***************************************************************** 12/06/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.287 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Foreign Ministry says no nuclear weapons in Bulgaria 2 Nuclear waste import and the public opposition 3 Ukrainian PM slams EBRD terms for completion of nuclear 4 New hope, same spirit 5 N.K. nuclear project essential: unification minister 6 House votes for more waste 7 Nevada's Congressional Delegation Urges President To Delay Yucca Mountain 8 Reid Legislation To Study Hazmat Routes Passes Congress 9 Leak prompts calls for uranium mine review 10 Yucca comment: Leave it 11 New "Dependent" Counsel Regulations Are Dangerously Restrictive 12 Chu promises serious look at issues raised in Yucca report 13 Few attend DOE hearing on Yucca project 14 SA: US Power Group May Buy Pebble Bed Reactors 15 Nuclear Experts Meet 16 SA Success Could Expedite Reactor's Approval in US 17 Outspoken handful of Yucca critics shows up at hearing 18 U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges pro-Yucca decision 19 Harvey Wasserman: Atomic Treason in the House 20 Caliber of workers low at Indian Point 21 Gibbons Delivers Delegation Letter to Administration Calling for 22 Reid/Berkley Announce DOE Mismanagement May Kill Yucca Mountain Project 23 N.K. nuclear project essential: unification minister 24 Japan: Nuclear plant pipe ruptured under pressure 25 North Korea denounces Japan's ambition to become nuclear power NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Lawrence Berkeley Lab Tritium Facility 2 Society: Environment: Nuclear fallout 3 Slovenia: Lifting of maritime law ban on nuclear energy-propelled 4 Pasko-verdict on December 18? 5 Declassified data to aid look at NTS contamination 6 Russia: Navy Gambled and Lost 7 Next year key for Rocky Flats closure 8 Group seeks Flats museum 9 India, Pakistan and the Bomb: 10 Russia questions U.S. on nuclear reductions 11 UNITED NATIONS TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT COULD STOP UK PLUTONIUM PLANT 12 Russia in Nuclear Compliance 13 Bill would fund health study for weapons workers 14 Ohio nuclear plant won't be closed early 15 DOE security is focus of meeting 16 The Home-Front Emergency 17 Indian research centre develops anti-nuclear terrorism device **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Foreign Ministry says no nuclear weapons in Bulgaria BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 5, 2001 Text of report in English by Bulgarian news agency BTA web site Sofia, 5 November: "There are no nuclear weapons in Bulgaria," Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Elena Poptodorova told journalists Wednesday [5 December], asked to comment on a French TV film alleging that such weapons are readily available for sale in Bulgarian territory. "Numerous checks about the presence of nuclear weapons have been conducted in connection with Bulgaria's bid for full membership of NATO and membership of the Australia Group," Poptodorova specified. "What the film shows is a rather absurd invention," she said. The spokesperson said that the case has been checked by the defence and interior ministries and by the intelligence services. She stressed that the check was not about nuclear weapons but about a breakdown of the arms control mechanism. No breaches have been detected, Poptodorova said. The Foreign Ministry is contemplating a reaction to the film's authors and to the channel that broadcast it. A tape of the broadcast has not yet been made available to the ministry, even though it has requested one, Poptodorova said. Source: BTA web site, Sofia, in English 5 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear waste import and the public opposition Russian environmentalists organise demonstrations along the Trans-Siberian Railway. Meanwhile, the State Duma hardliners become members of a new presidential commission on nuclear waste import. photo: Ecodefence! Atle Staalesen, 2001-10-26 19:41 Last week, the Russian State Duma passed an amendment to the Law on Environmental Protection, thereby removing the last roadblocks for massive import of nuclear waste. At the same time the environmental group Ecodefence! reported that railroad carriages, destined for Russia, where being loaded with Bulgarian spent nuclear fuel. By the end of 2002 a steady flow of special trains is supposed to arrive in Siberia. The proponents of the law stress that the import will be "important for the development of Russian industry and science." Their opponents, however, express their scepticism towards this theory. They also question the financial part of the project. Russian authorities believe the income from the spent nuclear fuel import will constitute at least $20 billion. Environmentalists believe the sum will be much smaller, and that it will not be used to the promised clean up of areas which are contaminated by the nuclear industry. A Duma member from Yabloko faction, Sergei Mitrokhin, describes the "magical" 20 billions as a "myth". He also believes that the Western governments now might end up abstaining from sending their waste to Russia, because they are afraid the long transport routes could expose the waste to possible "terrorist sabotage". Opposition Duma members have tried to reach a compromise with the parliamentary majority. Yabloko representatives presented a proposition suggesting that the waste be returned to the countries of its origin after reprocessing in Russia. The proposal was rejected by the Duma. So was the attempt to make Sergei Mitrokhin a member of a new presidential commission on nuclear waste import control. The commission, will instead have five Duma representatives, who are all in favour of the waste import. Moreover, they all have close ties with the nuclear power industry. Vladimir Grachev, Mikhail Zlikhanov and Peter Romanov all represent interests of the Ministry of Nuclear Energy in the Duma. Robert Nigmatulin is the brother of the deputy minister on nuclear energy. And Sergey Shashurin has a criminal record. A couple of years ago he tried to start up a business together with the Kurchatov Institute with the aim to import radioactive waste from Taiwan and store it at Sakhalin. There is a fierce public opposition against the import of nuclear waste. Three out of four Russians oppose the new law. On Wednesday a number of Russian environmental organisations held demonstrations in major cities along the Trans Siberian railroad. Leaflets handed out warned against the danger of an environmental catastrophe: "Look at the condition of our railroads: almost every week there are different accidents. When there is a train with nuclear waste coming, any accident may turn into a terrible environmental catastrophe, where thousands of people living along the Trans Siberian railroad would suffer!" The liberal Yabloko party insists there must be held a national vote. However, this might turn out to be easier said than done. Last year Russian environmental groups collected around 2.5 million signatures for a referendum, only to be stopped by the Central Electoral Committee, which declared 600,000 of them invalid. The organisations therefore did not get the required two million signatures. Also this year the initiators will face obstructions. Ten days after Yabloko announced its intention to organise a second collection of signatures, a group of Duma members suggested to change the very law about national referendums. 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 ***************************************************************** 3 Ukrainian PM slams EBRD terms for completion of nuclear reactors BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 5, 2001 [Presenter] The Russian Federation is prepared to grant a loan to Ukraine to finance the completion of two nuclear energy generating sets at Rivne and Khmelnytskyy nuclear power stations, Ukrainian Prime Minister Anatoliy Kinakh said in Moscow today, commenting on the results of the meeting of the Russian-Ukrainian cooperation commission... [Correspondent] One more energy issue is Russian participation in the completion of generating sets at Rivne and Khmelnytskyy nuclear power stations. Anatoliy Kinakh said that the position of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was unacceptable. Moscow agreed to do the same job at a cost which is three times lower. [Kinakh, in Russian] Ukraine found some of the conditions that are attached to the completion of the reactors on the basis of the participation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other organizations, unacceptable both in terms of the national economic interest and the real state of the economy. The main disagreement is over the project's costs, including the necessity to fulfil the project's condition to raise electricity tariffs. This would result in an average 30-35 per cent increase in energy tariffs in Ukraine, which is quite a drastic and shocking measure. [Mikhail Kasyanov, Russian prime minister, in Russian] We will issue a loan to cover the whole cost of Russian participation. How much? Our nuclear energy specialists are currently developing the project's structure. So far it has been estimated to cost about 60m dollars next year and the total construction cost is, I think, about 450-500m dollars for both stations, both for Russia and Ukraine. Russia will certainly pay its share and the work may start in the second quarter [of 2002]... Source: Ukrainian Television First Programme, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1900 gmt 4 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All ***************************************************************** 4 New hope, same spirit By Matt O'Brien Following the resignation of the law firm advising the Department of Energy on the Yucca Mountain Project and the leaking of a congressional report urging the DOE to delay making a site recommendation, one may have expected Saturday's Clark County-organized Yucca Mountain panel discussion to resemble a pep rally. But the discussion, which was held in the Clark County Government Center's Commission Chambers, was not particularly spirited or stimulating (of course, nothing involving U.S. Sen. Harry Reid ever is). As a welcoming address was being delivered at 10 a.m., about 50 people - security officers included - were spread throughout the chambers; and an impromptu question-and-answer session, conducted while waiting for Reid to arrive, revealed not all attendees were opposed to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste being stored in Southern Nevada. The panel discussion, which was advertised in the daily newspapers and televised live on Cox Commun ications Channel 4, attracted the typical Yucca Mountain Project forum gathering: sandaled activists, wild-eyed proponents, the genuinely curious and, of course, the token madman. The assemblage was predominantly gray. "I'm really surprised there aren't more young people here," observed 17-year-old Seanna Larson, who attended the discussion with her 16-year-old friend Dominique Barnes. "They should be out here opposing what's going on. Nuclear waste is not a good thing." Oh, Santa Claus was also in attendance. "I came here to continue my battle against the nuclear waste industry," explained a man dressed in black boots and a red-and-white hat and suit, who only identified himself as Santa. "I'm dressed as Santa because people have forgotten what Chernobyl and Hiroshima have done to the children. There are birth defects to this day caused by the radiation that was released 56 years ago. If there was one [nuclear waste] spill anywhere in this valley, it would affect the children alive today, their children, their children's children and