GARRETT: Yeah, look, I'm astonished that the Government
wants to push ahead with enrichment given the huge issues around
safety, around proliferation the sort of debates that we're
seeing in the Middle East about rogue states. But more
importantly, why isn't this Government investing in technologies
that are good for the country?
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Can I put to you what Ian Macfarlane said
yesterday? He said: "Each year, thousands of people die around
the world mining coal and if you set aside Chernobyl, there has
been no major nuclear disaster in the western world."
PETER GARRETT: Well, it's one thing to say that the coal
industry should clean itself up in terms of mine safety, and no
one would argue against that. It's another to say that because
of mine safety problems in coal, we've got to embrace another
dangerous technology, and an expensive one.
And there are accidents in nuclear plants. There was an accident
in a plant in Japan not that long ago and regrettably, there
will continue to be accidents, even if the plants are more, are
more safe.
But the other big question about a nuclear power industry and a
domestic power industry is simply this: what do you do when
you've got to decommission these plants? I mean that's the sort
of problem that they face in the United States at the moment.
They still haven't, after 40 years, got a successfully approved
radioactive waste safe repository.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So do you think this is a dangerous debate
for the country?
PETER GARRETT: Well, it's not that it's a dangerous debate, it's
just let's understand it for what it is. I mean we've got
choices to make. Why are we losing half a billion dollars worth
of investment in green energy, in renewable energy, in wind
energy?
Why are we not sort of embracing the fact that we can be one of
the great solar nations? Why are we not using our infrastructure
development and the money that we need to put into
infrastructure to put it into renewables?
CATHERINE MCGRATH: So it's hypocritical, is that what you're
saying?
PETER GARRETT: Well, it's more than hypocritical - it's a farce,
you know. For the Prime Minister to come back from America and
suddenly become born again for nukes, when really, if you look
seriously at what's going on here, Australia needs to make its
decision about why we're not addressing climate change and find
those necessary alternatives that will make up the energy mix.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Now, it was in the late 80s and the early 90s
that you were standing for the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Then,
this was an issue front-and-centre in Australia; there were
demonstrations; people were worried about it. Do you concede
that to some extent attitudes have changed?
PETER GARRETT: Well, look, I think what's happening is that the
way in which the debate has been framed up till now has only had
some powerful voices speaking for it. And you've got the Prime
Minister and senior minister saying every day, we think that
nukes is clean energy. Well of course it's nothing of the sort.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Now this isn't your portfolio, but it's
obviously a subject that you've campaigned on for most of our
adult life. You've been fairly quiet since coming into Federal
Parliament. Are we going to see now Peter Garrett being more
vocal, pushing the issues that you're so focused on?
PETER GARRETT: I don't reckon I've been that quiet in the
Parliament. I've been working pretty hard. But look, Anthony
Albanese, the Environment Shadow, has spoken strongly on this
and I will too it's an issue that's important to me.
But I think it's important for us to understand what we're
debating. I mean Australia's got a choice: does it choose a high
cost, high toxics outcome, high security risk industry, or does
it go down the prudent and necessary path of alternatives: safe,
clean, green and good for the country into the future. That's
what this debate ought to be about.
TONY EASTLEY: ALP Parliamentary Secretary, Peter Garrett.
*****************************************************************
35 AU ABC: Campbell defends govt stance on nuclear energy
AM - Tuesday, 23 May , 2006 08:09:00
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
TONY EASTLEY: Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell rejects
Peter Garrett's claims, and he says the Government is committed
to renewable energy.
Senator Campbell believes that nuclear power should be
considered in the mix of technologies under consideration in
Australia.
The Environment Minister joins us this morning in our Canberra
studio; he's speaking to Catherine McGrath.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Senator Campbell, good morning.
IAN CAMPBELL: Good morning.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: You heard Peter Garrett there. He said this a
false debate and that Australians don't want nuclear energy.
IAN CAMPBELL: Well I think the trouble with what Peter has said
is that most of what he said was untrue. It'd be alarming if
what he said was true.
Can we just correct the record? Firstly, he says we didn't spend
any money in this year's Budget on greenhouse. We spent an extra
- on top of the $2-billion we're spending already - an extra
$100-million, much of it going to renewables.
He said we've closed the Australian Greenhouse Office. I've got
a press release in my hand that announces - the United Nations
Framework Convention Secretariat - announces the head of the
Australian Greenhouse Office, Howard Bamsey, as the head of the
new global dialogue on climate change. So the greenhouse office
hasn't been abolished.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: All right. Can we take that particular issue,
first of all, because it is an important subject. He says that
you abolished the Australian Greenhouse Office. What you did do
was close it down as a separate entity and bring it within the
department. So it's now just part of the Department of
Environment and Heritage.
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, it's a purely administrative arrangement.
There is still an Australian Greenhouse Office
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But it was separate, now it's not separate.
IAN CAMPBELL: Well it's not separate. It's actually if you go,
if Peter Garrett takes the trouble to go down there and get a
briefing, which I've offered anyone in the Labor Party, he will
find that the Australian Greenhouse Office is exactly the same
as it was 12 months ago.
There is an Australian Greenhouse Office, and it is part of the
Australian Department of the Environment, and it has always
been. It's been a small administrative arrangement, which hasn't
changed anything of its political focus.
And I think if you want to look at the runs on the board - an
extra $100-million for greenhouse in this year's Budget, on top
of the $2-billion we're spending already. So, we're working very
hard on it while Mr Garrett's really saying, look, we want to
rule out clean coal, we don't want to do anything on coal -
that's dirty. And now he wants to say we shouldn't be looking at
alternatives such as nuclear.
The reality is, he talks he uses the word dangerous. He throws
it around like a lyric in a song. What is dangerous is putting
your head in the sand on this debate. What is dangerous is
pretending to the world that alternative energy is a silver
bullet, that we actually have to look at all of the options if
we are to see the world have a secure energy future, but also a
lower greenhouse signature.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The issue of renewables is really key to the
argument between you and the Opposition over this. The Roaring
Forties windfarm developments in Tasmania and South Australia
has recently announced its not going ahead with $500-million in
projects, because of the failure to increase the mandatory
renewable energy targets. Australia has them sitting at 2 per
cent; it's forcing them overseas.
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, we want companies like Roaring Forties to go
overseas. We want them to be working in places like China, we
want them to
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But they're saying they can't afford to do it
here, because you're not encouraging enough companies to source
their energy from renewables.
IAN CAMPBELL: Well, we started off under Labor's policies with
20 turbines in Australia. We have seen our policies build just
under 600. We wanted to build a domestic renewables industry -
this is just wind we're talking about. We're also spending
hundreds of millions in solar, building four new solar cities.
But in terms of the renewable energy industry, we want to build
a homegrown industry and give it the foundations to go into the
region. We are not going to solve climate change in Australia.
We're 1.4 per cent of the problem. What we want to do is work
both in Australia and around the world.
