***************************************************************** 10/02/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.232 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Niger uranium output seen hit by power failures 2 Nuclear waste lawsuit cleared for trial 3 House panel takes up nuke plant liability this week 4 Nuclear Surprise: How deregulation, energy shortages, worries 5 Japanese town to vote on nuclear power plant 18 November 6 Austria Green MP fears more nuclear power imports 7 Latest tests at Czech nuclear plant fail to be completely 8 Removal of radioactive materials from Bulgarian plant 9 International safety experts begin assessment of Lithuania's 10 Bulgarian nuclear official dismisses doubts about security at 11 AEC in talks to build British nuclear plants: $23B expansion 12 Russia needs 10 years to remove nuclear waste from Kola 13 Russia to deliver nuclear reactor to Iran in November NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Tainted metal recycling debated 2 Al-Qa'ida warns of nuclear attacks on Pakistan - paper 3 I would have shot that bastard! 4 Kursk lifting scheduled for October 3rd or 4th ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Niger uranium output seen hit by power failures Planet Ark Environmental News: NIGER: October 2, 2001 NIAMEY - Uranium production in Niger, the world's third biggest producer, is likely to be hit this year by power failures on the network supplying the West African country's two uranium companies. State radio said late on the weekend strong winds had disrupted power supplies for the past 10 days, forcing Niger's main uranium firms Cominak and Somair to use emergency generators, which are not enough for normal production. Uranium is Niger's biggest export, with 3,000 tonnes exported every year. Cominak produces 2,000 tonnes on average and Somair the rest. The country produces about a tenth of world uranium output, ranking it behind Australia and Canada. Uranium is the main fuel for the world's nuclear power plants which produce about 17 percent of global electricity. Power is supplied to the two companies in Niger by Sonichar, a local firm which sources said had already suffered a loss of 250 million CFA francs ($346,000) from the power failures. Damage to its network were estimated at 75 million CFA francs. Cominak had already suffered a production slowdown between April and August this year because of problems at its plant. It has a production target of 1,910 tonnes, down from 1,920 last year but said in July it was unlikely to meet that goal. The company, which produces seven percent of the world's uranium, is based like Somair in the Arlit region, some 1,200 km north of the capital Niamey. The slump in world uranium prices over the past few years has hurt Niger, already one of the world's poorest countries, as it has little else to export. Combined export revenues from the two companies totalled 65.1 billion CFA francs in 1999, down from 78.5 billion in 1998. Back in the 1980s Niger produced an average 4,000 tonnes of uranium each year and export proceeds accounted for some 70 percent of budget revenues. That figure has currently droppoed to less than 10 percent. Story by Abdoulaye Massalatchi REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear waste lawsuit cleared for trial Journalstar.com: Nebraska Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2001 BY BUTCH MABIN Lincoln Journal Star The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Nebraska's appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the state to be sued for allegedly sabotaging plans to build a nuclear waste dump in Boyd County. Attorneys for Nebraska had asked the high court in July to review a ruling by an appeals court that the state waived its sovereign immunity against lawsuits when it joined a multi-state nuclear waste disposal compact in 1983. Monday's decision by the court, which came without comment, appeared to clear the way for a trial on the lawsuit, led by the compact commission to recover the millions of dollars it says was spent trying to get the dump licensed. "We look forward to the trial next June," said Lincoln attorney Alan Peterson, one of the lawyers representing the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. Washington, D.C., attorney Brad Reynolds, who is representing the state, could not be reached for comment Monday. Trial on the dispute is set to begin in June before U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf in Lincoln and is scheduled to last four weeks. At stake is close to $100 million that the commission, several waste generators and the warehouse's contractor claim was spent on the proposed facility. Nebraska joined the compact with Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana in 1983, in compliance with a 1980 congressional mandate that states build their own nuclear waste dumps or align with other states to handle the materials. Low-level nuclear waste includes contaminated tools and clothing from hospitals and nuclear power stations. In 1987, the compact selected Nebraska to be host state for the materials. Later, a site in Boyd County near the South Dakota border was chosen as the host site. The state in 1998 announced it would deny the contractor a license to build the warehouse. State officials cited a number of concerns, including their worry over potential groundwater contamination. That December, the five utilities that spent money on the licensing said in a lawsuit that the state had acted in bad faith throughout the process. They alleged Nebraska officials rejected the proposed warehouse for political reasons, rather than environmental ones. The commission and the contractor, U.S. Ecology, joined the lawsuit later. In a ruling this year in the case, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the state waived its 11th Amendment immunity against lawsuits by the commission. The appeals panel also ruled the amendment protected the state from liability by the utilities and contractor. Richard Duncan, a constitutional scholar at the University of Nebraska Law School, said the Supreme Court's decision Monday did not mean it agreed or disagreed with either side's 11th Amendment argument. "All it means is that there were not four justices who wanted to hear the case," he said. "And that could mean a lot of things." In the past, the Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals because the issues already had been decided by the court in earlier rulings, were not interesting or for other reasons, he said. Duncan said the court in recent years has rendered decisions in 11th Amendment cases that tend to favor state rights against lawsuits. The amendment has been used by states to support claims of immunity against lawsuits for monetary damages brought in federal and, in some cases, state courts. "This may well have been one more case in that line," he said. "But the court, for whatever reason, decided to not take it." Reach Butch Mabin at 473-7234 or bmabin@journalstar.com. Copyright © 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 House panel takes up nuke plant liability this week Planet Ark Environmental News: USA: October 2, 2001 WASHINGTON - Members of a House Energy subcommittee this week will write legislation to renew a federal law that insures nuclear power plant operators from huge legal damages in a major accident, a committee staff member said yesterday. The U.S. nuclear power industry says the measure - set to expire in