Friday, August 8, 2008

Iran nuclear plant to begin work soon

Iran nuclear plant to begin work soon
Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:25:34 GMT
Bushehr nuclear plant
Iran expects to witness its first Russian-built nuclear power plant come on stream in early 2009 in its southern port city of Bushehr.

Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh said the initial launch of the power plant should take place in the current Iranian calendar year, which ends on March 20, 2009.

"We expect that Russia will fulfill its commitment and launch the power plant," Aqazadeh told ISNA in an exclusive interview on Friday.

In January 1995, Iran and Russia signed an $800 million contract that committed Moscow to completing one of the two nuclear reactors in Bushehr within four years.

Atomstroiexport, the Russian subcontractor helping to build the plant, has delayed the construction by more than a decade.

Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah said late last month that the 1000-megawat power plant would be operational 'within a year'.

"Had the nuclear plant been launched, we could have reduced the level of the electricity shortage we faced in Iran this year by nearly 50 percent," Fattah added.

The news comes as the Islamic Republic suffers from daily power outages because of a dramatic drop in rainfall in the current Iranian calendar year.

The shortage in electricity has forced Iran's Energy Ministry to adopt a rationing program by scheduling power outages across both urban and rural areas in the country. Each area sees electricity cut for up to four hours a day.

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:25:34 GMT
Bushehr nuclear plant
Iran expects to witness its first Russian-built nuclear power plant come on stream in early 2009 in its southern port city of Bushehr.

Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh said the initial launch of the power plant should take place in the current Iranian calendar year, which ends on March 20, 2009.

"We expect that Russia will fulfill its commitment and launch the power plant," Aqazadeh told ISNA in an exclusive interview on Friday.

In January 1995, Iran and Russia signed an $800 million contract that committed Moscow to completing one of the two nuclear reactors in Bushehr within four years.

Atomstroiexport, the Russian subcontractor helping to build the plant, has delayed the construction by more than a decade.

Iranian Energy Minister Parviz Fattah said late last month that the 1000-megawat power plant would be operational 'within a year'.

"Had the nuclear plant been launched, we could have reduced the level of the electricity shortage we faced in Iran this year by nearly 50 percent," Fattah added.

The news comes as the Islamic Republic suffers from daily power outages because of a dramatic drop in rainfall in the current Iranian calendar year.

The shortage in electricity has forced Iran's Energy Ministry to adopt a rationing program by scheduling power outages across both urban and rural areas in the country. Each area sees electricity cut for up to four hours a day.


Government officials seek response plan to radioactive leak


Despite this government officials like acting Governor Mike Cruz, Speaker Judi Won Pat, and Senator Frank Blas Junior met today as they believe the leakage stresses the need for an independent process and protocol to monitor the leakage of waste in Apra Harbor and future leaks.

As we reported Senator B.J. Cruz recently introduced Bill 349 that seeks to appropriate $100,000 to Public Health's Environmental Health Division to conduct an independent investigation and study of the leakage of radioactive material into Apra Harbor by the U.S. Navy. The legislation would also require a permanent monitoring device be installed at the entrance of the harbor to detect and provide early warning signs of any radioactive contaminants that may be discharged into Guam's waters.

The acting Governor and Speaker Won Pat requested Bill 349 be placed on emergency status without a public hearing as lawmakers have already agreed to act expeditiously on the legislation. Public Health and Guam EPA are currently working with their federal counterparts to address the issue.
The acting governor adds that U.S. EPA has agreed that the amount of leakage was minimal however they are questioning how the data was presented and are recommending that Guam pursue independent testing.

In light of the leak and the Navy handled the release of information, Senator Ben Pangelinan sent a letter calling for major changes at Big Navy. "I believe that the actions of the local Naval command to withhold information of the leakage of the nuclear elements into Guam waters over a two year period is inexcusable and unacceptable and as such today I am sending off a letter to the Commander of the Naval Forces in the Pacific Admiral Keating in Hawaii for the removal of the local Naval command," the Democrat lawmaker stated.

Meanwhile Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo issued the following statement: “I have been updated on the status of the U.S.S. Houston incident. I was told that the valve leakage has occurred since 2006, which extended the number of locations which were potentially impacted. The Governments of Malaysia and Republic of Singapore were also informed that the U.S.S. Houston made port calls in those countries during this period. In addition, it is believed that this small amount of weepage from the valve and the subsequent tests of Apra Harbor by the U.S. Navy indicate that the leakage of water from the submarine did not harm the environment or place the residents of Guam or crew in danger. I will continue to work to ensure the safety of the residents of Guam as well as the sailors on-board our nuclear submarine force. I have requested and will receive a more comprehensive briefing from the U.S. Department of Energy, which has shared oversight on the safe operation of the U.S. Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. I also want to further explore how this defective valve went unnoticed during previous maintenance or while the ship was in service.”

Six nuclear protesters arrested at North Anna plant visitors area

By CARLOS SANTOS
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Six anti-nuclear power protesters were arrested at the North Anna power plant's visitor center yesterday after refusing to leave at its closing time.

Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Dominion Virginia Power, said about 25 protesters showed up at the visitor's center near Mineral in Louisa County at about 2:30 p.m.

The protesters at one point sat down in the center's exhibition hall and began chanting anti-nuclear sentiments, he said.

Zuercher said Virginia Power officials spoke to the protesters and asked them to leave by 4 p.m., when the visitor center normally closes. Some refused to leave and authorities were called.

By the time State Police and Louisa County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived, only six protestors remained in the building and were arrested for trespassing. They were cheered by the crowd as they were led away, said Zuercher. No one was injured.

"Dominion recognizes the people's right to speak their mind but we don't endorse illegal activity,'' said Zuercher.

