Australia: N-waste on aboriginal land?
(June 21, 2007) Aboriginal elders in a remote Northern Territory community have accepted A$12 million (US$9.3 or Euro 6.9 million) for allowing Australia's first national nuclear waste dump to be built on their land, for the coming 200 years. But the secretly negotiated deal has bitterly divided traditional owners of the 2241- square-kilometer Muckaty Station, where the Federal Government may build a dump storing 5000 cubic meters of nuclear waste. The Federal Government had previously announced that the dump would be built on one of three Defense-owned sites in the Territory after the South Australian Government scuttled plans to build it at Woomera.
Bindi Jakamarra Martin, a Warlmanpa man from the Ngapa clan, said building the dump on a 1.5-square-kilometre site 120 kilometers north of Tennant Creek would "poison our beautiful land" and "change our dreamings". "Our dreamings cross right into that land where they want to put that dump," he said.
Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation said: "The Muckaty site was not selected on a scientific basis. The Government failed to convince Territorians that they should host a nuclear waste dump, so it introduced a law to coerce them. Now the Government is offering cash incentives with a A$12 million compensation package to Traditional Owners. Some of the most disadvantaged people in the country are being offered a pittance to host some of the most dangerous toxic waste our nation produces." Aboriginal members from across the NT are travelling to Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney to express opposition to being targeted for the Federal radioactive waste dump.
Experts will now study the sparsely vegetated site to see if it is scientifically suitable to store nuclear waste. The Muckaty deal has angered the Northern Territory Government, whose legislation against developing a dump in the territory can be overridden by Canberra. William Jakamarra Graham, a traditional owner, said: "We don't care about the money - A$12 million is nothing to us. But we care about our land and what will happen to the children of the future. We don't want to leave them a nuclear dump."
The Age (Aus), 31 May & 1 June 2007 / ACF, 25 may 2007
Browns Ferry Problems after 22 year outage.
(June 21, 2007) The recently restarted Browns Ferry 1 reactor has not have a good first few weeks. After a five-year US$1.8 billion (Euro 1.3 billion) overhaul, federal regulators gave operator Tennessee Valley Authority TVA)clearance to connect Unit 1 to the electrical grid for the first time in 22 years on May 22 (see Inbriefs, NM 656). Two days later, the reactor was shut down after a leak of 600 gallons (?600 x 3.785???liters) of non-radioactive hydraulic fluid. On June 9, at close to 80 percent power, a high water level in a "moisture separator drain tank" tripped a turbine and lead to an automatic reactor shut down, a TVA spokesman said. Two days later the start-up process started.
According to David Lochbaum, once a Browns Ferry engineer, now director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists: "What Browns Ferry Unit 1 has experienced during this restart is not uncommon for a reactor to encounter when restarting from an outage."
During the shutdown, four of the five probes that test the nuclear core retracted back into their shielded positions, but a fifth did not. Once workers noticed this failure, they manually retracted the probe, Lochbaum said. "The malfunction came from an open wire in the 'logic circuitry.' That was unrelated to the shutdown; it was something that didn't perform as it's designed", the TVA spokesman said.
Times Daily, 12 June 2007 / Nuclear Monitor 656, 18 May 2007
Taiwan shuts nuclear dump on tropical island.
(June 21, 2007) By 2016 Taiwan will shut a nuclear waste dump on Orchid Island, a 45 km2 volcanic island 65 miles (105 km) east of Taiwan. The decision should end a complex, 25-year battle between the site's operator, Taiwan Power Co., and Orchid Island natives who believe they have been poisoned. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have located nuclear dumps in far-off islands and isolated communities, "in places where the local governments can be bought off," said Athena Ronquillo-Ballesteros, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace International in Asia. The storage site contains semi-solid nuclear waste in a poorly marked former millet-growing area along the rocky coastline. That waste will move to one of three sites on Taiwan's main island. Many of the island's 3,100 aboriginal Tao people welcome the departure plan, because they suspect nuclear waste has caused an increase in stomach cancer, mutated fish caught in the Pacific Ocean and contaminated soil where they grow taro and yams. "People's lives are shorter now. Before you could be in your 90s and still working," said activist Shya Pak Kotan, 82. Protesters say they thwarted plans to expand the dump and ultimately got Taipower to agree to the relocation.
Reuters, 30 May 2007
Never-used nuclear power plant is paid for after 32 years.
(June 21, 2007) The Philippine government has finally paid off the Bataan nuclear power plant almost 32 years after work began on what became the country's biggest white elephant that never produced a single watt of electricity. One of the pet projects of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos in reaction to the 1970s energy crisis, the controversial power plant cost the Filipino taxpayer a total of P21.2 billion ($460 million or Euro 343 million at today's exchange rate) interest on a (foreign) debt of $1.06 billion (Euro 789million). In 1988 for instance the Philippines paid 350.000 (1988-) US$ a day only for interest on foreign loans for the plant.