August 2002 - is crucial before any new plants can be built. The Price-Andersen law obligates the federal government to accept insurance liability to shield U.S. nuclear power plant owners from up to $9.4 billion in liability in the event of an accident. The House Energy and Air Quality subcommittee, chaired by Texas Republican Joe Barton, will mark up legislation Thursday. The full committee has not yet scheduled a bill-writing session, the staffer said. The Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to draft a bill that would extend the law. With Congress aiming to adjourn in late October, it is unclear whether the nuclear power measure will be addressed by both chambers this session. The Bush administration's national energy plan emphasizes nuclear power as an important and clean energy source for the future, a view opposed by many environmental groups and some Democrats. Key regulatory agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department have already backed a renewal of the law without any substantial changes. Critics argue that no other U.S. industry receives such generous protection from financial risks. No new nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant, where the failure of the plant's water cooling system led to the partial melting of a reactor's uranium core. Nuclear power currently produces about 20 percent of all U.S. electricity. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 4 Nuclear Surprise: How deregulation, energy shortages, worries over global warming and tough private-sector operators like Duncan Hawthorne have all combined to do what many would have once thought impossible: give nuclear power back its glow Financial Post - Canada; Oct 1, 2001 BY BRAD FAUGHT On the windswept eastern shores of Lake Huron, the orange-coloured bulk of the world's largest nuclear power station rises starkly against clear blue sky and the green trees that blanket the area. It's a huge site, ringed by a security fence punctuated by motion detectors. You'd have to be a high-jumping deer to get in here. Within view, three of them have done just that, nibbling grass contentedly on the plant side of the steel mesh. Up close, the two main buildings look like a couple of Soviet-era apartment blocks. My two escorts and I are headed to Bruce B, which houses four of the plant's eight reactors. Once inside, one of my guides puts on his dosimetry badge, or Thermal Luminescence Dosimeter, a device that measures a person's exposure to radiation. As we pass through the portals a disembodied computer voice assures us that we are "clean," which is precisely the verdict the long-suffering nuclear industry has been working hard to achieve. After all, for the past 20 years or so it has endured almost as much bad press as Saddam Hussein. The reasons? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, cost overruns, radiation leaks, reactor shutdowns, The China Syndrome, capital costs twice those of coal or natural gas, government foul-ups.... Nuclear energy, which once promised to be the high-tech star of the postwar world, has become a byword for disaster and seemed, noted The Economist recently, to have been consigned to the "dustbin of history." So when British Energy plc said its Canadian subsidiary, Bruce Power Inc., had signed a $3.2-billion, 18-year lease with an Ontario Crown corporation to run the 24-year-old Bruce plant, most casual observers were surprised. Why on earth would a publicly traded British firm, one of the world's largest power companies, bet billions that it could make money on an aging plant located 5,000 kilometres from its head office in Scotland? The British hadn't shown this much interest in Lake Huron since the War of 1812. What has changed? Upon entering Bruce B, I'm met by a wave of heat and a thundering roar that sounds like jet planes passing overhead. Plant workers, a few of the 3,000 who populate the site, walk or ride by on large tricycles, the use of which helps shrink the size of the behemoth building. The turbine hall, one floor above entry level, is a gigantic and spectacular feat of engineering. The turbines themselves look like steel-encased humpback whales. They are driven by the steam produced from the intake of 9 million litres of lake water per second. The power generated flows out to begin its high-wire journey across Ontario to Quebec and Manitoba, to New York, Michigan and Minnesota. Bruce B can generate up to 3,140 net megawatts of electricity from its turbines, currently enough power to keep on all the lights and laptop computers -- and do everything else -- in a city the size of Toronto. By itself, Bruce B supplies 15% of Ontario's electricity needs, which can reach some 25,000 MW during peak demand, such as on those muggy days that enveloped much of the province in August. That's a lot of juice, but it's an amount that will rise to 20% in 2003, when two of the four reactors at the dormant Bruce A will come online. At present, North America, with just 7% of the world's population, accounts for 30% of global energy consumption. Over the next 20 years, according to the National Energy Board, demand for power will rise in Canada by at least 25%. And with just 12% of this country's electricity being generated by five nuclear plants -- Bruce, Darlington and Pickering in Ontario, which together provide 41% of the province's power, plus one each in Quebec and New Brunswick -- British Energy, the U.K.'s largest generator of electricity, is gambling that it can convince Canadians that nuclear energy can play a greater role in supplying the country's energy needs. Ever since it was formed five years ago, following the merger and privatization of two government-owned utilities, nuclear has been at the heart of British Energy's business: it owns and operates 15 U.K. reactors. In 1997, its first full year of operation, it made a profit of $134 million on revenues of $4.1 billion. Earnings rose sharply and steadily over the succeeding two years as the company expanded its operations and improved efficiencies. "They were very good cost cutters. But they argued safety and took no shortcuts," says Alistair Buchanan, head of utilities analyses at the ABN AMRO Bank in London. By 2000, however, profits fell noticeably -- to a mere $22 million. The main reason: a 30% drop in U.K. electricity charges brought about by, thanks to deregulation, an excess in generating capacity. Bringing British Energy a measure of fiscal salvation, though, is the US$66 million in earnings it's expected to receive this year through a partnership in the U.S. with the Chicago-based Exelon Corp., an electric company that generates some 70% of its capacity through 17 nuclear reactors serving five million customers in Pennsylvania and Illinois. Barry Abramson, senior utilities analyst at UBS Warburg in New York, calls Exelon "one of the stars of the (nuclear) industry, with big economies of scale." In the mid-'90s, Britain wasn't the only country where government, fed up with high operational and refit costs, wanted out of the nuke business. All across America, public utilities were looking to sell off nuclear assets -- and doing so at fire-sale prices. The two private utility companies that would merge last year to form Exelon were among the first to take out their chequebooks, believing that it could run the plants more efficiently, in part by importing the best practices that had been developed at the facilities it was already running. For its part, British Energy, which