nuclear program

Outside Sweden, the decision to allow what the British call "new build" that was taken in the Swedish Parliament June 17 is widely thought to mean that an eminently "green" Sweden has accepted nuclear power as part of the recipe to "save the climate". Inside Sweden the implications are far less clear. Even the ruling coalition has two contradictory versions of what the decision means!

For one thing, the decision was taken with a margin of only two votes. Had MPs been able to vote their conscience – the party whips were lashing on all sides – the Government's Bill may not have passed at all. The opposition has said that if they win the election this Fall, they will tear the decision up. So, talk of "Sweden" having changed "its" mind about nuclear is a very misleading generalization.

Nuclear Monitor 's editors have asked for an assessment of what has happened, what it means, and what is likely to happen when the dust has settled. Even the first part is complicated. Answers to the other two questions tend to depend on who you are talking to. All I can do is report different assessments

As an issue, nuclear power in Sweden continues to split both parties and coalitions rather than differentiate between them. Consequently, few political leaders can afford to be categorical. It is also important to understand that the parliamentary system seems to be tending toward a two-party system: the ruling Conservative-led 'Alliance' vs. the so-called 'Red-Green coalition' (see box 'Understanding Sweden').

The two bills voted into law had three elements:

1. The existing nuclear plant may be replaced by new reactors – no more than ten in number, but each producing significantly more electricity – in the three communities where reactors currently operate. No new reactor can be put on line unless an existing reactor is permanently retired. Laws calling for total phase-out of Sweden's nuclear program in 2010 and a ban on planning and construction of new reactors have been scrapped.
    
2. The insurance requirement for licensed operators has quadrupled from 3 billion Swedish Krona to 12 billion SEK (US$1.6 billion or 1.2 billion euro). This part is to take effect August 1.
    
3. Owners of nuclear power reactors will have unlimited financial liability for the consequences of nuclear accidents. Sounds good, but there are limits -- more below.

A fourth point, a ban on public subsidies, direct or indirect, surfaced when the Parliamentary committee responded to a motion filed by Sven Bergström, Center Party (see below).

No commitment to renewables – described by the Minister for Energy on June 17 as "the most ambitious in the world" – was mentioned in the bills.

Understanding Sweden: Deep background
Nuclear energy has been a divisive political issue in Sweden from its first beginnings in the 1960s. But until the late 1970s Swedish energy policy was largely an internal matter within the ruling Social Democratic Party. From the 1950s into the 1970s, Sweden also had a secret defense agenda that included a nuclear bomb. But, in fact, the Social Democrats were divided on the issue of nuclear, and the shock wave following the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA, led to a decision to let the people, not the parties, decide the future of nuclear energy. Six of a planned 12 publicly financed reactors were nearing completion, but public opinion had clearly shifted away from nuclear.

A national referendum was held in 1980. It was a strange affair. The people could vote for one of three alternatives:
Linje 1 (Conservatives): Continued reliance on nuclear energy. No limits.
Linje 2 (Social Democrats and Liberals): Continued expansion from 6 to 12 reactors, followed by a gradual phase-out of all 12, as renewable sources of energy became available.
Linje 3 (Center Party, Christian-Democrats, Left): No to nuclear: stop construction and decommission the existing 6 reactors as soon as possible. (The Green Party did not yet exist.)

The Yes-but-No alternative got most votes. Linje 1 got only 18%. There were dissidents in all parties; not even the Conservatives were totally unified.

Shortly after the referendum Parliament passed a law that envisaged a gradual phase-out of the nuclear program. All 12 reactors would be taken off line by 2010. Only two have been decommissioned so far.

Sadly, the main legacy of the referendum was a bitter polarization of opinion – which to some extent has dampened political interest in renewables as alternatives.

Times change. The political front lines on energy policy today are quite different from those in 1980. Today, Sweden is governed by a Conservative-led "Alliance" in which Center, Liberals and Christian-Democrats participate. A recent change of course on the part of the Center Party leadership made it possible for the Alliance to introduce the two Bills that were voted into law June 17. Many Center voters are still 'in shock'; how they choose to vote in this year's election may decide the fate of the Alliance.

The three Opposition parties -- Social Democrats, Greens and Left -- are running on a common platform that includes a call for phase-out of nuclear. Whereas the party leaders are agreed, the Social Democratic and Left parties have many dissidents, who are more worried about unemployment than 'sustainable energy solutions'. In Sweden there is, namely, a common belief that nuclear energy means cheap electricity, and cheap electricity means jobs.

Finally, the fact remains that the Social Democrats were responsible for the failure to phase out nuclear in the twenty-odd years they ruled since 1980. Has the party changed its stripes?

How we got here
The Alliance was able to win the last election (2006), thanks in part to a pledge not to embark on any new policy regarding nuclear energy. The purpose of this pledge, repeated in the Cabinet's program declaration, was to keep the Center Party's voter-base intact by neutralizing nuclear energy as an issue.

In February 2009 the Alliance parties reached an agreement, whereby phase-out would be abandoned and old reactors might be replaced with new. At the same time, a commitment to renewable energy sources would be written into Alliance energy policy. The agreement was possible thanks to a reversal of policy in the Center Party. They have traded their once firm opposition to nuclear power for Alliance support for renewables – which, critics say, would have been given, anyway. After all, even the most nuclear-friendly politician knows the value of 'greenwash'.

The government introduced its Bills on March 23 -- ironically, on the day of the thirtieth anniversary of the 1980 referendum. Swedish parliamentary procedure then gives the parties time to file motions on a Bill; the motions are referred to the relevant committee, which review the Bill in the light of the motions. The (possibly amended) Bill then is put to a vote.

Three motions were filed. The Alliance moved to adopt the Bills; the Red-Green coalition moved to reject them. The third motion was filed by Center Party MP Sven Bergström, who had declared his opposition to the new party line. He was ostensibly one of four dissidents among the Alliance parties' MPs. His demands:

1. The Government should postpone rescinding the current ban on new reactors until 2011. After all, the Alliance had pledged not to change energy policy during the current term of office.

2. The Government should be more specific about the agreed-on principle that "no subsidies, direct or indirect" will be extended to new nuclear reactors.

3. The Bill needs clarification on the question of liability. Power companies should, as in Germany, bear "unlimited liability" for any damage, including impaired effects, resulting from nuclear accidents that occur in their facilities.

The first two points were agreed to; the third, handled by another committee, took more time and hardly resulted in anything approaching the German law.

Bergström declared his satisfaction and swung 'round to support the Bills.

He admits that his motion was drafted "in consultation with" the party leadership, and in a newspaper interview May 19 he related how some of his conscience-torn Center colleagues had come and congratulated him: "Now it will be easier for them to vote Yes," he said. In all fairness, Bergström may be credited with having revived the ban on public subsidies. Nonetheless, the prime purpose of the motion appears to have been to secure passage of the Bill and to pacify those Center voters who have trouble swallowing the new party line.

Bills 2009/2010:172 and 173 were put to the vote on June 17. Two Center dissidents followed their conscience and voted No. The Bills were passed with a margin of two votes. It is fair to say that the Bills voted into law June 17 are a new attempt by the Alliance parties to neutralize the issue in time for the election this coming September. But, is Center's voter-base still intact this time 'round?

Bones of contention
Public subsidies
The original agreement on energy policy among the Alliance parties included a ban on public financing of new reactors. The Bill put before the Parliament referred to that agreement, but did not actually include the ban among the amendments the new law would entail. This 'detail' resurfaced in the parliamentary committee's treatment of the above-mentioned motion filed by Sven Bergström. The committee writes: "As the concept, 'subsidy' does not always have a precise definition, the Committee sees some value in a clarification by the Government of what is intended in this particular case. The Committee recommends that Parliament unequivocally state as its opinion, that public support to nuclear energy cannot be counted on." So voted the Parliament. The Committee, for its part, instructed the Government to clarify its position.

But, what exactly does "cannot be counted on" mean? How broad, how strong a ban is it? Does it mean (A) Under no circumstances will public funding ever be extended to nuclear power projects? (B) The present Government and Parliament will not spend public money on such projects? or (C) Any consortium that plans such a project will have to present an economic plan that covers all costs from other sources, but in the event of a financial emergency public funding might be made available?

Secondly, what is meant by "public support"? The current Finnish project at Olkiluoto offers a regular catalogue of kinds of subsidies, overt and covert. Has the Parliament voted to rule out credit guarantees? For example.

At this writing neither question has been answered. Moreover, most observers assume that the ruling would apply only to Swedish tax money, that the door remains open, should other governments wish to participate.

"Unlimited liability"
First of all, it should be noted that "unlimited liability", as used here, is a narrow legal term. I quote from the Bill (section 7.1, p 53): "An unlimited liability means ... only that the legislator has not set any fixed limit to the liability." The previous law relating to nuclear responsibility put a ceiling on the amount an actor would have to pay, the new law does not. Ergo liability is 'unlimited'.

The former law limited a company's actual liability to the amount of its insurance coverage; its assets were protected. The new law removes that protection. Bankruptcy due to a major accident is now possible – but unlikely, in the Government's view.

In keeping with the requirements of the Paris Convention public money will be used to compensate claim-holders who have not been able to receive compensation from the nuclear reactor owner (section 7.1, p 52). This is of particular importance in Sweden inasmuch as the law holds the reactor owner liable for damages. In Sweden reactor owners are subsidiaries of the power giants, and have very limited assets of their own. The Bill explicitly exempts the power companies from liability (section 7.1, p 54):"That liability is unlimited does not mean that the owners of a reactor owner shall be held liable to pay out compensation for damage due to a radiological accident."

Here, most of the debate is due not to a lack of clarity in the Bill, but to a misunderstanding of the scope of the technical term. Still, there are questionable points. Should the power giants be protected from financial liability? It is, after all, their greed that made the owners force the operators at Barsebäck (now decommissioned) to disregard a faulty valve in the cooling system for months. The problem was detected during the season of peak demand, and the owner ordered continued production. The parent company pocketed the profits. Problems like this will continue as long as those who have a profit interest are held 'blameless'.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation urges that nuclear power companies be held fully liable for any damage their reactors cause. Nonetheless, the Bill is an improvement over the previous law. Greater liability will hopefully mean a sharper focus on safety issues, the SSNC concludes.

What next?
The new law limits the number of Swedish reactors to ten, but capacity might increase 3- to 4-fold in each. Will the new law actually result in ten new Swedish reactors? Will it result in any, at all?

Perhaps the only way to describe the outlook is to present a spectrum of comments as to the consequences of the vote. Let us start with the industry itself.

OKG, owner-operator of the three reactors at Oskarshamn, is already at the drawing boards. Their oldest reactor is ready for retirement, and the change in policy has been long awaited.