A Marcos crony, Herminio Disini, is claimed to have earned $18mn (Euro13 million) for brokering the deal that awarded the contract to build the plant to Westinghouse, and Marcos himself is said to have received tens of millions of dollars; up to $80 million paid by Westinghouse as 'commission'.
Construction began in 1976 and was completed in 1984 at a total cost of $2.3bn (Euro 1.7bn). The plant is basically still intact, and has been up for sale for decades. Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla said given the strict requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it would be far more expensive to rehabilitate the plant than to build a new one. "Since we can't make use of it as a power plant, it might attract tourists who want to see what a nuclear power plant looks like."
The power station, 97 kilometer north of capital Manila, has been the center of controversy from the day construction began. When Marcos was overthrown in early 1986, a team of international inspectors visited the site and declared it unsafe and inoperable as it was built near major earthquake fault lines and close to the then dormant Pinatubo volcano.
Debt repayment on the plant became the country's biggest single obligation.
AFP, Manilla Standard Today, 14 June 2007 / Der Spiegel (Ger), 4 January 1988 / Int. Herald Tribune, 8 March 1986
Australia: 1980's secret enrichment program revealed.
(June 21, 2007) Australian Broadcasting Company's Investigative Unite revealed that uranium was secretly being enriched at Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor 20 years ago and that enrichment technology was secretly being developed during the mid-1980s before the program ran out of money. Senior staff at Lucas Heights say that at the time they devised a plan to continue their work even after the then-Hawke government moved to shut down the enrichment program. According to the 2004 Greenpeace Report "Secrets, Lies and Uranium Enrichment" most research about enrichment at Lucas Heights was on the classified Laser Isotope Separation. "I don't think anyone at the really high level in the Government understood what we were trying to do, to preserve this technology for the good of the country," said Dr. Clarence Hardy who worked for 20 years at Lucas Heights.
Another nuclear scientist Don Mercer, who worked on the program says the research was conducted for 'Australia's benefit'. Well, doesn't that sound familiar: "Nobody but we, understand what's good for the country".
Dr Hardy is now a director of the company Nuclear Fuel Australia Ltd (NFAL) and is planning to put a proposal to the Federal Government to build an enrichment plan in Australia.
Now Hardy thinks Urenco's National Enrichment Facility (NEF) under construction in New Mexico, USA, made a "very good reference model" for the potential future plant. NFAL is essentially repeating an exercise undertaken in 1982 by the Uranium Enrichment Group of Australia (UEGA) consortium, which Hardy was also involved in. UEGA also submitted a plan to government concerning an enrichment plant, but a change of government the next year meant an end to the project, well, officially at least.
According to ABC possible sites have already been earmarked near Brisbane and near Port Pirie in South Australia. Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he has not been approached about plans to build a commercial nuclear enrichment site in Australia, but would not rule out discussing such a proposal.
ABC News Online, 14 June 2007 / World Nuclear News, 14 June 2007
Indonesians say 'No' to nuclear plant.
(June 21, 2007) On June 12, 3,000 people took to the streets in Kudus regency, Central Java, to reject the central government's plan to build a nuclear power plant in nearby Jepara regency. The protests are supported by the Kudus local officials. "I reject the plans to develop a nuclear-based power plant. People have rejected the plan. I'll send a letter on the Kudus people's rejection of the plan to the central government," Kudus regent Muhammad Tamzil said. He said the plan was made without agreement from residents. Protest coordinator Mochammad As'ad said the nuclear power plant could have disastrous consequences. An activist from the Indonesian Forum for the Environment, Arif Zayyn, said people were protesting against the plan for several reasons, such as the country's already abundant natural resources. "Moreover, the technology to be used in this nuclear power plant is a pressurized water reactor, old reactor technology whose safety is questionable," Arif said. He said that a 1,000 megawatt-capacity nuclear power plant would need four million liters of water to cool it every minute, a demand that could threaten local marine life and the fishing industry. The central government is planning to construct the nuclear power plant in stages, to eventually produce 4,000 megawatts. The first phase of the power plant is expected to be completed in 2016 and produces 1,000 megawatts to supply Java, Bali and Madura. Apart from the massive protests in the heart of Kudus city, a similar protest was also held outside the Kudus Legislative Council building.
The Jakarta Post, 13 June 2007
Turkey: first set back to nuclear renaissance in Middle East
(June 21, 2007) On May 24, the President of the Turkish Republic vetoed a law providing the legal and financial framework for the construction and operation of nuclear plants in Turkey. Currently there are no nuclear plants in Turkey. This is a huge success in the long campaign to stop the law.
Early May the President had asked Greenpeace for a file, in which they argued how the law violates the Constitution. Motivating his veto, the President now uses Greenpeace arguments. Two of those may be noteworthy here. Greenpeace Mediterranean (GP Med) pointed out that not the plant operator but the State would pay all cost of plant decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal. Furthermore, GP Med provided evidence that the law had in fact been drafted by the Canadian nuclear plant operator AECL, as proof of an unhealthy level of control of public decision making by a private (and foreign) company. The President emphasized that involved articles indeed violate Constitution and public good.