utility analyst Ian Graham, of Merrill Lynch Global Securities in London, calls the U.K.'s "best operationally geared electricity generator," decided it also needed to look outside its home market for future growth. That led to America and Exelon. In 1997, the two formed AmerGen Energy Co. and now jointly operate three reactors, including one at Three Mile Island, site of the infamous 1979 partial meltdown. Three Mile Island was a good deal: AmerGen paid just US$23 million, approximately 15% of its book value. But once low-cost plants were in play, rival companies began to compete more vigorously. Acquisition costs soared and put a crimp in British Energy's plan, forcing it to look around for new, and cheaper, possibilities for investment. They found one north of the border -- in Ontario. At Bruce B, my tour leads to a periscope, which offers a glimpse of the inside of a reactor. I am amazed at the stillness. All I can see is a series of lights, much like those on an airport runway, which illuminate concrete cross-beams, under which sits the mechanism used to load the uranium fuel bundles that power the reactor. Nuclear fission depends on highly radioactive uranium. When atoms are split after being bombarded by uranium, they release several hundred million electron volts of electricity. The energy is harnessed and eventually drives the turbines, producing electricity. The man in charge of producing the electricity and profits here is Bruce Power's recently appointed CEO, Duncan Hawthorne, a new breed of manager for a new style of nuclear plant, one on which the strictures of the marketplace are being brought to bear. Forty-six years old, balding and with the thick lowlands brogue of his hometown of Greenock, Scotland, Hawthorne, an engineer, rose from the shop floor and now resides in Kincardine, a small town near the plant. Playing golf here isn't his only reminder of home: "There are more bagpipes in Kincardine than in Scotland," he laughs. When I ask him why the company bid for the lease, he answers simply: "We were good nuclear operators in the U.K." That may be true, but not having to pick up debt or incur huge capital costs seems a pretty clear attraction. In some ways, the Bruce plant is a turnkey operation for Hawthorne and British Energy. By the time Mike Harris and the Ontario Tories came to power in 1995, Ontario Hydro was over $30 billion in debt -- most of it nuclear-induced -- and listing badly. Harris wanted to deregulate Ontario's energy market and so, in 1999, Ontario Hydro was duly dissolved, most of its operations emerging as Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG). Shorn of billions of dollars in debt transferred to the province, OPG was a much healthier Crown corporation than Ontario Hydro had been, but also a much less powerful one. The government's ultimate goal is to make OPG one company amongst many in an increasingly privatized market. Within 10 years of the start of deregulation, OPG's share of the province's generating capacity must be reduced from its current 85% to 35%. Hawthorne has been assigned to make sure British Energy grabs a big share of the market and to add to the approximately $240 million annually it says it will make through the Bruce lease. As his boss, Robin Jeffrey, who this summer was named chairman and CEO of British Energy -- in part because of his strong managerial record in the U.S. -- said earlier this year: "It is obvious how important the business in North America is to us." In fact, noted the Sunday Times of London in July, following the company's annual meeting: "Jeffrey (was) rubbing his hands in anticipation of a windfall from British Energy's operations in America and Canada." The glassed-in control room at Bruce B looks like something at NASA. Screens and panels proliferate, over which hover a phalanx of nuclear operators trained for up to 12 years to handle every conceivable malfunction in the plant. To win the right to operate this facility and all the staff within it until 2018, with an option for 25 more years, British Energy beat out "about a dozen other bidders, U.S. and European," says Richard Discerni, executive vice-president of OPG. Immediately upon the announcement, in July 2000, that British Energy had been awarded the Bruce lease, critics of the deal emerged. Probably the most trenchant is Myron Gordon, professor emeritus of finance at the Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto, and a long-time advocate of public ownership of Ontario's power-generating assets. The lease, he says, is "utterly ridiculous." He believes that Bruce Power will be able to generate profits out of all proportion to its $3.2-billion investment. He calculates that, at the very least, the British Energy subsidiary will be able to make not $240 million, but $435 million per year, net of its annual lease payments, selling the power generated by six reactors. This figure is based on the four operational reactors at Bruce B plus two of the four laid-up reactors at Bruce A, scheduled for re-start in 2003. Do the math, says Gordon: 2003-2018 is 16 years; 16 times $435-million equals $6.96 billion -- plus hundreds of millions from the first two years of operating the Bruce B plant only. But Gordon is sure the profit figures will be even higher, because electricity rates are bound to increase once NAFTA free-market rules apply in a deregulated energy marketplace, where higher American prices will prevail. That's a return on investment of over 100%. Pretty good, says Gordon, "when the Bruce A re-start can be accomplished for the modest cost of $340 million." But Gordon hardly dominates the range of views on the Bruce. Disagreeing with him, for instance, is Jack Mintz, a colleague at the Rotman School and the president and CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute. "The lease," he says, "was in line with the valuation of OPG's assets. There should be significant gains to privatization, especially in the areas of plant efficiency." Most analysts agree, recognizing that, after 20-plus years of operational experience, the industry knows a lot more about how to squeeze more juice out of existing facilities. Advances in technology have also helped. "Yes," says Barry Abramson, senior utilities analyst at UBS Warburg in New York, "generating output of plants has improved over the past 15 years -- by as much as 20%." Colin Hunt, director of policy at the Canadian Nuclear Association, an organization made up of utilities, nuclear industries and research institutes, has a similar view. "With private operators," he says, "efficiency will improve, because the generating capacity factor really matters when selling into the market, not to a guaranteed monopoly. That is what will drive performance." Accordingly, at the Bruce, the short-term goal is to increase generating output to 90% from 80% of capacity. In any discussion of the future of nuclear power, safety concerns are always at the forefront, which is why I've asked my tour guides to show me where nuclear waste at Bruce B goes to die a very slow death. In an Olympic-sized pool, with a depth of 11 metres, lie some 330,000 spent uranium fuel bundles in stacks over three metres below the water's surface. At 50 centimetres in length, they look like submerged cords of wood. The fuel bundles give off an eerie blue glow from the cobalt they release, making this water a deadly elixir of radioactivity. "In about 800 years," says one of my escorts, "it would be safe for one of these