The Alliance has voiced two diametrically opposed assessments:

1. The Liberal Party is now Sweden's most nuclear-friendly party. Liberal spokesman Carl B. Hamilton sees the vote as a breakthrough long overdue. No longer will 'policy' stand in the way of technological development. Hamilton is highly critical of the arbitrary deadlines and priorities that have kept nuclear power in Sweden from developing as it has in other countries, like France. "Finally! The door stands open!" Glut is no problem, not when cables connect Sweden with the rest of Europe. Investors are sure to step forward; nuclear is a money-maker. The only clouds on Hamilton's horizon are interest rates. Unless interest rates remain low, financing may prove difficult.

2. All along, Center Party leadership (and MP Sven Bergström) has claimed that lifting the ban on 'new build' means nothing. The negative incentives that increased financial liability implies will only make nuclear even less attractive to investors. And where has nuclear energy ever been built without massive public subsidies? Just look at the Finnish reactor at Olkiluoto!

The Center Party is also hard-pressed to show environmental gains. The party has two key Cabinet posts: Industry and Energy. Both ministers stress that the Alliance has committed to public investments in renewable energy, notably, bio-fuels. Maud Olofsson, the party leader and Minister of Industry, goes so far as to say that Center's backing off on nuclear was necessary in order to break a decades-long deadlock and get that commitment from other Alliance parties. There are two problems here. The gains, especially in wind power, the Ministers point to were made before the party's about-face; the gains they expect were not included in the Bill, and the "most ambitious commitment in the world" has yet to see the light of day. Secondly, there is the problem of glut on the electricity market. How may it be expected to impact on industry's willingness to invest in in-house co-generation and energy efficiency? How will it affect the market for electricity from renewable sources?

Maria Wetterstrand, MP and spokesperson for the Greens, deplores what the party considers "the most far-reaching energy policy decision that the Parliament has ever taken. It can lead to a dependency on nuclear power for the next 100 years and will have consequences for 100,000 years" (Riksdagen, press release June 17).

Jonas Sjöstedt, former MEP for the Left, worries that continued dependence on nuclear energy will heighten pressures to start mining uranium in Sweden – which would have disastrous consequences for the environment. He also points out that any ban on subsidies can easily be circumvented (http://jonassjostedt.se/7p=1789).

The Red-Green Opposition have declared that if they win the election they will tear up the June 17 decision and reinstate the ban: "Nuclear is a dangerous technology. It should be phased-out successively -- at a pace consonant with high employment, welfare and the ability of renewables to meet Sweden's energy needs" (Riksdagen, press release May 27).

There has been some discussion in Danish environmental circles of the impact overproduction of electricity in Sweden may have on Danish wind power. The key factor is whether or not glut leads to falling prices. This may not be the case, inasmuch as Sweden plans to produce for the European market and has no reason to give any discounts.

To sum up...
The most uncertain factor here in Sweden is the outcome of the September election. As things stand today public sympathies are fairly evenly divided between the two blocs. But, two of the Alliance parties are dangerously close to the 4% threshold that qualifies parties for representation in Parliament. One of the two is Center. If either of the parties sinks under the threshold, the Red-Green coalition will most likely win.

Does the new policy mean that Swedish nuclear is on the rebound? Yes and no.

Yes: The phase-out has been abandoned, but then de facto the deadline has been abandoned for many years. At the turn of the century, who could expect all eleven of the remaining reactors to be taken off line by 2010? One might have hoped for more than just one (Barsebäck 2 in 2002), but all eleven?

No: Sweden is divided on nuclear power. Center has shown where its loyalties lie. Voters who don't like nuclear power can only vote Red or Green this coming September. On the other hand, just how the Red-Green coalition will perform once in office, is hardly a sure thing.

Source and contact: Charly Hultén at WISE Sweden

The Obama administration is seeking to renew the use of nuclear power in space. It is calling for revived production by the US of plutonium-238 for use in space devices -despite solar energy having become a substitute for plutonium power in space. And the Obama administration appears to also want to revive the decade-sold and long-discredited scheme of nuclear-powered rockets -despite strides made in new ways of propelling spacecraft.

In May, Japan launched what it called its space yacht which is now heading to Venus propelled by solar sails utilizing ionized particles emitted by the sun. "Because of the frictionless environment, such a craft should be able to speed up until it is traveling many times faster than a conventional rocket-powered craft," wrote Agence France-Presse about this spacecraft launched May 21.

But the Obama administration would return to using nuclear power in space despite its enormous dangers.

A cheerleader for this is the space industry publication Space News. "Going Nuclear" was the headline of its editorial on March 1 praising the administration for its space nuclear thrust. Space News declared that "for the second year in a row, the Obama administration is asking Congress for at least US$30 million to begin a multiyear effort to restart domestic production of plutonium-238, the essential ingredient in long-lasting spacecraft batteries."

The Space News editorial also noted "President Obama's NASA budget [for 2011] also includes support for nuclear thermal propulsion and nuclear electric propulsion research under a US$650 million Exploration Technology and Demonstration funding line projected to triple by 2013."

Space News declared: "Nuclear propulsion research experienced a brief revival seven years ago when then-NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe established Project Prometheus to design reactor-powered spacecraft. Mr. O'Keefe's successor, Mike Griffin, wasted little time pulling the plug on NASA's nuclear ambitions."

Being referred to by Space News, as "spacecraft batteries" are what are called radioisotope thermoelectric generators or RTGs, power systems using plutonium- 238 to provide on board electricity on various space devices including, originally, on satellites.

But this came to an end when in 1964 a U.S. Navy navigational satellite with a SNAP-9A (SNAP for Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power) RTG on-board failed to achieve orbit and fell to the Earth, disintegrating upon hitting the atmosphere. The 2.1 pounds (1 pound is 453.6 grams) of plutonium fuel dispersed widely. A study by a group of European health and radiation protection agencies subsequently reported that "a worldwide soil sampling program carried out in 1970 showed SNAP-9A debris present at all continents and at all latitudes." Long linking the SNAP-9A accident to an increase of lung cancer in people on Earth was Dr. John Gofman, professor of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley, who was involved in isolating plutonium for the Manhattan Project.

The SNAP-9A accident caused NASA to turn to using solar photovoltaic panels on satellites. All U.S. satellites are now solar-powered.

But NASA persisted in using RTGs on space probes -claiming there was no choice. This was a false claim. Although NASA, for instance, insisted -including in sworn court depositions- that it had no alternative but to use RTGs on its 1989, documents I subsequently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from NASA included a study done by its Jet Propulsion Laboratory stating that solar photovoltaic panels could have substituted for plutonium-fueled RTGs.

And right now, the Juno space probe which will get its on board electricity only from solar photovoltaic panels is being readied by NASA for a launch next year to Jupiter. It's to make 32 orbits around Jupiter and perform a variety of scientific missions.

Meanwhile, in recent years facilities in the U.S. to produce plutonium-238 -hotspots for worker contamination and environmental pollution- have been closed and the US has been obtaining the radionuclide from Russia. Under the Obama 2011 budget, US production would be restarted. Last year, Congress refused to go along with this Obama request.

Source and contact: Karl Grossman
Email: kgrossman@hamptons.com

Germany; coalition lost majority in Bundesrat.
After the May 9, elections in North Rhine-Westphalia, Chancellor Angela Merkel's centre-right coalition may have trouble pushing through planned nuclear lifetime extensions. Both Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Free Democrat (FDP) allies lost heavily and were left short of their previous state majority, leaving the make-up of the next government unclear.

Merkel, whose coalition has a majority in parliament's Bundestag lower house, could now be blocked on many issues in the Bundesrat upper house, which represents the states. "The nuclear extension has become politically more difficult because the

majority in the Bundesrat has been lost," said an analyst at Merck Finck. If the nuclear life extension plan can go ahead without needing approval by the Bundesrat, Merkel's government could in theory ignore the North Rhine-Westphalia result and grant longer life cycles for the reactors. But a panel of legal experts advising the Bundestag said the upper house has to approve any agreement to extend the lifetime of nuclear plants. Opponents to this view say the original nuclear phase-out law did not need Bundesrat approval.
Reuters, 10 May 2010

India: Nuclear liability legislation introduced to parliament.
On May 7, the "Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill" was introduced to parliament after the Indian Government deferred the introduction at the last minute at March 15.
The legislation faces tough opposition in the Indian parliament, and it may not pass. Communist parties and the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who could not prevent the government from going ahead with the nuclear agreement in 2008, are vehemently opposing this bill, and together with some other parties have the numerical strength in the parliament to obstruct its passage. "This is an opposition for the sake of opposition," Arundhati Ghose, India's former permanent representative to the United Nations told World Nuclear News, "People who are opposing this bill are those who oppose nuclear energy all together." (So…?) The critics of the bill also allege that the government is putting a low price tag on human lives.

The bill is crucial to the operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal. Critics say Inia is under no obligation to pass the bill, which , in reality, attempts to convert the liability of a foreign supplier to be paid by the Idian taxpayer. (More on the legislation in Nuclear Monitor 706, 26 March 2010; 'India: Profits for foreign investors, risks for taxpayers')
World Nuclear News, 7 May 2010 / Nuclear Monitor 607, 26 March 2010

Lithuania says official, decisive “no” to Belarusian nuclear power plant. The government of Lithuania expressed its official disapproval of a plan pushed by the neighbouring Belarus to build a nuclear power plant in the Belarusian town of Ostrovets, just 55 kilometres away from the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius. The former Soviet republic’s concerns were stated in an official note that was prepared by the Ministry of Environment and will be extended to Minsk, said the Lithuanian news agency DELFI.lt on May 8. Lithuania’s note of concern states, in particular, that Minsk has yet to deliver a comprehensive environmental impact evaluation report on the future NPP and asks that Belarusian officials hold a new hearing in Lithuania where such information may be made available to the public.

Both Lithuania and Belarus, two neighbouring nations that used to be part of the Soviet Union, are parties to the 1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context – or the Espoo Convention, called so because it was signed in the Finnish town of Espoo. Since the new NPP is projected to be built just 23 kilometres off

the Belarusian-Lithuanian border, any harmful potential impact it may have will also affect the environment and well-being of the population of Lithuania. A bilateral discussion of the issue is thus a requisite procedure.
Bellona, 9 May 2010

Bulgaria halts nuclear plant project.
‘Prime Minister Boyko Borisov says Bulgaria has put on hold construction of its second nuclear power plant until it finds a new investor and funds to complete the project. "The country has no money for an atomic power plant," the DPA news agency cited Borisov as saying in the May 4 edition of the 24Casa newspaper. "We will build it when investors come." The Russian company Atomstroiexport had originally been commissioned to build the planned 2,000-megawatt Belene nuclear power plant on the Danube River - 180 kilometers (about 112 miles) northeast of the capital Sofia - for 4 billion euros. The contract had been signed between the Russian firm and previous Socialist-led Bulgarian government. When new center-right government swept power in July elections, Borisov's conservative GERB party put the Belene under review due to rising costs. It recently announced a tender for a new consultant after German utility RWE walked out of the project due to funding problems and Sofia decided to redesign it to attract new investors.’
Nuclear Reaction, 5 May 2010

Utility tries to 'block' sun in Hawaii.