their children's grandchildren. "I'm here to speak for the children who aren't yet educated enough to speak for themselves." Reid and his entourage, which included a trio of paranoid plainclothes Metro officers, arrived at 10:35 a.m. and the panel was immediately assembled. After reading a statement from absent U.S. Sen. John Ensign, Reid discussed the resignation of Winston & Strawn (the law firm that was once advising the DOE and representing the nuclear power industry) and a General Accounting Office report, which indicated the DOE doesn't yet have enough data to make a reliable site recommendation. (The GAO is an independent, investigatory arm of Congress.) "We have a lot of things going for us that we didn't awhile ago," concluded Reid, before exiting early. The discussion, which was moderated by former U.S. Sen. Richard Bryan, proceeded with we-got-the-DOE-right-where-we-want-them video speeches from Reps. Jim Gibbons and Shelley Berkley. The panelists - including state Sen. Mark James and Nevada State Agency for Nuclear Projects Executive Director Robert Loux - then addressed the audience, each outlining perceived deficiencies of the Yucca Mountain Project and occasionally referencing the Clark County Impact Assessment Repor t that was distributed at the forum. While the majority of the panelists delivered analytical addresses, businessman Steve Cloobeck's was largely emotional. Cloobeck, a managing general partner of the Polo Towers, chastised state Sen. Bill O'Donnell and former Gov. Robert List, labeling them "terrorists among us" and insisting they "should be banished from the community." (For the record, O'Donnell and List have not k illed anyone - at least to our knowledge; the former urged local lawmakers to prepare for the worst concerning the Yucca Mountain Project and the latter is aligned with nuclear energy interests.) Following the three-and-a-half-hour discussion, Cloobeck revealed a more positive side. "For the first time, you have the federal government, the state, the county and the private sector all working together [in opposition to the Yu cca Mountain Project]," he observed. "When I got involved a year ago, the state didn't know what the county was doing, the county didn't know what the feds were doing and the private sector wasn't even involved. For the first time, you have a united group working together." Despite Winston & Strawn's resignation and the GAO report, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham pledged to proceed with the Yucca Mountain Project. If Abraham determines Yucca Mountain is a suita ble site, he will recommend it to President Bush. If the recommen dation is approved by Bush and Congress, the DOE may then submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 5 N.K. nuclear project essential: unification minister Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com Thursday, December 6, 2001 Unification Minister Hong Soon-young yesterday asked the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) to carry out faithfully its construction of nuclear power plants in North Korea despite possible obstacles, ministry officials said. In a meeting with KEDO Executive Director Charles Kartman, Hong said the nuclear project is "essential to maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula," the officials said. Kartman came to Seoul on Tuesday after a four-day visit to North Korea, where he and Pyongyang officials discussed a number of pending issues related to the nuclear project. The $4.6-billion KEDO project has emerged as a thorny issue between North Korea and the United States. Washington has called for an international inspection of the communist country's suspected nuclear weapons programs, while Pyongyang demanded U.S. compensation for the delay of the power plants' construction. Kartman said he discussed with Pyongyang officials methods for resolving ongoing disputes over the wages of North Korean workers at Sinpo, the construction site located on the North's east coast. Other issues included the establishment of a satellite communication network linking Sinpo and foreign countries, according to Foreign Ministry officials. Kartman, former U.S. special envoy on the Korean Peninsula, attended a string of meetings with South Korean officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Yim Sung-joon and Chang Sun-sup, head of the Light-Water Reactor Planning Office. He briefed the Seoul officials on the results of his North Korean trip, including the signing of an accord on quality assurance and warranties for the twin light-water reactors. Under a 1994 deal between the United States and North Korea, KEDO has funded the reactor construction project in return for the North's promise to freeze its own nuclear project. (jihoho@koreaherald.co.kr) By Kim Ji-ho Staff reporter 2001.12.06 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 headline">House votes for more waste By Heidi Walters If Nevada is serious about stopping nuclear waste from being trucked into the state for a 10,000-year hot slumber in Yucca Mountain, then it might want to watch how Sen. Harry Reid and his Senate handle the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act bill, which the House passed last week in a shadowy voice vote. Sure, last week's other developments, on the nuclear waste front, gave powerful oomph to the fight against the Yucca dump: the withdrawal from t he Yucca scene of the DOE's ethics-challenged law firm, Winston & Strawn; and a damning report on the Yucca project from the General Accounting Office. But developments on the nuclear power front - relicensing procedures already underway for existing plants; the House vote on the Price-Anderson Act - leave no doubt that the industry is still the apple of the Bush-Cheney administration's energy policy eye. The connection should be simp le: More nuclear power equals more nuclear waste. And last time we checked, Nevada was the only place being considered for storage of the waste. The Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act, as it stands now, sets the stage for 15 more years of new nuclear power plant construction by lowering the industry's insurance costs and limiting nuclear power operators' liability in case of accidents. The act initially was passed in 1957 to boost the fledgling nuclear power industry and was repassed in 1988. The nuclear power industry - considered mature, now - competes in the open electricity markets. Unsubsidized, nuclear operators would have to carry more insurance, which would exorbitantly raise the price of nuclear energy given the public's (and insurers') general distrust and fear of that power source. Under the House's version of the new P-A Act, in a nuclear accident nuclear operators are insured for up to $9.4 billion in cleanup cos ts. Taxpayers make up the difference. That could prove an unthinkable burden, says Rep. Shelley Berkley, who spoke out against the reauthorization last Tuesday. "Worst-case scenario speculation is that a catastrophic nuclear accident would cost upwards of $300 billion to clean up," Berkley says. Lisa Gue, a policy analyst for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, says the act also lets the Department of Ene rgy and its contractors off the hook for liability in case of any accidents involving private industry nuclear waste, even those resulting from gross misconduct, headed for Yucca Mountain. Public Citizen and a broad coalition of environmental and other groups have long spoken out against the Price-Anderson Act. But Gue says the powerful nuclear industry lobby's influence is obvious. "Rep. Joe Barton [R-Texas], who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee t hat marke d up [Price-Anderson], received $131,590 from electric utilities in the last election cycle, making them his top campaign contributor," she says. "Electric utilities are also the top contributor to the committee's top Democrat, Rep. John Dingell [D-Mich]." Nuke favor was evident in last week's House action, in which Republican leadership placed the bill on the House Suspension Calendar, usually reserved for non-controversial issue s "such as naming new post offices, and in which debate is limited and amendments are prohibited," Gue says. Also, no one called for a roll call vote - not even Nevada's Berkley or staunch fellow nuke opponent Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass). The measure passed with an unrecorded voice vote. "To formulate energy policy in the suspension calendar is clearly a travesty of the democratic process," Gue says, adding that "the Democrats were not too forceful in trying" to get it off that calendar. Berkley says she didn't ask for a roll call because she considered that the best strategy. "Sen. Reid and I ... determined that this piece of legislation would pass overwhelmingly," she says. "We didn't want to highlight [that] and demonstrate a serious loss" with a definitive roll call vote. That, she says, could have put Sen. Reid at a bigger disadvantage. But one might argue that it also might be to Reid's disadvantage if the nebulous voice vote is interpreted as unanimous approval from the House for Price-Anderson. Regardless, it is now in the Senate's hands. Reid declines to say outright whether he'll try to kill the P-A bill. But, speaking through press officer Nathan Naylor, he says that "we are going to work very hard to ensure that new nuclear power plants are not subsidized by the government. " But, Naylor says, " At this point it's probably unrealistic to think we could do a complete repeal" of Price-Anderson, which already covers old power plants in perpetuity. He adds, "Sen. Reid has always said that he is not opposed to nuclear power, per se, but he believes it shouldn't be given unfair subsidies. Sen. Reid funds research for the nuclear power industry every year, so we are not fundamentally opposed to nuclear power." (Rep. Berkley, for the r ecord, is a strong proponent of spending money on alternative, safe energies such as solar and wind power rather than nuclear.) Reid declines to say whether he will try to amend the Price-Anderson bill, or what he will do if the bill gets attached to, for instance, the big sprawling energy bill (in a hurry to be passed before winter recess). Another question that Gue raises is, since Congress has mandated a study of security need s at n uclear power facilities, wouldn't it be wise to hold off on the P-A reauthorization until after the study's completed? "That definitely seems prudent to us," Naylor says. As for Yucca Mountain and security: Proponents point to the Sept. 11 attacks as reason enough to centralize nuclear waste. "This is not just erroneous," says Berkley, "but the most blatant political misuse of tho se tragic events." And that's because nuclear power plants, new or old, would keep on generating deadly waste and creating more of those on-site, terrorist-target waste piles. And all the while, yet more targets in the form of waste transport vehicles would dutifully spread out across the country en route to filling up Yucca Mountain. Las Vegas City Life ***************************************************************** 7 Nevada's Congressional Delegation Urges President To Delay Yucca Mountain Decision Tuesday, December 4, 2001 WASHINGTON, D.C. - All four members of Nevada’s Congressional delegation sent a letter to the White House today asking President Bush to delay the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain. The letter points to reports from the General Accounting Office and the Department of Energy’s Inspector General citing serious flaws in the Yucca Mountain project. “President Bush stood in Nevada and made a promise to let sound science determine the fate of the Yucca Mountain