And, for example, I hope to be opening or launching Roaring
Forties wind power facilities in China in October, on the
biggest renewable energy trade mission ever to go to China,
which I'm leading.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: What do you say, Minister, to Australians who
are wondering about what Peter Garrett said, about this being a
false debate, about the Prime Minister being a born again
greenie, looking for nuclear energy as a clean fuel. What role
do you see nuclear energy could play?
IAN CAMPBELL: Well nuclear energy already plays a major role.
For example, France has 75 per cent of its power coming from
nuclear, with zero emissions. So they're producing reliable
energy with zero emissions. We're going to be selling uranium to
the world. The question is, how far do we go into the nuclear
cycle.
Should we just dig up uranium ore and sell it off, or should we
value-add? We always talk about value-adding in Australia. This
is all it is, is value-adding to a resource. We need more power
in the world, we need half the greenhouse gases in the world, we
need to look at all of the options, not have this false debate
about renewables versus coal or coal versus nuclear. We need
everything and we need to do it very well, and that's how we
will secure Australia's future.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Ian Campbell, thank you for joining AM this
morning.
TONY EASTLEY: And the Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell,
speaking there with our Chief Political Correspondent, Catherine
McGrath.
*****************************************************************
36 AU ABC: Federal Govt forced to expose secret committee on nuclear power
The World Today - Tuesday, 23 May , 2006 12:25:00
Reporter: Catherine McGrath
ELEANOR HALL: The Prime Minister might have been saying it's
time for open debate about nuclear energy in Australia, but this
morning the Federal Government has been forced to admit that
it's already set up a secret committee to examine the economics
and science of nuclear power.
Within hours of the Labor Party releasing information about the
interdepartmental committee, officers from the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet confirmed the existence of the
committee and that its work is being done behind the scenes.
From Canberra, Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath
reports.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Quiet at first, when he entered federal
politics, today former Midnight Oil frontman, former nuclear
disarmament candidate, and now ALP MP Peter Garrett let fly.
PETER GARRETT: The Prime Minister's creating one of his great
false debates, flying kites, making mischief and covering up for
the fact that he's done absolutely zip on climate change,
nothing in the Budget for it, abolished the Australian
Greenhouse Office.
We've seen half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind
farms and alternative technologies go overseas because of this
Government's lack of action.
The Prime Minister comes back from America as a nukes
enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his
own deficiencies.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But the Environment Minister Ian Campbell
rejects the claim, and says extra money was given to renewable
energy in the Budget.
IAN CAMPBELL: We spent an extra, on top of the $2-billion we're
spending already, an extra $100-million, much of it going to
renewables.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: And he says the nuclear power question has to
be examined.
IAN CAMPBELL: What is dangerous is putting your head in the sand
on this debate.
What is dangerous is pretending to the world that alternative
energy is a silver bullet. We actually have to look at all of
the options.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: But another level of political complexity
came into the nuclear debate today when Labor's Environment
Spokesman Anthony Albanese claimed the Government, through
official interdepartmental committee, had been studying the
issue in secret.
ANTHONY ALBANESE: I understand, and the Opposition understands,
that there's already been work done on this.
There's an interdepartmental committee, comprising people from
Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Industry, and possibly other
departments as well, that's been looking at nuclear energy for
Australia.
This hasn't been announced. The work's being done behind the
scenes because the Government knows that this is indeed a very
dangerous path for Australia to go on.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: The IDC, or interdepartmental committee, does
exists, and the lead agency is the Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade.
Duncan Lewis from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
confirmed it during Senate Estimate hearings this morning.
Here his is answering questions put by Labor's John Faulkner.
JOHN FAULKNER: Just asking about that committee, does it have a
name? Let's really go right back to basics. Does it have a name?
DUNCAN LEWIS: Yes, Senator, I've just caught up with my notes
here.
It goes the group goes to the subject of the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, and Prime Minister and Cabinet is
represented at a recently formed, and I can't tell you precisely
the date, but a recently formed committee that has been created.
It's a DFAT-based committee, looking at the issue of the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership.
CATHERINE MCGRATH: Duncan Lewis from the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet.
Anthony Albanese says the Government rejected the nuclear option
in its white paper on energy in July 2004, which stated that
Australia is not contemplating the use of nuclear power.
Now, he says, the story has changed.
ANTHONY ALBANESE: Here we are, in April 2006, with the
Government setting up secret interdepartmental committees, with
the Prime Minister waiting until he was from the safety of the
other side of the world, the Northern Hemisphere, before he went
on this nuclear path.
We now have also them talking about enrichment of uranium.
And potentially, of course, that's about laying the groundwork
that was proposed by the United States to have leasing
arrangements whereby Australia would become the world's nuclear
waste dump.
I don't think that's a path we should go down.
ELEANOR HALL: Labor's Environment spokesman Anthony Albanese,
ending that report from Catherine McGrath in Canberra.
*****************************************************************
37 AU ABC: MPs debate nuclear merits.
23/05/2006. ABC News Online
Federal Coalition and Labor MPs have been arguing the merits or
otherwise of nuclear energy after the Prime Minister called for
a full blooded debate on the issue.
Labor's environment spokesman, Anthony Albanese, says the Prime
Minister's nuclear fantasy will become the nation's nightmare.
"When it comes to the nuclear debate, let's hear from the Prime
Minister where the nuclear reactors will be sited, in what
electorates, in what areas outside capital cities and where the
nuclear waste will be stored," he said.
"If this is so safe then I'm sure that the Prime Minister won't
have a shortage of volunteers in his party room to have nuclear
reactors sited in their own electorates."
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello says a nuclear power industry
in Australia is still a long time away, but he has offered his
support for the idea.
"It's safe, it has much less greenhouse emissions than coal, so
there's no in principle objection to it, it's just a question of
economics," he told Southern Cross Radio.
"At some point I would think that it would become commercial.
"It's some time off but if it becomes commercial, yes sure,
people should be allowed to build it."
The Greens says nuclear power is not a viable option for
Australia.
But the Environment Minister, Senator Ian Campbell, says all
options need to be considered.
"What is dangerous is putting your head into the sand on this
debate," he said.
*****************************************************************
38 AU ABC: Lateline: Nuclear debate heats up
24/05/2006
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Lateline
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1645756.htm
Reporter: Rachel Carbonell
TONY JONES: The Prime Minister's call for a full-blooded debate
on nuclear energy has already sparked an emotive national
dispute. As political and scientific debate rages over whether a
nuclear power industry would be safe, affordable, or viable,
it's been revealed the Government has already set up an internal
committee to examine the issue. But the Opposition has made up
its mind, ruling out nuclear power under a Beazley Labor
government. Rachel Carbonell reports.
RACHEL CARBONELL: The Government is painting it as a debate
about the need for clean, green energy, but that's not washing
with environmentalists or the Opposition.
