Yahoo News: Iran confirms unloading fuel from Bushehr reactor
TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iran confirmed on Saturday it was having to remove nuclear fuel from the reactor of its only nuclear power station, signaling more problems for the Russian-built Bushehr plant after decades of delay.
Iran's nuclear envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh told the ISNA news agency Russian engineers who built the plant on Iran's Gulf coast had advised that the fuel be unloaded for tests. The plant's head said it was being removed for safety reasons.
"Based on Russia's request to run tests and technical measures, the fuel will be unloaded from the core of the reactor and will be returned to it after completion of the tests," Soltanieh said.
A source close to the project said the fuel was being unloaded on the suspicion that metal particles from nearly 30-year old equipment used in the construction of reactor core had contaminated the fuel.
"We're talking about particles of about 3 millimeters in size," said the source speaking on the condition of anonymity.
"Some of the equipment used in the construction has been sitting around for 30 years. The fuel has to be unloaded and examined to make sure no metal particles have gotten into it."
The fuel could take six days to unload, he said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which mentioned the fuel problem in a confidential report seen by Reuters on Friday, would supervise the unloading procedure, Soltanieh said.
A senior Iranian official said earlier this month that suggestions should be investigated that the Stuxnet computer worm, believed to have been an attempt by Iran's enemies to sabotage the nuclear program, had caused harm to the 1,000 megawatt Bushehr reactor.
That was after Russia's NATO ambassador said the computer virus could have triggered a nuclear disaster on the scale of the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union.
RUSSIA BLAMED
"Safety is paramount and has the priority over speed for the start-up of this power plant," Bushehr's manager, Hossein Derakhshandeh, told the official IRNA news agency.
Iran's ambassador to Russia, Reza Sajadi, was quoted as saying the decision to open the reactor door had nothing to with the Stuxnet virus.
"All is being done solely with the goal of making final checks," he told the semi-official Mehr news agency.
Bushehr was started by Germany's Siemens in the 1970s, before Iran's Islamic revolution and has been dogged by delays. Fuel was loaded into the reactor four months ago but a January deadline for it to start producing electricity was missed.
Further delays could be an embarrassment not only to Iranian politicians who have made Bushehr the showpiece of Tehran's peaceful nuclear ambitions, but also for Russia which would like to export more of its nuclear know-how to emerging economies.
Hamid-Reza Katouzian, head of Iran's parliament's energy committee, blamed Russia for the delays. "The Russians' repeated breach of promise and irresponsibility in the Bushehr project continue unabated," he told Sharq daily.
"Although Iran has spent one and half times more than it should have on the Bushehr power plant, there is still no news of the commissioning of the plant and its power generation."
Iran is under international sanctions due to fears its nuclear program is aimed at making atomic weapons, something it denies.
Experts say that firing up the $1-billion Bushehr plant will not take Iran any closer to building a nuclear bomb since Russia will supply the enriched uranium for the reactor and take away spent fuel that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
House cuts key program to keep nuclear weapons from terrorists
The Hill: House cuts key program to keep nuclear weapons from terrorists
The House of Representatives has made brutal cuts to key national security programs designed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The cuts are outlined in a continuing resolution bill passed by the House on February 19 to fund the federal government from March 4 through the end of FY 2011 on 30 September.
The Continuing Resolution would cut more than $600 million from President Obama’s request of $2.7 billion to secure and safeguard nuclear weapons and materials across the globe. The programs funded by this request are part of a high priority effort to keep nuclear weapons and materials away from terrorists, and have long enjoyed bipartisan support. The proposed cuts deny the importance of these programs for national security.
Along with the President, experts agree that limiting access to vulnerable nuclear weapons-usable materials greatly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism. If terrorists acquire highly enriched uranium or plutonium, they will be able to produce a nuclear explosive device. The global financial cost and terrible destruction of a nuclear terrorist attack would dwarf the costs of preventing such an attack.
The Nuclear National Security Administration’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative is the program that is likely to be the most affected by the House budget cuts. This program works to secure nuclear materials around the world and prevent these materials from being stolen by terrorists. It was slated to receive nearly $560 million in fiscal year 2011, a needed $225 million boost from fiscal 2010; but the Continuing Resolution eliminates that increase.
To date, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative has made considerable progress in reducing and removing highly enriched uranium, a building block to produce nuclear weapons, from Russia, Serbia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Mexico.
Since April 2009, six countries have given up their highly enriched uranium and a total of 120 bombs’ worth of nuclear material has been secured. At the close of 2010, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that 111 pounds of highly enriched uranium were removed from three sites in Ukraine alone.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission responsible for investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11th warned that, “The greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world’s most dangerous terrorists acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
The Commission also found that Al-Qaeda had been working diligently for a decade to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and determined that the United States would most certainly become a prime target if they succeed.
During the first presidential debate in 2004, President Bush and Senator John Kerry agreed – as stated by the president – that, “The single, largest threat to American national security today is nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist network.”
More recently, the U.S. government’s National Security Strategy stated that, “There is no greater threat to the American people than weapons of mass destruction, particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists.”
The fight against nuclear terrorism is a fight that can and must be won.
Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity to reverse these reductions and protect vital national security programs when it considers the same bill in March. The Senate should shelter the non-proliferation budget from the House’s draconian cuts. At a minimum, Senate Republicans, who have been very supportive of non-proliferation programs in the past, should rein in their House brethren and act more responsibly to protect American national security.
Dealing with the federal budget deficit is a national priority and critical to the future of the United States, but the cost of reducing the deficit should not leave American cities vulnerable to nuclear devastation. The House actions must be undone.
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (Ret.) is currently the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC where he works on nuclear arms control and nuclear non-proliferation issues.
The House of Representatives has made brutal cuts to key national security programs designed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The cuts are outlined in a continuing resolution bill passed by the House on February 19 to fund the federal government from March 4 through the end of FY 2011 on 30 September.
The Continuing Resolution would cut more than $600 million from President Obama’s request of $2.7 billion to secure and safeguard nuclear weapons and materials across the globe. The programs funded by this request are part of a high priority effort to keep nuclear weapons and materials away from terrorists, and have long enjoyed bipartisan support. The proposed cuts deny the importance of these programs for national security.
Along with the President, experts agree that limiting access to vulnerable nuclear weapons-usable materials greatly reduces the threat of nuclear terrorism. If terrorists acquire highly enriched uranium or plutonium, they will be able to produce a nuclear explosive device. The global financial cost and terrible destruction of a nuclear terrorist attack would dwarf the costs of preventing such an attack.
The Nuclear National Security Administration’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative is the program that is likely to be the most affected by the House budget cuts. This program works to secure nuclear materials around the world and prevent these materials from being stolen by terrorists. It was slated to receive nearly $560 million in fiscal year 2011, a needed $225 million boost from fiscal 2010; but the Continuing Resolution eliminates that increase.
To date, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative has made considerable progress in reducing and removing highly enriched uranium, a building block to produce nuclear weapons, from Russia, Serbia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Mexico.
Since April 2009, six countries have given up their highly enriched uranium and a total of 120 bombs’ worth of nuclear material has been secured. At the close of 2010, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that 111 pounds of highly enriched uranium were removed from three sites in Ukraine alone.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission responsible for investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11th warned that, “The greatest danger of another catastrophic attack in the United States will materialize if the world’s most dangerous terrorists acquire the world’s most dangerous weapons.”
The Commission also found that Al-Qaeda had been working diligently for a decade to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and determined that the United States would most certainly become a prime target if they succeed.
During the first presidential debate in 2004, President Bush and Senator John Kerry agreed – as stated by the president – that, “The single, largest threat to American national security today is nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist network.”
More recently, the U.S. government’s National Security Strategy stated that, “There is no greater threat to the American people than weapons of mass destruction, particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists.”
The fight against nuclear terrorism is a fight that can and must be won.
Fortunately, the Senate has an opportunity to reverse these reductions and protect vital national security programs when it considers the same bill in March. The Senate should shelter the non-proliferation budget from the House’s draconian cuts. At a minimum, Senate Republicans, who have been very supportive of non-proliferation programs in the past, should rein in their House brethren and act more responsibly to protect American national security.
Dealing with the federal budget deficit is a national priority and critical to the future of the United States, but the cost of reducing the deficit should not leave American cities vulnerable to nuclear devastation. The House actions must be undone.
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (Ret.) is currently the Senior Military Fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, DC where he works on nuclear arms control and nuclear non-proliferation issues.
Iran adding advanced equipment to uranium plant, U.N. nuclear watchdog says
The Washington Post: Iran adding advanced equipment to uranium plant, U.N. nuclear watchdog says
Iran appears to be preparing to dramatically scale up its production of enriched uranium, according to a new U.N. report that says Iranian scientists have moved to install advanced equipment at the country's main nuclear complex.
The report, released Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, also includes fresh evidence that Iran has overcome the damage inflicted to its existing uranium plant by apparent cyberattacks in the last two years. The nuclear watchdog said Iran was boosting its enriched-uranium stockpile at a steady or slightly higher rate compared with production before the attack.