In a popular Simpsons episode, the diabolical Mr. Burns builds a giant disc to eclipse the sun and force Springfield's residents into round-the-clock reliance on electricity from his nuclear power plant. It's pitch-perfect cartoon sarcasm, but with a foot firmly in reality: the fledgling U.S. solar industry faces an array of Burnsian obstacles to its growth across the country.

In Hawaii, for example, the state's largest utility Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is making a blatant effort to block homes and businesses from installing rooftop solar panels, a move that could strangle Hawaii's burgeoning homegrown solar industry, prevent residents and businesses from saving money, and keep the state addicted to imported oil. If there is anywhere that should be blazing the trail to a clean energy future, it is Hawaii. The islands are blessed with abundant sun, winds, and waves, yet today rely on imported fossil fuels for more than 96 percent of their energy. Hawaii consumers pay the highest electric rates in the nation. The state is trying to chart a new course, but the utility is resisting change and fighting to limit solar access to the local grid.

In so doing, HECO is holding back much more than just Hawaii. It is hindering an important experiment with solar energy that could provide valuable information to consumers, entrepreneurs, utility owners and policymakers throughout the U.S., because the program Hawaii is considering is the feed-in-tariff.

http://unearthed.earthjustive.org, 18 March 2010

German minister lifts 10-year ban on Gorleben.

The political and technical battle over the fate of Germany’s repository for high-level nuclear waste accelerated, as German Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen announced he was lifting the 10-year moratorium on investigation of the Gorleben salt dome in Lower Saxony. The moratorium was declared in 2000 as part of the nuclear phase-out agreement between the nuclear industry and the then Socialist-Green government. On March 15, Roettgen promised "an open decision-making process and a safety analysis that would be subjected to international peer review". The Gorleben opponents allege that the government plans to privatize nuclear waste storage. "If these plans are implemented, those producing the waste would also be in charge of determining its ultimate repository,” the opponents argue.
Gorleben has been under consideration for the disposal of high- and intermediate-level waste and spent fuel since 1977, when it was selected by the Lower Saxony government as the only candidate for investigation, in a process that is still criticized for eliminating alternative sites too early. A total of about 1.5 billion Euro (US$2 billion) was spent on the site investigation between 1977 and 2007. Opponents have just presented to the media a CD compilation of leaked government documents from the 1970s and 1980s showing that expert studies showing Gorleben to be unsuitable were simply ignored.

First spontaneous protests about the resumption of work have taken place in Gorleben.
Immediately after the announcement of lifting the moratorium, some 300 people demonstrated and were forcibly evicted by the police using pepper spray. At the same day some 5.000 people demonstrated at the Neckarwestheim nuclear power plant in southern-germany against possible life-time extension. It was the biggest demonstration at the plant in over 20 years. The national anti-nuclear power movement is gearing up for Chernobyl day, when demonstrations in Biblis (southern Germany), Ahaus (middle Germany) and a 120 km (!) human chain in northern Germany will take place to show massive popular resistance against nuclear power.

Nuclear Fuel, 22 March 2010 / www.ausgestrahlt.de/ www.de.indymedia.org

Sellafield: Radioactive birds.

Seagull eggs at Sellafield (U.K.) are being destroyed in an attempt to control bird numbers because of fears they might spread contamination after landing and swimming in open nuclear waste ponds. Sellafield said the pricking of eggs was reducing gull numbers around the site and stressed there was no public health concerns. However Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) said the gulls could fly well away from the site and spread contamination. In 1998 there was a cull of pigeons because they landed on buildings around Sellafield and spread contamination off-site. One garden in Seascale had its soil declared as low level waste because of the problem.

N-Base Briefing 644, 11 March 2010

S-Korea to build nuclear reactor in Turkey? 

On March 10, an agreement was reached between Turkey's state power company Elektrik Uretim (EUAS) and Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO), a state-controlled utility, on technical studies for the construction of a nuclear power plant to be built in Sinop, on Turkish northern coast of Black Sea. The South Korean company had earlier said it was in talks with Turkey to sell APR1400 (Advanced Power Reactor 1400), pressurized water reactor. Turkey, again, plans to build two nuclear power plants, one in Sinop on the northern coast of Black Sea and the other in Mersin on the southern coast. Construction of nuclear infrastructure could start in the short-term, said South Korean Deputy Prime Minister Young Hak Kim, speaking at a Turkish-South Korean business conference in Istanbul.

Turkey has long been eager to build nuclear power plants. A Turkish-Russian consortium led by Russia's Atomstroyexport had been the only bidder in a 2008 tender to build Turkey's first nuclear power plant in Mersin. However, Turkey's state-run electricity wholesaler TETAS canceled the tender following a court decision in November 2009. (See Nuclear Monitor 698, 27 November 2009: "Another setback on Turkey's nuclear dream"). Turkey has cancelled four previous attempts to build a nuclear plant, beginning in the late 1960s, due to the high cost and environmental concerns.

Xinhua, 10 March 2010 / Reuters, 10 March 2010

RWE: U.K. hung parliament danger for new reactors.

RWE chief executive designate Volker Beckers has warned that a hung Westminster parliament following the forthcoming election could threaten the prospects of new reactors being built in the UK. He said a hung parliament might make it inconceivable that utility companies would invest the huge sums needed to build the reactors. The Liberal Democrats opposed any new reactors and they might be involved in a new government, he said.

A 'hung parliament' is one in which no one political party has an outright majority of seats. This situation is normal in many legislatures with proportional representation, or in legislatures with strong regional parties; in such legislatures the term 'hung parliament' is rarely used. However in nations in which single member districts are used to elect parliament, and there are weak regional parties, such as the United Kingdom, a hung parliament is a rarity, as in these circumstances one party will usually hold enough seats to form a majority. A hung parliament will force either a coalition government, a minority government or a dissolution of parliament.

N-Base briefing 645, 17 March 2010

Announcement: Anti Nuclear European Forum (ANEF) on June 24, in Linz, Austria.

ANEF was established 2009 as counter-event to ENEF (European Energy Forum) since ENEF failed to fulfill ENEF´s official objectives and was/is used one-sided as a propaganda instrument for the promotion of nuclear power instead. Within ANEF negative aspects of nuclear energy will be discussed on an international level. ANEF is organized by the Antinuclear Representative of Upper Austria in cooperation with “Antiatom Szene” and “Anti Atom Komitee”. The participation of international NGOs is very important because it needs a strong signal against the nuclear renaissance.

The organizers would like to warmly invite you to participate in ANEF. Please let us know as soon as possible if you, or someone else from your organization, is considering to participate in ANEF by sending an informal email to office@antiatomszene.info. The detailed program will be available soon and will be send to you upon request. Accommodation will be arranged for you. Further information on ANEF is published on www.anef.info.

Learn about ANEF-Resolution here: http://www.anef.info/?q=en. 

Pakistan: US-India deal forces it to keep making weapons material.

Pakistan cannot participate in global negotiations to halt the production of high-enriched uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons because the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement has tilted the regional strategic balance in India’s favour, a leading Pakistani nuclear diplomat said February 18. Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva said that under the US-India deal on nuclear cooperation, India may now import uranium under IAEA safeguards for its civilian power reactors. Because of that, India can devote its domestic uranium resources to production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, he said.

Last year, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, NSG, representing 45 members of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, NPT, agreed to lift nuclear trade sanctions against India, a non-NPT party. That action permitted the US-India deal to enter into force. In coming months, the US-India deal will most likely cause friction at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Every five years, the NPT’s 189 parties hold such a review conference. The 2005 event was bbitter and sharp in language and tone and resulted in no consensus conclusion between developing nations and advanced nuclear countries. How to deal with Israel and Pakistan (non-NPT-parties) in the wake of the US-India deal now deeply divides non-proliferation and disarmament advocates.

Nucleonics Week, 25 February 2010

U.K.: Camp against nuclear rebuild.

From 23 to 26 April 2010 at the Sizewell nuclear power stations, Suffolk. The U.K. government is planning to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations. Not only is this a totally daft idea with heavy consequences, but it also diverting attention and investment way from the real solutions to climate chaos. Come and join us for a weekend of protest, networking and skill sharing. The camp will be held very near the existing power stations and the weekend will include a tour of the proposed site for Sizewell C and D reactors and anything else you would like to add.

Contact: mellcndeast@cnduk.org
For many more actions on Chernobyl day visit: www.chernobyl-day.org

Japanese islanders oppose nuke plant construction.

On Tuesday March 23 opponents of the construction of a nuclear power plant on an island in Kaminoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan, forced Chugoku Electric Power Corporation to cancel an explanatory meeting. More than 100 residents of Iwaishima island refused to allow officials of the company to disembark after they arrived by boat at the harbor. Kaminoseki's jurisdiction includes several islands. The proposed construction will take place on the island Iwaishima.

The company has held 15 meetings in other areas under the Kaminoseki town jurisdiction after applying for construction approval in December. The Tuesday meeting was to be the first for Iwaishima island residents, many of whom are opposed to the plan first proposed in 1982. Chugoku Electric officials said they will try again.

The Asahi Shimbun, 24 March 2010

RWE looses again: Borssele has to remain in public hands.

RWE failed to gain 50% of the Netherlands' only nuclear power plant at Borssele through its takeover of Dutch utility Essent. The ruling by the Arnhem appeal court upholds an earlier ruling prohibiting Germany's RWE from acquiring Essent's 50% stake in the Borssele nuclear plant as part of its takeover of the Dutch utility. According to Delta, the appeal court decision has emphasized that the country's sole nuclear power plant must remain in public ownership. Any transfer of Essent's share of the plant to RWE would therefore contravene this. In September 2009, the transaction price for RWE's takeover of Essent was dropped by 950 million Euro (then worth US$1.35 billion) to take into account the exclusion of Borssele from the deal while Delta's court case against the proposed transfer was ongoing. Essent's share in the plant has remained in the hands of the provincial and municipal governments who were the company's original public shareholders.
The Dutch coalition government collapsed on February 20, when the two largest parties failed to agree on whether to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this year as planned. Elections are planned on June 9, with an expected right-wing victory. The extreme-right party PVV ('party for freedom') is expected to become one of the largest –or even the largest- party in parliament. The PVV is (besides anti-islam and with racist tendencies) extremely pro-nuclear, anti-wind & solar energy and does not believe in climate change ands speaks consistently about the environmental movement as the 'environmental maffia'.