PETER GARRETT, LABOR BACKBENCHER: The Prime Minister's creating
one of his great, false debates; flying kites; making mischief;
and covering up for the fact that he's done absolutely zip on
climate change.
PROFESSOR IAN LOWE, PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION
FOUNDATION: Embracing nuclear is really getting out of the
greenhouse frying pan and into the nuclear fire, and it's just
not a very sensible response.
RACHEL CARBONELL: Some Government frontbenchers, like Finance
Minister Nick Minchin, are dubious about the cost of setting up
a nuclear power industry in Australia, but there's strong
Coalition commitment to talk it out.
SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: I believe the
economics of nuclear in Australia make it very unlikely to be a
source of energy in Australia for a long time to come. I still
think that's the case, but I also think that it's very wise to
have an informed debate about all of the energy options.
PETER COSTELLO, ACTING PRIME MINISTER: If it becomes commercial,
we should have it; that is, there's no in-principle objection to
nuclear energy - nuclear energy is an efficient form of energy;
provided you deal properly with the waste, then, it's safe.
RACHEL CARBONELL: Associate Professor Martin Sevior has put
together a dossier of nuclear research from around the world. He
says a nuclear power industry in Australia is viable, and it
could be up and running in 15 years.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR MARTIN SEVIOR, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL
OF PHYSICS: If you look at the best case scenarios for the new
power plants around the world, then, nuclear is a little bit
more expensive than our current, best coal power stations.
RACHEL CARBONELL: And, he says, when you add the cost of CO2
emissions, nuclear power becomes more competitive. But opponents
say it would be faster and cheaper to use other alternatives.
PROF. IAN LOWE: Nuclear power is too expensive, too slow and
makes too little difference and is too dangerous. Wind and solar
could be delivering energy next year. Efficiency could be
producing gains next week. These are cost-effective solutions
that are much better, in terms of timing, than the hope that
nuclear might be the answer.
ASSOC. PROF. MARTIN SEVIOR: Wind and solar is much more
problematic. As you go to higher and higher levels of
penetration to actually make a difference; you've got to store
it, or you've got to back it up with something else.
RACHEL CARBONELL: Environmentalists say nuclear isn't the
cleanest energy solution.
PROF IAN LOWE: There's no doubt that nuclear power releases less
carbon dioxide over the full fuel cycle than burning coal, but
there's also no doubt that it releases more carbon dioxide than
solar or wind or geothermal or wave or tidal or biomass or any
one of a range of renewable energy technologies.
RACHEL CARBONELL: But advocates of nuclear energy say it's not a
matter of either/or. Nuclear power should be considered in
conjunction with other alternatives.
ASSOC. PROF MARTIN SEVIOR: The big challenge is 2050. 2050: the
idea is the world should have emitted - should be emitting - 60
per cent less carbon dioxide. We can do that if we start
planning now. It's between now and 2020, I think all we can do,
the best we can do, is renewables and energy efficiency and
maybe gas.
RACHEL CARBONELL: And the debate doesn't end there. The
Opposition has also raised the potentially divisive issue of
where nuclear power plants would be built.
ANTHONY ALBANESE, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN: Let's hear
from the Prime Minister where the nuclear reactors will be
sited, in what electorates, in what areas outside capital
cities, and where the nuclear waste will be stored.
RACHEL CARBONELL: Today, the leader of the Opposition, Kim
Beazley, released a statement saying there will be no nuclear
power industry under a Beazley Labor government. Meanwhile,
Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, says Australia is
doing its bit to combat climate change simply by exporting
uranium.
ALEXANDER DOWNER, FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER: The amount of
nuclear energy, worldwide, produced from Australia's uranium
exports saves, in the amount of carbon emissions, the equivalent
of all of the emissions Australia generates every year.
RACHEL CARBONELL: It was revealed at a Senate Committee today
that an internal government committee has already been set up to
look nuclear energy and Australia's potential role globally.
Rachel Carbonell, Lateline.
*****************************************************************
39 NEWS.com.au: Bomber nukes atomic plan - The Nuclear Debate -
From: AAP
May 23, 2006 [
Slovakia / AFP]
Already converted ... a nuclear power plant in Slovakia / AFP
LABOR leader Kim Beazley said today his party opposed nuclear
power for Australia for environmental and security reasons
following calls from the Prime Minister for the nation to
consider an atomic future. "Labor doesn't support nuclear power
in Australia," Mr Beazley said, adding that there would be no
national nuclear industry under a Labor government.
"The economics don't stack up; we have abundant sources of
alternative energy; waste disposal issues are unresolved; and
there are important national security issues to be considered,"
he said.
Momentum is growing within government ranks, led by Prime
Minister John Howard, for a significant debate on nuclear
issues, including power, uranium mining and enrichment.
It emerged today an internal government committee had been
created to look at Australia's role in world nuclear energy.
Public servants confirmed to a Senate estimates meeting that
the committee had been created to deal with emerging nuclear
issues.
It had been formed following statements by US President George
W. Bush to create a global nuclear energy partnership .
[Enter your feedback] Your say: Should we take nuclear
path?
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM) deputy secretary
Duncan Lewis said the committee would effectively try to develop
an Australian perspective on the American proposal.
It's essentially a fact finding exercise to scope what this
energy initiative might entail, he said.
It's a newly formed committee and we do not have runs on the
board. he said.
A PM spokesman said another committee, called an Uranium
Industry Framework Inter-departmental Committee, had
representatives from a range of departments including finance,
industry, the tax office, foreign affairs and trade and
education.
The committee, set up in August last year, had met three times.
Meanwhile, left-wing thinktank the Australia Institute named
Victoria's Westernport Bay or New South Wales's Port Stephens
are the most likely locations for Australia's first nuclear
power plant.
The Institute had consulted energy experts and identified a
string of suitable locations with access to huge volumes of
water needed to cool the plant and near to important
infrastructure including large scale electricity supplies and
good transport.
Australia Institute head Clive Hamilton said they had
identified the locations to inform the debate Mr Howard has
called for.
The Prime Minister has said he wants a national debate about
nuclear power, but there is little point in debating it in the
abstract, Dr Hamilton said.
Earlier today Environment Minister Ian Campbell said Australia
needed to consider all options for future energy requirements
and not engage in a false argument about coal and renewables
against nuclear,
Treasurer Peter Costello said he backed the plan for a nuclear
industry as soon as it became economically viable as senior
ministers including Alexander Downer and Ian MacFarlane,
signalled a uranium enrichment program for Australia.
Opposition frontbencher Peter Garrett branded the Prime Minister
a "born-again nuclear warrior" and the debate itself a farce.
Senator Campbell said today Mr Garrett was ruling out clean coal
on the grounds it was dirty as well as alternatives such as
nuclear.
He uses the word dangerous," Senator Campbell said. "He throws
it around like a lyric in a song. What is dangerous is putting
your head in the sand on this debate.