bundles to be passed between two people." What impresses me, however, is not the danger, but how little radioactive waste there is lying still and silent before me. The contents of this pool are the sum total of all the high-level radioactive waste generated since Bruce B first went into operation back in 1984. One could well argue that what this waste lacks in volume -- some 9,000 tonnes, or approximately 20% of the Canadian total of high-level radioactive waste -- it makes up for many times over in toxicity. Still, with Toronto sending daily 100 transport trucks brimming with the city's waste down Highway 401 to Michigan, this pool seems pretty small. In relative terms, Bruce B's waste is minuscule. Mining and burning coal fill the skies with carbon dioxide and scar the land. Hydroelectricity means dams and dislocation. Natural gas results in long, intrusive, cross-country pipelines. But despite the tiny levels of day-to-daypollution generated by nuclear energy, David Martin, nuclear affairs expert for the Sierra Club of Canada, sees public apprehension over nuclear plants as inescapable. "The risk of catastrophic events is always there," he says, and "35,000 tonnes of waste" are being stored in similar pools, or in "dry-storage" facilities, across Canada. To him, nuclear energy has proven itself both unsafe and uneconomic and, ideally, should be phased out. Others aren't so sure. Gordon Laird, a Toronto-based energy specialist who is writing a book on electricity generation in Canada, Power: Journeys across an Energy Nation, sees nuclear power as an inevitable part of the energy mix. He argues that, even though "greenhouse gas mitigation is not really on the map yet, the different energy sectors are positioning themselves as climatically responsible." And the more society focusses on reducing carbon output, the better carbon-free nuclear energy looks. As Robin Jeffrey said to the aptly named Power Breakfast put on by the Toronto Board of Trade in June, "As an industry we need to get much better in presenting the environmental case for nuclear power. We are a crucial part of the Kyoto solution, but meantime most environmentalists see nuclear as a bridge too far. But just think about those summer days when the generation system is flat-out: the smell in Toronto's air and the orange pall of pollution...." He's saying that a nuclear expansion would mean less smog and less damage to the ozone layer. For a lot of people, that's a compelling argument. What Jeffrey didn't mention, however, is a point that animates Norm Rubin, director of nuclear research at Energy Probe. Yes, he says, Bruce Power can operate the plant better, more cheaply and more safely than its predecessor. But, unlike Ontario Hydro, it can do so without being on the hook for off-site waste disposal or plant-decommissioning costs, which remain under the auspices of the federal and provincial governments respectively. As part of the lease, Bruce Power must pay Ontario approximately $2.7 billion, or $150 million annually. Not enough, says Rubin. "Ontario Hydro's last estimate in 1999 of decommissioning and waste cleanup was $18.7 billion," (including $7.5 billion for Bruce)." Still, he will take British Energy, which he calls a "bottom feeder," over the old operating model: "I used to be a socialist. Ontario Hydro changed that. An essentially unregulated monopoly is about the stupidest system designed." Shelley Martel, NDP energy, science and technology critic and MPP for Nickel Belt, also has questions about the Bruce deal. "It is the largest lease of a public asset in the history of Ontario, which will come back to public hands at the end of its term. What are the people going to get back?" For Martel and others, the province may end up with a depleted asset and a mountain of waste. In an attempt to clarify the terms of the Bruce deal, Martel moved in October 2000 to have the lease evaluated by the provincial auditor. The government agreed, but the audit won't be completed until 2002. However, she thinks the process is an important one because the "Bruce agreement is a template for the next round of leases or sales." Next time, she adds, it could be the Pickering or Darlington nuclear plants, where the decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal questions are even greater. Safety and costs also concern Sean Conway, Liberal energy critic and MPP for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, the constituency where Canada's nuclear history began back in 1945 at Atomic Energy of Canada's Chalk River site. But he stresses that Ontario must guarantee its future energy needs. Nuclear power is a fact of life, he says. "We have to get production out of the nukes if we are going to avoid an electricity crisis, which could put us into a California situation." In front of the offices at the Bruce plant, a lone wind turbine swishes gently in the breeze coming off Lake Huron. More of these giant white propellers are to follow as part of the company's nod to energy diversification. Still, its main goal is to expand nuclear generating capacity -- and that may involve more than just rehabilitating existing plants. In June, Robin Jeffrey announced that building a new nuclear plant in Ontario is "an issue that we are studying." Meanwhile, in the U.K., the Daily Telegraph reported in August that the Labour government had given its "strongest indication yet" that it will encourage a nuclear revival. In order to meet Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions cuts, Tony Blair must reduce carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by 10%. The British Department of Trade and Industry stated in August that "if new build costs prove accurate, and allowing a reasonable value for carbon savings, there are prospects for new build to be economic." The clear challenge, then, for British Energy and other companies like it is to make the building of new nuclear plants an attractive option for investors. Jeffrey is optimistic. "Market forces in a truly competitive environment will balance supply and demand and encourage investment," he said earlier this year. To do that, lower capital costs as well as faster construction times must become an industry standard. Currently, a small, 110-MW modular reactor -- 3% of the size of Bruce B -- is being constructed over a mere 18 months in South Africa. Bruce B, by comparison, took 11 years to complete. If successful, this small reactor could provide a model for nuclear power's future. But while the U.K., the U.S. and Canada may prove fertile ground for such investment, other countries appear to be heading in a different direction. In June, for instance, the German government signed a deal with energy companies to shut all of the country's 19 nuclear plants within 20 years. But while no one will ever become rich betting against the moral outrage of environmentalists, the current climate of energy diversity might make nuclear power somewhat more palatable, even to them. That's the measured view of energy writer Gordon Laird. He thinks that deregulation will increase energy diversity, which will push environmentalists to "make a more nuanced response than in the past to nuclear power." If deregulation means that some less traditional means of power generation -- such as wind -- receive a real chance to grow, then perhaps the big nuclear plants will be pushed more to the side. Nuclear power won't disappear, but maybe it can be made smaller, and therefore less menacing, more of a