The center is about 1 mile from the company's two nuclear reactors.

The protesters align themselves with such environmental advocacy groups as Blue Ridge Earth First!, Rising Tide North America, and Nuclear Watch South, said Mary Olson, a spokeswoman for Nuclear Watch South.

Olson said the protest was held because "we're trying to show visible opposition to the revival of nuclear power. Virginia Power appears poised to build another reactor at its North Anna plant.

"Part of what we're doing is sending up flares that this is happening,'' said Olson.

"Nuclear reactors are cost prohibitive, slow to build, and have an ecological footprint that is several times larger than that of wind, solar and other efficiency technologies," she also said in a statement.

"Every dollar spent on nuclear proliferation is money lost on safer, sustainable methods of generation," she added.


Contact Carlos Santos at (434) 295-9542 or csantos@timesdispatch.com.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

No easy answers on nuclear waste

No easy answers on nuclear waste

Thursday, August 07, 2008

The facts and figures surrounding Yucca Mountain, the proposed Arizona site that would hold the nation's nuclear waste, never fail to astonish. The cost, which continues to climb with each passing year, now stands at an estimated $96 billion. And the amount of waste, which by some calculations could come in at 122,000 tons, is not easily brushed aside.

But there is one number that stands out among all the others, that forces one to take a serious step back to consider the implications of Yucca Mountain specifically and the nation's nuclear waste more generally: Some of the spent nuclear fuel will remain highly radioactive for a million years.

What we've got on our hands here is a very real - and very long-lasting - problem.

We have argued previously in this space that a rush toward Yucca Mountain may not be the wisest of choices. Imagine tons and tons of dangerous spent nuclear fuel hurtling across the nation on interstate highways and on rail lines and aboard barges, zipping through urban and suburban areas, beside rivers and lakes and municipal water supplies, through rural farmland and across bridges great and small. Then, imagine this happening year after year - without a single accident.

It's almost enough to make you think that doing nothing at all is the best choice. Until you consider what doing nothing at all actually means.

There is no easy solution to this problem. And it is not going to just go away.

Yucca Mountain is in the news again following the newest cost estimate from the Energy Department. It should remain a real part of the debate as calls for the construction of new nuclear power plants continue to mount. We are not suggesting that the reality of nuclear waste should rule out new nuke plants. But it has got to be a part of the discussion.

The nation doesn't need to come up with definitive plans tomorrow, but we shouldn't wait forever. We don't, after all, have a million years to decide on the next - and wisest - nuclear move.

UN nuclear watchdog in Tehran talks amid sanctions calls

Photo 1 of 3

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

©2008 Google - Map data ©2008 AND, Europa Technologies - Terms of Use

UN nuclear watchdog in Tehran talks amid sanctions calls

TEHRAN (AFP) — The UN atomic watchdog's number two was in Tehran on Thursday for a new round of talks on Iran's nuclear drive as Western governments said the time had come for the Security Council to impose fresh sanctions.

The two-day visit comes a day after six world powers discussed Iran's response to their latest offer to resolve the nuclear standoff, which has helped push world oil prices to record levels.

It was not clear if Heinonen's visit was directly related to the incentives being offered to Iran to freeze uranium enrichment activities, a process that Western nations fear could be diverted to build an atomic weapon.

A diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Heinonen's visit was likely to concentrate on clarifying outstanding questions the watchdog has about Iran's nuclear programme rather than the incentives offer.

Heinonen has made a series of visits to Iran as part of the agency's longstanding efforts to make sure there is no military dimension to the programme, the last on April 28.

That visit focused on studies that the IAEA suspects Iran carried out in the past into the engineering involved in making a nuclear warhead.

But a source at the Iranian atomic energy organisation insisted that these "alleged studies" would not be on the agenda of the new talks.

In his last report on Iran in May, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei accused Tehran of withholding key information on the so-called weaponisation studies.

Iran dismissed the allegations as "baseless", insisting it had provided a comprehensive response.

It has since gone further, with Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's atomic energy organisation, insisting that the alleged weaponisation studies were not a matter for the UN watchdog.

"We are dealing with it through other channels. Measures have already been taken and we will follow them up if necessary and if appropriate," Aghazadeh said last month.

On Wednesday, Britain and the United States said the six powers now had "no choice" but to seek new UN sanctions after Iran failed to give a "clear positive response" to their latest offer of trade and technology incentives in return for an enrichment freeze.

The two governments said there was now agreement among the six powers, which also include China, France, Germany and Russia, that a new sanctions resolution should be discussed at the Security Council.

The powers "have agreed that, while informal contacts between (EU foreign policy chief Javier) Solana and (Iranian negotiator Saeed) Jalili will continue, we now have no choice but to pursue further sanctions against Iran, as part of our dual-track strategy," British junior foreign minister Kim Howells said.

But Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin said he was unaware of any such consensus on sanctions.

"It may well be that in the course of those discussions some members of the six raised the issue of the sanctions," Churkin said. "But to the best of my knowledge there has been no firm agreement or understanding or concerted work in this regard."

Churkin said that the Group of Eight wealthy industrialised countries would discuss the issue of whether to seek further sanctions at a ministerial meeting next month.

He added that ministerial talks by six major powers on a new round of sanctions were likely to continue during the UN General Assembly session scheduled from September 23 to October 1.

"The main thing to remember is the negotiating track is open... There are contacts between the parties... We need to focus very much on the negotiating opportunities which this may produce," Churkin said.

The Security Council has already ordered three rounds of sanctions against Iran over its defiance.

The United States and its allies say Iran's nuclear programme could be a cover to develop atomic weapons and Washington has never ruled out military action over the standoff.

But Iran insists that as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has the right to develop nuclear technology which it says is aimed at generating electricity for its growing population.