What is dangerous is putting your head in the sand on this
debate. What is dangerous is pretending to the world that
alternative energy is a silver bullet.
"We have to actually look at all the options if we are to see
the world have a secure energy future but also lower greenhouse
emissions."
Mr Garrett, a one-time Senate candidate for the Nuclear
Disarmament Party, said the nuclear debate was a distraction.
"The Prime Minister's creating one his great false debates,
flying kites, making mischief, and covering up for the fact that
he's done absolutely zip on climate change - nothing in the
Budget for it," he said.
"(He) abolishes the Australian Greenhouse Office. We've seen
half a billion dollars worth of investment in wind farms and
alternative technologies go overseas because of this
government's lack of action.
"The Prime Minister comes back from America as a nukes
enthusiast, but he's just clouding the debate and covering his
own deficiencies."
If Australia went down the nuclear path, it would only reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by between five and 10 per cent, he
said.
*****************************************************************
40 NEWS.com.au: Uranium boom heads for bust
By Stuart Kelly
May 24, 2006
[BHP] Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's known
uranium reserves, with the bulk in the Olympic Dam mine, north of
Adelaide / NEWS.com.au INVESTOR Michael Birch said he fields
calls every week from stockbrokers offering new shares in uranium
explorers, most of which have not found any of the metallic
element used for nuclear fuel and would not be allowed to mine it
if they did.
"You've got a lot of new stocks making extraordinary gains very
quickly," said Mr Birch, from Wallace Funds Management in
Sydney, who is avoiding the shares for the same reason he stayed
clear of internet-related companies in the late 1990s a lack
of earnings.
"There doesn't seem to be much to back up their performance," he
said. "It's like the dot-com boom all over again."
Toro Energy and U308 more than tripled soon after their initial
public offerings on the Australian Stock Exchange in March and
May.
They are among six uranium explorers listed so far this year.
Three pending IPOs will help double the number of
uranium-related stocks in Australia from a year ago.
Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's known uranium
reserves and supplies about a fifth of all the metal mined. The
bulk of the uranium is located in South Australia's Olympic Dam
mine, owned by BHP Billiton (bhp.ASX:Quote,News).
Exploration companies are gambling that soaring global energy
costs and China's plan to expand nuclear energy fourfold by 2020
would attract investors, even though Australia's state
governments limit mining of uranium to just three mines.
Australia's Labor state governments banned the construction of
new uranium mines beyond those three: BHP Billiton's
(bhp.ASX:Quote,News) Olympic Dam mine, Energy Resources of
Australia's Ranger mine in the Northern Territory; and Heathgate
Resources' Beverley mine in South Australia. Heathgate is owned
by San Diego-based General Atomics.
Prime Minister John Howard had urged states to end their bans on
new mining, and there are signs that he's succeeding.
The Labor Party's energy spokesman, Martin Ferguson, said on
March 31 that the bans' removal should be considered, while South
Australian Premier Mike Rann already advocates abolishing it.
Paladin Resources, Australia's biggest uranium explorer, had
bypassed the new mining ban in Australia by building the Langer
Heinrich mine in Namibia, which is due to begin operating in
September.
A $1000 investment in Paladin (ppx.ASX:Quote,News) on January 1,
2004, is now worth $73,600
. Perth-based Energy Ventures yesterday announced it had found
uranium at its Njame North project in Zambia.
Toro soared to $1.40 three days after it was listed at 25 cents
on March 24.
U308, named after the uranium oxide that makes up the majority
of processed uranium ore known as yellowcake, soared 240 per
cent on its May 9 debut.
Encounter Resources shares quadrupled three days after it listed
on March 24. A-Cap Resources leapt 80 per cent on its May 19
listing, InterMet Resources jumped 33 per cent on its April 20
debut, while Primary Resources rose 7.5 per cent on its March 8
start.
Existing mining companies have also got in the act, further
swelling the number or uranium-related companies.
Great Western Exploration jumped 146 per cent on May 4, when it
said it would change its name to Uran Ltd and buy uranium assets
in Eastern Europe.
Polaris Metals and Washington Resources gained 21 per cent and
15 per cent respectively on May 11, after saying they would spin
off their uranium assets to form a new company, Northern
Uranium.
Canada had experienced a similar trend.
The number of small-cap uranium stocks had doubled in the past
year to 90, according to John Wilson, an analyst at Resource
Capital Research, in a March quarterly review of the industry.
That compares with 65 uranium stocks in Australia, up 96 per
cent in the past 12 months.
Ottawa-based Ur-Energy Inc., which explores in Nunavut in Canada
and Wyoming in the U.S., jumped 99 per cent this year.
Uranium prices have surged almost fourfold in the past three
years as countries turn to nuclear power generation.
Higher coal, gas and oil prices and pressure to cut greenhouse
gas emissions, blamed for global warming, have prompted the
switch.
The spot price of uranium was $42.75 a pound on May 17, up from
$11 on May 14, 2003, according to industry publication Metal
Bulletin.
On April 3, Australia signed an agreement with China permitting
uranium sales to the world's fastest-growing major economy and
Asia's biggest energy consumer for the first time. Exports may
begin within four years.
Still, investors such as Brian Eley, a fund manager at Eley
Griffiths Group, are sceptical that the recent surge in
uranium-related stocks is justified, given that many explorers
have yet to earn a dollar from uranium-related activities.
"This is even worse than the technology bubble in 2000," he
said.
"Of all the uranium listings, I doubt that more than
half-a-dozen will ever mine an ounce of uranium. These companies
are getting extraordinary valuations based on pure speculation."
Neill Arthur, executive chairman of Uranium Exploration
Australia Ltd, said last month that the timing of his company's
first profit was "in the lap of the geological gods".
The company's shares are up 148 per cent this year.
Barry Dawes, a director of Uranium Exploration, argued that some
of the gains are justified given the potential for uranium finds
close to existing deposits.
"You only need one significant discovery and the whole lot will
take off," Mr Dawes said.
"That's likely when you consider the vast tracts of prospective
land that haven't been properly explored."
Uranium Exploration is searching within 50km of BHP's Olympic
Dam, which holds the world's biggest known uranium deposit.
"It's a game, but a serious one at that," said Mr Dawes, who is
a founding principal of Martin Place Securities Pty Ltd. in
Sydney, which has helped raise $150 million in mining-related
initial public offerings since 2000.
"There are a few ratbags out there, particularly among the later
listings, so you have to be careful."
Wallace Funds' Mr Birch is sticking to existing producers, like
BHP Billiton, the world's biggest mining company, and Rio Tinto
Group, which controls Energy Resources of Australia.
"The fundamentals for the uranium industry look enticing, but
you still need to actually dig the stuff up to make a buck out
of it," Mr Birch said.
"I'm not so sure how many of these recently listed explorers
will ever make it to that stage."