project,” Senator Reid said. “The President also assured Nevadans that he would oppose temporary storage of nuclear waste. We are asking him now to follow through with those promises.” “We hope this letter sends a strong message to the Administration,” Senator Ensign said. “If sound science is the standard, then Energy Secretary Abraham must delay his recommendation for site suitability at Yucca Mountain.” “The systematic mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and failed scientific processes necessitate an immediate postponement of the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain,” stated Congressman Jim Gibbons. “The Bush Administration inherited the Yucca Mountain Project, complete with its flaws and biases. However, President Bush has the opportunity to change the course of history by halting the site recommendation process until the necessary scientific and technical information has been collected, analyzed, and shown to be completely impartial.” Said Representative Berkley, “The GAO report makes crystal clear that Yucca Mountain is fast becoming the biggest and costliest boondoggle in the history of the country. Between the GAO report, and the recent revelations about the Winston & Strawn law firm, it's hard to see how any administration would allow this kind of corrupt process to continue. Nevertheless, Nevadans have been railroaded by the DOE for years, and it seems from their statements that they're going to try to do it again. We have the word of the President that the process would reflect sound science, and we're going to take him at his word.” Letter follows: President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: We are writing in regard to the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. As you know, the Department of Energy (DOE) is expected to make a determination in February or March of next year on whether the Yucca Mountain is a suitable high-level nuclear waste repository. During the fall Presidential campaign, you assured Nevadans that this decision would reflect sound science and that you would be opposed to interim storage in Nevada. We are concerned, however, that the Department of Energy is moving forward with this decision despite clear indications that 293 crucial scientific and technical analyses remain to be completed and likely will not be completed for another four to five years. The results of a draft General Accounting Office report on the site recommendation process and the Yucca Mountain program indicate that (1) the DOE is not ready to make a site recommendation because it lacks the technical information needed for a recommendation and a license application, and (2) the DOE is unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010. Moreover, the draft report indicates that DOE has no reliable estimate of when, nor at what cost, such a repository could be opened. In addition, we fear that existing science and technical information may have been tainted by the conflict of interest that existed at the law firm of Winston & Strawn, hired by the DOE to provide legal assistance with the license application process. The DOE Inspector General recently found that this firm improperly worked for both the DOE and the Nuclear Energy Institute on issues related to Yucca Mountain. The report documents fourteen Winston & Strawn employees who simultaneously billed the DOE and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Because of the questions raised by this report, the firm of Winston & Strawn withdrew from the contract. Nonetheless, we expect the DOE to implement the recommendations of the Inspector General report and evaluate what scientific and technical information may have been tainted by the improper actions of Winston & Strawn. We recognize that the problems of mismanagement at the Yucca Mountain project are not solely the responsibility of your Administration. These problems have existed throughout the lifetime of the project. The best way to correct the systemic mismanagement of the Yucca Mountain Project, which has wasted $8 billion to date, is to immediately postpone the site recommendation until the necessary scientific and technical information has been collected and analyzed, and shown to be impartial and unbiased. Without a clear resolution to these problems, the public will lack confidence that a sound scientific and policy process has been followed and that their health and safety have been adequately considered. Finally, resolving these important issues will give Nevadans confidence that you have satisfied your commitment to ensuring the scientific process. If you have any questions about our concerns, please contact us. We appreciate your consideration of our request and look forward to hearing from you. ***************************************************************** 8 Reid Legislation To Study Hazmat Routes Passes Congress Tuesday, December 4, 2001 WASHINGTON – Nevada Senator Harry Reid’s legislation to protect Americans from the dangers posed by transporting hazardous materials on our nation’s roads, railroads and waterways passed Congress today. The legislation calls for three things: An analysis of the risks associated with the transportation of hazardous materials A survey of the nation’s transportation system tasked with carrying these substances -- including recommended infrastructure upgrades, and An assessment of emergency response systems ability to contain future disasters Reid referred to incidents such the train accident in Baltimore earlier this year, and the cracked nuclear waste container which traveled across the country as reasons for the legislation. “As events this year have shown us, there is a very real and immediate danger of transporting hazardous materials on our nation’s roadways,” Senator Reid said. “We must ensure that the roads, rails, and waters designated to move deadly materials through our towns and across our nation are held to the highest standard.” Reid’s legislation requires the Secretary of the Department of Transportation -- in consultation with the Comptroller General -- to study risks to the public health and safety associated with the transportation of hazardous chemical and radioactive materials. The bill also requires DOT and GAO to study whether our transportation system can safely transport these dangerous substances, and asks how we might improve upon a mixed track record. “Not only must we be prepared for accidents involving hazardous materials, but also for the potential of a terrorist attack,” Senator Reid added. The legislation also asks DOT and GAO to study the ability of emergency response personnel to respond to transportation accidents involving dangerous substances. Finally, it instructs DOT and GAO to evaluate governmental communication with the public about transportation accidents involving dangerous substances. ***************************************************************** 9 Leak prompts calls for uranium mine review Herald Sun: [06dec01] From AAP A LEAK from the recently approved Honeymoon uranium mine has prompted calls for a review of the mine's operations and full disclosure of all trial mine reports. The leak, which contaminated groundwater during trials, occurred about two years ago and has been confirmed by Southern Cross Resources, the operator of the mine in northern South Australia. It came to light in a state government assessment report on the project released publicly yesterday, eight days after the mine was given final SA and federal government approval. A leach solution of sulphuric acid and an elevated uranium level was detected in an aquifer. It was believed to have leaked through what was previously thought to be an impervious clay barrier, separating it from a lower aquifer into which the leach had been injected. A company spokesman said there was no guarantee against similar leaks in the future, but that the environmental impact of such leaks would be minimal. But environmental groups called for a halt to operations and a review of the mine - scheduled to begin full-scale operation by the end of next year - given the company had previously said the clay layer was impervious. "The company has claimed contamination of groundwater could not happen - it already has," Friends of the Earth nuclear campaigner Bruce Thompson said. Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said full details of the trial mine operations should have been made public during the assessment process and were still being kept secret. "Honeymoon has only been licensed for one week and already we have a pattern of contamination and cover-up," he said. "The company seems far more concerned with media leaks than with leaks into the surrounding groundwater." Mr Sweeney said the ACF would appeal to the SA Ombudsman's Office to try to force Southern Cross Resources to release details of the trial mine operations. But SA Minerals and Energy Minister Wayne Matthew said the incident was a minor one and the acid used in the mine leaching process had about the same strength as lemon juice. "Both areas of water already have uranium within them, so effectively it went from one saline, uranium-bearing body of water into anther saline, uranium-bearing body of water," Mr Matthew said. "There was no drinkable water under threat." However, Mr Matthew said it was a concern that this movement of solution did occur, because it should not. But he said the monitoring in place detected it and the process was quickly reversed. © 2001 Herald and Weekly Times ***************************************************************** 10 Yucca comment: Leave it Thursday, December 06, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: With Yucca Mountain yet again in Nevada's headlines, it might be time to entertain a proposal that is both technologically sound and ethically fair. In 1969, President Nixon ended the subsidized plutonium buy-back program. This effectively ended the recycling of spent nuclear fuel rods. It was expected that another fuel processing program would quickly replace plutonium buy-back. It did not happen. Ever since then, fuel rods have been accumulating in shielded cooling tanks on the grounds of the reactors where they were used. Some fuel rods have been where they are for more than 30 years. This means that we have a real world test of both the storage and containment of spent nuclear fuel rods, nuclear waste if you prefer. Leaving the rods in monitored cooling tanks works pretty well. There have been no leaks of radioactive materials from the storage tanks. That sounds like a solution to me. Leave the stuff where it is. Yucca Mountain was selected in the late 1980s because Nevada had fewer people than states containing the other proposed sites. If there were ever an unfair solution to a political problem, Yucca Mountain was it. The majority of electric power derived from nuclear energy is produced and consumed east of the Mississippi River. It's also where most of the spent fuel rods still are. It's a central tenet of economics that those who benefit from something should be the ones who pay for it. Leaving the fuel rods where they are, for centuries if necessary, is thus not only a technologically sound solution, it's a fair one. CHARLES E. FULLER JR. HENDERSON This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-06-Thu-2001/opinion/17593779.html [http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Dec-06-Thu-2001/opinion/17593779.html] ***************************************************************** 11 New "Dependent" Counsel Regulations Are Dangerously Restrictive ,Public Citizen Says Dec. 5, 2001 Nuclear Waste Nominee Raises More Conflict of Interest Issues for Troubled Yucca Mountain Project WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Bush’s