niche player than the Goliath of energy production that it is in Ontario or France where 76% of the country's power needs are nuclear supplied. For David Martin of the Sierra Club, however, any amount of nuclear power is too much, whatever it may look like in the future. "There is no question that a hard proposal to build a new nuclear plant would be the environmental confrontation of the decade," he says. Back at the Bruce Power offices I recite the quote to Duncan Hawthorne. He shrugs. "There is no need to chain themselves to a tree." But if they do, there are plenty of trees around here. Despite conservation's apparent social strength, energy demand isn't likely to abate. However, given its history of government dependence and high debt, nuclear power has to prove itself in the deregulated marketplace. And with waste disposal and decommissioning still open questions, skeptics remain. The Economist, for one, is less than sanguine. "If the private sector wishes to build new nuclear plants in an open and competitive energy market," it said recently, "more power to it. As (government) subsidies are withdrawn, however, that possibility will become ever less likely." On the shores of Lake Huron, as in the U.K. and the U.S., British Energy is hoping to do what the nuclear industry has never done: prove the skeptics wrong. PUT UP YOUR NUKES In Canada, here's what $27.4 billion buys -- and supplies There are five nuclear power plants in Canada: three in Ontario, one each in Quebec and New Brunswick. Together, they cost approximately $27.4 billion to build; they supply about 12% of our energy needs THE BRUCE Contribution to Ontario's energy needs: about 15% Bruce A (currently mothballed) Built: 1970-79 No. of reactors: 4 Cost to build: $1.8 billion Bruce B Built: 1976-87 No. of reactors: 4 Cost to build: $5.9 billion PICKERING Contribution to Ontario's energy needs: about 10% Pickering A (currently out of service) Built: 1965-73 No. of reactors: 4 Cost to build: $716 million Pickering B Built: 1974-86 No. of reactors: 4 Cost to build: $3.8 billion DARLINGTON Contribution to Ontario's energy supply: about 16% Built: 1981-93 No. of reactors: 4 Cost to build: $12.5 billion GENTILLY-2 Contribution to Quebec's energy needs: about 3% Built: 1973-83 No. of reactors: 1 Cost to build: $1.4 billion POINT LEPREAU Contribution to New Brunswick's energy needs: about 25% Built: 1975-83 No. of reactors: 1 Cost to build: $1.3 billion WORLD LEADERS France relies on nuclear power the most, but the U.S. has more reactors Top 10 in Nuclear Production Percentage of nuclear in total domestic electricity production: France 76% Ukraine 47% Korea 41% Japan 34% Germany 31% Spain 28% U.K. 22% U.S. 20% Russia 15% Canada 12% Top 10 in Number of Reactors in Use U.S. 104 France 59 Japan 53 U.K. 33 Russia 30 Germany 19 Canada 14 India 14 Ukraine 13 Sweden 11 Source: The World Nuclear Association ***************************************************************** 5 Japanese town to vote on nuclear power plant 18 November BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 2, 2001 Text of report in English by Japanese news agency Kyodo Miyama, Japan, 2 October: The town of Miyama in Mie Prefecture will hold a plebiscite 18 November on whether to ask a power company to build a local nuclear power plant, Mayor Tatsuo Shiotani said Tuesday [2 October]. The western Japan town will be the third municipal government to hold a legally non-binding vote on a nuclear power plant, following two plebiscites in Niigata Prefecture. But it will be the first town to conduct such a vote before a power company has proposed building a plant. Unlike the votes in Niigata Prefecture, the Miyama referendum is chiefly supported by proponents of nuclear power. An official notification about the vote will be made to Miyama residents 13 November, and voters will cast ballots between 0700 and 2000 [local time] 18 November. Vote counting is expected to be complete within about an hour. Miyama, with a population of about 10,000, is close to the towns of Nanto and Kisei in the same prefecture, where strong opposition forced Chubu Electric Power Co. to abandon in February last year a plan to build a nuclear power plant there. Chubu Electric Power had considered Miyama as a candidate site in 1963 before deciding on Nanto and Kisei. Since the 1980s, members of the local business community have been pressing for Miyama to ask the company to build a nuclear power plant to revive the area. In February this year, about 5,600 Miyama residents, or 64 per cent of eligible voters, filed a petition in support of the plant. Antinuclear power residents filed one against it. The ordinance on holding the plebiscite, passed by the town assembly in September, stipulates that a majority opinion in the plebiscite would be respected. In August 1996, in the first plebiscite on the construction of a nuclear power plant in Japan, involving Tohoku Electric Power Co., the town of Maki in Niigata Prefecture dealt a blow to the central government's nuclear power policy as a majority voted against it. In May this year, a majority of voters in the town of Kariwa, also in Niigata Prefecture, opposed Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s plan to use recycled nuclear fuel containing plutonium at a local nuclear plant. Source: Kyodo News Service, Tokyo, in English 0755 gmt 2 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 6 Austria Green MP fears more nuclear power imports Planet Ark Environmental News: AUSTRIA: October 2, 2001 VIENNA - The opening of Austria's power market will lead to a rise in imports derived from nuclear energy and undermine efforts to promote renewable energy sources, a Green member of parliament said yesterday. Speaking at a Euroforum industry conference, the Austrian Green party's parliamentary energy spokeswoman Eva Glawischnig said polls showed the majority of the eight-million population opposed these trends due to the associated safety risks. "Polls show consumers favour non-nuclear suppliers suggesting that investments in renewable energies will pay for themselves, albeit at a later stage," she said. "There are no merits for Austrian companies in co-operating with foreign nuclear power players." Austria threw open its 55 terawatt hours power market to competition yesterday, joining the top third of European Union countries with similar structures and inviting foreign players to expand their presence. But Glawischnig said if consumers chose their suppliers based on price, this would clash with the country's anti-nuclear stance adopted since it had been highly damaged by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Official data showed while Austria produced roughly 70 percent hydropower and 30 percent thermal power, with just 0.2 percent of alternative renewables such as wind and solar energy, nuclear energy imports already accounted for 8.9 percent of total use. But environmental lobby Greenpeace believed the real figure was already closer to 12 percent as a result of the liberalisation process, which had taken place in stages since 1999, she said. Meanwhile, research institute ISMA had found that 83 percent of Austrians did not want to buy nuclear-derived power even if it was cheaper, 74 percent were prepared to pay more for "ecological" power and 91 percent wanted strict labelling of power products, meaning the generating method would have to be declared. Glawischnig said Austria had vast potential to expand its wind and biomass energy sectors, which was in line with EU Commission plans to diversify the bloc's energy mix. But better promotion and funding was required to help achieve targest in national law had for the share of renewables (in addition to hydro) to be raised to four percent by 2007. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 7 Latest tests at Czech nuclear plant fail to be completely satisfactory BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 2, 2001 Text of report by Czech radio on 2 October [Presenter] Temelin nuclear power station has failed to fulfil all the required criteria during the current stage of tests when the plant was being run up to 55 per cent of its [projected] capacity. The head of the State Nuclear Safety Office, Dana Drabova, told Radiozurnal [this bulletin] that technicians planned to carry out several hundred tests during this stage. [Drabova] When we say that not all the criteria have been fulfilled, we mean that in some individual cases tests did not produce the planned 100-per-cent result. A typical example is the last, much discussed technical test of the regulation of [the power station's] own consumption. In no case have the parameters of nuclear safety been breached. The tests which did not meet [required] standard, as it were, did not concern nuclear safety. [Presenter] The head of the nuclear watchdog then went on to say that CEZ [Czech Power, Temelin operator] had to submit an overall assessment of this stage in the course of which the power plant was run up to 55 per cent of its capacity, including the explanation of the fulfilment of individual criteria. Only then will Drabova's office comment on the overall course of this stage. Source: Czech Radio-Radiozurnal, Prague, in Czech 0800 gmt 2 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 8 Removal of radioactive materials from Bulgarian plant "impossible" - official BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 1, 2001 Text of report in English by Bulgarian news agency BTA web site Sofia, 1 October: The physical protection of the Kozloduy N-plant is at such a level that diverting radioactive materials and products is practically impossible, according to Ivan Khinovski, the chairman of the board of Bulatom. Khinovski spoke at a news conference Monday [1 October] where Bulatom, a civic nonprofit association bringing together all companies and organizations in the nuclear energy sector, presented its position on the development of the nuclear power industry in Bulgaria. After 2009, even if the worst-case scenario for the Bulgarian economy comes true, building a new N-plant will be vital for the country, Khinovski said. Bulatom believe that otherwise Bulgaria will be unable to fulfil its responsibilities in pursuance to the decisions of the world environmental for a 5 per cent reduction of carbon dioxide discharges into the atmosphere after 2008. It takes between six and 10 years to build a new N-plant. Bulatom's priority now is to convince international institutions and fora that Units 3 and 4 of Kozloduy can run safely and their service life can be extended well after 2006. Khinovski said that they are going to negotiations on the future of the two reactors starting next year. International meetings and seminars will be organized in a bid to increase awareness in Europe of the two reactors' safety. At the moment Kozloduy is in the process of implementing a serious project for decommissioning Unit 1 and 2, said Subin Subinov of the N-plant, who is also deputy secretary of Bulatom. It will take 40 years to complete the project as the priority in the first five years will be to secure the safe storage of the reactors after decommissioning. One of the main problems that has to be solved is the spent nuclear fuel, said Bulatom. Khinovski himself is in favour of having the biggest possible dry storage facility from where the fuel can be transported where necessary. Transportation is very expensive and will depend on the competitiveness of the N-plant and the future energy market. Source: BTA web site, Sofia, in English 1 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 9 International safety experts begin assessment of Lithuania's nuclear plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 1, 2001 Text of report in English by Baltic news agency BNS Vilnius, 1 October: Experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have started a mission at the Lithuanian Ignalina nuclear power plant to establish the risk of radioactive pollution at the Soviet-built power station. The IAEA International Probabilistic Safety Assessment Review Team (IPSART), which embraces nuclear experts from Austria, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, Slovakia and the United States, will stay in Ignalina until 10 October. Specialists of the Ignalina plant, the Lithuanian Energy Institute, the State Atomic Energy Safety Inspectorate (VATESI) and Swedish organizations will also work in the mission. VATESI said in a press release that the first probabilistic safety review was conducted by Lithuanian and Swedish experts in the framework of the Barselina project and was reassessed by US experts. A number of improvements and modifications were made at Ignalina in line of a safety enhancement project, VATESI said, adding that a subsequent probabilistic examination showed a low risk of malfunction at the Ignalina reactor's active zone. The two high-power pressure-tube reactors at Ignalina are considered generally unsafe. Ignalina generates over 70 per cent of Lithuania's electricity. The Baltic state has taken on an obligation to decommission the first nuclear unit by 2005 and is urged by the European Union (EU) to shut down the second one before 2009. Source: BNS news agency, Tallinn, in English 0907 gmt 1 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 10 Bulgarian nuclear official dismisses doubts about security at plant BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 1, 2001 Text of report by Bulgarian radio on 1 October The claim that people could penetrate the Kozloduy nuclear power plant is absurd. This was pointed out by Ivan Khinovski, Bulatom Association chairman, for Khorizont Radio. This is known by anyone familiar with the protection of the shops and laboratories in which nuclear fuel is involved in the work, he pointed out. According to him, Bulgaria's efforts must be directed towards working out a strategy for a topical safety level of the third and fourth reactors, and extending the term of their exploitation even after 2006, as well as towards working out a concept on the modernization of the fifth and sixth reactors. Only in this way will Bulgaria be able to preserve its place as a power engineering centre in the Balkans, Khinovski stressed. Source: Bulgarian Radio, Sofia, in Bulgarian 0700 gmt 1 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 11 AEC in talks to build British nuclear plants: $23B expansion program Financial Post - Canada; Oct 1, 2001 LONDON - The nuclear generator British Energy is in talks with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and U.S.