Iran ready to discuss EU's nuclear offer

Iran agreed Friday to enter into talks with the European Union about its nuclear program before the end of the month, Iranian state-run media said.

The EU, which recently placed sanctions on Iran, has offered a package of political, economic and security incentives to Iran if it halts uranium enrichment.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, called EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to tell him the response to that offer was coming, according to Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency, and Solana's office characterized Jalili's tone as friendly and positive.

The EU has proposed suspending further sanctions if Iran takes a six-week break from installing or manufacturing any more centrifuges that enrich uranium.

Iran would be allowed to continue to run the more than 3,000 centrifuges it already has but could not manufacture more.

Jalili said Iran is delivering the response to Solana; to the five members of the U.N. Security Council, the United States, Britain, China, France, and Russia; and to Germany, which has helped lead nuclear negotiations.

Iran's Mehr News Agency quoted an unnamed Iranian official as saying that Iran's response was signed by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

The source said Jalili and Solana will hold talks sometime before July 22.

The potential deal comes as a senior Iranian military commander was quoted as saying any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would begin a war, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Western nations and Israel share concerns that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. Iran insists that it wants to pursue nuclear power for energy production only.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mottaki said Thursday that the country will consider at least temporarily halting part of its uranium enrichment program as part of an effort to persuade the world to "look to Iran through a different lens."

Iran "is committed to its constructive approach and the resolution of regional and international affairs and problems," Mottaki said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria to be aired Sunday.

"We believe that the nature of our exchanges, both in format and in substance, were different than of previous times," he said of talks with the EU.

"So I believe that we are now in a new environment with a new approaching perspective, so allow us time to begin this process to make the necessary planning for it," he said.

Mottaki also suggested Iran would never launch an unprovoked attack on Israel -- in contrast to some interpretations of past comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We will defend our own country in the case of any attack or invasion or any threat. And the history of the past several thousand years of our land, Iran, demonstrates that our country has never initiated an invasion or an attack that was carried out by the Iranian people against another people in the region," said Mottaki, in New York to attend a United Nations meeting.

Meanwhile, Gen. Mohammed Ali-Jaafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Thursday that Iran would respond to any attack, according to a report Friday from the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"Any act on Iran will be considered [a] start of war," Ali-Jaafari said.

Israel, long concerned that Iran wants to attack it, reportedly is weighing a unilateral strike against the Islamic Republic.

Israel conducted a military exercise in the eastern Mediterranean in early June involving dozens of warplanes and aerial tankers.

The distance involved in the exercise was roughly the same as would be required for a possible strike on the Iranian nuclear fuel plant at Natanz, a U.S. military official said.

Israel destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981 and a suspected nuclear site in Syria last year.

Iran does not recognize Israel and Ahmadinejad has repeatedly predicted the end of its government -- once calling Israeli leadership "a stinking corpse."

The United States has had no diplomatic presence in Iran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and, in 2002, President Bush branded the nation part of an "axis of evil."

But in an apparent reference to the U.S. presidential election, Mottaki said that new leadership could mean a chance for Iran to improve relations.

"We hear new voices in America; we see new approaches," he said. "And we think that the rational thinkers in America can, based on these new approaches, see the reality as it is."

(Source: CNN)

Navickas presented Lithuanian position on activity of Ignalina nuclear power plant

Economy Minister Vytas Navickas participated in the EU energy ministers council informal sitting, being invited by Jean-Louis Borloo, French minister of national ecology, energy, planning and sustainable development, who recently paid a visit to Lithuania.

Navickas presented the Lithuania"s position on the extension of operation of Ignalina nuclear power plant and on other issues of energy security and its efficiency. The minister also expressed his views on climate change and the folio of energy measures as well as the promotion of the use of energy from renewable energy sources, writes ELTA.

The economy minister underlined that the creation of the joint EU energy market with the integration of isolated regions is the main priority for Lithuania and the best solution to the energy isolation related problems is further expansion of the regional cooperation with the gradual accession to the common EU market. The minister mentioned the project of three Baltic states and Poland to build a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania as well electricity links with Poland and Sweden as examples of regional cooperation.