The just fallen coalition government had agreed not to approve any new nuclear plants in the Netherlands during its mandate. Dutch utility Delta has announced plans to build a second nuclear plant at the site, embarking on the first stage of the pre-application process in June 2009.

German utility RWE has indicated it is also interested in building a nuclear power plant in the Netherlands, RWE CEO Juergen Grossmann said at the company's annual earnings press conference on February 25 in Essen, Germany

World Nuclear News, 3 March 2010 / Platts, 25 february 2010

USDOE: US$40 million for Next Generation Nuclear Plant.

On March 8, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced selections for the award of approximately US$40 million in total to two teams led by Westinghouse Electric Co. and General Atomics for conceptual design and planning work for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP).  The results of this work will help the Administration determine whether to proceed with detailed efforts toward construction and demonstration of the NGNP.  If successful, the NGNP Demonstration Project will demonstrate high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology that will be capable of producing electricity as well as process heat for industrial applications and will be configured for low technical and safety risk with highly reliable operations.  Final cost-shared awards are subject to the negotiation of acceptable terms and conditions.

The NGNP project is being conducted in two phases.  Phase 1 comprises research and development, conceptual design and development of licensing requirements. The selections announced now will support the development of conceptual designs, cost and schedule estimates for demonstration project completion and a business plan for integrating Phase 2 activities. Phase 2 would entail detailed design, license review and construction of a demonstration plant.

U.S. Department Of Energy, Press Release 8 March 2010

Switzerland: Geneva will fight extension Muhleberg licence.

Geneva City Council has decided to appeal to the Federal Administrative Tribunal against the decision of the federal authorities to allow the 355 MW Mühleberg nuclear plant to continue operating beyond 2012, when it will have been 40 years in service. Geneva will contribute CHF 25,000 (US$23,000 or 17,000 Euro) to help meet the costs of a committee formed to oppose the licence extension. In November 2009 the electorate of the neighbouring canton of Vaud also voted against the extension. The centre-left Social Democrats and the Green Party are also opposing the licence extension.

Power In Europe, 22 February 2010 / Nuclear Monitor 702, 15 January 2010

Uranium mining - victory in Slovakia!

After more than three years of campaigning Slovak parliament finally agreed on legal changes in geological and mining laws in order to stop uranium mining in Slovakia. All the changes were proposed by anti-uranium mining coalition of NGOs led by Greenpeace and supported by over 113 000 people that signed the petition.  For Slovak environmental movement this is a really important milestone. For the first time in Slovak history NGO’s were able to:

1) collect over 100 000 signatures (a number given by law for the Parliament to discuss an issue) - note that Slovakia has 5 million citizens; 2) to open an environmental topic in Slovak parliament by a petition; 3) and finally to achieve a legal change by petition  initiative.

Legal changes agreed by parliament on March 3 are giving more information access and competencies for local communities, municipal and regional authorities to stop or limit geological research of uranium deposits and to stop proposed uranium mining. It’s not a complete ban of uranium mining, but a significant empower of local and regional authorities in the mining permitting process. All 41 municipal authorities influenced by proposed uranium mining already declared that they do not agree with proposed uranium mining in their territories.

The chance that Slovak uranium will stay deep in the ground is much higher today!

Greenpeace Slovensko, Bratislava, 4 March 2010

Uranium from stable and democratic countries?

One of Kazakhstan's most prominent business figures and a former uranium tycoon, Mukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested last year on accusations of corruption, theft and illegal sales of uranium assets to foreign companies. Dzhakishev's case, along with a string of other high-profile arrests in the former Soviet state and world No. 1 uranium producer, has fuelled speculation of an intensifying power struggle within the political elite.

Kazakhstan, hit hard by global economic slowdown, wants to attract fresh foreign investment as well as bolster the role of the state in strategic industries such as uranium and oil. It has also alarmed human rights groups who have questioned Kazakhstan's methods of fighting corruption in a country where President Nursultan Nazarbayev, in power for two decades, tolerates little political dissent.

Dzhakishev, who was head of state uranium major Kazatomprom from 1998 until his arrest and played a key role in turning Kazatomprom into a major global uranium player, has denied all accusations. "It is obvious that I cannot count on justice in my own country and my fate has already been decided," he wrote from his detention centre in a letter published by his lawyers this week. His arrest left Kazatomprom's foreign partners such as Canada's Uranium One worried about the future of their projects. Other investors include France's Areva and Japanese companies such as Toshiba Corporation. Closed-door court hearings into earlier allegations of theft and corruption have already started and lawyers expect a verdict in March.

Reuters, 4 March 2010

Israel to build reactor –but will not allow inspections?

Israel will shortly unveil plans to produce nuclear-generated electricity, officials said on March 8. Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said Israel, which has a population of 7.5 million and generates electricity mostly using imported coal and local and imported natural gas, is capable of building a nuclear reactor, but it would prefer to work with other countries. Israel already has two reactors -- the secretive Dimona facility in the Negev desert, where it is widely assumed to have produced nuclear weapons, and a research reactor, open to international inspection, at Nahal Soreq near Tel Aviv.

Unlike other countries in the region, Israel has not signed the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is suppose to curb the spread of nuclear technologies with bomb-making potential. Yet Israel does have a delegation at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Landau said it would not be a problem for Israel to build a civilian reactor without signing the NPT: "There are many countries who are not signatories to the NPT and they are doing fine. There are others which are signatories and the world community did not really take proper care against proliferation," he said. Many countries? India, Pakistan and North-Korea (withdrawn), three (excuse me, four with Israel) and 189 signatories, you call that many? Asked whether IAEA inspectors would supervise the building of an Israeli plant, Landau said: "We take care very well of our own needs and don't need inspectors."

Reuters, 8 March 2010

…. And Syria? (March 11, 2010) Meanwhile, Israels' arch-foe Syria responded in Paris saying that Damascus needs "to consider alternative sources of energy, including nuclear energy." Syria's candidacy for the nuclear club will raise some eyebrows too, given the regime's close ties with Iran and the still unanswered questions over an earlier alleged attempt to build a reactor in secret. The International Atomic Energy Agency complained last year that Damascus had refused to cooperate with its investigation of a remote desert site called Dair Alzour, which was bombed by Israel in September 2007. Inspectors have found unexplained traces of uranium at the site, as well as at a nuclear research reactor in Damascus, amid reports that Syria has been working with Tehran and North Korea on covert nuclear programs.

AFP, 9 March 2010

Winter meeting of the Nuclear Heritage Network.

This relatively new network has been very active against uranium mining in Finland and is currently organising a Baltic Sea Info Tour (see http://www.greenkids.de/europas-atomerbe/index.php/Action:Infotour_Aroun...) and preparing new actions against nuclear new-build in the north-east region of Europe .

Their winter meeting will take place from March 24 to 29 in and close by Helsinki, Finland. This includes one day of action, aimed at the to be taken Finnish political decisions on more new nuclear power stations. An important project to be discussed for the summer will be the „Baltic Sea Info Tour“ that will take place to inform people around the Baltic Sea.

More information? Write an email to contact@nuclear-heritage.net

Chernobyl-Day: concerted action to stop Mochovce 3+4. The Wiener Plattform "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft" (Viennese Platform "Nuclearfree Future") has taken the lead in organising an international action-day on April 26, the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, against the construction of Mochovce 3+4 in Slovakia. (more on Mochovce in next issue).

They ask groups to demonstrate in front of Slovak and Italian embassies in as many countries as possible. A small delegation should submit a paper to the respective ambassadors. The paper explains the importance of stopping this dangerous Slovak nuclear power plant and says what the responsible people should do.

If these actions are carried out in numerous cities or capitals it should be effective enough to put pressure on Slovakia and the respective governments.  Please join the campaign and contact atomkraftfreiezukunft@gmx.at

Announcement: Anti Nuclear European Forum (ANEF) on June 24, in Linz, Austria.

ANEF was established 2009 as counter-event to ENEF (European Energy Forum) since ENEF failed to fulfill ENEF´s official objectives and was/is used one-sided as a propaganda instrument for the promotion of nuclear power instead. Within ANEF negative aspects of nuclear energy will be discussed on an international level. ANEF is organized by the Antinuclear Representative of Upper Austria in cooperation with “Antiatom Szene” and “Anti Atom Komitee”. The participation of international NGOs is very important because it needs a strong signal against the nuclear renaissance.

The organizers would like to warmly invite you to participate in ANEF. Please let us know as soon as possible if you, or someone else from your organization, is considering to participate in ANEF by sending an informal email to office@antiatomszene.info. The detailed program will be available soon and will be send to you upon request. Accommodation will be arranged for you.
Further information on ANEF is published on www.anef.info. Learn about ANEF-Resolution here: http://www.anef.info/?q=en. 

Good news from Turkey. The Akkuyu nuclear power plant tender has been cancelled.
The first response: good news for the anti nuclear activists and the environmentalists all around the world. One of the sunniest, windiest countries of Europe, with lots of energy efficiency and geothermal potential is remain to be a nuclear free state as we wished and campaign for a long time. However, it is expected new tenders will be started by the pro-nuclear government and the fight is far from over.

The first signal of cancellation came with the offered high price by the only bidder which is a consortium of Russian Atomstroyexport, Inter Rao and their Turkish partner Park Teknik. The initial offered price was 21 cent per kWh to sell electricity but many experts thought that was a high price for a nuclear power plant. Then the consortium lowered the price to 15 cent per kWh during the private negotiations with the government but was not successful. Anti nuclear campaigners also complained that lowering the offered price after the official bid was not legitimate.

Later on Turkish State Council took a decision in favor of the TMMOB (Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects) appeal and decided to declare a motion of stay for the three articles of the nuclear tender regulation. That was the second signal and on November 20, TETAS (Turkish Electricity Trade and Contracting Corporation) announced the cancellation at the end of the dispute. They must have seen that the current bid was going no where but to a difficult court battle.

There was a single consortium in the current bid which offered a price of 21 cent per kWh then lowered it to 15 cent per kWh to sell electricity. The price was also found high in Turkey and got many criticisms.

It is not expected the current government will give up its nuclear dreams but it will have a difficult time to change the regulation and find  new bidders for the possible new tender. If they insist, there is also a price hurdle, the new offered price must be lower than 15 cent per kWh otherwise the government will have an explanation to the public.

On November 21, Energy Minister Taner Yildiz was quoted saying "The fact that the tender was scrapped does not mean that the process is scrapped. Our determination on nuclear power plants is persisting."