-based Westinghouse about the construction of up to 10 new nuclear power plants in Britain at a cost of (ps)10-billion ($23-billion), The Sunday Telegraph reported yesterday. British Energy said it needs to replace ageing nuclear plants, which account for a quarter of the country's electricity, with new ones in order to maintain diversity of supply and keep output at current levels. With "rebased finances" British Energy said it can afford to invest in new nuclear plants, but it wants liabilities predating its creation in 1996 to be transferred into a government liabilities agency. The company added Britain should follow the example set by the United States where it would pay US$1 for every megawatt of power generated to the Department of Energy, which in turn takes on ownership of spent fuel and related liabilities. All Material Subject to Copyright ***************************************************************** 12 Russia needs 10 years to remove nuclear waste from Kola peninsula BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 1, 2001 Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax Murmansk, 1 October: As many as 10 years are necessary to solve the problem of removing spent nuclear fuel from the Kola Peninsula, Deputy Minister of Atomic Energy Aleksandr Lebedev said at a briefing in Murmansk on Sunday [30 September]. One hundred and eighty-eight nuclear-powered submarines have been removed from operation in the Pacific and Northern Fleets, including 109 from the Northern Fleet, Lebedev said. Forty-four nuclear-powered submarines have been dismantled on the Kola Peninsula, and fuel has been removed from another 57 subs. More budget funds are being assigned to dismantle nuclear-powered submarines, Lebedev said. The allocations amounted to R1.2bn in 2001, including 650m for the Kola Region. As for the refusal of Russia to take part in an international programme for nuclear safety, Lebedev said, the programme stipulates the responsibility of a country for possible nuclear damage. The Vienna convention sets the minimum responsibility for such damage at 50m dollars. "Russia does not have this money," he remarked. Spent nuclear fuel was unloaded from four submarines in the Russian north in 1998. This year it is planned to unload 16 subs, Lebedev said. Russia plans to maintain this rate in the future in order to unload spent nuclear fuel from all the discarded submarines by 2007. The main problem in handling the submarines' reactors is the absence of a long-storage facility and the technical means for transportation. A feasibility study of a storage site for submarine reactor waste in the Saida bay was drafted in 2001. The project cost is 75m dollars. A feasibility study of a regional centre for processing and storing conditioned solid radioactive waste has been done, as well. The centre will be located on the premises of the Polyarninskiy and Nerpa ship-repairing docks, Murmansk Region. The centre will treat all types of waste, including conditioned liquid radioactive waste resulting from the everyday activity of nuclear facilities and the rehabilitation of former coastal bases of the Navy. The centre for solid radioactive waste is intended for storing conditioned waste of low and medium emission for 50 to 70 years. The total cost of the project is 85m dollars. Enterprises of the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry have drawn up a project for a permafrost burial site on the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago. An international examination of the project's safety will be done in 2001, and will help to decide whether to build the burial or to consider alternatives. Russia will have to complete the construction of a centre for liquid radioactive waste processing on the premises of the Atomflot enterprise in 2001, design special containers for storing solid radioactive waste and technical means for its transportation, and reconstruct the storage of the Murmansk-based Rodon enterprise for meeting the modern requirements of environmental safety of radioactive waste treatment, Lebedev said. "Despite the obviously successful implementation of the programme for dismantling nuclear-powered submarines, the total cost of dismantling and rehabilitating hazardous nuclear facilities is nearly 1.5bn dollars," sources in the Murmansk Region administration have told Interfax. "If the financing remains unchanged, the shortage of funds will reach 60 per cent within 10 years," they noted. Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 1002 gmt 1 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 13 Russia to deliver nuclear reactor to Iran in November BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 2, 2001 Text of report by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Moscow, 2 October, ITAR-TASS correspondent Anna Bazhenova: Russia is proceeding with the construction of a nuclear power station in Iran according to a clearly defined timetable. November of this year will see the delivery of the reactor for the first block, and as sources in the Atomic Energy Ministry informed an ITAR-TASS correspondent, all the basic hardware for the station's first block will be in place at the beginning of next year. Up until now, Russia has managed to supply 80 per cent of the reactor equipment for the Bushehr station. A unique feature of this installation is that the planning of the project is being developed in tandem with the construction work. No overall costing for the project has been drawn up, instead each individual component of the power station is being costed separately. The construction of the block should be completed in 2003, though it will be some time after that before it is fully operational. Around 18 months will be required to load the fuel, and to carry out test operations. At present over 1,000 Russian specialists are employed at Bushehr. The Atomic Energy Ministry of the Russian Federation is planing to hold talks regarding the construction of further blocks at the Bushehr nuclear power station, and it is possible that these will take place before the end of the year. Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian 0741 gmt 2 Oct 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Tainted metal recycling debated Chicago Tribune | October 3, 2001 By Sue Fox, Special to the Tribune. Sue Fox is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune newspaper Published October 2, 2001 A million tons of radioactive scrap metal may find a new shelf life in products ranging from soup cans and wristwatches to automobiles and artificial hips. It would be a mammoth recycling project for a legacy of the Nuclear Age. Under a proposal being considered by the Bush administration, the federal government is seeking new uses for lightly contaminated metal as it cleans up its obsolete weapon plants and research labs. Recycling the scrap, mostly steel, could save the government more than $1 billion, according to Department of Energy projections. Otherwise, it would have to be buried in dumps designed for radioactive refuse or converted into containers for nuclear waste. But the plan is opposed by metal industry groups, which fear negative public opinion, as well as by environmentalists, who fear potential harm to public health. Government officials insist that the metal would expose people to only tiny doses of radiation. "I don't question their science," said Bill Heenan, president of the Pittsburgh-based Steel Recycling Institute. "But it doesn't matter. It's contaminated in the eyes of the consumer. Perception is reality. There's no middle ground here." Poll numbers don't bode well for radioactive recyclables. A 1999 study found that 61 percent of 1,000 respondents opposed reusing contaminated steel in consumer products. That sentiment remained even if government scientists assured people that the metal was safe. Environmental groups, meanwhile, say that