However, according to the minister, the warranty for the reliable supply of electric energy to the region after the closure of the Unit Two of the Ignalina nuclear power plant till the opening of the new power plant remains a problem. Navickas stressed that the best solution would be to extend the work of the Ignalina power plant by 2009 till the new power plant is built or electricity links are made.

The minister also informed that the biggest energy saving potential in Lithuania lies in buildings sector – about 30%. He claims that modernisation of blocks of flats is one of energy saving examples.

(Source: The Baltic Course)

Support for nuclear power in Europe growing, says commission survey

Although nuclear energy continues to be a "strongly" divisive subject in the European Union, support for the controversial source of electricity generation has grown "significantly" over the last three years, a new European Commission survey suggests.

A "permanent, safe solution" to managing radioactive waste seems to be the decisive factor when it comes to a possible shift in opinion about nuclear energy.

Should such a solution be found to safely storing the waste, some 39 percent of people say they would change their mind about nuclear energy, according to the poll released by the commission on Thursday (3 July).

Dutch, Belgians, Lithuanians, Britons, the French, Slovenians and Finns are the most open to new arguments. Half the opponents in these countries would change their view regarding nuclear energy should a solution to waste be developed.

However, 48 percent of Europeans - mainly in Austria, Greece, Bulgaria, Portugal and Germany - would stick to a firm No irrespective of any solution to waste. Eight percent are convinced there is no solution to be found.

The European Commission itself stopped short of saying what a permanent and safe solution should be, saying it instead is promoting expert discussion on the issue.

Brussels has recently set up a high-level group designed to establish common criteria on ways how radioactive waste should be treated. One of the possible methods discussed has been "geological storage facilities", currently used in Finland, the commission spokesperson said.

He also referred to a piece of EU legislation on radioactive waste that "is still on the table of the council [representing EU capitals] and has not been addressed".

According to the survey, 93 percent of Europeans say a solution for high level radioactive waste "should be developed now and not left for future generations".

In general, some 44 percent of Europeans express support for nuclear energy, while a nearly identical number, 45 percent, oppose it. The figures represent quite a shift in views compared to 2005, when 37 percent of people were in favour and 55 percent were against nuclear power.

There is a clear link between the level of citizens' support and whether their home country operates nuclear power plants. The Czechs, Lithuanians and Hungarians are most in favour.

Currently, 15 EU states have nuclear power plants - something that accounts for nearly a third of the electricity generated in the EU.

The current European Commission, under the leadership of Jose Manuel Barroso, has not shied away from supporting the nuclear path, a controversial option in many parts of Europe.

Brussels says that nuclear energy has a role to play in meeting the EU's growing concerns about security of supply and CO2 emission reductions.

(Source: EUobserver)

Too much hot air in nuke deal

An opinion piece looking critically at options of Indian nuclear deals. The author, Brahma Chellaney, is a professor of Centre of Policy Research.

The partisan rancour over the Indo-US nuclear deal has helped obscure facts, allowing shibboleths and fantasies to substitute for an informed debate on a critical issue. Several myths continue to be repeated untiringly. The biggest of them draws a meretricious link between nuclear energy and soaring oil prices to justify the proposed import of high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent power reactors from overseas.

What does nuclear power have to do with the price or import requirements of any transportation fuel? Thanks to the oil price shocks in the 1970s and 1980s and the advent of new energy technologies, the share of global electricity produced from oil has shrunk from 25% in 1973 to barely 4%. The remaining oil-fired power plants - of which India has only a handful - will be phased out, or refitted to run on gas. Oil now is primarily used for transportation, while the reactor-import option is about electricity generation.

The link between nuclear power and oil is specious. In the years ahead, the world could move toward electric vehicles and even use grid power to make hydrogen for the fuel-cell vehicles of the future. In another futuristic scenario, nuclear energy may indirectly serve as a substitute to some oil use in the commercial and industrial sectors. But today, greater nuclear-generated electricity is not going to really reduce any country’s oil needs, certainly not India’s. In fact, with little overlap in the oil and nuclear global-market structures, nuclear power now competes principally against coal, natural gas and renewables.