Other Greenpeace arguments weren't explicitly used in the veto. GP warned that in case of an accident, the Paris Convention would not cover all liability. They also pointed out that the feed in tariff system for nuclear energy that the law creates is unacceptable: don't subsidize death, bring about an energy revolution. This is the first victory, having worked on this law for nearly one year. But it is not over yet. Turkey faces general election in July and it is expected the government will resend the law to the President and the President to go to the Supreme Court. If the President doesn't, opposition parties have to do so.
E-mail: GP Med, 25 May 2007
Conference "Science or fiction: Is there a future for nuclear?"
(June 21, 2007) Friends of the Earth Austria invites you to attend their conference about the relapse of the nuclear power industry. The aim of this one-day conference is to review and critically assess new concepts for fission and fusion reactors. Proponents of latest nuclear energy generating technologies will present their plans for a nuclear future and critical experts will provide counter arguments. Conference participants will gain overview of the current state of discussions regarding these technologies and will be enabled to form their own informed opinion.
Nuclear power is back on the political agenda, promising to be the answer to the new challenges of securing energy supply and fighting climate change. The problems regarding safety, nuclear waste and proliferation remain unsolved. In addition, the question surrounding the limited availability of uranium as an energy resource remains. The nuclear industry is attempting to respond to these open questions with two strategies: The 'new' reactors of Generation IV and nuclear fusion. Euratom is financing nuclear fusion and Generation IV research. Both projects have very long time horizons (25- 50/70 years) and aim to contribute to a secure and climate-friendly energy supply. Critical analyses of these visions must be carried out now. It is today that we take the decisions about the energy of the future.
Contact address: Sylvia Hermann at Global 2000 / Friends of the Earth Austria, Neustiftgasse 36 A-1070 Vienna, Austria. Tel: +43 1 812 57 30;Web: www.global2000.at
Radical ecological protest camp in Angarsk, Irkutsk (Siberia)
(June 21, 2007) The Electro-Chemical Industrial Complex of Angarsk (AEHK) was founded in 1954, close to Angarsk, 30 km (20 miles) from Irkutsk. The complex, administered by Rosatom, is involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, including processing uranium to uraniumhexafluoride (UF6), which in turn is enriched to U-235. Transport of the radioactive materials via the Trans-Siberian railway means additional risks for the people and environment. From 1996-2002 the AEHK brought in nuclear waste, claimed to be valuable raw materials, from Urenco. Currently import of new waste (to this location) is halted, but an unknown amount of already imported waste is stored on the premises of the complex. Currently plans are drafted to found an International Center for Enrichment of Uranium (MTsOU) on the AEHK complex. The main goal of this center is to answer the demand of uranium enrichment for companies abroad. Actually this means that a new storage of nuclear waste is set up on the premises of the company, but its contents are called "valuable raw-materials" in the newspeak of the nuclear industry.
Since December of 2006, three public protest meetings have taken place in Irkutsk and Angarsk. Pickets have been organized during several months in the center of Irkutsk.
An ecological protest camp to fight the project is now organised by NGOs Baikal Ecological Wave and Autonomous Action of Irkutsk. The camp will start on July 15th and it will "last until victory". You are welcome to join the camp! The organisers may not cover traveling costs, but food will be free in the camp for those who may not afford it. You're asked to bring cutlery, sleeping bag and a tent if you have one.
More information: Ecological Wave of Baikal marina@baikalwave.eu.org Autonomous Action of Irkutsk
http://avtonom.org/index.php?nid=1072
Chernobyl shelter completed
(June 21, 2007) A consortium, led by Atomstroyexport CJSC, has completed the three-year stabilisation project at Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, and as a result, the stability of the "sarcophagus" has been significantly enhanced, while the life of the plant has been prolonged for 10-15 years. This project is a temporary measure before the construction of a new safe confinement.
Nuclear Engineering International, 27 May 2007
France: One-day strike in nuclear power plants.
(June 21, 2007) On June 7, workers of the 19 french nuclear power stations answered a call of the CGT (Confederation du travail) to have a one-day strike. They protested the working circumstances as well as the 'dismissal plan' of the EdF with the liberalisation of energy in view. More than 200 people went to the headquarters of the EdF in Paris. A delegation was received by the directorate to open negociations on the wages, employment and working circumstances. After 2 hours of deliberations, the CGT stated their disppointment. They didn't receive any positive reaction.
According to Jean-Luc Sylvain of the CGT, the financial pressures starting after the launch, in 2004 of a new entreprise program called 'Altitude', are connected to the increase of psycho-social illnesses after several recent suicides of employees: "the directorate installed an Alert and Hearing Instance but only the consequences of the discomfort are treated and not the causes".
AFP, 8 June 2007