nomination of Margaret Chu to the office responsible for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository raises conflict of interest concerns because of her previous work at Sandia National Laboratories, a key participant in the project, Public Citizen said today. Chu has been nominated as director of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM). The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the confirmation today. "Such blatant organizational conflict of interest makes this nomination unacceptable," said Lisa Gue, policy analyst with Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "As director of OCRWM, Chu would be in a position to review the work of a program she formerly directed." For more than two decades, Chu was employed by Sandia National Labs, most recently as director of the Nuclear Waste Management Program. Sandia is a DOE nuclear weapons and research facility operated by Lockheed Martin Corp. The facility has conducted several studies related to the Yucca Mountain repository proposal, including a series of "Total System Performance Assessments" (TSPAs) that aim to predict the ability of the DOE’s repository designs to contain nuclear waste far into the future. As stated on Sandia’s Web site, "Any decision on whether to build and operate a repository at the [Yucca Mountain] site will be strongly influenced by past and future TSPA analyses." Yucca Mountain, located northwest of Las Vegas in Nevada, is the only site under consideration for a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository. OCRWM is responsible for evaluating the suitability of the site, which may lead to a recommendation by the energy secretary early next year. Numerous technical, environmental and policy issues remain unresolved, but the pro-nuclear Bush administration appears committed to pursuing the project. "Sandia’s Yucca Mountain studies have tended to favor the repository proposal," said Gue, noting that the presidentially appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has frequently been critical of the high level of uncertainty involved in the TSPA analyses. "If the DOE decides not to recommend the site, Sandia’s reputation would certainly be hurt." "Because of her long association with Sandia’s Nuclear Waste Management Program, Margaret Chu will be under immense pressure to support a favorable evaluation of the Yucca Mountain repository proposal regardless of evidence that should disqualify the site," Gue said. Recent events have brought to light other instances of conflict of interest within the Yucca Mountain Project, seriously damaging its credibility. The law firm Winston & Strawn resigned last week after the DOE’s inspector general reported that lawyers serving as counsel to the Yucca Mountain Project were simultaneously registered as members and lobbyists for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s pro-repository lobbying group. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s inspector general also is investigating an alleged leak of unpublished NRC documents to Winston & Strawn lawyers. Additionally, a draft Government Accounting Office document, reported on last week in the Washington Post and elsewhere, appears to indicate that DOE’s current site recommendation activities are premature because many studies are incomplete. "The repository proposal should be shelved pending a thorough and independent review of the causes and consequences of contractor conflict of interest and pro-industry bias within the Yucca Mountain Project," said Gue. "The integrity of the program has been seriously undermined, and by nominating Margaret Chu the administration shows no interest in improving this dismal track record." ***************************************************************** 12 Chu promises serious look at issues raised in Yucca report Few attend DOE hearing on Yucca project Thursday, December 06, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Senators question nominee to head key Energy Department office By STEVE TETREAULT DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Margaret Chu, nominated to head the Energy Department's nuclear waste disposal office, told senators on Wednesday that once confirmed, she will look "seriously and quickly" at issues raised in a report critical of Yucca Mountain program management. Chu said she had not seen the draft report by the General Accounting Office that has been widely discussed but not yet officially released. It was made public late last week. Asked her view of the report by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chu deferred an answer, but said her 20 years of experience as a scientist on nuclear waste matters should enable her to grasp the issue and advise Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The report recommends Abraham delay a decision on recommending nuclear waste burial at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Abraham has dismissed the draft report as "fatally flawed," and has indicated he was proceeding towards a decision sometime this winter. The Energy Department also was said to be preparing a response to the GAO. Chu, accompanied by her husband and two children, got a supportive reception by committee members weighing her nomination to become head of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, applauded her nomination. Bingaman warned she has a tough job ahead. "This program is already far behind schedule, it faces serious opposition within the state of Nevada and from its elected representatives and is beset by serious budgetary and technical challenges," he said. Chu declined to talk to reporters after the session. It was not clear when the Senate committee would vote on Chu's nomination as senators have been feuding over its schedule and Congress is expected to recess soon for Christmas. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 13 Few attend DOE hearing on Yucca project Thursday, December 06, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Number of hearings blamed for low turnout By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL In sharp contrast to a hearing three months ago, hundreds of seats were unoccupied Wednesday at the Department of Energy's hearing at the Cashman Center on the government's plans to entomb nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. While nearly all of the 450 chairs were empty, the 14 speakers and some of the other dozen people who showed up said the lack of attendance didn't make their views any less important. The speakers said the issues are still the same. Yucca Mountain Project supporter Rod McCullum of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear lobby group based in Washington, D.C., said, "DOE is ready to take the next step." Calvin Myers, chairman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes, was among the opponents of the project. He said impacts of transporting nuclear waste to the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, haven't been addressed adequately, nor have the impacts on the 290 members of the band or its leaders who could be wiped out by a serious accident involving nuclear waste near the reservation. "If you destroy the land you live on you can no longer live there. That's a fact," Myers said. Some at the meeting said given the many chances for making comments in the past three months, they were not surprised by Wednesday's low turnout. The DOE's Sept. 5 hearing at the National Nuclear Security Administration offices in North Las Vegas drew 132 speakers and a standing-room-only crowd. Yucca Mountain Project spokesman Allen Benson said he couldn't speculate on the reason for the low turnout other than to say, "People come or not come as they see fit." Not counting Wednesday's hearing in Las Vegas and two other simultaneous events in Pahrump and Battle Mountain that also were attended sparsely, Benson said between Sept. 5 and Oct. 19 there have been 57 hearings in Nevada's 17 counties and Inyo County in California. In addition to the 14 who signed up to speak Wednesday in Las Vegas, the six speakers in Pahrump and two in Battle Mountain, Benson said 494 people made oral comments and 450 written statements were submitted in the previous hearings. Yucca Mountain hearings also have been scheduled for 11 a.m. Saturday and 5 p.m. Dec. 12 at the Cashman Center. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 14 SA: US Power Group May Buy Pebble Bed Reactors allAfrica.com: Business Day (Johannesburg) Posted to the web December 4, 2001 Robyn Chalmers ONE of the biggest power groups in the US, Exelon, is negotiating to buy 40 of SA's mini nuclear reactors, potentially injecting billions of rands into the local economy. A feasibility study on the pebble bed modular reactor, which is being developed by Eskom, has been completed and a task team has been established by government to consider the outcome. The study showed the scheme was broadly viable. Exelon, which paid 7,5m for a 12,5% stake in the reactor programme last year, wants to export the technology to the US. The US has been hard hit by a shortage of generation capacity recently, evidenced by rolling black-outs in California. The total Exelon order could be worth as much as $6bn, of which between 30% and 40% would flow into SA. Exelon says the reactor meets many of the US's needs, being safe and small. It could also be ready for commercial operation by 2007. Eskom has been working on a 110MW pebble bed modular reactor since 1993 as part of its quest to find alternative sources of power. Government is now examining the feasibility report in great detail. A 14-member team, half of whose members are foreign experts, will meet next month to review the report and is expected to produce its findings by February. An environmental effect assessment is being completed by the environmental affairs and tourism department, with public hearings on the outcome scheduled for February. Phumzile Tshelane, technology strategy executive of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor company, said that should government give it the goahead, the approval process should be completed by the end of next year. Tshelane said the original plan was for Eskom to buy the first 10 reactors, but Exelon had expressed interest in buying the first 40 to come on stream. Work was also being done to increase the capacity of the reactors to 120MW from the originally planned 110MW. Copyright © 2001 Business Day. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). ***************************************************************** 15 Nuclear Experts Meet allAfrica.com: BuaNews (Pretoria) December 5, 2001 Posted to the web December 5, 2001 Michelle Hugo Pretoria South Africa's nuclear experts have been meeting with their Swedish and Dutch counterparts at Pelindaba, west of Pretoria, to share experiences on research reactor management. The meetings kicked off on Monday and will conclude tomorrow. Hosted by the State-owned nuclear energy corporation NECSA, the aim of the meetings is to share expertise and experience in the safe and efficient running of South Africa's Fundamental Atomic Research Installation (SAFARI-1), Sweden's R2 Reactor at Studsvik and the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten in The Netherlands. These three are the world's leading nuclear research reactors and are similar in design. According to NECSA spokesperson Vusi Khoza, discussions have centered on technical safety aspects and the safety record of each reactor. Other topics included reactor operation, fuel management, licensing, radiological and conventional safety, maintenance and refurbishment, personnel training and environmental impact, among others. 