If global oil demand is threatening to outstrip supply, so is the case with uranium. Current concerns associated with oil’s price volatility, supply security and geopolitical risks are no different than uranium’s. And if global oil reserves are finite, so are uranium resources, with proven uranium reserves likely to last barely 85 years, according to the Red Book published jointly by the OECD and IAEA.

In fact, in the past five years, the international spot price of uranium has risen faster than that of crude oil, with uranium today trading six times above its $10 a pound historical average. Oil and uranium prices are likely to stay volatile, but the long-term trend for both is surely up.

Just as cheap oil now seems fanciful, cheap nuclear power for long has been a mirage. More than half a century after the then US Atomic Energy Agency chairman Lewis Strauss claimed nuclear energy would become “too cheap to meter”, the nuclear power industry everywhere subsists on generous state subsidies, not reflected in the published costs of generation.

The current electricity-market liberalisation trends spell trouble for the global nuclear-power industry as they threaten the state support on which it survives. As a 2005 IAEA study by Ferenc Toth and Hans-Holger Rogner warns, “nuclear power’s market share might indeed follow a downward trajectory” if state subsidies abate and more cost-effective reactors are not designed.

Other international studies have shown that nuclear power, although a long-matured technology, has demonstrated the slowest rate of learning in comparison to other energy technologies, including newer sources like wind and combined-cycle gas turbines. Instead of the price declining with nuclear power’s maturation, the opposite has happened.

Power reactors also remain very capital-intensive, with high up-front capital costs, long lead times for construction and commissioning, and drawn-out amortisation periods that discourage private investors. In the US, two separate studies by the University of Chicago (2004) and MIT (2003) showed new nuclear power remaining comparatively more expensive.

That explains why the US industry has yet to receive its first domestic power reactor order in more than three decades, despite the Bush administration offering among the world’s most-attractive tax sops and other state incentives.

But in India there has been little debate on the nuclear deal’s premise - that the way to meet burgeoning energy demands is to import power reactors. While nuclear power certainly deserves a place in a diversified energy portfolio, reactor imports will be a path to external fuel dependency and exorbitant plant costs.

India ought not to confuse its electrical generation problem with transportation fuel problem. Also, India cannot correct its oil-import dependency on the Gulf region by fashioning a new dependency on a tiny nuclear-supply cartel made up of a few state-guided firms.

While oil is freely purchasable on world markets, the global nuclear reactor and fuel business is the most monopolised and politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract. Without having loosened its bondage to oil exporters, should India get yoked to the nuclear cartel?

With few reactors being built in the West or Russia, this cartel has aggressively sought export markets. In a bizarre spectacle, after having castigated Iran’s pursuit of civil nuclear technology as unsuited to its energy wealth, France and the US have competed to sign up reactor deals with oil-rich Arab countries.

Yet, even at the current slack rate of construction of reactors, bottlenecks are becoming a serious problem for key components. There are just a few manufacturers for many components. For example, at least nine reactor components, including giant pressure vessels and steam generators, are made only in one facility owned by Japan Steel Works. A recent study by the US-based Keystone Centre reported a six-year lead time for some parts.

The harsh truth is that reactor imports, far from cutting India’s oil imports, will increase the already wide price differential between nuclear energy and thermal power. While all the Indian power reactors built since the 1990s have priced their electricity at between 270 and 285 paise per KW hour or higher, the coal-fired Sason plant project has contracted to sell power at 119 paise per KWh.

Of the three countries lobbying to sell power reactors to India, the US has little record to show while France’s stands blemished by a two-year time overrun and $2.1 billion cost escalation in building Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 plant. The third, Russia, is struggling to complete its already-delayed twin reactors in Kundakulam. Wishful thinking ought not to cloud India’s options.

(Source: The Economic Times, Haryana, India)

Europeans' reservations about nuclear energy on the decline: survey

Reservations about the use of nuclear energy are on the decline in Europe, although there is still no majority in favour, according to an EU survey published on Thursday.