Sources close to the Energy Ministry say the ministry has already started plans to restart the tender for the plant in Mersin’s Akkuyu district, on the Mediterranean coast, and launch a second tender to build and operate a nuclear power plant in Sinop on the Black Sea in 2010. The government is said to guarantees 15 years of power purchases to encourage investment in the plant, and may have a stake of as much as 25 percent if it is necessary.

Turkey has cancelled four previous attempts to build a nuclear plant, with plans stretching back to the late 1950s, due to the high cost and environmental concerns.

The decision to cancel also had another dimension as regards international politics. The plant was part of a major push of deals Turkey had agreed with Russia earlier this year to increase cooperation on energy, such as Turkey’s permission for Russia’s South Stream natural gas pipeline to pass through its territorial waters and Russia’s promise to provide oil to Turkey’s Samsun-Ceyhan oil pipeline project.

Turkish Energy Minister Yildiz is expected to visit Russia in December for talks on this matter.

Sources: Sunday's Zaman, 22 November 2009; Nuclear Street, 24 November 2009; emails; Ozgur Gurbuz; Ria Novosti, 24 November 2009
Contact: Ozgur Gurbuz, email: ozzgurbuz@gmail.com, web: ozgurgurbuz.blogspot.com/search/label/English

Italian activists continue the anti-nuclear struggle.
“Ready to win again against Nuclear!” With this slogan Italian anti-nuclear activists organized on October 31, a new demonstration in the village of Montalto di Castro against the government, that intends to build eight new reactors in the country. This in spite of the 1987 referendum that succeeded in closing all existing nuclear plants. “In the late 80s Montalto was one of the locations chosen for a nuclear plant” reminds Legambiente, the association that promoted the demonstration, “but thanks to the referendum victory environmentalists managed to stop any project”. Today this little village situated in between Rome and Florence is again under the threat of nuclear. Its name recently appeared together with other 9 sites in an informal list indicating the places suitable for the authorities to host nuclear plants.

Legambiente, 4 November 2009

U.K.: Waste to stay at Dounreay?
The Scottish Government is considering allowing foreign intermediate level reprocessing wastes to remain at Dounreay instead of being return to the overseas customers. Instead vitrified high-level waste from Sellafield, contained in glass blocks, would be returned to the Dounreay customers. Until now Dounreay has insisted the wastes, from reprocessing overseas highly-enriched uranium spent fuel, would be sent back to the country of origin. The wastes have been mixed with concrete, like other wastes at the site, and there are about 500 drums weighting around 625 tonnes. Documents released under Freedom of Information Act show the Scottish Government favours the 'waste substitution' proposals and a public consultation is expected before the end of the year. There has already been a consultation on a 'waste substitution' policy for Sellafield's wastes and this has been approved by the Westminster government. The Dounreay proposal has been criticised as turning Scotland into a "nuclear dumping ground", in the words of Green MSP Patrick Garvie. The future of the overseas low level reprocessing wastes is uncertain, although it will probably also remain at Dounreay. In the past spent fuel from Dounreay has been sent to Sellafield for reprocessing, so the site already holds some wastes from the Scottish plant.

N-Base Briefing 630, 27 October 2009

DPRK: more Pu-production for n-weapons.
On November 2, North Korea’s official news agency, K.C.N.A., announced that the country completed reprocessing the 8,000 fuel rods unloaded from its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, two months ago and had made “significant achievements” in turning the plutonium into an atomic bomb. In early September, North Korea had told the United Nations Security Council that it was in the “final phase” of reprocessing the 8,000 rods and was “weaponizing” plutonium extracted from the rods. With this announcement North Korea put further pressure on the United States to start bilateral talks. “We have no option but to strengthen our self-defense nuclear deterrent in the face of increasing nuclear threats and military provocations from hostile forces,” the news agency said. North Korea conducted underground nuclear tests in October 2006 and in May this year. In April, it also test-fired a long-range rocket. North Korea has also said it was also enriching uranium. Highly-enriched uranium would give it another route to build nuclear bombs

The figure on this page shows background information on bare critical masses for some key fissile isotopes. A bare critical mass is the spherical mass of fissile metal barely large enough to sustain a fission chain reaction in the absence of any material around it. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are the key chain-reacting isotopes in highly enriched uranium and plutonium respectively. Uranium-233, neptunium-237 and americium-241 are, like plutonium-239, reactor-made fissile isotopes and could potentially be used to make nuclear weapons but have not, to our knowledge, been used to make other than experimental devices. (source: Global Fissile Material Report 2009, October 2009)

New York Times, 3 November 2009

U.K. Submarine radioactive wastes.
Up to five sites in Scotland have been considered by the Ministry of Defence for storing radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines - including Dounreay in Caithness, according to documents obtained by the Sunday Herald. In total 12 possible storage sites in the UK have been considered by the MoD.  There are already 15 decommissioning submarines lying at Rosyth or Devonport and a further 12 are due to leave active service by 2040. Rosyth and Devonport will be used to cut up and dismantle the submarines, but the MoD's problem is what to do with the waste, especially the large reactor compartments which are the most heavily contaminated. In Scotland the MoD is apparently considering Dounreay, Faslane, Coulport, Rosyth and Hunterston. Among possible sites in the England are Devonport, Aldermaston and Burghfield.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has warned that use of many of the sites would be "contentious". Highland Council, for example, is opposed to any non-Dounreay wastes being taken to the site and this is included in planning conditions for the new low level facility.

N-Base Briefing 631, 4 November 2009

Austrian courts cannot shut Temelin.
The Austrian region of Oberoesterreich, backed by a number of local landowners, is not entitled to sue for the closure of Czech Temelin nuclear power plant, the European Court of Justice, Europe's highest court, ruled on October 27. The case had been brought under an Austrian law that states a landowner can prohibit his neighbor from causing nuisance emanating from the latter's land if it exceeds normal local levels and significantly interferes with the usual use of the land. If the nuisance is caused by an officially authorized installation, the landowner is entitled to bring court proceedings for compensation.

 In a bid to close the Temelin plant, the Land Oberösterreich (Province of Upper Austria) made an application under this law to the Landesgericht Linz (Linz Regional Court), claiming that ionizing radiation and the risk of an accident was spoiling use of its agricultural land. Oberoesterreich owns an agricultural school.

However, the regional court has now been told it has no power over organizations operating in another EU member state, after it sought clarification from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In a statement, the ECJ said: "Austria cannot justify the discrimination practiced in respect of the official authorization granted in the Czech Republic for the operation of the Temelin nuclear power plant on the ground that it is necessary for protecting life, public health, the environment or property rights."

Reuters, 27 October 2009 / World Nuclear news, 27 October 2009

Iraq Plans New Nuclear Reactor Program.
The Iraqi government has approached the French nuclear industry about rebuilding at least one of the reactors that was bombed at the start of the first Gulf war. The government has also contacted the International Atomic Energy Agency and United Nations to seek ways around resolutions that ban Iraq’s re-entry into the nuclear field.

Iraqi Science and Technology Minister Raid Fahmi has insisted that a new Iraqi nuclear program would be solely for peaceful applications, “including the health sector, agriculture...and water treatment.”

However, many people fear that a nuclear reactor would be a tempting target for those who wish to cause significant death and destruction. Additionally, after widespread looting during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, much nuclear material remains missing from the site of the Tuwaitha nuclear research center.

The Guardian (UK), 27 October 2009

Covert network UK's nuclear police.
The UK's nuclear police force carries out surveillance on anti-nuclear activity and also uses informers. Details of the work of the 750-strong Civil Nuclear constabulary (CNC) are revealed in documents seen by the Guardian and in reports from the official watchdog released under Freedom of Information. The role of the CNC is to protect the UK's civil nuclear sites and guard nuclear material when it is transported by ship, rail, sea or air - including shipments to Japan and Europe.

However, the CNC has the power to use informers or infiltrate organisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Access to data such as phone numbers and email address is also available to the CNC. The watchdog for RIPA, Sir Christopher Rose, says the aims of the CNC ares to counter the threat from terrorism and "public disquiet over nuclear matters". He said the level of CNC surveillance was "relatively modest".

N-Base Briefing 630, 27 October 2009

EDF (not) out of U.S.A.?
There were some press-reports (rumours) coming out of France that said the new EDF CEO Henri Proglio wanted an out of the deal with Constellation Energy in Maryland that would solidify there commitment to build a new nuclear power plant in Maryland U.S.A. However, the reports turned out to be no more than rumours, because, the order on the deal was issued on Friday October 30 -approved with conditions- Constellation's board of directors promptly approved the deal and (state-owned) EDF's board followed suit. One of the terms is that EDF will establish a headquarters in Maryland. Looks like they are there to stay -at least for now. 

Ratings downgrades nearly pushed Constellation into bankruptcy last year, but the company agreed to merge with MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. Constellation later ended that agreement in favor of the EDF deal, which, many people say, does not represent the best interests of consumers.

Breakingviews, 2 November 2009 / Public Citizen Energy Program, Email 5 November 2009

Increase in cancer for males exposed to above ground N-Tests.
A new study by the Radiation and Public Health Project reveals a 50% increase in cancer rates for boys who were exposed to above ground nuclear tests during the 1950s and early 1960s.  More than 100 nuclear bombs were detonated in the atmosphere over the Nevada Test Site between 1951 and 1962, which emitted radioactive Iodine-131, Strontium-90 and other toxic materials.  The results are based on analyses for Strontium-90 in baby teeth that were stored for over three decades at the University of Washington in St. Louis.  The baby teeth were collected through a program where children were given a little button with a gap tooth smiling boy that said, "I gave my tooth to science", in exchange for their tooth. The Radiation and Public Health Project is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization, established by scientists and physicians dedicated to understanding the relationships between low-level radiation and public health.

The Project said that the study has groundbreaking potential; declaring little information  exists on harm from Nevada above-ground nuclear weapons testing.  In 1997 and 2003, the federal government produced reports downplaying the human health impacts from exposure to the fallout. In his new book, 'Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link,' Mangano describes the journey and how exposure to Strontium-90 increases the risk of childhood cancer. The first chapter may be downloaded at www.radiation.org.

CCNS News Update, 23 October 2009

Restart go-ahead for refurbished Canadian units. Two reactors at Canada's Bruce A nuclear power plant that have been out of service for over a decade have been given regulatory approval for refuelling and restart.
Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce A plant have been undergoing a major refurbishment to replace their fuel channels and steam generators plus upgrade ancillary systems to current standards. The announcement by regulator CNSC that refuelling can go ahead means the project looks to be on line for the projected 2010 restarts.