*****************************************************************
41 Sydney Morning Herald: Radioactive waste leaks into aquifer -
www.smh.com.au
By Wendy Frew Environment Reporter
May 24, 2006
RADIOACTIVE waste from a storage site in Normandy, France, is
leaking into groundwater used by dairy cattle, says a report by
a French laboratory, ACRO.
The aquifers showed levels of radioactivity, on average, more
than seven times the European safety limit, said the report,
published yesterday. Scientists from ACRO and Greenpeace have
surveyed the contamination leaking from the low- and
intermediate-level nuclear waste disposal plant at La Hague.
In the aquifer near the site, radioactivity was 90 times above
the safety limit during 2005, the report said.
Greenpeace said the report followed news that a proposed
Electricite de France nuclear reactor was unable to withstand
the impact of a commercial aircraft.
The nuclear waste contaminating the Normandy environment was
produced by reactors operated by Electricite de France and
overseas customers of the reprocessing company.
Greenpeace has criticised the French Government for not
seriously dealing with what it says is France's nuclear waste
crisis.
The director of ACRO, Dr David Boiley, said mismanagement was
damaging the environment.
"Repeated incidents have led to a constant release and, as a
consequence, the groundwater and many outlets are highly
contaminated with tritium [a radioactive form of hydrogen]," Dr
Boiley said.
"We must note that for a long time there has been a lack of
information regarding this chronic pollution, and even now a
precise assessment of its impacts still needs to be done," he
said.
"As far as the future situation, it could worsen in the long run
because there is no guarantee that the wrappings of the older
wastes, which also contain more hazardous elements, will last
for long periods of time."
*****************************************************************
42 RIA Novosti: Russia hopes for U.S. business support on nuclear fuel issue
23/ 05/ 2006
WASHINGTON, May 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear energy chief
has said he hopes that U.S. companies will lobby the opening of
the U.S. market for Russian nuclear fuel supplies.
Sergei Kiriyenko, currently on a week-long visit to the United
States that ends May 24, said he had discussed the issue with
officials from more than 20 U.S. energy companies that generate
more than 50% of electricity in the country and many of them had
given the idea their full support.
"We are ready to supply goods and services, and the American
companies that control this [electricity] market want to receive
these goods," Kiriyenko said.
Restrictions on imports from Russia of low-enriched uranium have
been in force since the Soviet era. Russia is currently allowed
to operate on the U.S. market without a 116% import duty only
through the USEC, a special intermediary agent, under the
HEU-LEU Conversion program.
Kiriyenko also said that the signing of an agreement on
cooperation in nuclear energy for civilian purposes was in the
interests of both Russia and the U.S. and long-term partnership
in this sphere should not be mixed up with other controversial
issues.
The Russian official said that it would take about a year to
prepare such an agreement but both parties were ready to start
work on the document.
"We can do it [prepare the agreement] and nothing prevents us
from doing it," Kiriyenko said.
2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
43 BBC: Fears raised
Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 May 2006
[Dounreay]
The clean up at Dounreay is expected to cost 2.9b
Concerns have been expressed about what jobs or training would be
offered to workers once the Dounreay nuclear plant is
decommissioned in 30 years time.
John McKendrick, a Scottish Labour prospective parliamentary
candidate, claims a proper strategy is not in place to offset job
losses.
He has accused the local enterprise company of a lack of forward
planning.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) said it is "keenly aware
of the issues that face the Dounreay area".
The UK Atomic Energy Authority, which runs the site in Caithness,
expect the work to be completed in 2036.
Mr McKendrick said he had spoken to staff at Dounreay, union
representatives and contacted HIE and Caithness and Sutherland
Enterprise, (CASE).
The conclusion of his investigation was that not enough thought
has been given to what jobs or re-training would be provided in
the future because of an attitude that the end of decommissioning
is still 30 years away.
Jobs loses
Mr McKendrick, a prospective parliamentary candidate for
Caithness, said: "HIE has told me it has had a strategy in place
since 2002 for responding to the closure of Dounreay.
"Yet it has no specific measures or goals in place to measure its
performance in delivering the training and jobs needed to offset
the losses at Dounreay."
He added: "Everyone thinks there is no real panic, but the
reality is that the trickle of jobs loses is speeding up and many
will have gone within six years."
Mr McKendrick has written to Enterprise Minister Nicol Stephen
raising the concerns of the workforce.
'Well prepared'
Carroll Buxton, chief executive of CASE said a draft strategy for
the area's future would be available soon.
She said: "In 2002, the HIE Network published their strategy in
response to the challenges associated with the decommissioning of
the Dounreay site - implementation of this strategy is ongoing.
"HIE is keenly aware of the issues that face the Dounreay area in
the coming decades and is well prepared to exploit the different
opportunities that changing global markets might offer for both
its economic and social benefit."
She added: "In 2005, CASE initiated a socio-economic working
group involving many of the main public and private sector
interests.
"This group has focused on the forward direction of the area and
is currently producing a draft strategy for its future which will
be available for public consultation over the next few months."
The 140-acre Dounreay site is being cleaned up at a cost of
2.9bn.
*****************************************************************
44 American Enterprise: The Slow Climb Up Yucca Mountain
By William Tucker
As you can see, Yucca Mountain isnt really a mountain, says
our guide as we near the end of an hour-long bus ride north from
Las Vegas. Those of you who know geology will recognize its
only a ridge.
No one knows how it got the name Yucca either, he continues.
There arent many yucca plants around here. Its mostly
mesquite bushes.
How about Mesquite Ridge? suggests one of the more
high-spirited members of our party. Everyone has a good laugh.
Once every month, the Department of Energy offers a public tour
of Yucca Mountain, the once and futureperhapssite of Americas
nuclear waste repository. At 7:30 a.m., our group of about 300
has picked up our box lunches and boarded four huge tour buses
headed for the remote site. Its an interesting group. Although
everyone professes neutrality and insists they are just looking
for facts, I dont hear many words of adamant opposition to the
project.
We should have gone nuclear 20 years ago, says Tom Lipiec, a
film equipment manufacturer who has driven up for the day from
Los Angeles. We wouldnt be putting all this carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. We wouldnt be dependent on foreign oil either.
We could have hydrogen cars by now.
One fellow wants to know why we have to deal with such
dangerous stuff, but for the most part the questions are not
hostile.
Thats unusual. If our group seems relatively unfazed by the
idea of storing stainless steel canisters 1,500 feet underground
as the price for resolving several major environmental and
geopolitical dilemmas, we are an unrepresentative sampling.
Almost everyone in Nevada is passionately opposed to the
project. Both the liberal Las Vegas Sun and the libertarian
Review-Journal, plus the entire state congressional
delegationincluding some who support nuclearall rail about
making Nevada the countrys nuclear dumping ground.
I went to a public hearing a few months ago and it was awful,
says my seatmate, Dick Telfer, an 83-year-old former science
teacher who began developing nuclear curricular material in the
1950s. Anybody who spoke in favor of it was shouted down.