Some 44 percent of Europeans are either "totally in favour" or "fairly in favour" of nuclear energy, according to the survey, carried out in February and March.

The last time the survey was carried out in 2005 the figure was 37 percent.

The countries that warmed the most towards nuclear energy were Italy and which saw the figure rise to 43 percent from 30 percent, followed by Poland, Ireland and Greece.

In France, long one of the biggest users of nuclear power, public opinion was little changed at 52 percent taking a favourable view.

President Nicolas Sarkozy announced Thursday that France would build a second third-generation European Pressurised Water Reactor power plant, arguing nuclear power was the country's best answer to soaring energy prices.

Despite the rising number of people in favour of nuclear energy, 45 percent remain totally opposed, with women and people with low levels of education the most against.

Only 10 out of the European Union's 27 countries showed a majority in favour of nuclear energy.

Opposition to nuclear energy was strongest in Austria, Greece and Cyprus.

The study attributed the growing popularity of nuclear energy to rising public attention to the fight against climate change.

The survey was based on the answers of 26,746 people in the EU's 27 countries.

France to build second Areva EPR nuclear power plant - Sarkozy

President Nicolas Sarkozy, confirming a report in Les Echos, said France will build a second EPR European pressurised water nuclear power reactor.

Sarkozy, who made the announcement on a visit to ArcelorMittal's factory at Le Creusot, gave no indication of where the plant will be built, not when it will start output.

The first of Areva's 1,600 megawatt third-generation reactors to be ordered in France is under construction for EDF at Flamanville.

The president, Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon and ArcelorMittal CFO Aditya Mittal signed an agreement for a 70 million euro investment aimed at increasing production at the Industeel plant, the nuclear energy company said.

The investment, which will be staggered between 2008 and 2010, will increase ingot production capacity significantly from 35,000 tonnes to 50,000 tonnes per year, it said.

Dieter Furniere of Dexia said it is unclear who will be picked as the operator of the reactor, since EDF does not see the necessity to construct new nuclear capacity before 2020.

In a note to clients, the Dexia analyst mentioned Suez and Poweo as among companies which might be interested in the additional nuclear capacity.

The first commercial EPR plant on which construction began, at Olkiluoto in Finland, is two years behind schedule.

In November, Areva received an order to supply EPRs to China in a contract worth 8 billion euros including fuel, the biggest contract in civilian nuclear engineering.

France has 58 nuclear reactors of earlier models and produces 80 percent of the country's electricity from them.

(Source: Forbes)

RWE says delaying nuclear phase-out would help ease energy prices

RWE AG. said delaying a planned nuclear energy phase-out in Germany would help ease pressure on energy prices, adding that it welcomes renewed talks by lawmakers in the country over a possible delay.

Extending nuclear power plant operation in Germany by 25 years to between 50 years and 60 years could yield an additional economic value of 250 billion euros, the company said in a statement.

Current German legislation calls for the phase-out of the country's existing nuclear power capacity and bans new nuclear plants.

Economy Minister Michael Glos has demanded that nuclear power plants be allowed to operate for more than the current 32 years to halt an increased dependence on power sources outside Germany.

(Source: Forbes)

Iran's Nuclear Power Plant to Launch Operation in October

Iran's first nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr will be launched in October, a high-ranking Iranian nuclear official said on Sunday.

"The work for the physical launch of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will begin at the end of Mehr (a month under the Iranian calendar that lasts from September 22 to October 21)," Ahmad Fayazbakhsh, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said.

Russia is building the $one-billion facility in the south of the country in accordance with a 1995 contract, and under UN supervision as Iran is under international scrutiny over its compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The Bushehr project was originally scheduled for commissioning at the end of 2006, but the Russian contractor has postponed the date several times.

The project was originally started by Germany's Siemens in 1975, but Germans stopped the work and left the country without any prior notice following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Russia delivered its final and eighth fuel shipment to Bushehr on January 28, supplying a total of 82 metric tons of low-enriched uranium to the light-water nuclear power plant.