'It is anticipated that the technical cooperation will result in considerable improvement in what is already regarded as an impeccable safety record of research reactor operation,' Mr Khoza said. Meanwhile, South Africa will also host the 4th International Conference on Isotopes (4ICI) in Cape Town from 10 to 14 March next year. The Conference is expected to bring together over three hundred top nuclear scientists under the theme 'Isotopes: Bonding humanity for global well-being.' According to Mr Khoza, the ICI series of conferences has proven to be very successful and popular among scientists and industry practitioners working in the production and use of isotopes. NECSA won the bid to host the 4th ICI at the previous conference in September 1999. Previous meetings have been held in China, Australia and Canada. NECSA, formerly called the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC), is the world's fourth largest producer of molybdenum-99, a radioactive isotope used in the diagnosis of various conditions, as well as radiotherapy of cancer. Each year over 1.5-million patients worldwide benefit from South Africa's product, while the country has earned over R140-million in foreign currency since 1994. Further details regarding the upcoming ICI conference are available at www.globalconf.co.za/4ici. Copyright © 2001 BuaNews. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). ***************************************************************** 16 SA Success Could Expedite Reactor's Approval in US allAfrica.com: Business Day (Johannesburg) December 5, 2001 Posted to the web December 5, 2001 LAST week, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission held the latest public hearing on how to go about licensing the pebble bed modular reactor which Eskom is working on with British Nuclear Fuels, the giant US power company Exelon, and SA's Industrial Development Corporation. The scanty audience included a fellow with a pigtail who spent most of the session talking in whispers to neighbours. He generally made it clear that he, a lawyer, knew better than every physicist and engineer in the room. This was James Riccio, a man of changing affiliations. On Thursday he was from Greenpeace. At earlier meetings he represented Ralph Nader's Critical Mass Energy Project. Under whatever hat, he is out to kill the pebble bed reactor. If it lives up to its promise, the technology could be the antinuke lobby's worst nightmare: it threatens to make nuclear energy affordable and safer than ever. Operated on a test scale in Germany for more than 20 years, the reactor uses low-enriched uranium encased in tennis ballsized ceramic and graphite spheres. Nuclear fission makes them hot, causing inert helium gas to expand, which drives a turbine to produce electricity. Technically, a core melt-down the worst-case scenario for traditional reactors cannot occur. Each of the 440000 "pebbles" in the reactor is effectively its own melt-proof core, as well, say proponents, as its own containment vessel against radiation leaks. If the $300m demonstration unit Eskom and partners hope to start building at Koeberg in 2003 meets expectations, Exelon may order as many as 40 modules for the US, where not a single new nuclear power station has been built for 24 years. The reactors are relatively compact and can be mass-produced off-site. Each is designed to generate between 110MW and 130MW, which is feeble compared to the 1 840MW now produced by Koeberg's Westinghouse reactors, but that is precisely the point. The system, as the name suggests, is modular. The operator can decide how many modules he needs and add to them as demand grows. He does not risk price-depressing overinvestment. It is too early to tell whether the concept will fly. On the positive side, the US House of Representatives last week voted to renew the Price-Anderson Act, which caps the monetary liability of nuclear power plant owners in the event of accidents, but also requires operators to buy the maximum available insurance cover on a per-reactor basis. To help make the pebble bed reactor attractive in the US, Exelon needed, and won, an exemption allowing multiple modular reactors at a single site to be treated as one for liability purposes. Also good news was the October 31 report of a energy department advisory panel rating the chances of eight new reactor technologies being deployed by 2010. The committee liked the pebble bed reactor's prospects because it alone had a "potential customer actively involved and investing in its development". The panel's ifs? The project has to be successful in SA. Exelon has to decide to proceed and commit to procuring components even before receiving full regulatory approval, which, in turn, must be obtained on an "expedited" schedule. Several "challenging" technical issues still have to be addressed. The schedule is slipping. As the committee was finishing its report last month, Exelon Chairman Corbin McNeill acknowledged that the pebble bed modular reactor partners (Eskom, IDC, Exelon and BNFL) had decided to delay a decision to fund construction of the demonstration unit, originally due now, until late next year. McNeill indicated the partners were looking for design improvements to increase the longevity of the reactor vessel's lining. Certain turbine design issues still had to be resolved. The make-up of the consortium itself was also fluid, with two international companies looking to "dilute or buy out someone's share". Tom Ferreira, communications director for PBMR Pty Ltd, the consortium's operating company, attributes the slippage to the partners' desire to ensure the demonstration unit will need little or no modification to become to basis for a commercial design. Exelon likes the technology, but is intent on getting it right the first time in SA to use SA data to speed regulatory approvals in the US. McNeill does not want to wait for the reactor to be officially commissioned before he starts construction of plants in the US. The longer it takes to start selling power, the more that power will cost and the harder it will be to justify the reactor economically. That, of course, is what Riccio and other anti-nukes counting on. They will try to throw every spanner they can find into the US regulatory works including the argument that you can't trust a technology approved by Africans. Barber is Business Day's Washington Correspondent. If it lives up to its promise, the technology threatens to make nuclear energy affordable and safer than ever. Copyright © 2001 Business Day. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). ***************************************************************** 17 Outspoken handful of Yucca critics shows up at hearing Las Vegas SUN Today: December 06, 2001 at 8:58:35 PST By Mary Manning Although Department of Energy officials outnumbered the public, most of the 11 people who spoke at the six-hour hearing on a proposed nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain opposed burying 77,000 tons of radioactive waste 90 miles away. The hearing at Cashman Center was one of three scheduled around the state. Another hearing in Pahrump drew three speakers, DOE spokesman Allen Benson said. No one showed up at a third hearing in Battle Mountain. The greatest criticism in Las Vegas came from Moapa Band of Paiutes Tribal Chairman Calvin Meyers. The DOE has never visited the reservation roughly 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas and a half-mile away from Interstate 15, a potential nuclear waste route, he said. "When are you going to come out to the reservation?" Meyers asked. "When are you going to get us involved?" Along the transportation routes across the country, more than 500 tribes could be affected if nuclear waste shipments come to Yucca Mountain, he said. Not only the land, but tribal spiritual rituals will be disrupted, he said. In Southern Nevada the Paiutes believe three roads lead into the next world, one going north, another south and a third west. "How do we know if we will get to the next world if nuclear waste shipments cross the land?" Meyers said. For former Nevada Test Site worker Fred Toomey, the land has already been contaminated after more than 1,000 nuclear weapons experiments triggered next to the mountain from 1951 to 1992. "Yucca Mountain is already a dump," he said. Las Vegas senior citizen Thelma Clark questioned that logic. "We don't have nuclear power plants in Nevada, so I don't think we should have nuclear storage in Nevada," she said. "It doesn't matter what you say to us, we will still feel unsafe." Another Las Vegas resident, Frank Ferna, said terrorism and transportation must be considered before Yucca is approved. "We're not going to sell out our state and our children's future," he said. State Sen. Jon Porter, R-Henderson, said Nevada cannot sell out for any benefits in exchange for the nuclear waste. The state has already upheld its duty as the nation's nuclear testing ground. "We have earned the right to be heard, we have earned the right to refuse," he said of the repository. Nuclear industry spokesman Ron McCollum called recent reports about flaws in the DOE's studies "some of the 10 myths about Yucca Mountain." The repository will not contaminate the ground water, will provide 1,000 jobs for 30 years and has been studied for $8 billion over 20 years by "the best and the brightest scientists." McCollum said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham should accept Yucca. "The water at Yucca Mountain will be safe for drinking," he said. "This site is qualified." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges pro-Yucca decision Las Vegas SUN Today: December 06, 2001 at 10:51:07 PST By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today goaded Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to make a decision about Yucca Mountain within 30 days. At a press conference, officials from the Chamber's new pro-Yucca lobby team also responded to rhetoric from Nevada lawmakers. The lawmakers since last week have pointed to a draft copy of a congressional audit that was critical of the Department of Energy-managed Yucca project. Abraham has questioned the fairness of the report. "I'm not so convinced I should be concerned about a (General Accounting Office) report that was dismissed by the Department of Energy," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber. The Yucca project is a proposal to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste in tunnels under the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The DOE has been studying Yucca Mountain for years, and Abraham this winter is widely expected to recommend it to President Bush as a suitable site for a national waste burial ground. But a draft copy of the GAO report on Yucca -- portions of which were released to the media by Nevada lawmakers last week -- recommended delaying the Yucca project indefinitely. The GAO report said too many scientific studies at the site are still pending to make a decision. Chamber officials refuted that. The report confuses what scientific data is necessary for Abraham to make his recommendation and what data is required for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to eventually license the waste site, officials said. Today's event was part of a national pro-Yucca lobbying effort unveiled Nov. 15 by the U.S. Chamber's organization of nuclear energy-related members, called the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth. The alliance enlisted John Sununu, who served as chief of staff for former President George Bush, and former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, as its high-profile leaders. Ferraro did not attend today's event. Sununu downplayed the GAO report and anti-Yucca messages delivered by Nevada lawmakers. "Fortunately, when all the smoke clears, the fact is that these hollow attacks have not laid a glove on the key component of the pending decision -- namely the soundness of the science and the site characterization," Sununu said in his prepared statement. Alliance officials also stressed that ratepayers who use electricity generated by nuclear power plants have paid about $20 billion for the government to develop a permanent nuclear waste dump. Roughly $8 billion of that has been spent on Yucca already. Minnesota's two nuclear power plants face closure because state law has banned storage of waste on-site at the plants by 2007, Minnesota Public Utilities Commissioner LeRoy Koppendrayer said. "(Yucca) is important to ratepayers who were willing to pay -- we have paid -- but now it is time to go forward and make a recommendation so we can get the waste moved," Koppendrayer said. About a dozen Washington-based environmental and public advocacy groups protested today's press conference in front of the Chamber's headquarters, one block from the White House. "We need to stop pouring money down the hole at Yucca Mountain," said Lisa Gue of Public Citizen, stressing that money should be spent on waste storage alternatives. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has started contacting chambers of commerce along truck and train routes that would be used to transport waste from plants nationwide to Yucca, NIRS spokesman Kevin Kamps said. NIRS wants to stress to local chambers the U.S. Chamber advocates shipping waste through communities nationwide, he said. The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce withdrew its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its pro-Yucca campaign. The national group did not contact the local Chamber while its energy arm was developing the pro-Yucca strategy. The Las Vegas Chamber has had no contact with its former parent group since then, spokeswoman Catherine Levy said. The Las Vegas Chamber, one of the nation's largest local chambers, plans to donate the $3,000 in dues it would have paid the U.S. Chamber to an anti-Yucca effort, Levy said. That effort has not been decided, she said. The local group hardly misses the minor benefits of being a U.S. Chamber member, Levy said. Las Vegas Chamber officials had no comment on today's U.S. Chamber press conference, she said. The U.S. Chamber has 3 million business members and 3,000 state and local chambers. The U.S. Chamber's services include lobbying Congress, fighting in court and offering member benefits and discounts, such as retirement and insurance plans. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 19 Harvey Wasserman: Atomic Treason in the House December 5, 2001 By Harvey Wasserman If terrorists turn a US nuclear plant into a radioactive holocaust, the House of Representatives wants you to pay for it. But the Senate can still say otherwise. The House voted November 28 in virtual secret to shield new reactor builders from normal insurance liability, even if they lack safety domes to contain radioactive releases. Only a handful of Representatives were present for the vote. Led by Texas Republican Joe Barton and Michigan Democrat John Dingell, HR 2983 sailed through under a "suspension of rules," traditionally used for unanimous resolutions to rename government buildings, proclaim heroes and commemorate holidays. Facing a barrage of grassroots opposition, a very cynical nuke caucus used the loophole to avoid full debate and hide their votes on the free insurance ride for a new generation of reactors. Barton received more than $131,590 in utility contributions leading up to the 2000 election. Dingell got $109,679. Dingell is also related by marriage to major partners in Detroit Edison, which built the Fermi nuclear plant at Monroe Michigan. Fermi Unit I, a breeder reactor, nearly exploded in 1966. That near-catastrophe was memorialized in John G. Fuller's WE ALMOST LOST DETROIT, from the Readers Digest Press. By official 1982 estimates, such an explosion could have killed tens of thousands of US citizens and done $592 billion in damage. But since 1957, the atomic power industry has been shielded from such consequences. Utility presidents considered the reactors too risky. So a pro-nuke Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, limiting the industry's liability. The Act's current version allows public indemnification only up to roughly $9 billion. Private citizens who lose their health, families or property would have to beg Congress for any more. To this day, all US homeowner insurance policies claim exemption from damage caused by a nuclear accident. But the public was originally told Price-Anderson was just a "temporary" fix until private insurers gained confidence in reactor safety. The initial exemption was to last just ten years. That was 44 years ago. A re-re-re-renewed Price-Anderson is now slated to expire in August, 2002. The 103 US reactors now licensed are grandfathered under the law. But the industry wants a new generation of reactors which it says will be perfectly safe, even though some of the heavily subsidized designs are almost entirely untested. Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, has made it clear none will be built without this public-funded insurance safety net. The renewal's grassroots opposition has been deeply embittered by the terrorist attacks of September 11. The London Sunday Times has reported that the fourth hijacked jet, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field, may have been headed for a nuke. Regulators and the industry concede that no US reactor containment is designed to withstand the crash of a large fuel-laden airplane. But incredibly enough, the new Pebble Bed design promoted by HR2983 has no containment at all! Multiple lawsuits filed in New York and elsewhere now demand operating nukes be shut. Reactors over the years have routinely flunked a wide range of "anti-terrorist" tests even though operators in many cases had six months warning and the tests were essentially rigged. Severe operating and structural problems still plague the industry, as at Ohio's Davis-Besse, now in line for a rare official inspection. And as of today, 2400 central Pennsylvanians who can document harm from radioactive releases at the 1979 Three Mile Island accident still can't get their cases heard in federal court. Thus the industry's infamous assertion that "no one died at Three Mile Island," with which the plaintiffs vehemently disagree, remains untested in a public jury trial. The whole debate is overshadowed by the escalating success of wind power, the world's fastest growing new source of electricity, now a $5 billion industry leaping ahead at 25% per year. Wind-driven kilowatt costs are plumetting, as are those from solar power and fuel cells. Conservation and efficiency measures are already far cheaper than reactor output. None are subject to terrorist attack. None threaten a radioactive holocaust. None require Congressional insurance immunity. This latest Price-Anderson renewal must still pass the Senate, where the Bush-Cheney Administration may attach it to its larger pro-nuclear energy bill. But building new reactors would give future terrorists yet more chances to perpetrate a nuclear holocaust at public expense. And mandating a design without even a simple containment dome raises questions of basic sanity. After nearly a half-century of atomic failure, the House and the White House seem intent on handing our avowed enemies ever more dangerous versions of the uninsurable ultimate weapon. What could be more treasonous? Harvey Wasserman is author of THE LAST ENERGY WAR (Seven Stories Press). [http://www.counterpunch.org/ ***************************************************************** 20 Caliber of workers low at Indian Point PoughkeepsieJournal.com - Letters to the editor Thursday, December 6, 2001 Letters to the editor On Oct. 4, I submitted a letter advocating the closing of all U.S. nuclear power plants, including Indian Point. Recently, I witnessed something that convinced me more than ever that nuclear power plants should be closed. I was watching a debate on RNN about the safety, or lack thereof, at Indian Point. Some present and former power plant employees called in to voice their opinions. The individuals who phoned in not only made Homer Simpson look like Albert Einstein but had the demeanor of the Rev. Al Sharpton at the height of his worst tirade. For the most part, they went on about how Indian Point's concrete dome could easily withstand the impact of a plane hitting it. For all those ''geniuses,'' I will reiterate what I said before, with the hope they will learn something. The real threat to nuclear power plants won't come from a plant. It will come from a terrorist group sending its members to study nuclear science, take a job as a power plant employee and then, when called upon to do so, destroy it from the inside. Furthermore, the stupidity and volume of individuals who phoned in to the debate tells me that whatever passes for a human resources department at Indian Point either doesn't screen its employees well, or it purposely hires loud and stupid individuals because no one else would work for a nuclear power plant. If this scenario is being played at other nuclear power plants, we're all in more danger than even I thought. James Esler, Rhinebeck Copyright © 2001, Poughkeepsie Journal. ***************************************************************** 21 Gibbons Delivers Delegation Letter to Administration Calling for a Halt on Yucca Mountain Project Gibbons (NV02) - Press Release - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 4, 2001 Washington, D.C.— Citing systematic mismanagement and a lack of technical information, U.S. Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) today delivered a letter addressed to President George W. Bush and signed by the entire Nevada Congressional delegation, which called for the Administration to “immediately postpone” the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain. “The revelations of systematic mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and failed scientific processes, as outlined recently by both the General Accounting Office and the Department of Energy Inspector General, necessitate an immediate postponement of the site recommendation of Yucca Mountain,” stated Gibbons. “It is unfortunate that the Bush Administration has inherited these problems, which have existed since Yucca Mountain was slated to be the nation’s nuclear waste repository in 1987,” Gibbons added. “However, President Bush now has the opportunity to change the course of history. He can and should stop the site recommendation process until the necessary scientific and technical information has been collected, analyzed, and shown to be unbiased.” The complete text of the Nevada delegation letter to President Bush is available upon request. ***************************************************************** 22 Reid/Berkley Announce DOE Mismanagement May Kill Yucca Mountain Project Congresswoman Shelley Berkley - Legislation: Press Releases 2001 Initial Reports From Federal Investigation Indicate Serious Flaws in Proposed Project November 30, 2001 -- (Washington, D.C.) Nevada Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley announced today that preliminary findings of a federal investigation have uncovered serious flaws in the Yucca Mountain project. Initial reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate that the Department of Energy (DOE) is using incomplete information as a basis for their Yucca Mountain site recommendation, and has no reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, such