Indeed, as our bus rolls north, it becomes clear that the DOE
feels like an embattled cavalry regiment in hostile Indian
territory. For a while the state wouldnt allow us any water,
recounts our guide, who is an Air Force veteran with a Ph.D. is
geochemistry. We had to survive on bottled water and
port-o-potties.
See those shacks off to the left? he adds as we approach the
site. Those are brothels. As some of you may know, prostitution
is legal in many rural counties of Nevada. The state has no
trouble licensing them and providing them with ample water, but
they wont do the same for us.
On the other hand, the brothelsit turns outare one of Yuccas
biggest supporters. They think the four-year construction
project will be good for business.
At the foot of the ridge, we disembark and clamor into a fleet
of minivans that takes us up a bumpy rock-strewn road to the
summit. Hey, you missed one pothole back there, someone tells
our driver as we bounce along. Dont worry, Ill catch it on
the way back, she responds.
In the dizzying, dazzling 100-degree sun, the view at the top is
magnificent. On the horizon is snow-capped 14,500-foot Mt.
Whitney, the highest point in the Lower 48. Less than 100 miles
to the south is Death Valley, the lowest point in North America,
282 feet below sea level. It is spectacular terrain.
A DOE geologist with a ponytail to his waist discourses
passionately for 25 minutes on why there is only a infinitesimal
chance that the seven inches of annual rainfall on Yucca will
ever leach radioactive material out of the six-inch-thick
stainless steel containers through 1,000 feet of relatively
impervious rock, into the water table, and across several
watersheds to Las Vegas where it might expose residents to a few
more millirems besides the 360 they already absorb from natural
sources each year. Weve found that small water deposits
trapped in this rock havent moved significantly for 10,000
years, he concludes.
All of this may seem like overkill, but its not. The reason
Yucca Mountain is not moving forward at the moment is because
last year environmentalists convinced a federal judge that the
10,000-year standard established by the EPA for radioactive
emissions from the site was not adequate. The EPA has been
ordered to prove emission will not exceed 360 millirems for the
next one million years! There was no mention of how the court
will monitor whether the forecasts turn out to be correct.
Our next stop is the north entrance to the five-mile
exploratory tunnel that DOE drilled into the mountain between
1994 and 1997. The boring tool was a 100-yard-long
freight-train-like vehicle fitted with a 25-foot-radius drill
bit that had to be replaced almost every day. It now sits at the
south entrance. Were trying to sell it, says our guide. Want
to make an offer?
Proceeding at an average of 185 feet a day, this battering ram
drove a mile downward into mountain, swung south for three
miles, and then turned back to the ridge face, emerging only
five feet from its target. A video at the information center
shows the drill face breaking through the cliff like a submerged
diver coming to the surface as 100 staff members in hardhats
stand and cheer.
The big mistake was bringing along the scientists, says our
guide in retrospect. They want[ed] to stop the drill every ten
minutes and examine the rock. A series of alcoves have now been
constructed off the main tunnel where geologists can experiment
in peace. They sealed off one section for three years and heated
it to 400 degreesthe temperature that will be produced by the
radioactive decayin order to find out whether the heat changed
the pattern of water migration. It didnt.
The discouraging news is that the real work at Yucca Mountain
hasnt begun. Right now the DOE is still seeking a construction
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionof which the
EPAs million-year emissions standard is only a small part. If
and when the license is ever granted, the DOE must bore six more
miles of passageways, then begin the honeycomb of emplacement
tunnels where the nuclear material will eventually be stored.
Construction is expected to take another four years. Then DOE
must secure an operating licensean opportunity for more
environmental intervention that could stretch out a decade. At
best, the complete entombment of the nations spent fuel will
not be complete for 28 years.
What makes this effort so bizarre is that 95 percent of the
material scheduled to be buried at Yucca could be recycled as
fuel. Why heat a mountain to 400 degrees when the same heat
could be used to generate electricity? Weve had people come
out here and offer to build a power plant, says one of the
young scientists doing a show-and-tell at the information
center. The only real waste here is all the heat energy that
will be wasted in the mountain.
The fatal turn came in 1976 when Jimmy Carter cancelled the
nations fuel reprocessing efforts under the quaint notion that
burying the small amounts of plutonium produced in commercial
reactors instead of recycling it would prevent other nations
from developing nuclear weapons. Somehow North Korea, Pakistan,
Israel, South Africa, and Iran all missed their cue.
As a result of Carters choice of coal over nuclear, our coal
plants now produce 8 percent of the worlds greenhouse gases
while we forever increase our allegiance to foreign oil. The
purpose of all this is to hold nuclear to absurd standards of
possible eventuality.
After weve got this material stored, were going to seal it up
tight so that no one can ever access it, says our guide as we
head back to Las Vegas. You can never tell. A hundred years
from now Nevada may be an Islamic Republic. We wouldnt want
those people digging this stuff up and using it for bombs.
Indeed, if Nevada does become an Islamic Republic, it will
probably be because we couldnt bring ourselves to face the
relatively minor risks of nuclear power.
William Tucker is a weekly columnist for The American Enterprise
Online.
Posted: May 23, 2006
2005 The American Enterprise | All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
45 Reuters: Pakistani lawmaker says nuclear waste dumped in open
Tue 23 May 2006 7:25 AM ET
ISLAMABAD, May 23 (Reuters) - A Pakistani lawmaker on Tuesday
accused the country's nuclear authorities of dumping radioactive
waste near a village in central Punjab province, causing cancer,
miscarriages, and infertility among villagers and livestock.
Senator Sardar Jamal Khan Leghari said tonnes of contaminated
waste from milled uranium had been dumped outside abandoned
mines in Baghalchur village, some 350 km (218 miles) southwest
of Islamabad, flouting international nuclear safety norms.
"It is fact. It is a matter of security of our people and
animals," Leghari, a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League
(PML-Q) and son of a former president, told Reuters.
The lawmaker said the country's two prime nuclear institutions,
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and Kahuta Research
Laboratory (KRL), dumped radioactive waste in the area.
PAEC issued a statement on Saturday saying no waste was dumped
in the open. It was disposed of in caverns that were fenced off
and guarded against intruders.
PAEC said it has not found radioactivity in water, vegetation
and air during its regular surveillance in the area.
"No dumping of this waste is being undertaken in the open but
in specially prepared rooms/caverns," it said.
Leghari maintained that, due to uranium radiation, the rate of
miscarriages, infertility, cancer and skin-related diseases had
increased 200 percent in his constituency of Choti, some 100 km
away (62 miles) from the dumping area.
"I have proof. We conducted survey and collected about 1,200
samples from Choti," he said adding that he planned to present
the evidence in parliament.
Last week, a bushfire broke out near PAEC's uranium extraction
plant near Baghalchur, in Dera Ghazi Khan district, raising a
scare over safety at the facility.
Residents had earlier filed a case against PAEC, out of fear
that it was dumping nuclear waste in the area. The proceedings
were being conducted behind closed doors.
Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998 and many aspects of
its nuclear programme remain secret.
Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=]
*****************************************************************
46 UPI: Japan to swap nuclear waste with Britain
United Press International - NewsTrack -
5/23/2006 5:16:00 AM -0400
TOKYO, May 23 (UPI) -- Japan will swap low-level nuclear waste
for a smaller amount of high-level nuclear waste from Britain to
reduce disposal costs, Tokyo's economic ministry said.
The deal will reduce Japan's waste disposal costs from $2.86
billion to $762 million, the Jiji Press reported Tuesday.
Japan's waste, generated by power plants, is transuranic, or
TRU, waste from spent nuclear fuels. It has a low level of
radioactivity but is hard to dispose of because of its long
radioactive half-life.
Japan consigns TRU waste-reprocessing to Britain and France, and
Britain had planned to return the reprocessed waste to Japan
over the years from 2013, the report said.
Instead, Japan has agreed to transport high-level nuclear waste
from Britain for disposal at Japanese storage sites. The British
waste will be transported in a single shipment, while an
estimated 37 shipments will be needed to transport Japan's
waste, the report said.
Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
advertisement
*****************************************************************
47 AP Wire: Audit suggests DOE facilities have too many vehicles in fleet
| 05/23/2006 |
DUNCAN MANSFIELD Associated Press
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - Several Department of Energy installations,
including California operations and its research and nuclear
weapons production complex in Oak Ridge, have more vehicles than
they use, federal auditors say.
At Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, nearly
two of every three vehicles were considered underutilized, said
the report released Monday.
As many as one of every three vehicles in Oak Ridge is
"underutilized," the agency's inspector general said in a report
analyzing motor pools at six DOE installations around the
country.
That's 216 cars and trucks - from a fleet of 644 - of
questionable need filling the parking lots and garages of the
Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
former K-25 uranium enrichment site and related facilities in
Oak Ridge.
DOE-Oak Ridge "concurs with the essential findings contained in
the report," spokesman John Shewairy said Tuesday.
Oak Ridge managers contend their underused vehicles were
overcounted by the auditors and that the too-often-parked
portion of their fleet was 26 percent rather than 34 percent.
"Regardless, it's still an unacceptable figure," Shewairy said,
noting that new inventory practices and quarterly reviews to
identify excess vehicles should drive those numbers down.
Other DOE sites examined: the Nevada Test Site and Yucca
Mountain waste site, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California and the Hanford site in Richland, Wash.
A total of 481 of 1,717 vehicles, or 28 percent, were found
underused at the six facilities.
"Despite its pressing budget situation," Inspector General
Gregory Friedman wrote, DOE has been "expending funds on the
acquisition, maintenance and management of fleet vehicles that
may not be essential ... "
"Without prompt action, the department is likely to continue its
wasteful practice of expanding funds that could be redirected to
higher priority, mission critical activities."
The auditors said DOE could save $2.9 million annually at the
six facilities if only vehicles used less than half the time
were eliminated. The savings could reach $9.1 million a year if
that standard was applied to DOE's entire 14,000-vehicle fleet.
In Oak Ridge, one contractor turned in two vehicles last week
and K-25 cleanup contractor Bechtel Jacobs expects to turn in
nearly 40 vehicles next spring, Shewairy said.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where auditors found more
than half of its 165 vehicles underused, is completing an
internal review this month. "Preliminary results indicated there
should be numerous vehicles turned in due to underutilization,"
he said.
Top managers in DOE's Office of Science and National Nuclear
Security Administration said in letters to the inspector general
that the auditors' recommendations would be followed.
---
DOE-Oak Ridge:
*****************************************************************
48 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Feds argue judge should overturn Hanford initiative
[seattlepi.com]
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 Last updated 4:20 p.m. PT
By SHANNON DININNY ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
YAKIMA, Wash. -- A voter-approved initiative that bars the U.S.
Department of Energy from shipping waste to the Hanford nuclear
reservation violates the federal government's authority over
radioactive waste and should be overturned, attorneys for the
federal government argued Tuesday.
Initiative 297, now known as the Cleanup Priority Act, bars the
federal government from shipping waste to the south-central
Washington site until all existing waste there is cleaned up.
Washington state voters overwhelmingly approved the measure in
November 2004, but the federal government immediately filed suit
seeking to overturn it.
The measure is an "unprecedented intrusion" into areas of
federal oversight, violating the federal government's authority
over nuclear waste and interstate commerce, said Ken Amaditz, an
attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is
representing the Energy Department.
For that reason, the initiative should be overturned in its
entirety, Amaditz told U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald in
Yakima.
The federal government can't just whisper the word "conflict"
and strike down an entire law without waiting to see how it is
applied, countered Assistant Attorney General Andy Fitz,
representing the state. The state is defending the initiative.
Washington state already has authority to regulate hazardous
waste. State officials believe that authority extends to mixed
waste that includes radioactive materials, Fitz said.
[advertising] "Simply having radionuclides in the mix doesn't
give the federal government a get-out-of-jail free card," Fitz
said.
Assistant Attorney General Laura Watson also said Washington
state is not seeking to gain economically or to reserve landfill
space for its own waste. Instead, the state wants to temporarily
ban both out-of-state and in-state waste from Hanford until the
existing trash is cleaned up.
"The fact that everyone here agrees it will be a very long time
before waste is allowed in under the Cleanup Priority Act only
speaks to the severity of the problem at Hanford," she said.
Hanford was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret
Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, then continued to
produce plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal for
40 years. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear
site. Cleanup costs are expected to total up to $60 billion,
with the work to be finished by 2035.
At issue are the federal government's plans for disposing of
waste from nuclear weapons production nationwide. The Energy
Department chose Hanford to dispose of some mildly radioactive
waste and mixed low-level waste, which is both radioactive and
hazardous.
Hanford also would serve as a packaging center for some
transuranic waste before it is shipped elsewhere for permanent
disposal. Transuranic waste is highly radioactive and can take
thousands of years to decay to safe levels.
The other site chosen to accept the waste, the Nevada Test Site,
has a limited capacity and is scheduled to close in five years,
said David Kaplan, a Justice Department attorney. The state
can't simply resolve it's concerns by "immunizing itself from a
national problem," Kaplan said.
But the federal government has mismanaged Hanford cleanup for
years, Fitz said. If Hanford was a private facility with similar
problems, "I can easily see the state taking the same action,"
he said.
McDonald repeatedly questioned attorneys about accommodations
for citizens who might be less than pleased with progress at
Hanford, citing a "crawl-like pace," miscues and
misappropriations over two decades. But he also questioned state
attorneys about the need for the measure if the state already
believes it has authority over Hanford waste.
Last July, the state Supreme Court ruled that parts of the
initiative, sponsored by Hanford watchdog group Heart of America
Northwest, may stand even if McDonald finds that other parts of
it are unconstitutional.