The report sharply criticized Iran for failing to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear agency, which for two years has been stymied in its efforts to investigate alleged nuclear weapons research by Iranian scientists. The stonewalling has made it impossible to "provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," the agency said in its report, a confidential summary of recent findings on Iran prepared for a meeting next month of the IAEA's board of governors.
Iran's uranium plant at Natanz uses thousands of machines called centrifuges to make enriched uranium, and until now its has relied on an older model that uses 1950s technology. But for the first time, Iran has formally notified the IAEA that it will soon introduce two new kinds of centrifuges into its main production line, the report said.
The machines, called IR2s and IR4s, are far more efficient than the IR1s that Iran now uses, said David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
"These are fairly advanced machines, and they're planning to put them into production cascades," Albright said. The new machines could allow Iran not only to enrich more uranium faster but also to operate smaller uranium facilities that might be easier to hide from satellites and spies, he said.
The IAEA report showed Iran producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of about 300 pounds a month, slightly higher than last fall. Weapons experts say the steady production shows Iran has been largely successful in containing the damage caused by Stuxnet, a computer worm that Iranian officials acknowledge penetrated the plant's computer system in late 2009 and early 2010.
Iran is believed to have lost roughly a tenth of its centrifuge machines because of the cyberattacks, but its scientists have managed to replace the tainted equipment.
The underground plant at Natanz has produced nearly 31/2 tons of low-enriched uranium, which Iran says it plans to convert into fuel for its nuclear power plant. The uranium could also make at least two nuclear bombs, if Iran were to process it further.
Iran appears to be preparing to dramatically scale up its production of enriched uranium, according to a new U.N. report that says Iranian scientists have moved to install advanced equipment at the country's main nuclear complex.
The report, released Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, also includes fresh evidence that Iran has overcome the damage inflicted to its existing uranium plant by apparent cyberattacks in the last two years. The nuclear watchdog said Iran was boosting its enriched-uranium stockpile at a steady or slightly higher rate compared with production before the attack.
The report sharply criticized Iran for failing to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear agency, which for two years has been stymied in its efforts to investigate alleged nuclear weapons research by Iranian scientists. The stonewalling has made it impossible to "provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," the agency said in its report, a confidential summary of recent findings on Iran prepared for a meeting next month of the IAEA's board of governors.
Iran's uranium plant at Natanz uses thousands of machines called centrifuges to make enriched uranium, and until now its has relied on an older model that uses 1950s technology. But for the first time, Iran has formally notified the IAEA that it will soon introduce two new kinds of centrifuges into its main production line, the report said.
The machines, called IR2s and IR4s, are far more efficient than the IR1s that Iran now uses, said David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
"These are fairly advanced machines, and they're planning to put them into production cascades," Albright said. The new machines could allow Iran not only to enrich more uranium faster but also to operate smaller uranium facilities that might be easier to hide from satellites and spies, he said.
The IAEA report showed Iran producing low-enriched uranium at a rate of about 300 pounds a month, slightly higher than last fall. Weapons experts say the steady production shows Iran has been largely successful in containing the damage caused by Stuxnet, a computer worm that Iranian officials acknowledge penetrated the plant's computer system in late 2009 and early 2010.
Iran is believed to have lost roughly a tenth of its centrifuge machines because of the cyberattacks, but its scientists have managed to replace the tainted equipment.
The underground plant at Natanz has produced nearly 31/2 tons of low-enriched uranium, which Iran says it plans to convert into fuel for its nuclear power plant. The uranium could also make at least two nuclear bombs, if Iran were to process it further.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Peres: All of Europe under nuclear threat
YNetNews.com, Israel: Peres: All of Europe under nuclear threat
President Shimon Peres warned against the Iranian nuclear threat Wednesday, also inveighing against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi amid bloody protests signifying the possible overturning of his regime.
In a speech Peres gave before senior journalists and diplomats in Spain, Peres said Gaddafi was concerned only for himself. "You can see by his outfits how much he spends on clothing rather than on people," he said.
On the rapidly spreading protests in Arab states Peres said, "Israel supports the strengthening of democracy and peace in the Middle East. The youth of the region demand freedom, equal opportunities, and the right to live decently and we applaud this."
He added that the recent developments in the region provide both Israel and the Palestinians with an opportunity to return to direct negotiations. "The gaps between the sides are not too big," Peres said.
Peres also offered a calmer reaction than other Israeli officials to the passing of Iranian ships through the Suez Canal Tuesday.
"The Iranian ships are a cheap provocation and not a threat," he said. However, he also had a warning for European countries regarding the Islamic Republic. "You are sleeping. One day you will wake up with nuclear warheads pointed at Madrid," he said.
"The real threat stands as a clear warning sign to Europe and the entire world: Iran is developing nuclear weapons for mass destruction, and when nuclear weapons reach the hands of terror organizations, Iran's satellites, all of Europe's capitals will be under existential threat," Peres warned.
"Leaders who have their pictures taken beside Ahmadinejad should be ashamed, and he must not be invited to march on the UN's red carpets."
Peres added that the Iranian threat encompasses all of Europe. "Spain has suffered very serious terror attacks, and this will be the fate of many countries in the world if drastic measures are not taken against Iran," he said.
The president also joked that he was "disappointed" at the warm welcome he received in Spain, explaining that he was accustomed to be received with protests and threats.
President Shimon Peres warned against the Iranian nuclear threat Wednesday, also inveighing against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi amid bloody protests signifying the possible overturning of his regime.
In a speech Peres gave before senior journalists and diplomats in Spain, Peres said Gaddafi was concerned only for himself. "You can see by his outfits how much he spends on clothing rather than on people," he said.
On the rapidly spreading protests in Arab states Peres said, "Israel supports the strengthening of democracy and peace in the Middle East. The youth of the region demand freedom, equal opportunities, and the right to live decently and we applaud this."
He added that the recent developments in the region provide both Israel and the Palestinians with an opportunity to return to direct negotiations. "The gaps between the sides are not too big," Peres said.
Peres also offered a calmer reaction than other Israeli officials to the passing of Iranian ships through the Suez Canal Tuesday.
"The Iranian ships are a cheap provocation and not a threat," he said. However, he also had a warning for European countries regarding the Islamic Republic. "You are sleeping. One day you will wake up with nuclear warheads pointed at Madrid," he said.
"The real threat stands as a clear warning sign to Europe and the entire world: Iran is developing nuclear weapons for mass destruction, and when nuclear weapons reach the hands of terror organizations, Iran's satellites, all of Europe's capitals will be under existential threat," Peres warned.
"Leaders who have their pictures taken beside Ahmadinejad should be ashamed, and he must not be invited to march on the UN's red carpets."
Peres added that the Iranian threat encompasses all of Europe. "Spain has suffered very serious terror attacks, and this will be the fate of many countries in the world if drastic measures are not taken against Iran," he said.
The president also joked that he was "disappointed" at the warm welcome he received in Spain, explaining that he was accustomed to be received with protests and threats.
China to Press For North Korea Nuclear Talks
NTI: China to Press For North Korea Nuclear Talks
China intends to push for restarting the long-stalled six-nation negotiations aimed at shuttering North Korea's nuclear program, Beijing's top diplomat said today (see GSN, Feb. 22).
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi offered his comments ahead of a meeting in Seoul with his South Korean counterpart, Kim Sung-hwan, Agence France-Presse reported.
Beijing wants the nuclear talks to begin soon "to realize denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and normalization of relations between related countries," Yang said.
China hosts the talks, which also involve Japan, Russia, the United States and both Koreas. The diplomatic aid-for-denuclearization effort over several years made some progress in closing North Korea's atomic operations. However, the talks were last held in December 2008; Pyongyang has since conducted its second nuclear test and unveiled a previously secret uranium enrichment plant. It is also suspected of sinking a South Korean warship last March and in November shelled the South's Yeonpyeong Island.
China is the North's leading ally. It did not criticize Pyongyang for the March and November incidents, to Seoul's aggravation, and is reportedly prepared to block the release of a U.N. report indicating that North Korean uranium enrichment operations are likely to be more expansive than revealed.
The six-party talks are the correct venue for discussing the enrichment matter, according to Beijing. Seoul, Tokyo and Washington, though, have indicated that the negotiations can resume only when North Korea demonstrates sincerity on the nuclear issue and improves relations with its neighbor (Agence France-Presse/Spacedaily, Feb. 23).
Yang and Kim did note concerns about the North Korean uranium enrichment effort, the Associated Press quoted a South Korean Foreign Ministry official as saying. The two diplomats pledged to remain in close contact on addressing the matter, the source added.
Uranium enrichment would give the regime a second route to producing nuclear-weapon material, alongside the program believed to have provided the North with six weapons worth of plutonium.
Yang also met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Beijing's envoy said his nation wants to see better inter-Korean relations and remains formally opposed to Pyongyang's atomic efforts, according to a statement from the president's office. Lee, in turn, requested that China be a key player in closing North Korea's nuclear sector
China intends to push for restarting the long-stalled six-nation negotiations aimed at shuttering North Korea's nuclear program, Beijing's top diplomat said today (see GSN, Feb. 22).