Iran has long sought to replace its fossil energy reserves with other sources of sustainable energy, including solar and nuclear power. But, the move has come under harsh criticism and even threats of military action by the US and its western allies which lauded Tehran's efforts to construct nuclear power plants prior to the Islamic Revolution

The United States and its Western allies accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Iran denies the charges and insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran is under three rounds of UN Security Council sanctions for turning down West's illegitimate calls to give up its right of uranium enrichment, saying the demand is politically tainted and illogical.

Iran has answered all outstanding questions of the International Atomic Energy Agency about the history of its past nuclear activities. The Islamic Republic has also repeatedly stressed that it considers its nuclear case closed as it has come clean of IAEA's questions and suspicions about its past nuclear activities.

Yet, the US has remained at loggerheads with Iran over the independent and home-grown nature of Tehran's nuclear technology, which gives the Islamic Republic the potential to turn into a world power and a role model for other third-world countries. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.

Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicted the report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs.

Political observers believe that following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and similar reports by the IAEA head - one in November and the other one in February - which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities and announced settlement of outstanding issues with Tehran, efforts to impose further sanctions on Iran seem to be completely irrational.

The February report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, praised Iran's cooperation in clearing up all of the past questions over its nuclear program, vindicating Iran's nuclear program and leaving no justification for any new UN sanctions.

Iran has also insisted that it would continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhoveyn as well as its first nuclear power plant in Bushehr.

(Source: Fars News Agency)

Jordan's first nuclear plant looms amid deals with Western powers

Jordan's first nuclear plant is looming in sight as it inked a preliminary nuclear cooperation deal with Britain on Sunday, the third one in a month with Western nuclear powers on pumping nuclear energy.

Under the latest deal, Britain and Jordan will jointly promote "the establishment of a reliable source of nuclear fuel for future civilian light water nuclear reactors" in the Arab kingdom, said Chairman of Jordan Atomic Energy Commission Khalid Touqan.

The deal with Britain came a day after a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Canada's Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and SNC-Lavalin International, one of the world's largest engineering and construction firms.

According to Touqan, the MoU with Canada aims to help Jordan assess the feasibility of the introduction of a Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) nuclear power program.

It includes engineering and economic studies on a possible Enhanced CANDU 6 reactor, along with assessment on infrastructure development, site selection, fuel fabrication facilities, technology transfer, manpower training and the potential use of Jordan's uranium resources in the program, Touqan added.

Jordan also reached a nuclear collaboration agreement with France in late May, under which France would provide assistance for the Arab country in mining and extracting nuclear material as well as training Jordanian nuclear personnel.

In exchange, French energy services company Areva was given the chance to extract the uranium deposits from Jordan's 1.2 billion tons of phosphate reserves and build a nuclear reactor.

News came out on June 16 that a feasibility study for the creation of Jordan's first uranium manufacturing facility is underway. The study is due to be completed in seven months.

According to Jordan Phosphate Mines Company (JPMC) Chairman and CEO Walid Kurdi, the study will identify the best technologies of uranium extraction from phosphoric acid, set the engineering designs of the facility and determine the total capital and operational cost.

Jordan also borrows expertise from the United States through an MoU signed last September, which says that the two sides will work together to develop specifications and requirements for an appropriate power reactor, including fuel service arrangements, personnel training, nuclear safety and energy technology.

In addition, the Arab kingdom pumps technical assistance from the European Union (EU) on establishing legislative and regulatory framework to promote highest standards of nuclear safety.

This is covered in a "Joint Declaration on Priorities for Energy Cooperation," which was inked at the end of last October on the sidelines of a conference on energy security in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Unlike its oil-rich neighbors, Jordan imports 95 percent of its energy needs and has an annual water deficit of more than 500 million cubic meters, official estimates showed.

Jordan's King Abdullah announced a civil nuclear energy program in January 2007, saying the country was seeking an alternative energy to generate electricity and desalinate seawater.

Under the strategy, a nuclear plant will be set up by 2015 and nuclear power is expected to make up 30 percent of its energy production by 2030.