McDonald said he expected to issue a ruling within three weeks.
The initiative has not been enforced pending resolution of the
case. Waste shipments to the site had already been halted under
another lawsuit.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 448-8000
Send comments to
1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
49 Hanford News: Nuclear reservation tours planned
This story was published Sunday, May 21st, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Public tours of Hanford that will include a look inside B
Reactor have been scheduled for June 21-23.
Tours of the nuclear reservation are infrequent, and these are
the first scheduled in 2006 for the public.
Because of the tours' popularity, signups will be done on the
Internet and will not begin until 8 a.m. Wednesday. Seats on the
tour buses will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis
with no advance waiting list.
The last tours offered in fall 2005 filled up through Internet
registrations 35 minutes after registration opened.
The high point of the tour, which lasts about four hours, is a
visit to B Reactor, the nation's first production-scale reactor.
It looks much like it did when it produced plutonium during
World War II for the first nuclear explosion and the bomb that
was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, to help end the war.
An effort is under way to save B Reactor as a museum.
Participants will tour the B Reactor on foot, but most of the
rest of the tour will be on a bus. It will pass by Hanford's 300
Area just north of Richland, where fuel was manufactured for
irradiation in Hanford's reactors.
North of the 300 Area are the Hanford and White Bluffs
townsites. Residents of those small villages were forced to
leave their homes, businesses and farms during World War II for
the secretive Manhattan Project that created Hanford.
The tour also will include a drive-by of former plutonium
production reactors along the river. Several of those reactors
have been "cocooned," or torn down to little more than their
radioactive cores, sealed and reroofed for long-term storage.
In central Hanford, the irradiated fuel was processed to
chemically remove plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons
program. Underground tanks that hold 53 million gallons of
radioactive waste from that process are in central Hanford, and
the vitrification plant to treat those wastes is being built
nearby.
The free tours will start from the Volpentest HAMMER training
center at 2890 Horn Rapids Road, Richland. They will begin at
7:30, 9 and 10:30 a.m. each day.
As with any Hanford tour, there will be plenty of rules.
Tour participants must be U.S. citizens who are at least 16 and
who carry a current driver's license, military identification or
passport on the tour.
A security check is required and tour participants must provide
their name as it appears on the identification they will carry
on the tour and their birth date. Hanford employees may use
their current DOE badges.
Tour participants will be required to wear clothing suitable for
an industrial environment, which means no shorts or sleeveless
shirts. Hard-soled or closed shoes are required.
For more information or to register for the tours, go to
www.hanford.gov and click on "information" on the lefthand side.
Then click on "site tours" on the lefthand side, then "public
road tour." Or go to
www.hanford.gov/information/sitetours/?tour=saturday.
2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
50 Hanford News: Hanford's U Plant cleanup plan honored
This story was published Saturday, May 20th, 2006
By the Herald staff
The Environmental Protection Agency has picked the record of
decision for Hanford's U Plant as one of three written
nationwide in fiscal year 2005 to honor.
The award for "RODs of the Year" was accepted by Craig Cameron,
project manager in the Hanford Project office of EPA's Region
10.
The U Plant ROD will govern the disposition of the U Plant at
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in a way that will provide
long-term protection of human health and the environment.
The review committee liked the ROD's coverage of cleanup
objectives and its robust treatment of controls that will be
necessary before and after cleanup is completed, Cameron said.
The U Plant - a long, narrow che-mical processing plant - is the
first of DOE's processing canyons across the nation to have a
final cleanup deci-sion. The ROD was written by EPA, with
support from the Washington State Department of Ecology, the
De-partment of Energy and Fluor Hanford.
2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
51 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge
FR Doc E6-7813
[Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 99)] [Notices]
[Page 29617] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr23my06-34]
Reservation AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463,
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, June 14, 2006, 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865)
576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site
at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda: Melton Valley Update.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the
address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information
Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey,
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001,
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.
Issued at Washington, DC on May 17, 2006.
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-7813 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
52 lamonitor.com: Group to sue over water
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
A coalition of New Mexico environmental groups announced in
Albuquerque this morning that they intend to sue the Department
of Energy and the Regents of the University of California for
violations of the Clean Water Act at Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
The suit focuses on surface water runoff from the laboratory
that the claimants believe may reach the Rio Grande and
eventually pose a risk to drinking water sources in Santa Fe and
Albuquerque, and affect fishing and agricultural uses farther
downstream.
A spokesperson for UC said this morning that the university does
not comment on pending litigation.
LANL Water Watch is composed of six New Mexico organizations,
represented by the Western Environmental Law Center.
Michael Jenson of the river advocacy group, Amigos Bravos, said
the combined effort grew out of discussions with Concerned
Citizens for Nuclear Safety, a Santa Fe-based nuclear watchdog,
and others about the need for cooperation in order to develop an
independent analysis of surface and ground water issues at LANL.
The issues related to the deep aquifer, regional test wells and
groundwater concerns that have received recent public attention
are not specifically addressed in this suit.
Embudo Valley Environmental Monitoring Group, Rio Grande
Restoration and Tewa Women United are also members of the
coalition.
Kathy Sanchez, a community educator is director of TEWA Women
United with members from the northern pueblo area.
"Our whole genetic pool is downwind from LANL and contamination
from the lab is probably already on top of our sacred lands,"
she said.
"There is more and more evidence that LANL is having an impact,"
said Jenson. "We want to get ahead of this before there is a
problem."
Canyons in the Jemez Mountains that run through or past LANL, he
said, are impaired relative to other canyons in the Jemez,
according to the New Mexico Environment Department.
Matthew Bishop, legal counsel for LANL Water Watch, said the
suit was not trying to close the lab, but rather trying to
protect New Mexico's water. He cited high PCBs and hexavalent
chromium in the northern canyons and high explosive contaminants
in the southern canyons, moving toward the Rio Grande.
The Clean Water Act is the regulatory structure governing
contaminant discharges into the waters of the United States and
establishing water quality standards.
The group said the suit would be based on four alleged
violations - failure to conduct adequate monitoring, failure to
report violations, failure to have pollution controls in place
and unauthorized discharges.
They want to see the cleanup and monitoring of 1,400 potential
release sites that remain active on the laboratory's land, in
compliance with the Consent Order with the state. They also want
to see LANL reach the Clean Water Act goal of "zero contaminants
discharged."
LANL spokesman James Rickman said the laboratory is working
closely with state and federal regulators on these issues.
"We feel that we have a good relationship with them,
particularly NMED under the Consent Order," he said. "We're in
the process of getting ready to clean up some of the most
contaminated sites here at the lab, but the focus needs to be on
those sites that present the most potential risk to human health
and the environment."
He said the incoming director of the laboratory, Michael
Anastasio, included the goal of zero discharge in a recent talk
to the workforce.
The notice represents a 60-day warning that LANL Water Watch
intends to file suit unless their concerns are adequately
addressed.
2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************