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi offered his comments ahead of a meeting in Seoul with his South Korean counterpart, Kim Sung-hwan, Agence France-Presse reported.
Beijing wants the nuclear talks to begin soon "to realize denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and normalization of relations between related countries," Yang said.
China hosts the talks, which also involve Japan, Russia, the United States and both Koreas. The diplomatic aid-for-denuclearization effort over several years made some progress in closing North Korea's atomic operations. However, the talks were last held in December 2008; Pyongyang has since conducted its second nuclear test and unveiled a previously secret uranium enrichment plant. It is also suspected of sinking a South Korean warship last March and in November shelled the South's Yeonpyeong Island.
China is the North's leading ally. It did not criticize Pyongyang for the March and November incidents, to Seoul's aggravation, and is reportedly prepared to block the release of a U.N. report indicating that North Korean uranium enrichment operations are likely to be more expansive than revealed.
The six-party talks are the correct venue for discussing the enrichment matter, according to Beijing. Seoul, Tokyo and Washington, though, have indicated that the negotiations can resume only when North Korea demonstrates sincerity on the nuclear issue and improves relations with its neighbor (Agence France-Presse/Spacedaily, Feb. 23).
Yang and Kim did note concerns about the North Korean uranium enrichment effort, the Associated Press quoted a South Korean Foreign Ministry official as saying. The two diplomats pledged to remain in close contact on addressing the matter, the source added.
Uranium enrichment would give the regime a second route to producing nuclear-weapon material, alongside the program believed to have provided the North with six weapons worth of plutonium.
Yang also met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Beijing's envoy said his nation wants to see better inter-Korean relations and remains formally opposed to Pyongyang's atomic efforts, according to a statement from the president's office. Lee, in turn, requested that China be a key player in closing North Korea's nuclear sector
Nuclear plant bill approved by Missouri House Utilities Committee
PennEnergy: Nuclear plant bill approved by Missouri House Utilities Committee
The House Utilities Committee in Missouri voted 21-2 Tuesday to approve legislation that would permit power companies to recoup costs associated with the possible development of a second nuclear power plant from consumers.
House Bill 124 would allow utilities to recover the cost of retaining an early site permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from consumers. Current estimates put costs to the average ratepayer at less than $2 per year and could not be recovered by power companies until after the permit is granted.
The legislation would also require power companies to provide detailed reports outlining all expenses related to obtaining the early site permit for review and approval by state utility regulators before costs could be added to electric rates.
The measure challenges a 1976 law that currently bars utilities from recovering costs from consumers for a new power plant until it begins producing electricity.
In November a consortium of electric power generators announced they would begin the process of securing an early site permit to possibly build a second nuclear reactor at Ameren's Callaway station in central Missouri.
Partners in the consortium include Ameren Missouri; Associated Electric Cooperative Inc.; Empire District Electric; the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives; Kansas City Power & Light; and the Missouri Public Utility Alliance.
Democratic Governor Jay Nixon has been a strong advocate of the bill, saying approval would begin the process of building a power plant in central Missouri that would create thousands of jobs.
The House Utilities Committee in Missouri voted 21-2 Tuesday to approve legislation that would permit power companies to recoup costs associated with the possible development of a second nuclear power plant from consumers.
House Bill 124 would allow utilities to recover the cost of retaining an early site permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from consumers. Current estimates put costs to the average ratepayer at less than $2 per year and could not be recovered by power companies until after the permit is granted.
The legislation would also require power companies to provide detailed reports outlining all expenses related to obtaining the early site permit for review and approval by state utility regulators before costs could be added to electric rates.
The measure challenges a 1976 law that currently bars utilities from recovering costs from consumers for a new power plant until it begins producing electricity.
In November a consortium of electric power generators announced they would begin the process of securing an early site permit to possibly build a second nuclear reactor at Ameren's Callaway station in central Missouri.
Partners in the consortium include Ameren Missouri; Associated Electric Cooperative Inc.; Empire District Electric; the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives; Kansas City Power & Light; and the Missouri Public Utility Alliance.
Democratic Governor Jay Nixon has been a strong advocate of the bill, saying approval would begin the process of building a power plant in central Missouri that would create thousands of jobs.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Budget battle over funding for nuclear weapons
The Politico: Budget battle over funding for nuclear weapons
Senate Republicans who fought hard to secure commitments for future nuclear modernization funding now find themselves at odds with House Republicans looking to cut spending.
Near the end of the last Congress in December, many Senate Republicans dug in against the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, holding out on a number of issues, including a promise from the administration to spend more than $80 billion over the next 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons program. They succeeded in landing an $84 billion commitment.
Now, Republicans in the House, eager to trim the skyrocketing federal deficit, propose to scale back funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s modernization accounts in the continuing spending resolution being debated in the House. And arms-control advocates are drubbing Republicans for being soft on terrorism because the spending bill proposes a 22 percent cut in programs that aim to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.
With Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who championed the fight for additional money to maintain the nation’s nuclear labs, retiring at the end of his term in 2013, there’s some hand-wringing about whether a dip in funding could compromise the security of the nuclear arsenal and about what will become of funding for the nuclear accounts down the road.
President Barack Obama had asked for $7 billion this fiscal year for the stockpile stewardship program that shores up aging nuclear weapons, and the continuing resolution had provided an exception to continue funding the program at the level of the president’s request. But House members, looking for savings, cut the exception in half, leaving the administration $300 million short of the president’s request. In fiscal 2012, the president is asking for even more money: $7.6 billion.
“I’m very disappointed that we’re not, in this CR, fully funding the president’s request for our nuclear complex,” said Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over nuclear weapons. “Sen. Kyl went to the floor of the Senate and fought vehemently that he wanted the administration to ante up. ... I don’t think he did that so we in the House could whack that.”
The additional money isn’t going to buy new, gee-whiz equipment, Turner said, but, rather, “this is filling in the gap of where there has been disinvestment to ensure that we can maintain our capabilities.” Often, he said, funding for nuclear modernization has gotten lost in the larger debate over massive defense funding.
Kyl isn’t the only lawmaker in Congress who will take up the mantle, Turner said, vowing to “continue to fight for it.”
But the red-hot debate over the burgeoning federal deficit that’s pushing House Republicans already is spilling over to the Senate, as well.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who worked with Kyl to secure the nuclear modernization funding, became a convert after visiting national laboratories across the country. But in a state as Republican as Tennessee, Corker is trying to show his tough-on-spending credentials.
So he’s introduced legislation to trim the deficit over 10 years — something called the Commitment to American Prosperity Act — that he says would allow a cap on government spending and still beef up nuclear modernization programs. “We need to pass spending cuts this year and pass the CAP Act,” he said.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
“Sen. [Claire] McCaskill and I have offered to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years, and I believe this is possible while maintaining our commitment to keep the American people safe and secure,” Corker said, referring to the Missouri Democrat. “I will continue working with Sen. Kyl and others to ensure we properly maintain our aging nuclear arsenal.”
John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, who tracks nuclear modernization and proliferation programs from an arms-control perspective, raised a cautionary note.
Adding the $300 million for NNSA funding this fiscal year or adding back $602 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs that also were cut in the continuing resolution stands a better chance when the CR comes to the Senate in March than it does this week in the House, Isaacs said. But in the long term, the prospects aren’t great.
On national security, he said, Republicans worked to shield many defense and security programs from budget cuts — but not the nuclear nonproliferation program.
And that, he said, is “a grave error and dangerous for American security.”
Over the next two years, Isaacs doesn’t see much changing, either.
“It’s hard to be too optimistic, given the leadership in the House,” he said. “Those in our community are going to be on the defensive, trying to fend off bad bills in the House and, depending on the Senate and the veto pen by the president, to beat back the worst of their provisions.”
Senate Republicans who fought hard to secure commitments for future nuclear modernization funding now find themselves at odds with House Republicans looking to cut spending.
Near the end of the last Congress in December, many Senate Republicans dug in against the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, holding out on a number of issues, including a promise from the administration to spend more than $80 billion over the next 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons program. They succeeded in landing an $84 billion commitment.
Now, Republicans in the House, eager to trim the skyrocketing federal deficit, propose to scale back funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s modernization accounts in the continuing spending resolution being debated in the House. And arms-control advocates are drubbing Republicans for being soft on terrorism because the spending bill proposes a 22 percent cut in programs that aim to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.
With Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who championed the fight for additional money to maintain the nation’s nuclear labs, retiring at the end of his term in 2013, there’s some hand-wringing about whether a dip in funding could compromise the security of the nuclear arsenal and about what will become of funding for the nuclear accounts down the road.
President Barack Obama had asked for $7 billion this fiscal year for the stockpile stewardship program that shores up aging nuclear weapons, and the continuing resolution had provided an exception to continue funding the program at the level of the president’s request. But House members, looking for savings, cut the exception in half, leaving the administration $300 million short of the president’s request. In fiscal 2012, the president is asking for even more money: $7.6 billion.