Jordan's nuclear ambition has received support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei promised during a regional tour in April 2007 that the UN nuclear watchdog was ready to help Jordan to benefit from nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, while Abdullah pledged that the kingdom "will seek to acquire nuclear energy in line with international standards and laws related to the use of nuclear energy."

It is estimated that Jordan can extract 80,000 tons of uranium from its uranic ores and that the country's phosphate reserves also contains some 100,000 tons of uranium, officials with Jordan's energy ministry revealed.

(Source: Chinaview.cn)

G8 Worried over Nigeria’s Nuclear Programme

Nigeria’s nuclear programme is causing concern among the world’s Group of Eight (G8) nations.
The G8 – comprising world’s most industrialised democracies, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Japan, Russia, Italy, France, Germany and Canada – is worried about Nigeria’s ability to handle the safety and security obligations associated with use of nuclear technology.
The US has been leading the campaign against uranium enrichment for nuclear technology by Iran and North Korea, and although Nigeria’s nuclear programme is purely for power generation, the G8 nations are said to be uncomfortable with it.
The Director-General of the Nigeria Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NNRA), Professor Shamsedeen Elegba, said the G8 countries had expressed their concerns over the country's readiness to fulfil safety and security obligations associated with the establishment of nuclear power plant in the country.
The D-G said though the countries agreed that Nigeria needed nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, the concerns are whether the country could adequately ensure safe and secure deployment of the facility.
“Most of them are cynical about our level of safety and some even question our level of responsibility because it is something that just one little mistake, everybody is affected,” he said.
In April 1986, there was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the old Soviet Union, regarded as the worst in history, resulting in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor.
Thirty people died in the explosion, but further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including western Soviet Union, Europe and as far as eastern North America.
Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia were highly contaminated, leading to the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people.
The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organisation (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths – 47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer – and estimated 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the six million living nearby.
Speaking on whether the reservation expressed by the world powers would affect Nigeria's nuclear energy ambition, Elegga said they were only concerned about safety issues which the country was trying hard to address.
“What everybody is worried about is the level of safety because the nuclear industry is highly regulated, just like the aviation sector. It is highly regulated because one accident is too many and therefore everybody is particularly worried about our levels of preparedness, especially the regulatory authorities. They want to be sure that all uses, whether within the country or being transported in and out of the country, are appropriately provided for in terms of safety,” he said.
Elegba said Nigeria had made significant progress in the area of safety efforts, adding that the country had ratified the convention on nuclear safety which meant that “we are bound to comply with all the requirements for safety of nuclear installations in the country. We are also a party to the convention of physical protection of nuclear materials and installation which makes it mandatory on us”.
He said Nigeria was also reviewing her laws to make sure that adequate resources were made available to ensure safety and security of nuclear materials in the country.
The D-G said the target date for establishment of nuclear power plant would be determined after an agreement on the supply of the reactor had been reached with the producers.
“It is after an agreement has been signed with suppliers of nuclear reactors that NNRA can be in a position to issue licence as to where the plant can be sited as well as the design of the building,” he said.
According to him, part of the role of NNRA was to also issue licence for the commissioning and decommissioning of the nuclear power plant.
He said the lifespan of most nuclear power plants is usually 50 years, and the authority is empowered to ensure that adequate preparations are made on how to dismantle the nuclear facility at expiration.
The licence would stipulate among other conditions how to manage the radioactive wastes that come with it.
The D-G said the training programme was meant for front line officers from the various security organisations on safety and security of radioactive and nuclear materials.
Elegba explained that owing to the general concern on nuclear safety, NNRA was emphasising the need to have a Memorandum of Understanding with participating agencies so as to facilitate the integration of safety programmes into the curriculum of various training courses.
“We are working with the security agencies and organisations over the past seven years to ensure that radioactive sources imported, used or transported within the country are kept safe. One of the responsibilities of NNRA is to help improve the competencies of these security organisations,” he said.
He said the first step was to provide them with adequate monitoring tools and then to have an MoU signed between them and NNRA, so that at the end of the day, nuclear safety would be part of the topics to be covered by the agencies in their training schools.

(Source: THISDAY online)