a repository could be opened. "For more than a decade I've said science was taking a back seat to politics, and based on this report it appears as though the DOE has thrown science off the back of the bus," Senator Reid said. "This report could very well signal the beginning of the end of the Yucca Mountain project." U.S. Representative Shelley Berkley said today, "This report has potential to derail the Yucca Mountain project altogether. It details the shocking bias and mismanagement that Nevadans have been alleging for years. This is the smoking gun we've been looking for." As a result of an anonymous whistle-blower letter sent earlier this year, Senator Reid and Representative Berkley asked the GAO to investigate whether the DOE could support a Yucca Mountain site recommendation, which the agency was expected to make early next year, and if DOE's goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010 is reasonable. Preliminary reports from the GAO investigation reveal that the DOE does not currently have the information it would need to make a responsible site recommendation, that the information would not be complete until 2006 at the earliest, and that the agency delay recommendation indefinitely. Additionally, the report found that DOE is unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010, and puts a best estimate at no early than 2015. "The DOE has wasted $8 billion of taxpayers' money on this project, and still isn't using sound science as a basis for their recommendations," Senator Reid added. "Apparently, the DOE is actually suppressing science at the expense of the health and safety of Nevadans and all Americans." "Maybe now we can finally make progress on finding real, long-term solutions to the problem of nuclear waste," said Representative Berkley. ***************************************************************** 23 N.K. nuclear project essential: unification minister Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com Unification Minister Hong Soon-young yesterday asked the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) to carry out faithfully its construction of nuclear power plants in North Korea despite possible obstacles, ministry officials said. In a meeting with KEDO Executive Director Charles Kartman, Hong said the nuclear project is "essential to maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula," the officials said. Kartman came to Seoul on Tuesday after a four-day visit to North Korea, where he and Pyongyang officials discussed a number of pending issues related to the nuclear project. The $4.6-billion KEDO project has emerged as a thorny issue between North Korea and the United States. Washington has called for an international inspection of the communist country's suspected nuclear weapons programs, while Pyongyang demanded U.S. compensation for the delay of the power plants' construction. Kartman said he discussed with Pyongyang officials methods for resolving ongoing disputes over the wages of North Korean workers at Sinpo, the construction site located on the North's east coast. Other issues included the establishment of a satellite communication network linking Sinpo and foreign countries, according to Foreign Ministry officials. Kartman, former U.S. special envoy on the Korean Peninsula, attended a string of meetings with South Korean officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Yim Sung-joon and Chang Sun-sup, head of the Light-Water Reactor Planning Office. He briefed the Seoul officials on the results of his North Korean trip, including the signing of an accord on quality assurance and warranties for the twin light-water reactors. Under a 1994 deal between the United States and North Korea, KEDO has funded the reactor construction project in return for the North's promise to freeze its own nuclear project. (jihoho@koreaherald.co.kr) By Kim Ji-ho Staff reporter 2001.12.06 ***************************************************************** 24 Japan: Nuclear plant pipe ruptured under pressure BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 6, 2001 Text of report in English by Japanese news agency Kyodo Tokyo, 6 December: A steam pipe at Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture ruptured instantly under enormous pressure last month, causing a radioactive steam leak, the plant's operator and the government's nuclear body said Thursday. The utility and the Nuclear Safety and Industrial Agency, which have been looking into the cause of the 7 November accident, said a "ductile fraction" caused the rupture as characteristic dimples were detected in a cross-section of the pipe. A ductile fraction has never occurred before in Japanese nuclear plants, according to the company. Masatoshi Sakaguchi, deputy head of the Hamaoka plant, said the phenomenon was "never expected." Chubu officials said they suspect the pressure was due to explosive hydrogen combustion inside the pipe and they are investigating to prove their hypothesis. The pipe may also have ruptured as a result of shock caused by the flow of water within it, the officials said. The utility released the results of its analysis of the cross-section of the carbon steel pipe, which has a diameter of 15 centimetres and is 1.1 cm thick. The officials said a microscopic examination was conducted on 17 pipe fragments at a facility affiliated with Toshiba Corp and the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. It did not show signs of metal fatigue or corrosion, they added. Hydrogen could have been generated in the pipe as radiation split water molecules in the reactor, the agency said. Agency officials also said it is difficult to pinpoint the cause of the rupture due to the lack of direct evidence. Steam containing a small amount of radioactive material leaked from a pressure injection system at the plant's 540,000-kW No 1 reactor on 7 November. Three days later, about 60 millilitres of radioactive water per hour was found to be leaking inside the reactor. Source: Kyodo News Service, Tokyo, in English 0609 gmt 6 Dec /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 25 North Korea denounces Japan's ambition to become nuclear power BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 6, 2001 Text of commentary by Kim Ho-sam entitled: "The three non-nuclear principles are only empty talks", broadcast by North Korean radio on 5 December Data proving that Japan possesses a large amount of plutonium has recently been disclosed once again. The 7 November edition of Yomiuri Shimbun reported: According to the Japanese cabinet's investigations, the amount of plutonium Japan possesses at home and abroad continued to rise and totalled 37 tonnes as of the end of 2000. Yomiuri Shimbun pointed out that because Japan possesses a large amount of plutonium that can also be used for nuclear weapons, Japan is subject to international criticism and its policy of using plutonium is facing a crisis. It is no coincidence that Japan's major media pointed out as above. Japan's accumulation of as many as 37 tonnes of plutonium as of the end of 2000 shows that Japan is absolutely not a non-nuclear state and that its nuclear armament has reached a very grave stage. This is evoking great concern of the world's peace-loving people. As we all know, Japan has advocated the three non-nuclear principles up until now. In other words, Japan will not manufacture, possesses or introduce nuclear weapons and this has been Japan's state policy. Japan has attempted to display at home and abroad the so-called innocence of its nuclear policy and the appearance of a non-nuclear state. However, newly disclosed facts have verified that the three non-nuclear principles are nothing but a specious signboard. The Japanese reactionaries put up the signboard of the three non-nuclear principles and have rapidly pressed ahead with nuclear armament behind it. The Japanese reactionaries' nuclear ambition of accumulating a large amount of plutonium is a product of their policy of overseas aggression. The Japanese reactionaries believe that they can achieve any kind of aggressive goals once they possess nuclear weapons. During World War Il, Japan already completed material and technological preparations for manufacturing an atomic bomb on its own. As has been already disclosed, according to data found in the National Archives and Records Administration, Japan conducted an atomic bomb test in the waters 30 km off Hungnam in the wee hours of 12 August 1945 before its defeat. This verifies that pinning their hopes on nuclear weapons, the Japanese reactionaries already pushed ahead with the research and development of nuclear weapons and attempted to use them in the Pacific war. Japan has pushed ahead with its nuclear armament since World War II on a fuller scale. The Japanese reactionaries have placed top priority on nuclear armament, believing that they were defeated in the World War II because their power was weak. It is no secret that a great number of scientists and research institutes were mobilized for the research of nuclear physics. The Japanese government is also spending an immense amount of money for the research and development of nuclear weapons. This is why Japan's nuclear armament is being pushed at a very high speed. According to data, there are as many as 49 nuclear reactors in Japan and they are reportedly producing about 10 tonne of plutonium every year. Japan is also planning to purchase about 40-tonne plutonium from the United Kingdom and France in the near future. Adding the plutonium produced by Japan on its own, Japan will become a country that has accumulated the largest amount of plutonium in the world in the near future. Then, how does Japan plan to use such a large amount of plutonium? The answer is apparent. Japan is trying to build a world-class nuclear power. It is a widely known fact that Japan has a world-class nuclear technology and a very high-level warhead-carrying technology. In fact, Japan has reached the level of being able to fire nuclear warheads in any place, any time once it makes a decision. Such a country is babbling about somebody's nuclear threat. We cannot help but say that this is a smokescreen to cover up Japan's criminal ambition for nuclear armament. Japan's nuclear armament is the very factor that threatens the world's peace and security. Japan should stop the game of indiscriminately finding fault with somebody else. Nobody will be cheated by Japan's false propaganda. A proverb goes that one gets a dose of one's own medicine. Japan should think about the fatal consequences its nuclear armament will bring about to the Japanese people. The miseries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of 1945 are still lingering. Japan should practically participate in the struggle for nuclear disarmament instead of clamouring for the three non-nuclear principles, which is merely empty talk. The Japanese authorities should be aware that the world is watching Japan. Source: Central Broadcasting Station, Pyongyang, in Korean 1225 gmt 5 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Lawrence Berkeley Lab Tritium Facility Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:03:41 -0800 (PST) Ahimsa Sumchai , Ray Tompkins , Judy Treichel , Betty Ball , Dennis Bernstein , Jeffrey Blankfort , Adrienne Anderson , Earthfirst!Earthfirst! , RadiationBulletin MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1089533570-1007676221=:59375" Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:50:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Leuren Moret" | Block Address | Add to Address Book Subject: Lawrence Berkeley Lab Tritium Facility Closure Plan To: ghzeman@lbl.gov CC: citydesk@dailycal.org, johng@berkeleydailyplanet.net, judith@berkeleydailyplanet.net, "Masa