“I’m very disappointed that we’re not, in this CR, fully funding the president’s request for our nuclear complex,” said Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over nuclear weapons. “Sen. Kyl went to the floor of the Senate and fought vehemently that he wanted the administration to ante up. ... I don’t think he did that so we in the House could whack that.”
The additional money isn’t going to buy new, gee-whiz equipment, Turner said, but, rather, “this is filling in the gap of where there has been disinvestment to ensure that we can maintain our capabilities.” Often, he said, funding for nuclear modernization has gotten lost in the larger debate over massive defense funding.
Kyl isn’t the only lawmaker in Congress who will take up the mantle, Turner said, vowing to “continue to fight for it.”
But the red-hot debate over the burgeoning federal deficit that’s pushing House Republicans already is spilling over to the Senate, as well.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who worked with Kyl to secure the nuclear modernization funding, became a convert after visiting national laboratories across the country. But in a state as Republican as Tennessee, Corker is trying to show his tough-on-spending credentials.
So he’s introduced legislation to trim the deficit over 10 years — something called the Commitment to American Prosperity Act — that he says would allow a cap on government spending and still beef up nuclear modernization programs. “We need to pass spending cuts this year and pass the CAP Act,” he said.
Continue Reading Text Size
-+reset Listen
“Sen. [Claire] McCaskill and I have offered to force Congress to dramatically cut spending over 10 years, and I believe this is possible while maintaining our commitment to keep the American people safe and secure,” Corker said, referring to the Missouri Democrat. “I will continue working with Sen. Kyl and others to ensure we properly maintain our aging nuclear arsenal.”
John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, who tracks nuclear modernization and proliferation programs from an arms-control perspective, raised a cautionary note.
Adding the $300 million for NNSA funding this fiscal year or adding back $602 million for nuclear nonproliferation programs that also were cut in the continuing resolution stands a better chance when the CR comes to the Senate in March than it does this week in the House, Isaacs said. But in the long term, the prospects aren’t great.
On national security, he said, Republicans worked to shield many defense and security programs from budget cuts — but not the nuclear nonproliferation program.
And that, he said, is “a grave error and dangerous for American security.”
Over the next two years, Isaacs doesn’t see much changing, either.
“It’s hard to be too optimistic, given the leadership in the House,” he said. “Those in our community are going to be on the defensive, trying to fend off bad bills in the House and, depending on the Senate and the veto pen by the president, to beat back the worst of their provisions.”
Odds are Israel won't attack Iran
Foreign Policy (FP) Odds are Israel won't attack Iran
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a journalist in 2009, in reference to Iran's nuclear program. He wasn't the first or last Israeli official to use such inflammatory rhetoric. References to Iran as an existential threat or to the country's nuclear program as raising the specter of another Holocaust have been typical among Israeli officials. But on a recent research trip to Israel, we heard surprisingly little anxiety. No official spoke about a threshold beyond which Iran's program would be unstoppable -- a deadline that in the past was always one year off. And elites across the political spectrum for now favor sanctions and covert action, rather than military force, to deter Iran. As a result, the chance of Israeli strikes in the next eighteen months is very low.
So what accounts for the sea-change in the Israeli approach? Success, essentially. Iranian officials have claimed that successive rounds of international sanctions have benefitted the country by forcing it to adopt necessary economic reforms. But top Israeli officials stressed to us that sanctions are crippling Iran's economy and sparking debate about nuclear policy among the ruling elite. Likewise, the triumph of the Stuxnet computer worm -- credited with destroying 1,000 Iranian centrifuges and widely believed (though not confirmed) to be an American-Israeli creation -- and possibly other covert measures have encouraged Israeli policymakers. While officials wouldn't talk in detail, they said that Iran's nuclear program has been slowed.
Buying time is an important reason to stick with sanctions and covert action. For one, as the repercussions of ever harsher sanctions sink in, Tehran may be forced to make concessions at the negotiating table. Second, in the wake of Stuxnet, Israel is probably more optimistic about its ability to impair Iran's nuclear program over the long term. Third, an extended time horizon opens the door for domestically induced regime change in Iran -- a remote but real possibility that bears monitoring as disaffected crowds again take to the streets of Tehran.
There's probably also a public relations angle to Israel's transformed rhetoric. As some sources noted, breathless statements about existential threats and points of no return likely strengthened Iran's hand, both diplomatically and publicly. Moreover, Israeli public opinion has turned its gaze elsewhere, to what it considers the more imminent threats of Gaza, Lebanon, and Egypt.
It would be wrong to read the shift in the Israeli approach as a rejection of military action, though. While no sitting politician said so, there is a widespread belief among the country's elite that the government still considers force a viable option: Netanyahu would not stomach a nuclear Iran. But unless sanctions and covert action lose their credibility in the eyes of this (or a similarly inclined) Israeli government, strikes in the next year and a half will remain unlikely.
David Gordon is head of research at Eurasia Group. Cliff Kupchan is director of the firm's Eurasia practice.
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a journalist in 2009, in reference to Iran's nuclear program. He wasn't the first or last Israeli official to use such inflammatory rhetoric. References to Iran as an existential threat or to the country's nuclear program as raising the specter of another Holocaust have been typical among Israeli officials. But on a recent research trip to Israel, we heard surprisingly little anxiety. No official spoke about a threshold beyond which Iran's program would be unstoppable -- a deadline that in the past was always one year off. And elites across the political spectrum for now favor sanctions and covert action, rather than military force, to deter Iran. As a result, the chance of Israeli strikes in the next eighteen months is very low.
So what accounts for the sea-change in the Israeli approach? Success, essentially. Iranian officials have claimed that successive rounds of international sanctions have benefitted the country by forcing it to adopt necessary economic reforms. But top Israeli officials stressed to us that sanctions are crippling Iran's economy and sparking debate about nuclear policy among the ruling elite. Likewise, the triumph of the Stuxnet computer worm -- credited with destroying 1,000 Iranian centrifuges and widely believed (though not confirmed) to be an American-Israeli creation -- and possibly other covert measures have encouraged Israeli policymakers. While officials wouldn't talk in detail, they said that Iran's nuclear program has been slowed.
Buying time is an important reason to stick with sanctions and covert action. For one, as the repercussions of ever harsher sanctions sink in, Tehran may be forced to make concessions at the negotiating table. Second, in the wake of Stuxnet, Israel is probably more optimistic about its ability to impair Iran's nuclear program over the long term. Third, an extended time horizon opens the door for domestically induced regime change in Iran -- a remote but real possibility that bears monitoring as disaffected crowds again take to the streets of Tehran.
There's probably also a public relations angle to Israel's transformed rhetoric. As some sources noted, breathless statements about existential threats and points of no return likely strengthened Iran's hand, both diplomatically and publicly. Moreover, Israeli public opinion has turned its gaze elsewhere, to what it considers the more imminent threats of Gaza, Lebanon, and Egypt.
It would be wrong to read the shift in the Israeli approach as a rejection of military action, though. While no sitting politician said so, there is a widespread belief among the country's elite that the government still considers force a viable option: Netanyahu would not stomach a nuclear Iran. But unless sanctions and covert action lose their credibility in the eyes of this (or a similarly inclined) Israeli government, strikes in the next year and a half will remain unlikely.
David Gordon is head of research at Eurasia Group. Cliff Kupchan is director of the firm's Eurasia practice.
U.S. Nuclear 17 Feb, 2011: Output Little Changed as San Onofre Reactor Starts
Bloomberg: U.S. Nuclear Output Little Changed as San Onofre Reactor Starts
U.S. nuclear-power output was little changed after Progress Energy Inc. reduced output at the Harris 1 reactor in North Carolina and Edison International started San Onofre 3 in California, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.
Production by U.S. reactors fell 149 megawatts from yesterday to 94,230 megawatts, or 93 percent of capacity, according to a report today from the NRC and data compiled by Bloomberg. Six reactors are offline.
Edison International’s 1,080-megawatt San Onofre 3 reactor, about 4 miles (6 kilometers) southeast of San Clemente, is operating at 15 percent of capacity. It was shut Oct. 10 for maintenance including refueling and replacement of two steam generators, Gil Alexander, a company spokesman, said in a Dec. 10 e-mail.
American Electric Power Co. reduced output at its 1,009- megawatt D.C. Cook 1 reactor in Michigan to 65 percent of capacity. The unit, which was at 100 percent of capacity yesterday, is about 26 miles (42 kilometers) northwest of South Bend, Indiana.
Progress Energy reduced output at the 900-megawatt Harris 1 reactor to 63 percent of capacity from full power. The plant is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of Raleigh.
DTE Energy Co. increased output for its 1,122-megawatt Fermi 2 reactor in Michigan to 96 percent of capacity, the NRC said. The unit, which operated at 57 percent of capacity yesterday, is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Detroit.
U.S. nuclear-power output was little changed after Progress Energy Inc. reduced output at the Harris 1 reactor in North Carolina and Edison International started San Onofre 3 in California, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.