Units 1 and 2 at the four-unit Bruce A plant started up in 1977, but unit 2 was shut down in 1995 because a steam generator suffered corrosion after a lead shielding blanket used during maintenance was mistakenly left inside. In the late 1990s then-owner Ontario Hydro decided to lay up all four units at the plant to concentrate resources on other reactors in its fleet, and unit 1 was taken out of service in December 1997 with units 3 and 4 in following in 1998. The four units at sister power station Bruce B continued to operate. Bruce Power took over the operations of both Bruce plants from Ontario Hydro in 2001 and restarted units 3 and 4 by early 2004. Bruce A units 3 and 4 are likely to undergo a similar refurbishment once units 1 and 2 are back in operation.

Bruce Power decided to withdraw its application for a third nuclear power station at Bruce in July, saying it would focus on the refurbishment of the existing Bruce plants rather than building Bruce C. It also announced it was scrapping plans for a second new nuclear plant at Nanticoke in Ontario. On June 29, the government in Ontario announced that it has suspended the procurement of two new reactors for the Darlington nuclear site: the bids were 'shockingly high' (see Nuclear Monitor, 691, 16 July 2009)

World Nuclear News, 3 November 2009

US nuclear industry calls for more federal support.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which represents the nuclear industry in the US, is calling for a comprehensive package of federal policies, financing and tax incentives to support a major expansion. The NEI wants to see the creation of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to act as a permanent financing mechanism for new plants. It is also calling for significant tax incentives to support industry development.

However, the Union of Concerned Scientists says the plans amount to a request for US$100 billion (Euro 67 bn) in new federal loan guarantees on top of the US$110 billion loan guarantees already agreed by Congress. “It is truly staggering that an industry this big and this mature can claim to need so much government help to survive and thrive in a world in which technologies that don’t emit global warming pollution will benefit,” says Ellen Vancko of the UCS. “If the nuclear industry gets its way, Christmas will come early this year – thanks to US taxpayers.”
Energy efficiency news, 2 November 2009

Eskom, South Africa's state-owned utility, has reported a record annual loss and has warned of a funding gap for an expansion program needed to prevent a repeat of the blackouts the country experienced in 2008. The company, which supplies about 95% of South Africa's electricity and more than 60% of Africa's, reported a loss of 9.7 billion rand (US$ 1.25 billion) for the year that ended 31 March. In the previous year, Eskom made a loss of 210 million rand (US$ 27 million).

The utility foresees a funding shortage of some 80 billion rand (US$ 10 billion) for its expansion program aimed at reducing the risk of power shortages. In January 2008, as domestic supply reached its limit, South Africa suffered crippling blackouts and electricity exports to neighbouring Botswana and Zimbabwe were stopped. This led to a wider grid failure affecting Zambia.

In August 2009, Bobby Godsell, chair of the utility, noted, "We need to mobilize greater equity resources to fund the build program. The government has already provided 60 billion rand (US$ 8 billion) in a loan with equity characteristics. Government revenues are likely to be severely constrained in the near future. We need to find other sources of expansion funding, perhaps in the form of a development bond that will enable South Africans to invest in the expansion of our country's energy system."

"The capital costs of our build program have escalated considerably," Godsell added.

"Prior to the recent global economic crisis, construction costs were escalating worldwide and across all industries. The global recession has created new market circumstances."

And the nuclear program?

In early 2007, Eskom's board approved a plan to boost electricity output to 80 GWe by 2025. This included the construction of 20 GWe of new nuclear capacity, which would see the contribution of nuclear energy grow to 25% from the present 5%. The plan for the nuclear new-build program would kick-start with up to 4 GWe of pressurized water reactor (PWR) capacity, to be constructed from about 2010 with commissioning in 2016. Five sites in the Cape Province were under consideration, although the most likely initial site (Nuclear-1) would be that of Koeberg, the site of South Africa's only existing nuclear power plant. The Nuclear-1 project was established after the very ambitious scenario for development and construction of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) failed to meet even the most modest time schedule.

Having already made "considerable progress" in the process to procure a PWR, Eskoms board of directors decided in December 2008 not to proceed with the project due to ‘the magnitude of the investment’; the companies own financial constraints and the global economic situation. The investment was increasingly impossible to justify, with a plunging rand, global lines of credit frozen, and a new government with potentially different priorities.

On September 11, addressing the World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium in London, UK, Jaco Kriek, CEO of the PBMR company, said that South Africa's pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) Demonstration Power Plant (DPP) project has been indefinitely postponed due to financing constraints. He said the PBMR company has had to adopt a new business model "to reduce the funding obligations on the South African government."

Sources: World Nuclear News, 28 August 2009 / Nuclear Monitor 681, 16 December 2008: ‘Eskom cancels PWRs; major blow to nuclear expansion’ / World Nuclear News, 11 September 2009
Contact:  CANE, Coalition Against Nuclear Energy South-Africa, Tel: +27-72 628 5131, Email: caneoffice@cane.org.za

Doubts about nuclear renaissance, even in nuclear industry.
There are some uncomfortable feelings in the nuclear industry surfacing, regarding the pace and results sofar of the 'nuclear renaissance'. Just read for example the first lines of this article in the June issue of Nuclear News, the monthly magazine of the American Nuclear Society.

''Longtime readers of NuclearNews may have watched with some bemusement over the past few years as the “Renaissance Watch” summation in the Power section has grown from a modest sidebar to a sprawling two-page spread. In this issue—and, the editors hope, only in this issue—the summation has been enlarged further to allow some issues to be addressed at greater length, along with the usual updates on specific projects. In what was supposed to be a streamlined, straightforward process for design approval and licensing, under 10 CFR Part 52, nearly every initiative has taken on unintended complexities. Industry leaders have long bemoaned “regulatory uncertainty” (in day-today operations as well as in license applications), but there are sources of uncertainty in virtually every aspect of the new-reactors endeavor.

In the past few months in particular, the actions of state governments have had great influence on new reactor projects. In the abstract, there seems to be a trend in favor of nuclear power, but in practical terms, efforts to remove reactor bans or encourage nuclear development in places such as Kentucky and West Virginia, where there are no current plans by electricity providers to build reactors, are less significant than rate recovery proposals. Georgia has approved rate recovery, so Vogtle-3 and -4 are on track; Missouri has not, so Callaway-2 has been suspended. Other recent state-level actions include the rejection (for the fifth time) of a bill introduced in the California legislature by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore to repeal the state’s new-reactor ban, and a split between the two houses of the Minnesota legislature on a proposed ban repeal.

The article concludes (in the lead): "State governments, federal agencies, reactor vendors, license applicants, and the economy are all contributing to the air of doubt surrounding new reactor projects in the United States."

The whole article can be found at: http://www.new.ans.org/pubs/magazines/download/a_632

It was in February 2001, in order to mend political rift caused by cancellation of fourth nuclear power plant in Taiwan, both parties, the Democratic Progressive (DPP, ruling, then) and the Nationalist (KMT, ruling, current) Party agreed, Taiwan will be a “no nuclear homeland”, and the fourth nuclear power plant is the last one.

As climate change is becoming too imminent to ignore, the only remedy of the KMT government is nuclear power, which happened to be the main theme in recent National Energy Forum, held last April. KMT’s energy proposals includes: extended lifetime to 60 years for current reactors; 6 to 8 new reactors from 1.35GW each to increase the share of nuclear in electricity-mix from 13.5% in 2007 to over 30% after 2025. But strong opposition from civil society (and renewable industries) prevented those proposals reaching “consensus” in the April National Energy Forum. However, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan still stresses that “nuclear is the essential transition energy towards low carbon economy” in his closing remarks.

By the way, this energy forum produced no targets on energy efficiency improvement, or the share of renewable energy and also no cap on industry energy consumption. President Ma Ying-jeou only promises CO₂-emissions returning to 2008 levels between 2016 and 2020, and back to 2000 levels at 2025. Taiwan’s CO₂ emissions in 2000 were 100% more than that of 1990.

NPP4, disaster in the making

In 1996 General Electric won the contract of the fourth nuclear power plant (NPP4). Since it no longer manufactures any reactors, it subcontracted the reactors to Hitachi and Toshiba, and the generators to Mitsubishi. One question is whether this arrangement violates the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty since no diplomatic ties exist between Japan and Taiwan.

Unlike the construction of the existing three nuclear power plants more than 20 years ago, construction of the fourth plant is now supervised by Taipower Company which has no experience in this matter. On February 5 2008, a local newspaper (the Apple Daily News: “Hidden Dangers of the fourth nuclear power plant”) revealed that between January and November 2007, Taipower changed the GE design in 395 places without applying permission from the Atomic Energy Council, as law requires.

Among the 395, a total of 20 alternations may jeopardize major safety features. One alternation is the welding of the emergency cooling water system. Instead of using nuclear-grade sealing gaskets in conduit, Neoprene, or Chlorinated Polyethylene materials are found in NPP4 nuclear islands. These materials are specifically disallowed in GE design. In addition, hot-dip galvanized steel or galvanized steel are replaced with zinc electroplating steel. Zinc electroplating steel is usually 10 to 30 times thinner than the other two types of steel.

In the same February 5 article, Taipower claimed that GE’s design flaws makes welding of the cooling-water system impossible and that they had to alter the original design. In June 2008, in an article (“Current status and challenges of Taiwan nuclear energy”) in the Taiwanese edition of Scientific American, Taipower states that the GE’s NPP4 design is over conservative, and requires ‘10 to 100 times more (steel, cement) than necessary’. A Taipower representative admits that toxic fumes will be released if neoprene is heated. However, “under such condition, everyone dies, who cares about toxic gases.”

Saving 2/3 of cost is the main reason to replace galvanized steel with zinc electroplating steel. Taipower representative also claimed that power plant indoor is dry enough, therefore “no need to worry about material life expectancy (corrosion).” However, NPP4 safety specifications clearly state that material for indoor equipment has to last 40 years under 10 to 100% normal humidity, and maximum humidity during accident conditions – first 6 hours steam, next 99 days 18 hours 100%.

Amid those questions, officials from the regulatory body – the Atomic Energy Council – said “(material of) gasket and conduit are no concern of plant safety.”

A recent incident revealed how good the construction quality control is! In the night of September 13 2008, Typhoon Sinlaku hit northern Taiwan. The nuclear island of the second reactor of NPP4 was flooded with more than 2 meters of muddy water for 4 days due to heavy rain! Almost all major safety features were under water, including control rod moving assembly and cooling-water condenser, along with 50+ pumps, numerous valves, etc. To blame for this was a not properly sealed opening to an unfinished underground tunnel.

What else will follow?

Low-level nuclear waste

By Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council's definition, everything except the used fuel is low-level nuclear waste. Initially, Taipower (i.e., the Taiwan Power Company) promised in the initial Environmental Impact Assessment of NPP4, to have a permanent low-level nuclear waste storage facility in operation by the end of 2001. This sentence was removed in later EIA modifications. As of December 2008, a total of 192,898 barrels of low level nuclear waste were produced from existing 6 reactors. Since shipments are blocked from unloading since 1996, some 97,960 barrels are stored at the designated site on Orchid Island, home of the Tao tribe. The rest is stored inside three nuclear power plants.