the danger is real. They warn that radioactive metal, no matter how slightly contaminated, could increase the risk of cancer and birth defects. The American steel industry recycles about 70 million tons of scrap each year. It makes new steel from melted-down cans, cars, appliances and construction materials. Such reuse generated more than $5.5 billion in revenue last year, according to the Steel Recycling Institute. The recycled metal ends up in an array of consumer products. For years, the Energy Department had quietly released to recyclers and landfills tiny amounts of contaminated material, including metal, from nuclear weapon factories and research labs. But debate over the practice has flared in the last two years as the government steps up large-scale decommissioning of nuclear plants. Copyright © 2001, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 2 Al-Qa'ida warns of nuclear attacks on Pakistan - paper BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Oct 1, 2001 A Pakistani newspaper said on Monday that Usamah Bin-Ladin's Al-Qa'ida group had issued warnings that there could be nuclear attacks on Pakistan if the United States attacked Afghanistan. "Threats of nuclear bomb attacks in Pakistan have increased with a [possible] US attack on Afghanistan," the Pakistani newspaper Ausaf said. It said that statements from Al-Qa'ida "threatening that an attack on Afghanistan will lead to serious consequences" had started to arrive at newspaper offices. "A letter sent in the name of Riza Basra says nuclear bombs will be exploded in Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore if Afghanistan is attacked," the paper said. "It is believed that some anti-state elements have decided to take advantage of an attack on Afghanistan. "These bombings in the event of an attack can then be blamed on Usamah Bin-Ladin in order to create misunderstandings," Ausaf added. Source: Ausaf, Islamabad, in Urdu 1 Oct 01 pp 1, 7 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 3 I would have shot that bastard! Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. -- I would have shot that bastard! The experts' knowledge on state secrets turned out to be limited, but this was not the only walk of life where they had limited competence. They may also have one or two things to learn about customary behaviour. Ivan Pavlov got a work offer from the state secret experts. photo: Victor Tereshkin Jon Gauslaa, 2001-10-01 18:33 As previously reported on Bellona web, Pasko's defence went hard on the 'state secrets experts' throughout the interrogations at the Pacific Fleet courthouse in Vladivostok. If the atmosphere inside the courtroom was tensed, it now and then became downright ugly outside the courtroom. However, Pasko's attorney Ivan Pavlov was also offered a new job ... -- I would have shot that bastard! In one of the early breaks on September 19, expert and lieutenant colonel Poryadny came out of the courtroom red-faced, and started to accuse everybody who came in his way with treason. Pasko, his whole defence-team and the present journalists were all spies, CIA-agents and homosexuals who had sold their nation for cheap cigarettes. When one of the subjects of the abuse (who by the way was the only smoker among them), protested and referred to the case against Aleksandr Nikitin, the expert burst out: -- Nikitin! I would have loved to shoot that filthy bastard with my own hands! Aleksandr Nikitin was on September 13, 2000 acquitted by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court of charges similar to the charges against Pasko, after an almost five year long prosecution. A dragon with eight hundred heads The next day one of the experts approached a journalist outside the courtroom with a clear message: -- We don't like the way that you act. And we don't like the behaviour of Pasko's defenders. Not long ago they popped the director of the "Zvezda" factory in Bolshoi Kamen, the expert said. -- The same will happen to you. And Pavlov! However, the impression of the experts would not be complete if one not also mentions that they were capable of other things that throwing cheap threats at journalists and lawyers. Ivan Pavlov did actually get a job offer from the experts, as they asked him if he was interested in taking part in the working out of new departmental lists of state secrets. The offer was apparently meant seriously. Still, Pavlov got an offer that he just might want to forget. -- One of the tragedies of Russia is that it is pervaded by tiny segments of all kinds of departments and ministries, he said. Arbitrary bureaucrats govern our country. -- It's like being governed by a dragon with eight hundred heads. Grigory Pasko was arrested in November 1997 on charges of espionage. He was acquitted in July 1999, but convicted of 'abuse of official authority' and freed under an amnesty. Seeking a full acquittal, Pasko appealed, but so did the prosecution, insisting he was a spy. In November the Military Supreme Court sent the case back for a re-trial at the Pacific Fleet Court. The re-trial started on July 11, 2001, and will resume on November 1. The charges against Pasko are based on the evaluation of the state secret experts, whose main legal instrument has been Russian Ministry of Defence's secret decree no. 055:1996. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 4 Kursk lifting scheduled for October 3rd or 4th Background information and news about the numerous accidents and incidents that involve the nuclear vessels in the Northern Fleet. Jump to section (Murmansk:) This morning, the Russian deputy premier, Ilya Klebanov, visited shipyard no.82, where Kursk is to be docked after lifted from the bottom of the Barents Sea. The weather is good in the salvage area, so the divers will continue to work in the evening. The TV-link with Russian deputy premier, Ilya Klebanov, who is currently onboard the nuclear cruiser Peter the Great photo: Viktor Khabarov, 2001-10-01 00:00 The management of shipyard no.82 reported to Ilya Klebanov that they are prepared to receive Kursk. The deputy premier talked to the workers who will be engaged in the docking operation. Later Mr Klebanov and the chief in charge of the Russian Navy, Vladimir Kuroedov, held a meeting in the Northern Fleet headquarters, discussing the details of the Kursk lifting operation. According to the head of the Northern Fleet press service, Vladimir Navrotsky, Mammoet is to make the final decision about the date of the lifting. He said that it is possible that the third procedure of the salvage operation, namely transporting Kursk to the dock, may take place in the end of the week. The Russian deputy premier, Ilya Klebanov, while onboard the cruiser Peter the Great, said the weather in the salvage area had improved and that the divers would start to install the cables in the guides this evening. The first cable will be installed on compartment 5, and within 2-3 days the entire work will be completed. Mammoet representative Larisa van Seymeren said that if all goes well the lifting operation should take place on October 3rd or 4th. The lifting itself will take 10-12 hours. Answering the question about the first compartment, Smith International representative Lars Valder said that he was convinced the first compartment was cut off, or that only few centimetres remained. Anyhow this would not obstruct the lifting operation. If necessary, the divers can solve the problem. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************