Production by U.S. reactors fell 149 megawatts from yesterday to 94,230 megawatts, or 93 percent of capacity, according to a report today from the NRC and data compiled by Bloomberg. Six reactors are offline.
Edison International’s 1,080-megawatt San Onofre 3 reactor, about 4 miles (6 kilometers) southeast of San Clemente, is operating at 15 percent of capacity. It was shut Oct. 10 for maintenance including refueling and replacement of two steam generators, Gil Alexander, a company spokesman, said in a Dec. 10 e-mail.
American Electric Power Co. reduced output at its 1,009- megawatt D.C. Cook 1 reactor in Michigan to 65 percent of capacity. The unit, which was at 100 percent of capacity yesterday, is about 26 miles (42 kilometers) northwest of South Bend, Indiana.
Progress Energy reduced output at the 900-megawatt Harris 1 reactor to 63 percent of capacity from full power. The plant is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) southwest of Raleigh.
DTE Energy Co. increased output for its 1,122-megawatt Fermi 2 reactor in Michigan to 96 percent of capacity, the NRC said. The unit, which operated at 57 percent of capacity yesterday, is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Detroit.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Officials seek to preserve Hanford history
Seattle PI: Officials seek to preserve Hanford history
RICHLAND, Wash. -- As Hanford buildings rapidly are being torn down, the Hanford Advisory Board is concerned that the artifacts that tell the story of Hanford are going with them.
The National Historic Preservation Act makes the Department of Energy responsible for preserving Hanford's historic artifacts and property, but many environmental cleanup managers are not aware of the act, said Maynard Plahuta, a member of the advisory board.
"(Artifacts) just get tossed before they know they should be preserved," he said as the board discussed the issue at its meeting Thursday and Friday in Richland.
Hanford holds a place in world history, ushering in the Atomic Age.
Its workers built the world's first production-scale nuclear plant in World War II, and Hanford plutonium was used in the first atomic explosion and in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
After the war, more than half of the nation's plutonium would be produced at nine reactors along the Columbia River, and N Reactor also would be used to produce power.
In Hanford's 300 Area, nuclear research was conducted along with fabrication of fuel for the nuclear reservation's reactors.
But "it appears very few, if any, of the artifacts from the 300 Area fuel fabrication and research and development facilities were properly saved," the board said in advice it sent Friday to DOE. "There appears to be a concentrated emphasis on demolition, while neglecting preservation considerations."
However, the board was optimistic that historic preservation is improving at Hanford.
DOE recently hired a federal archaeologist and created a senior staff position with the duty of preserving artifacts. It also has agreed to save two original Hanford locomotives and two fuel cask cars that otherwise would have ended up in the Hanford landfill, the board said.
The board also praised DOE's efforts to permanently preserve the world's first production scale reactor, B Reactor, and its support to make it part of a proposed Manhattan Project National Historic Park.
Colleen French, who was named to the position that will help protect Hanford artifacts, agreed that a DOE plan to save artifacts that was signed about 15 years ago has not been implemented as well as it should be.
Experts go through buildings before they are demolished to tag artifacts that should be preserved, Plahuta said. But some buildings, such as the Critical Mass Building, don't appear to have been on the list to have items tagged, he said. And in other cases, tags have gotten lost by the time buildings are ready to be emptied and demolished.
When contractors have pulled items out of buildings, the artifacts might have been left "to sit on the curb," French said.
But in a new program, Mission Support Alliance has started a pick-up service to respond to contractor calls and get artifacts into proper storage, she said.
DOE also is planning to build a building to store and display artifacts near the boundary of Hanford, she said. It evaluated existing buildings on site and space available to lease, but concluded none met its needs.
Now, DOE has 10,000 square feet of artifacts in storage, including 4,000 photos and 3,000 objects, she said. They should be available for the public to see and available for research, she said.
The board largely was in agreement.
"The ultimate purpose of preserving Manhattan Project and Cold War Era historical properties and artifacts is to reap the public values and educational benefits they embody," the board said in its advice. "To recover these benefits, the artifacts and properties need to be regularly viewable by and accessible to educators, researchers and members of the public to the greatest extent possible."
Putting a fence around historic property is not adequate and does not meet the intent of the law, the board said.
That needs to be considered not only with Manhattan Project and Cold War properties, but also structures left from before land was condemned and made part of the nuclear reservation, it said. The nuclear reservation's buildings include the White Bluffs Bank, the Bruggemann stone warehouse, the 1908 Hanford Irrigation Project Pump House and the Hanford High School.
The board advised DOE to expand the use of photos, virtual tours and websites to tell the story of Hanford, but cautioned that a photo does not replace an actual artifact.
Board members envision elements of buildings being saved from demolition that could be used to replicate the feeling for visitors of being in an operating Hanford production facility.
Decontaminated items might include a hallway that visitors could walk through with caution signs and decontamination wash stations, plus displays of glove boxes, air lock doors, hand and foot radiation counters, respiratory equipment, emergency switches and vault racks that once held canisters of plutonium.
RICHLAND, Wash. -- As Hanford buildings rapidly are being torn down, the Hanford Advisory Board is concerned that the artifacts that tell the story of Hanford are going with them.
The National Historic Preservation Act makes the Department of Energy responsible for preserving Hanford's historic artifacts and property, but many environmental cleanup managers are not aware of the act, said Maynard Plahuta, a member of the advisory board.
"(Artifacts) just get tossed before they know they should be preserved," he said as the board discussed the issue at its meeting Thursday and Friday in Richland.
Hanford holds a place in world history, ushering in the Atomic Age.
Its workers built the world's first production-scale nuclear plant in World War II, and Hanford plutonium was used in the first atomic explosion and in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.
After the war, more than half of the nation's plutonium would be produced at nine reactors along the Columbia River, and N Reactor also would be used to produce power.
In Hanford's 300 Area, nuclear research was conducted along with fabrication of fuel for the nuclear reservation's reactors.
But "it appears very few, if any, of the artifacts from the 300 Area fuel fabrication and research and development facilities were properly saved," the board said in advice it sent Friday to DOE. "There appears to be a concentrated emphasis on demolition, while neglecting preservation considerations."
However, the board was optimistic that historic preservation is improving at Hanford.
DOE recently hired a federal archaeologist and created a senior staff position with the duty of preserving artifacts. It also has agreed to save two original Hanford locomotives and two fuel cask cars that otherwise would have ended up in the Hanford landfill, the board said.
The board also praised DOE's efforts to permanently preserve the world's first production scale reactor, B Reactor, and its support to make it part of a proposed Manhattan Project National Historic Park.
Colleen French, who was named to the position that will help protect Hanford artifacts, agreed that a DOE plan to save artifacts that was signed about 15 years ago has not been implemented as well as it should be.
Experts go through buildings before they are demolished to tag artifacts that should be preserved, Plahuta said. But some buildings, such as the Critical Mass Building, don't appear to have been on the list to have items tagged, he said. And in other cases, tags have gotten lost by the time buildings are ready to be emptied and demolished.
When contractors have pulled items out of buildings, the artifacts might have been left "to sit on the curb," French said.
But in a new program, Mission Support Alliance has started a pick-up service to respond to contractor calls and get artifacts into proper storage, she said.
DOE also is planning to build a building to store and display artifacts near the boundary of Hanford, she said. It evaluated existing buildings on site and space available to lease, but concluded none met its needs.
Now, DOE has 10,000 square feet of artifacts in storage, including 4,000 photos and 3,000 objects, she said. They should be available for the public to see and available for research, she said.
The board largely was in agreement.
"The ultimate purpose of preserving Manhattan Project and Cold War Era historical properties and artifacts is to reap the public values and educational benefits they embody," the board said in its advice. "To recover these benefits, the artifacts and properties need to be regularly viewable by and accessible to educators, researchers and members of the public to the greatest extent possible."
Putting a fence around historic property is not adequate and does not meet the intent of the law, the board said.
That needs to be considered not only with Manhattan Project and Cold War properties, but also structures left from before land was condemned and made part of the nuclear reservation, it said. The nuclear reservation's buildings include the White Bluffs Bank, the Bruggemann stone warehouse, the 1908 Hanford Irrigation Project Pump House and the Hanford High School.
The board advised DOE to expand the use of photos, virtual tours and websites to tell the story of Hanford, but cautioned that a photo does not replace an actual artifact.
Board members envision elements of buildings being saved from demolition that could be used to replicate the feeling for visitors of being in an operating Hanford production facility.
Decontaminated items might include a hallway that visitors could walk through with caution signs and decontamination wash stations, plus displays of glove boxes, air lock doors, hand and foot radiation counters, respiratory equipment, emergency switches and vault racks that once held canisters of plutonium.
14 Feb: Egypt's Nuclear Dimension
Huffington Post: Egypt's Nuclear Dimension
This article was co-authored with Ploughshares Fund Research Assistant Reid Pauly
As a free Egypt transforms itself, analysts are nervously watching for signs of new nuclear ambitions. Concern revolves around three issues:
•There are unanswered questions about Egypt's past nuclear activities.