In May 2006, the DPP government passed the “Low-level nuclear waste permanent storage site act”. Commissions formed by selected experts first have to find ‘potential sites’, and then select “suggested candidate sites (SCS)” from these “potential sites”. Local governments of SCSs will vote (agree or reject) to be “candidate site”.  On August 29, 2008, the Ministry of Economic Affairs announced three potential sites: WangAn of PengHu (Pescadores) County, DaZen of TaiDong County, and MuDan of PingDong County. On March 17, 2009, it was announced that MuDan was eliminated from the Suggested Candidate Sites. PengHu County opposes the possibility to be nuclear waste dumpsite by designating the location as a “Nature (Basalt) Reserve”. But the Taipower Company said it will not give up easily.

Residences of DaZen of TaiDong County are mainly indigenous tribes, with an average income lower than national. The County parliament hosted a public hearing on April 8, opposing the central government decision and demanded removal of the nuclear waste from Orchid Island (which is located in the same county).

High-level nuclear waste

Currently all spent fuel is stored on-site. As of October 2008, there are 5,206, 6,864, 2,127 fuel assemblies, respectively, in three nuclear plants. Taipower claims it will fall short of space for spent fuel if all existing reactors run 40 years. Interim on-site (dry) storage for spent fuel was proposed for NPP1 and its EIA passed in 1995. Taipower revived the idea in 2005. After nine review meetings, the modified EIA finally passed in March 2008, despite opposition from local government and residences. A similar process for on-site dry storage of spent fuel from NPP2 is underway.

Citing costs-concern and self-dependency, it is decided that dry casks will be home made. Worries about this include lack of experiences, early rust and leakages in the humid salty environment, and that the interim storage may eventually become a permanent dump site.

Source and contact: Gloria Hsu, Taiwan Environmental Protection Union. 2^nd Floor, No. 107, Section 3, Ting Chou Road, Taipei, Taiwan 100.
Tel: +886 2 363 6419
Email: tepu.org@msa.hinet.net
Web: http://www.tepu.org.tw/

Debates are still ongoing on the issue of possible construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus. The suggested site is in the Ostrovets District in the Grodno Region – or just some fifty kilometers away from neighboring Lithuania’s capital of Vilnius. Lithuania is worried, Belarus’ Foreign Affairs Ministry is circling the wagons, and Ostrovets residents keep collecting signatures for a petition to stop the project. All the while, the Belarusian KGB – still very much alive in this former Soviet republic,– is calling activists in for questioning, and the propaganda machine of the country’s nuclear establishment is painting anti-nuclear protesters as members of sex minorities, quite a stigma in a country viewed widely as one of the Eastern European states with the worst human rights record.

Initially, several sites were proposed to host the envisioned nuclear power plant in Belarus (the country which bore the brunt of the nuclear fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster) The choice was between the regions surrounding such Belarusian cities as Mogilyov, Vitebsk, and Grodno.

Last January, reports appeared in Belarus’ official media outlets that the choice had finally been made. The NPP is supposed to be built near the village of Mikhalishki in the Ostrovets District of the Grodno Region. However, as activists with an organization called The Anti-Nuclear Campaign of Belarus found out, no final decision had actually been settled upon: There was only a recommendation made by a certain unidentified commission, and making a formal decision to place a new nuclear power plant at a particular site is a prerogative afforded only the president of the country.

No reports, meanwhile, were coming that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko had made up his mind on the future location. One guess seems appropriate that the media were either indulging in wishful thinking or simply not quite grasping the situation. It is likewise possible that the government had engaged in a disinformation offensive: Reports that a decision regarding a particular NPP location had ostensibly been made, combined with mass-scale pro-nuclear propaganda, may have been meant to spin public opinion the right way, as well as probe the likely reaction on the part of neighboring Lithuania. If the latter is true, then the idea must have been a raving success – Ostrovets residents are not exactly psyched about the prospects of living inside of a 30-kilometre NPP safety zone, whereas Lithuania has already voiced concerns over the plans of building a nuclear power plant only 50 kilometers away from its capital, Vilnius.

Indeed, Lithuania authorities are currently in the grips of citing a new nuclear plant of their own, the Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant. While the IAEA has given a nod to the project, Vilnius has a long way to go before it garners support from surrounding nations as part of its Espoo Convention obligations.

Belarusians against a nuclear power plant
As soon as Ostrovets became a hot news media item as the likeliest site for a future NPP, local residents realized there was a serious cause for worry. An obsessive NPP publicity campaign in the press pushed them enough to want to take action. In November 2008, a steering committee was put together to organize a public initiative dubbed “Ostrovets NPP is a Crime.” Indeed, locals deem it none other than an atrocity that a nuclear power plant is slated to appear near where they live.

“We have no doubt that the construction of an NPP in our region in particular, and in post-Chernobyl Belarus in general, is not just a mistake, but speaks of criminal intent which would lead to another big and irreversible tragedy transcending by far the scope of national boundaries,” a November 4th 2008, official statement signed by Ostrovets residents said. “We are extremely concerned about the possibility that an NPP would be built in our region and we are saying an unconditional ‘No’ to this lethally dangerous project.”   

KGB and local brass go to war – as they know it
The anti-nuclear initiative’s steering committee initially comprised eight people, who found themselves immediately in a harrowing tug of war with local authorities eager to exert pressure with whatever resources they had at their disposal.

“They started serving us summons to appear for questioning at the KGB, intimidating us, saying: ‘You are against the raiispolkom and the government,’” said Ivan Kruk, one of the steering committee’s members, in a conversation with Bellona Web. Kruk was referring to a raionny ispolnitelny komitet – or a regional executive committee – simply said, the local administration. The so-called raiispolkoms are among the dinosaurs of the Soviet executive nomenclature that the former Soviet republic has chosen to preserve, along with the infamous KGB, after the USSR went defunct in 1991.

“The raiispolkom is carrying out a personal campaign against me; just recently they disseminated bogus flyers around the city, supposedly written by us, stating that we were from the Gay Party,” said Kruk. He showed the falsified leaflet. One is positively envious of the creativity with which the Belarusian pro-nuclear camp is conducting its warfare: The pamphlet is supplied with a duplicate signature of Kruk and that of another anti-NPP crusader, possibly reproduced with the help of one of the real statements distributed earlier by the activists.

The text itself is a brainwashing rarity: “We, members of the Unified Gay Party, urge all gays, transvestites, and representatives of other sexual minorities to support our picket against the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Ostrovets District. Screw eating two-tailed fish and three-headed cows! We are for the two-assed!”

It’s unlikely that such a spin could hurt the activists in any significant way: Kruk is a well-known member of the Ostrovets community, a pensioner, and himself a retired law enforcement professional – a former investigator. Slapping a “gay label” on a person like that simply would not work, notwithstanding whether this should at all matter. “It’s ok, we’ll get through this,” Kruk said, laughing. “We knew what we were stepping into.” He said, however, that he had filed a complaint with the local prosecutor’s office demanding to conduct an inquiry into the dissemination of falsified pamphlets bearing his name and to find and punish those responsible for it. There is, though, little trust in that law and order will prevail in this instance.

The sheer course of action undertaken by the NPP proponents is, in any case, astounding: Instead of arguing the issue at hand, they choose to portray the opposition as gays and transvestites. The very idea that it might help to resort to inciting homophobic sentiments in order to promote a nuclear power plant is plain despicable. Too bad that its perpetrators will likely remain unknown.

The signature collection campaign
Just how heart-felt the refusal to have a dangerous site in their backyard is on the part of Ostrovets residents is evidenced by the fact that even after the various attempts by the local authorities to thwart the anti-nuclear activities, after the KGB summons, and after the appearance of the fake leaflets with insulting innuendoes, the Anti-Nuclear Steering Committee is still holding together. Quite the opposite of giving in to the pressure, it keeps attracting new supporters. “Our core group now numbers around 15 people. But we are denied making statements in local newspapers, or taking part in meetings with workforce collectives where the authorities are agitating for the NPP,” said Kruk.

As arguments against the NPP, the statement lists the threat of an accident or a disaster prompted by an operational failure at the plant, a possible increase in cancer incidence caused by so-called “sanctioned” radiation discharges that a nuclear power plant releases even in the course of routine operation, the risk of another violent earthquake of the scale of the 1909 disaster (the 7.0 magnitude quake of 1909 was the strongest ever recorded in Belarus), and the dominant western winds, which would carry the radioactive fallout all over the country should an accident in fact take place.

The signature campaign and the vigorous anti-NPP activities in Ostrovets are something that is really putting the authorities on the spot: Official claims that Belarusians have long put Chernobyl behind them, made peace with the tragedy, and are in full support of the construction of a dangerous energy site, sound anything but credible.

The open statement is addressed to President Lukashenko, Prime Minister Sergei Sidorsky, European Union member countries, and a range of media outlets. A reaction has yet to come from the Belarusian government, but Lithuania has already stated it is bothered with the prospect of the new NPP operating in close proximity to its capital city.

On January 21, the Environment Committee of the Lithuanian Parliament, the Seimas, held a meeting to discuss, among other items on the agenda, the issues associated with Belarus’ plans to build its new nuclear power plant near the Lithuanian border. After brief reports by representatives of the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of the Environment, Belarusian ecologist Yuras Meleshkevich – an envoy sent by Ostrovets residents to speak at the meeting – distributed copies of the open statement protesting the construction, complete with the 270 signatures that activists had by then collected in the district.

A press release published by The Anti-Nuclear Campaign of Belarus said at the time: “Residents of the Ostrovets District are voicing their objection that the decision-making on the placement of the new plant has been carried out without their participation. They are continuing to collect signatures to defend their right to a favorable environment.” “The local population in the Ostrovets District is very worried about the choice of site for the NPP construction, as this is an area of rich and beautiful nature, which attracts people for open-air pastime and recreation,” said Meleshkevich as he handed copies of the Ostrovets statement to the Seimas members. The statement said, in particular: “We are appealing to all citizens of the Republic of Belarus and to the European community with one request – to stop the implementation of the ‘Ostrovets NPP’ project.”

After the statement had been presented, Environment Committee chair Jonas Siměnas said: “The information we have received from our Belarusian colleagues warrants careful examination. We will analyze the materials at hand and review this issue.”

How viable is the project anyway?
Earlier official reports pegged the start of the construction at 2009. The first reactor block of the new nuclear power plant is projected to begin operation in 2016, and the next one in 2018. Even if the assumption that the choice has in fact been made to locate the plant in Ostrovets is true – there is, as yet, no confirmation from President Lukashenko, which means that the decision still awaits formal approval – one complication remains that Belarus, for now, lacks fundamental components that a project of this scale requires.