•Egypt has the know-how and networks necessary to ramp up its civilian nuclear power program.
•Egypt plays a central role in the global non-proliferation regime and is key to agreement to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction.
Before he became a special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn analyzed Egypt's history in The Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear Choices.
Considering the factors that have historically motivated countries to acquire nuclear weapons, one might assume that Egypt would be a likely candidate.
Egypt has a nuclear and conventionally superior neighbor, Israel, with whom it has fought territorial wars. The military is well-respected in Egyptian culture (as evidenced by the smooth transition of power from Mubarak to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). The state has trained many nuclear scientists and has a long history of nuclear research. And, as a leader of the Arab world, Egypt wants to play a prominent role in world affairs. As Einhorn observed, these are some of the tell-tale signs of nuclear ambitions.
Unanswered Questions
In 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report chastising Egypt for not disclosing a number of atomic research activities over the years. Just last year, the IAEA again launched an inquiry into the origin of highly enriched uranium particles that were detected at Egyptian research facilities in 2007 and 2008. Cairo has claimed that it had "differing interpretations" from the IAEA. But the concerns remain, especially in light of Egypt's refusal to sign the Additional Protocol--allowing for tougher inspections--until Israel accepts IAEA safeguards.
Why has Egypt never come clean about the full scope of its nuclear activities and experimentation?
Also troubling is Egypt's past chemical and biological weapons programs. Egypt used chemical weapons during the Yemen Civil War, making it one of a handful of states to have ever used them in wartime. Whatever chemical weapons it still may have are likely rusty in storage, more of an environmental danger than a military one. And there is no evidence that Egypt every constructed biological weapons, though intelligence agencies suspected research was conducted. Still, Egypt has never signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) or the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which it always links rhetorically to Israel's undisclosed nuclear weapons capabilities.
Chasing Nuclear Technology
Egyptian pursuit of nuclear technologies spans the political spectrum. The nuclear industry lobby, populist politicians distrusting Israel, Islamic fundamentalists with political ambitions, and parts of the military have flirted with nuclear weapons acquisition in the past.
In 1984, Defense Minister Abdel Halim Abu Ghazala sought President Mubarak's approval to begin a nuclear weapons program. Mubarak rebuffed him, but Ghazala began looking into nuclear material supply routes anyway and communicated with Iraqi officials about potential nuclear cooperation. When Mubarak found out, he fired Ghazala.
Wikileaks cables contained unconfirmed reports of Cairo turning down black-market offers of nuclear technology from former Soviet states in the early 1990s. In more recent days, however, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for Egypt to develop a nuclear capability that could balance the threat posed by Israel. Mubarak kept a lid on Egyptian nuclear ambitions, but they never entirely disappeared.
Recently, Egypt has begun to accelerate its civilian atomic energy program, calling for international bids to construct the first of four planned nuclear reactors. Though permitted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), this could get tricky. The Obama administration has recently weakened its stand on countries' nuclear programs. After convincing the United Arab Emirates to voluntarily foreswear any uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing capabilities (that could be used for nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs) as part of the nuclear cooperation deal struck with the United States, the administration has abandoned that principle.
In negotiations for nuclear trade deals with Vietnam, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials have put state-to-state relations and business interests above national security. They have abandoned these "gold standard" safeguards supported by proliferation experts. If Egypt goes ahead with nuclear power plans now, it could insist on the right to get these dual-use technologies, complicating a nascent regional nuclear technology race.
Global Leadership
More positively, Egyptians have played a central role in the creation and strengthening of the global non-proliferation regime. Mohamed ElBaradei, now a prominent political opposition figure in Egypt, was Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997 to 2009. Egypt was also an early supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and some Egyptians, particularly Mohamed Shaker, were instrumental in its negotiation and early implementation.
Egypt has made the creation of a Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) a central goal of its foreign policy. At the NPT Review Conference in 2010, agreement was reached only after all 187 nations agreed to the Egyptian-championed plan for a 2012 conference on the creation of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.
While all Middle Eastern nations have committed to participate, much work remains to be done to ensure that the 2012 conference is fruitful. Even before Mubarak fell, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, feared that failure to make progress "could be a catalyst for [the Egyptians] to leave the NPT." This would be a disaster, as many nations have long followed Egypt's lead on these issues.
Conclusion
Overall, nuclear watchdogs have cause for concern. Egypt has played a central role in the creation of the global non-proliferation regime and will continue to be an important U.S. ally in the pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons. As Einhorn concluded in his study:
Egyptian leaders seem to have reached the conclusion years ago that a nuclear weapons capability would undermine higher national priorities, especially peace and stability in the region, economic development, and close ties with the United States.
It would take a major change in circumstances to get Egypt to alter its long-standing posture, including the combination of a serious external threat and a substantial change in the composition and orientation of Egypt's leadership.
This, however, is exactly the situation we now confront, with the advance of an Iranian nuclear program and a peaceful revolution that has transformed the core of Egyptian politics. In the months and years ahead, the United States must ensure that Egypt's dormant nuclear ambitions stay that way.
This article was co-authored with Ploughshares Fund Research Assistant Reid Pauly
As a free Egypt transforms itself, analysts are nervously watching for signs of new nuclear ambitions. Concern revolves around three issues:
•There are unanswered questions about Egypt's past nuclear activities.
•Egypt has the know-how and networks necessary to ramp up its civilian nuclear power program.
•Egypt plays a central role in the global non-proliferation regime and is key to agreement to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction.
Before he became a special advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Robert Einhorn analyzed Egypt's history in The Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear Choices.
Considering the factors that have historically motivated countries to acquire nuclear weapons, one might assume that Egypt would be a likely candidate.
Egypt has a nuclear and conventionally superior neighbor, Israel, with whom it has fought territorial wars. The military is well-respected in Egyptian culture (as evidenced by the smooth transition of power from Mubarak to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). The state has trained many nuclear scientists and has a long history of nuclear research. And, as a leader of the Arab world, Egypt wants to play a prominent role in world affairs. As Einhorn observed, these are some of the tell-tale signs of nuclear ambitions.
Unanswered Questions
In 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report chastising Egypt for not disclosing a number of atomic research activities over the years. Just last year, the IAEA again launched an inquiry into the origin of highly enriched uranium particles that were detected at Egyptian research facilities in 2007 and 2008. Cairo has claimed that it had "differing interpretations" from the IAEA. But the concerns remain, especially in light of Egypt's refusal to sign the Additional Protocol--allowing for tougher inspections--until Israel accepts IAEA safeguards.
Why has Egypt never come clean about the full scope of its nuclear activities and experimentation?
Also troubling is Egypt's past chemical and biological weapons programs. Egypt used chemical weapons during the Yemen Civil War, making it one of a handful of states to have ever used them in wartime. Whatever chemical weapons it still may have are likely rusty in storage, more of an environmental danger than a military one. And there is no evidence that Egypt every constructed biological weapons, though intelligence agencies suspected research was conducted. Still, Egypt has never signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) or the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which it always links rhetorically to Israel's undisclosed nuclear weapons capabilities.
Chasing Nuclear Technology
Egyptian pursuit of nuclear technologies spans the political spectrum. The nuclear industry lobby, populist politicians distrusting Israel, Islamic fundamentalists with political ambitions, and parts of the military have flirted with nuclear weapons acquisition in the past.
In 1984, Defense Minister Abdel Halim Abu Ghazala sought President Mubarak's approval to begin a nuclear weapons program. Mubarak rebuffed him, but Ghazala began looking into nuclear material supply routes anyway and communicated with Iraqi officials about potential nuclear cooperation. When Mubarak found out, he fired Ghazala.
Wikileaks cables contained unconfirmed reports of Cairo turning down black-market offers of nuclear technology from former Soviet states in the early 1990s. In more recent days, however, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for Egypt to develop a nuclear capability that could balance the threat posed by Israel. Mubarak kept a lid on Egyptian nuclear ambitions, but they never entirely disappeared.
Recently, Egypt has begun to accelerate its civilian atomic energy program, calling for international bids to construct the first of four planned nuclear reactors. Though permitted under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), this could get tricky. The Obama administration has recently weakened its stand on countries' nuclear programs. After convincing the United Arab Emirates to voluntarily foreswear any uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing capabilities (that could be used for nuclear fuel or nuclear bombs) as part of the nuclear cooperation deal struck with the United States, the administration has abandoned that principle.
In negotiations for nuclear trade deals with Vietnam, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, U.S. officials have put state-to-state relations and business interests above national security. They have abandoned these "gold standard" safeguards supported by proliferation experts. If Egypt goes ahead with nuclear power plans now, it could insist on the right to get these dual-use technologies, complicating a nascent regional nuclear technology race.
Global Leadership
More positively, Egyptians have played a central role in the creation and strengthening of the global non-proliferation regime. Mohamed ElBaradei, now a prominent political opposition figure in Egypt, was Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1997 to 2009. Egypt was also an early supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and some Egyptians, particularly Mohamed Shaker, were instrumental in its negotiation and early implementation.
Egypt has made the creation of a Middle East Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) a central goal of its foreign policy. At the NPT Review Conference in 2010, agreement was reached only after all 187 nations agreed to the Egyptian-championed plan for a 2012 conference on the creation of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East.
While all Middle Eastern nations have committed to participate, much work remains to be done to ensure that the 2012 conference is fruitful. Even before Mubarak fell, David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, feared that failure to make progress "could be a catalyst for [the Egyptians] to leave the NPT." This would be a disaster, as many nations have long followed Egypt's lead on these issues.
Conclusion
Overall, nuclear watchdogs have cause for concern. Egypt has played a central role in the creation of the global non-proliferation regime and will continue to be an important U.S. ally in the pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons. As Einhorn concluded in his study:
Egyptian leaders seem to have reached the conclusion years ago that a nuclear weapons capability would undermine higher national priorities, especially peace and stability in the region, economic development, and close ties with the United States.
It would take a major change in circumstances to get Egypt to alter its long-standing posture, including the combination of a serious external threat and a substantial change in the composition and orientation of Egypt's leadership.
This, however, is exactly the situation we now confront, with the advance of an Iranian nuclear program and a peaceful revolution that has transformed the core of Egyptian politics. In the months and years ahead, the United States must ensure that Egypt's dormant nuclear ambitions stay that way.
14 Feb, 2011: Iran names new nuclear agency chief
CNN News: Iran names new nuclear agency chief
(CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday appointed Fereydoun Abbasi -- who survived an assassination attempt late last year -- as the new head of the country's Atomic Energy Organization, the state-run Press TV reported.
Abbasi, a professor at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, replaces Ali Akbar Salehi, who was appointed as foreign minister last month, Press TV reported. Ahmadinejad cited Abbasi's "commitment and past scientific and executive record," in his announcement.
In November of last year, Abbasi and fellow professor, Majid Shahriari, were attacked in separate car bombings. Shahriari was killed, but Abbasi and his wife sustained injures and were hospitalized, Press TV reported.
Abbasi will oversee a nuclear program that has drawn criticism from many other countries.
Most recently, the European Union's top diplomat expressed disappointment in January at the conclusion of two days of talks with Iran about the nuclear program, saying the six countries she represented refused to accept preconditions demanded by Tehran's delegation.
The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Russia, China, France, the United States, and Britain -- and Germany, referred to as the P5+1, came to the negotiating table with an updated proposal for a nuclear fuel swap for Tehran's research reactor, Catherine Ashton said.
Two prior nuclear fuel swap deals have collapsed after previous rounds of negotiations.
(CNN) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday appointed Fereydoun Abbasi -- who survived an assassination attempt late last year -- as the new head of the country's Atomic Energy Organization, the state-run Press TV reported.
Abbasi, a professor at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, replaces Ali Akbar Salehi, who was appointed as foreign minister last month, Press TV reported. Ahmadinejad cited Abbasi's "commitment and past scientific and executive record," in his announcement.
In November of last year, Abbasi and fellow professor, Majid Shahriari, were attacked in separate car bombings. Shahriari was killed, but Abbasi and his wife sustained injures and were hospitalized, Press TV reported.
Abbasi will oversee a nuclear program that has drawn criticism from many other countries.
Most recently, the European Union's top diplomat expressed disappointment in January at the conclusion of two days of talks with Iran about the nuclear program, saying the six countries she represented refused to accept preconditions demanded by Tehran's delegation.
The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Russia, China, France, the United States, and Britain -- and Germany, referred to as the P5+1, came to the negotiating table with an updated proposal for a nuclear fuel swap for Tehran's research reactor, Catherine Ashton said.
Two prior nuclear fuel swap deals have collapsed after previous rounds of negotiations.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
10 Feb, Hindustan TimesL: Pakistan constructing fourth nuclear reactor?
Hindustan Times: Pakistan constructing fourth nuclear reactor?
Pakistan appears to be increasing its production of nuclear materials with the apparent construction of a fourth reactor at its Khushab nuclear site, according to a US-based think tank.
Releasing satellite images from January 15, the Institute for Science and International Security said in a report Wednesday that the pictures showed the early construction of a fourth military nuclear reactor set to be the same size as two of the other buildings.
"Pakistan is determined to produce considerably more plutonium for nuclear weapons," ISIS said in its report, noting that since the announcement of its first reactor at the Khushab site in 1998, the nuclear power began constructing a second reactor around 2000-2002, and began building a third in 2006.
Pakistan has reportedly doubled its nuclear arsenal over the past several years, increasing its stocks to more than 100 deployed weapons.
Only four years ago the country's arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons, but has since stepped-up its production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
"They have been expanding pretty rapidly," ISIS president David Albright noted late last month, the Washington Post reported, with Islamabad edging ahead of its nuclear-armed rival India, estimated to have somewhere between 60 to 100 weapons.
Pakistan appears to be increasing its production of nuclear materials with the apparent construction of a fourth reactor at its Khushab nuclear site, according to a US-based think tank.
Releasing satellite images from January 15, the Institute for Science and International Security said in a report Wednesday that the pictures showed the early construction of a fourth military nuclear reactor set to be the same size as two of the other buildings.
"Pakistan is determined to produce considerably more plutonium for nuclear weapons," ISIS said in its report, noting that since the announcement of its first reactor at the Khushab site in 1998, the nuclear power began constructing a second reactor around 2000-2002, and began building a third in 2006.
Pakistan has reportedly doubled its nuclear arsenal over the past several years, increasing its stocks to more than 100 deployed weapons.
Only four years ago the country's arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons, but has since stepped-up its production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
"They have been expanding pretty rapidly," ISIS president David Albright noted late last month, the Washington Post reported, with Islamabad edging ahead of its nuclear-armed rival India, estimated to have somewhere between 60 to 100 weapons.
2 Feb, 2011: NRC seeks public comment on nuclear reactor
Miami Herald: Florida Wires: NRC seeks public comment on nuclear reactor
ATLANTA -- Federal regulators are accepting public comment on a new version of a nuclear reactor design from Westinghouse Electric Co.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Thursday that it will accept public comment for 75 days on the proposed rules for the AP1000 reactor. The public comment period will begin when the rules are formally published.
After reviewing comments, the NRC could revise the rules and decide whether to give the reactor design final approval.
The Atlanta-based Southern Co. is seeking permission from the NRC to build two of those reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro. Regulators cannot decide whether to issue the plant a final permit until the reactor design is approved.
Outside Georgia, Westinghouse has contracts to build the AP1000 in Florida and South Carolina.
ATLANTA -- Federal regulators are accepting public comment on a new version of a nuclear reactor design from Westinghouse Electric Co.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced Thursday that it will accept public comment for 75 days on the proposed rules for the AP1000 reactor. The public comment period will begin when the rules are formally published.
After reviewing comments, the NRC could revise the rules and decide whether to give the reactor design final approval.
The Atlanta-based Southern Co. is seeking permission from the NRC to build two of those reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro. Regulators cannot decide whether to issue the plant a final permit until the reactor design is approved.
Outside Georgia, Westinghouse has contracts to build the AP1000 in Florida and South Carolina.
Friday, February 4, 2011
We have never said Iran has nuclear weapon programs: Amano
Tehran Times: We have never said Iran has nuclear weapon programs: Amano
Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said the UN watchdog has “never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs.”
“We have chosen our words very carefully and we have never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs,” Amano told Reuters in his office in Vienna on Tuesday.
However, Amano said his agency has expressed “concern over some activities” in Iran.
The UN nuclear chief also said cyber attacks such as the Stuxnet computer worm could harm nuclear sites but Russia and Iran are paying “enough attention” to prevent any possible accident at Iran's Bushehr reactor.
He said the UN watchdog was watching developments and gathering information about Stuxnet with interest.
Russia has urged NATO to investigate last year's Stuxnet attack on the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran.
“Stuxnet, or cyber attack as a whole, could be quite detrimental to the safety of nuclear facilities and operations,” Amano, a soft-spoken veteran Japanese diplomat, said in an interview in his 28th-floor office in Vienna.
He acknowledged the IAEA had only limited knowledge about the computer worm, which some experts have described as a first-of-its-kind guided cyber missile.
He noted that Bushehr, which Iran says will start operating soon, had been built by Russia and would be operated by Iran.
“I think they are giving enough attention to prevent possible accidents caused by cyber attacks,” Amano said.
For now, the IAEA was not calling for any delay in the reactor's start-up of operations, he said. “Countries concerned are giving considerable attention to this issue.”
But Amano also said the IAEA was interested in holding a meeting of experts to discuss the issue of cyber attacks.
Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said the UN watchdog has “never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs.”
“We have chosen our words very carefully and we have never said that Iran has nuclear weapon programs,” Amano told Reuters in his office in Vienna on Tuesday.
However, Amano said his agency has expressed “concern over some activities” in Iran.