The government has yet to select an equipment supplier or even to announce a tender or any alternative procedure to choose one. The state is likewise hard-pressed to secure enough funds to finance construction works. The costs of building a nuclear power plant of a capacity of around 2 gigawatts may set the country’s budget back by as much as €5 billion to EUR €6 billion, which is no small amount.

Of course, there is always the expectation that the new NPP will be another “present” to Belarus from Russia – which may simply build the plant for its neighbor and append the construction costs to the already gigantic debt sheet run up by the Belarusian government. One should hope, however, that at the time of a raging financial and economic crisis, Russia would refrain from making such an expensive and, essentially, perilous gift.

Source:  Bellona, 16 March 2009: “Belarus, Lithuania, and a nuclear power plant in search of a solution” (slightly shortened by Nuclear Monitor).
Contact: Andrei Ozharovsky, at Bellona
E-mail: info@bellona.no
Web: www.bellona.org

U.K.: What's in our dump?

The operators of the Drigg national low-level waste facility have asked former workers to tell them what is buried there. In an advert in local papers LLW Repository Limited asked workers who tipped nuclear waste into the site's open trenches over a 25-year period from 1960 to try and remember what it was they dumped. The company said it did have records of what was dumped but they wanted "a clearer picture".

Cumberland News 14 February 2009

Greenpeace: illegal state aid Romania and Bulgaria.

On February 25, Greenpeace has filed complaints to the European Commission over alleged illegal state aid for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Romania and two in Bulgaria. The environmental organization argues that both countries violate EU competition rules. Jan Haverkamp, EU energy campaigner for Greenpeace, said: "We have been investigating for many months the unfair competition conditions that have been granted to the nuclear sector in Romania and Bulgaria. We have now submitted the evidence we have collected to the European Commission, and are calling for urgent action to correct these flagrant market distortions."

The Romanian government earmarked 220 million Euro for the Cernavoda 3 and 4 nuclear power plant. On top of this, the state spent EUR350 million in taxpayers´ money for the purchase of heavy water for the new power station, as well as EUR800 million to increase the capital of state utility S.N. Nuclearelectrica - S.A., with the purpose of supporting its financial contributions to the project.

The Bulgarian government has invested 300 million Bulgarian Leva (154 million Euro) in state utility NEK for the construction of the Belene nuclear power station, as well as another 400 million Leva (205 million Euro) in NEK's parent holding BEH, partly also meant for Belene. According to Greenpeace, all of these investments are in violation of EU competition law.

Press release, Greenpeace EU Unit, 25 February 2009

EDF debt increased to nearly 25 billion Euro.

French energy group and the world’s biggest operator of nuclear power stations, EDF could be forced to sell some of its power stations in France to help to fund its £12.2 billion acquisition of Britain’s nuclear industry. EDF shocked investors by unveiling a fall of nearly 40 per cent in annual profits (slipped to 3.54 billion euro in 2008, compared with 5.6 billion Euro in 2007) and warning that its debt pile had increased to nearly €25 billion (US$ 32 billion) after a string of acquisitions, including those of British Energy and America’s Constellation Energy.

EDF, which is 85 % owned by the French State, is aiming to cut its debt by at least 5 billion Euro by the end of 2010 and much of this would be achieved through asset sales. A number of foreign energy companies, including Enel, of Italy, have previously expressed an interest in entering the French power market.

The Times (U.K.), 13 february 2009

GDF Suez pulls out of Belene!

An important victory and another sign that the Belene project is too risky! French utility GDF Suez has decided to pull out of Bulgaria's planned nuclear plant of Belene. GDF Suez's Belgian subsidiary Electrabel had been in talks to take part in German utility RWE's 49-percent stake in Bulgaria's 4 billion Euro plant. RWE confirmed it had not reached an agreement with GDF Suez but said it would continue to develop the project as planned. "Financial, technical, economic and organization questions are in focus and safety of course comes first in all our considerations," a RWE spokesman told Reuters. Sources familiar with the Bulgarian nuclear project have said the global financial crisis and tighter liquidity have made raising funding extremely difficult and that it was likely the plant's starting date would go beyond the planned 2013-2014.

GDF Suez is focusing on its other nuclear projects, a company spokesman said. The company is trying to grab a share of the nuclear revival with plans to take part in the second and possibly the third new-generation French nuclear reactors as well as in nuclear power projects in Britain, Romania and in Abu Dhabi.

Reuters, 28 February 2009

More delays for Rokkasho.

The commercial start-up of Japan’s Rokkasho reprocessing plant has suffered a further delay. On January 30, its owner, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL), filed an application with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) to change its construction plan, pushing the scheduled completion date of the plant back to August 2009. A few years ago JNFL had planned to commence full operation of the plant in November 2007.

Groups and individuals have been campaigning against this plant ever since 1985, when Aomori Prefecture agreed to allow it to be constructed. If the Rokkasho reprocessing ever operates at full capacity, it will reprocess 800 tons of spent fuel and extract about 8 tons of plutonium per year. In the course of regular operations, when spent fuel assemblies are cut up (shearing), radioactive gases are released from the chimney stack. These include radioactive isotopes of krypton, xenon, iodine, cesium, etc.. Later in the process, other radioactive materials are released into the sea as liquid waste. These include tritium, carbon-14, iodine-129, plutonium, etc.. It is said that a reprocessing plant releases as much radioactivity in one day as a nuclear reactor releases in one year.

In addition, there are international concerns that the operation of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant will accelerate trends towards nuclear proliferation. The process used at Rokkasho will produce a 1:1 mixed oxide of plutonium and uranium. The Japanese government says that it is difficult to produce nuclear weapons from this. However, this is not true. Scientists in the US, and also the International Atomic Energy Agency, recognize that this material can readily be transformed into nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Engineering International, 18 February 2009 / Nuke Info Tokyo (CNIC)

U.K.: Leaked for 14 years.

Radioactive waste leaked from a decontamination unit at the Bradwell nuclear power station for 14 years, Chelmsford Crown Court was told late January. The operators, Magnox Electric, were found guilty of allowing unauthorized disposal of radioactive waste from 1990 to 2004 when the problem was discovered. The court was told the leak was caused by poor design and no routine inspection or maintenance. Chief inspector for the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Mike Weightman, said it was not possible to "inspect or check every feature of a complex plant" but once the leak was discovered regulators took quick action.

N-base 601, 11 February 2009

Iraq takes first step to nuclear power, again….

On February 22, Iraqi Electricity Minister Karim Wahid says Baghdad is taking initial steps to construct the country's first nuclear power plant in cooperation with France. "I am willing to enter into contacts with the French nuclear agency and to start to build a nuclear power plant, because the future is nuclear," said Wahid. Iraq had sealed a contract with France to construct a nuclear reactor during Saddam Hussein's regime in 1976. The construction of the Osirak reactor however remained unfinished after Israeli warplanes bombed the facility in 1981. Tel Aviv accused the regime of building nuclear weapons. In the 1990 Iraq was accused of having a secret nuclear weapons program. Already in 1991 in the first few days of Gulf War I Iraqi nuclear energy capability (research reactor, hot-cells, etc.) was said to be destroyed by the US-led international coalition. However, in the decade that followed Iraq was still accused of having a covert nuclear program, but in search of such a program, after the Gulf War-II in 2003 nothing was found.

Press TV (Iraq), 22 February 2009 / Laka Foundation, sources 1992 & 2003

France: TV show reveals radioactive risk.

Fears that radioactive material taken from France’s old uranium mines has been used in construction have been raised by a TV documentary. According to investigators for the program Pièces à Conviction (Incriminating evidence), there are many sites where radioactive material is a potential health risk including schools, playgrounds, buildings and car parks. Very little uranium is now mined in Europe, but France carried out mining from 1945 – 2001 at 210 sites which have now been revealed by IRSN, the Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety on its website. Problems stem from millions of tons of reject rock which contained small amount of uranium which are still stocked at some of the sites along with 50 million tons of waste from extraction factories.
The documentary on France 3 also revealed that some reject rock has also been used as construction rubble in areas used by the public, that there have been some radioactive leaks into the environment from waste and that some “rehabilitated” areas where building has been taken place had been contaminated with radon. Before the program went out Areva had lodged a complaint about it with the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel concerned that its intention was to make accusations against the firm. The program makers said they had “opened a national debate on uranium waste in France”.

The Connection (Fr.), 13 February 2009

Largest Pu transport ever from Europe to Japan.

Secret preparations are underway in Britain and France for shipping 1.8 tons of plutonium, the largest quantity of plutonium ever shipped by sea. The plutonium is contained in 65 assemblies of MOX (mixed plutonium and uranium oxide) fuel and is being shipped to Japan for use in the nuclear power plants of three Japanese electric utilities. No details have been revealed, but it is reported that the fuel will be transported by two British-flagged vessels, escorting each other.

The vessels are to depart Europe anytime on or after March 1st. Neither the hour of departure nor the maritime route to be used will be revealed before the ships depart. The United States must approve the transport plan before the shipment can proceed. The MOX fuel to be transported has been fabricated in France by Areva NC. The three possible routes for the shipment are around the Cape of Good Hope and through the South Pacific, around South America, or, through the Panama Canal.

Japanese electric utilities hope the fuel to be shipped will start its troubled MOX fuel utilization program which was to begin a decade ago in 1999. Many more shipments are scheduled to follow and could take different routes.

Green Action (Japan) Press Release 24th Feb 2009

IAEA: Syrian uranium-traces manmade.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said traces of uranium taken from the site of an alleged nuclear reactor in Syria were manmade. The report by the IAEA on the Dair Alzour site puts strong pressure on Damascus as it rejects the Syrian explanation for the presence of uranium.

The IAEA-report says that after an initial visit in June 2008, which revealed the presence of processed uranium, inspectors had not been allowed back to Dair Alzour and other sites where debris might have been stored, on the grounds they were "military installations".

IAEA denounces the Syrian government for its lack of cooperation with the agency's inquiry. "Syria has stated that the origin of the uranium particles was the missiles used to destroy the building," the IAEA report says. "The agency's current assessment is that there is a low probability that the uranium was introduced by the use of missiles as the isotopic and chemical composition and the morphology of the particles are all inconsistent with what would be expected from the use of uranium-based munitions."

The IAEA says Israel also failed to cooperate, but its findings give weight to the Israeli and US allegation that Dair Alzour was a secret reactor intended for eventual production of weapons. The report explicitly questions Syria's denials.

Circulation of the IAEA-report is restricted; it cannot be released to the public unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise. However, it can be found at: http://isis-online.org/publications/syria/IAEA_Report_Syria_Feb_2009.pdf

Guardian, 19 February 2009