The UN nuclear chief also said cyber attacks such as the Stuxnet computer worm could harm nuclear sites but Russia and Iran are paying “enough attention” to prevent any possible accident at Iran's Bushehr reactor.
He said the UN watchdog was watching developments and gathering information about Stuxnet with interest.
Russia has urged NATO to investigate last year's Stuxnet attack on the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran.
“Stuxnet, or cyber attack as a whole, could be quite detrimental to the safety of nuclear facilities and operations,” Amano, a soft-spoken veteran Japanese diplomat, said in an interview in his 28th-floor office in Vienna.
He acknowledged the IAEA had only limited knowledge about the computer worm, which some experts have described as a first-of-its-kind guided cyber missile.
He noted that Bushehr, which Iran says will start operating soon, had been built by Russia and would be operated by Iran.
“I think they are giving enough attention to prevent possible accidents caused by cyber attacks,” Amano said.
For now, the IAEA was not calling for any delay in the reactor's start-up of operations, he said. “Countries concerned are giving considerable attention to this issue.”
But Amano also said the IAEA was interested in holding a meeting of experts to discuss the issue of cyber attacks.
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
The Telegraph: WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.
NRC chairman votes on new nuclear reactor design
Bloomberg.com: NRC chairman votes on new nuclear reactor design
ATLANTA (AP) — The chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it's time for the public to comment on a new reactor design that would power an expansion of a nuclear plant in eastern Georgia.
Chairman Gregory Jaczko has voted in favor of submitting the proposed rules for the Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 reactor for public comment. His vote was cast Jan. 30 and publicly released this week.
Other commissioners were still voting.
If the other commissioners agree, the public could give its opinion on the reactor design. Atlanta-based Southern Co. wants to build two AP1000 reactors at a site near Waynesboro.
After public comments are reviewed, the NRC would take another vote on whether to give the design final approval.
ATLANTA (AP) — The chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it's time for the public to comment on a new reactor design that would power an expansion of a nuclear plant in eastern Georgia.
Chairman Gregory Jaczko has voted in favor of submitting the proposed rules for the Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 reactor for public comment. His vote was cast Jan. 30 and publicly released this week.
Other commissioners were still voting.
If the other commissioners agree, the public could give its opinion on the reactor design. Atlanta-based Southern Co. wants to build two AP1000 reactors at a site near Waynesboro.
After public comments are reviewed, the NRC would take another vote on whether to give the design final approval.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Ferguson steps up push for nuclear energy
The Australian: Business With the Wall Street Journal: Ferguson steps up push for nuclear energy
AUSTRALIA could be contemplating nuclear power in as little as four years, according to Energy Minister Martin Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson said he intended to press on with the government's efforts to develop and commercialise other clean sources of baseload power, but nuclear technology was proven, available and evolving constantly.
The minister held talks in Washington last week with US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, just before Barack Obama highlighted developments in nuclear research as he used his State of the Union address to outline his commitment to provide 80 per cent of US electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.
"Some folks want wind and solar," the US President told congress. "Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.
"To meet this goal, we will need them all."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
Nuclear option our safest bet The Australian, 8 days ago
Barnett pushes nuclear future Perth Now, 28 Dec 2010
Letters: Nuclear power debate The Daily Telegraph, 2 Dec 2010
Labor Right's fission expedition The Australian, 1 Dec 2010
Nuclear power not an option for us: Barnett Perth Now, 1 Dec 2010
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
In a webchat after the address, Dr Chu described himself as a "big fan" of new and more flexible nuclear technology.
Mr Ferguson said nuclear power was making great strides.
"It is a proven clean-energy technology," he told The Australian yesterday. "In a very short period, it will get cheaper.
"Countries such as Korea, China and France are absolutely focused on progress, not just in the best technology options but also megawatt capacity that creates a range of options not just for large cities but mid-sized."
Mr Ferguson said the government's own clean energy strategy was his first priority, but he was also "very much focused on what is happening outside Australia". "Other countries are making the progress in nuclear opportunities that we have to make in terms of our own clean energy," he said.
"If those clean-energy options are not proven to be viable commercially . . . there will be a far more seriously focused nuclear debate in Australia.
"If we don't make the breakthrough in the period 2015-2020, then what is the alternative for Australia?
"It doesn't matter if it's carbon capture and storage being viable, geothermal, solar thermal or whatever."
Mr Ferguson backed the right of Labor members to debate the nuclear power issue at the party's national conference in December. "Open discussion is good for the party."
AUSTRALIA could be contemplating nuclear power in as little as four years, according to Energy Minister Martin Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson said he intended to press on with the government's efforts to develop and commercialise other clean sources of baseload power, but nuclear technology was proven, available and evolving constantly.
The minister held talks in Washington last week with US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, just before Barack Obama highlighted developments in nuclear research as he used his State of the Union address to outline his commitment to provide 80 per cent of US electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.
"Some folks want wind and solar," the US President told congress. "Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas.
"To meet this goal, we will need them all."
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
Nuclear option our safest bet The Australian, 8 days ago
Barnett pushes nuclear future Perth Now, 28 Dec 2010
Letters: Nuclear power debate The Daily Telegraph, 2 Dec 2010
Labor Right's fission expedition The Australian, 1 Dec 2010
Nuclear power not an option for us: Barnett Perth Now, 1 Dec 2010
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
In a webchat after the address, Dr Chu described himself as a "big fan" of new and more flexible nuclear technology.
Mr Ferguson said nuclear power was making great strides.
"It is a proven clean-energy technology," he told The Australian yesterday. "In a very short period, it will get cheaper.
"Countries such as Korea, China and France are absolutely focused on progress, not just in the best technology options but also megawatt capacity that creates a range of options not just for large cities but mid-sized."
Mr Ferguson said the government's own clean energy strategy was his first priority, but he was also "very much focused on what is happening outside Australia". "Other countries are making the progress in nuclear opportunities that we have to make in terms of our own clean energy," he said.
"If those clean-energy options are not proven to be viable commercially . . . there will be a far more seriously focused nuclear debate in Australia.
"If we don't make the breakthrough in the period 2015-2020, then what is the alternative for Australia?
"It doesn't matter if it's carbon capture and storage being viable, geothermal, solar thermal or whatever."
Mr Ferguson backed the right of Labor members to debate the nuclear power issue at the party's national conference in December. "Open discussion is good for the party."
Obama to Ink New START Ratification Text
Global Security Newswire: Obama to Ink New START Ratification Text
President Obama is set today to ink the U.S. ratification text for a new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 1).
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed New START last April. The pact would require Moscow and Washington to each cap their deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550, down from a limit of 2,200 required by 2012 under an earlier treaty. It also would set a ceiling of 700 deployed warhead delivery systems, with another 100 allowed in reserve.
Russian and U.S. legislatures since late December have approved separate ratification documents placing various stipulations on the treaty's implementation by their respective governments. Medvedev has already signed his nation's ratification form.
The U.S. ratification document is expected to receive Obama's signature in the White House's Oval Office (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Feb. 1).
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are slated to exchange the ratification papers on Saturday, formally bringing the treaty into force, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said yesterday in a statement.
"A responsible partnership between the world’s two largest nuclear powers to limit our nuclear arsenals while maintaining strategic stability is imperative to promoting global security," Crowley said. "With New START, the United States and Russia have reached another milestone in our bilateral relationship and continue the momentum Presidents Obama and Medvedev created with the 'reset' nearly two years ago" (U.S. State Department release, Feb. 1).
The Russian Foreign Ministry added that the treaty "lays the foundation for qualitatively new relations between Russia and the United States in the military-strategic sphere, and contributes to a transition to a higher level of bilateral interaction in the spheres of disarmament and nonproliferation, as well as in strengthening mutual and global security," RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti, Feb. 1).
President Obama is set today to ink the U.S. ratification text for a new strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 1).
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed New START last April. The pact would require Moscow and Washington to each cap their deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550, down from a limit of 2,200 required by 2012 under an earlier treaty. It also would set a ceiling of 700 deployed warhead delivery systems, with another 100 allowed in reserve.
Russian and U.S. legislatures since late December have approved separate ratification documents placing various stipulations on the treaty's implementation by their respective governments. Medvedev has already signed his nation's ratification form.
The U.S. ratification document is expected to receive Obama's signature in the White House's Oval Office (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Feb. 1).
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are slated to exchange the ratification papers on Saturday, formally bringing the treaty into force, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said yesterday in a statement.
"A responsible partnership between the world’s two largest nuclear powers to limit our nuclear arsenals while maintaining strategic stability is imperative to promoting global security," Crowley said. "With New START, the United States and Russia have reached another milestone in our bilateral relationship and continue the momentum Presidents Obama and Medvedev created with the 'reset' nearly two years ago" (U.S. State Department release, Feb. 1).
The Russian Foreign Ministry added that the treaty "lays the foundation for qualitatively new relations between Russia and the United States in the military-strategic sphere, and contributes to a transition to a higher level of bilateral interaction in the spheres of disarmament and nonproliferation, as well as in strengthening mutual and global security," RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti, Feb. 1).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)