Takubo" , "Akira Tashiro" , "Tomon Mitsuko" , "Nabil Al-Hadithy" , "James Bianco" , "Jami Caseber" , "Pratap Chatterjee" , "Sara MacKusick" , "la wood" , "Alexey Yablokov" , "Yablokov" , "Jamahl A. Tulloch" , "Polly Armstrong" , "Margret Breland" , "City Clerk" , "Shirley Dean" , "Miriam Hawley" , "Linda Maio" , "Betty Olds" , "Maudelle Shirek" , "Dona Spring" , "Kriss Worhington" Dear Mr. Zeman - I would like a copy of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab decommissioning plan which you are in charge of. Could you bring it tonight to the Community Environmental Advisory Commission meeting this evening? I understand that Nabil Al-Hadithy has invited you to speak. The Lawrence Berkeley Lab has been stating to the public, the Berkeley City Council, and the media that the National Tritium Labeling Facility has been shut down as of December 6, 2001 - that means today. It is my understanding that the Lawrence Berkeley Lab has been secretly actively seeking a new life under the Department of Energy without notifying the public, the City Council or the City Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC). I understand that the Lawrence Berkeley Lab has filed lengthy documents with another agency to be permitted to treat and dispose of mixed waste generated by activities at the National Tritium Facility. We do not want tritium contaminated materials burned or otherwise treated in this community. This seems to be the usual deceptive, destructive, manipulative, macho cowboy way the Lawrence Berkeley Lab has operated in the past, with the collusion of the University of Califonia. From a recent article on the Tritium Labeling Facility closure in "Science" journal (v. 294, Nov. 2, 2001, p. 977-8), it is clear that Elmer Grossman, the Chair of the CEAC, is now representing himself as the spokesman for the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and the University of California. His statements do not represent the viewpoint of the Berkeley City Council which twice voted to close the facility, nor of the CEAC where it was never discussed nor a vote taken on what statements Grossman should be making as Chair. Why is he making statements to the media which support your deceptive actions which endanger public health? After all, he is a medical doctor. At the last CEAC meeting on Nov. 1, his designated replacement, Mr. Simon MD, told me that tritium is not a dangerous substance and that there was too much concern about it. It is obvious that both Grossman and Simon, as members of the medical profession, should be telling people the truth. It is simple to open a physics or chemistry handbook and understand the danger to living systems that radioactive hydrogen poses. They are both criminally neglectful for making such irresponsible statements. In addition, in documents filed with the City Clerk, Mr. Robert Clear does not state his employer nor job description, but gives a Lawrence Berkeley Lab phone number as his work number. Is Mr. Clear an employee of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and what is his job description? This information should be added to his CEAC paperwork and he should not be voting on the CEAC on issues concerning the Lawrence Berkeley Lab. It is obvious that the CEAC has been infiltrated by the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and that the statements of Grossman and documents secretly filed to extend the life of the Tritium Labeling Facility have compromised the effectiveness of the CEAC and exposed the collusion of the University of California in proposed activities which will endanger public health. The public citizens, Berkeley City Council, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission, and the media deserve some answers with regard to implementation of your three- phase closure plan. The citizens of Japan also deserve to be informed when trees that are contaminated with radioactive materials from activities at the Lawrence Livermore Lab are shipped to them. Recently porcini mushrooms imported from Italy to Japan were returned to Italy. They were found to be contaminated with caesium, a radioactive isotope from Chernobyl which has widely contaminated the European environment. They do not want more radioactive contamination in their paper mills and Japanese homes and offices where tritium from your facility may end up as a result of your non-disclosure. Tomon Mitsuko, at the time she was Vice Governor of Okinawa, recently informed me that the US Govt did not inform the Government of Okinawa that they would be testing depleted uranium munitions on Torishima Island in Okinawa prefecture. This caused great concern in Japan. Tritium is the most dangerous of radioactive substances to living things. It should be handled with that in mind, and with respect to innocent and uninformed members of the public and the global community. Leuren Moret __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.yahoo.com Attachment Converted: "c:\lib\news\attach\RadMushrooms.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\lib\news\attach\ForestFall6.3.01NS.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\lib\news\attach\DUSFBV11.07.01.doc" ***************************************************************** 2 Society: Environment: Nuclear fallout The Guardian - United Kingdom; Dec 5, 2001 Lots of really angry bureaucrats and companies last week in Brussels after the Ukraine unexpectedly told the board meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) that they could take their $215m offer of a loan to help finish two uneconomic new nuclear reactors and, well, stuff it. This was just the latest twist in a long, bitter tale that has involved massive lobbying by the nuclear industry to replace the Chernobyl reactors, terrible confusions in the EBRD whose remit is not to promote nuclear power, and the complete ignoring of the people of the semi-bankrupt country who don't want the reactors anyway. The nuclear-toting bureaucrats and bankers who thought they would just nod through the cash and set their companies off to build them are now furious, none more so than Chris Patten (below), the EU commissioner for external affairs, whose office has been deeply involved in securing a further $585m of European taxpayers' money for the ill-gotten plants. Greenpeace and local democracy groups are happily stunned and hoping the bank will now listen to more sensible proposals for energy saving which people need and would do the job better and more cheaply. ***************************************************************** 3 Slovenia: Lifting of maritime law ban on nuclear energy-propelled ships rejected BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 5, 2001 [Announcer] Under the Slovene maritime code, all ships propelled by nuclear power are forbidden access to our territorial waters. Since the majority of NATO battleships are propelled by this kind of energy and because Slovenia wishes to become NATO member, the Social Democrats [Social Democrats of Slovenia party] prepared a proposal of amendments to the maritime code. This was supposed to be discussed during the session held by the committee for infrastructure and the environment, however it was taken out of their daily agenda. Robert Skerjanc reporting. [Reporter] According to the party that proposed the amendments, nuclear energy cannot and must not be the reason for banning foreign vessels with this kind of propellant to access our domestic waters. At the same time - taking into account our wish of getting closer to and accessing the NATO - such a restriction is definitely in contrast with our tendency to meet all the criteria for NATO accession as quickly as possible. However, this kind of argumentation did not convince the committee members. Aurelio Juri [United List of Social Democrats party] therefore put forward a proposal that the committee should obtain NATO documentation in order to clarify whether one of the conditions for NATO accession was the lifting of this restriction - any discussion of the law should be postponed until then. The committee approved this proposal... Source: Radio Slovenia, Ljubljana, in Slovene 1200 gmt 5 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter ***************************************************************** 4 Pasko-verdict on December 18? 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. Prosecutor Kondakov had no card hidden up his sleeve when the Pacific Fleet Court on December 3 discussed the conclusion of the investigative part of the Pasko-trial. Thus, the end of the trial is closing in. Jon Gauslaa, 2001-12-05 18:59 On November 29, the previously so passive prosecutor Aleksandr Kondakov asked for - and got - three days in order to prepare a statement to the Court. This led to some speculations regarding what he was up to. Some rumours even suggested that he would demand that the case should be sent for additional investigation. No card up his sleeve It turned out that Mr. Kondakov did not have the nerve to play that kind of 'ace'. In stead he asked for some more documents to be attached to the case file. Two documents were related to Pasko's employment in the navy, while the others were a couple of faxes sent by Japanese journalist Tadashi Okani to the Japanese consulate in Vladivostok regarding Pasko's visit to Japan in 1997. The prosecutor, who apparently considers the fact that Pasko visited Japan when being employed by the navy, as an indisputable proof for his 'criminal activity', asked whether Pasko would accept this or not. -- When I replied 'go ahead' and pointed out that I never had refused that I visited Japan, the prosecutor became as silent as a partisan, told Pasko. The defence on its hand requested that an openly published reference book regarding Russian submarines should be attached to the case files, as this book gives detailed descriptions of the 'secrets' Pasko is accused of having disclosed about discarded submarines. Trial to end on December 18? Pasko also made a statement in Court regarding the closing of the investigative part of the trial. -- The charges against me are totally incomprehensible, but I fear that the FSB will use all means to put the Court under pressure so that its own bacon can be saved, he said. The investigative part of the trial is expected to be formally concluded on December 7. The prosecutor will then be given the floor in order to perform his closing speech. Pasko's defence team will make its closing speech on December 10. The defence will most likely put more effort into it than the prosecutor, who probably will be content with reading the indictment. Although the presumption of innocence is a part of the Russian Constitution (Article 49), Russia's legal system is still very much of the kind that the burden of proof lies with the accused, who has to prove his innocence far beyond reasonable doubt, and not on the prosecution. It is reason to believe that the Court will announce its verdict on December 17 or 18. ***** Journalist Grigory Pasko was arrested on November 20, 1997 on charges of espionage on behalf of the Japanese TV-channel NHK. He was acquitted 20 months later, 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. On November 21, 2000 the Russian Military Supreme Court sent the case back for a re-trial at the Pacific Fleet Court. The re-trial has been going on since July 11, 2001. 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 ***************************************************************** 5 Declassified data to aid look at NTS contamination Pahrump Valley Times 6 December, 2001 Recently declassified data about nuclear weapons testing is expected to help researchers, regulators and residents understand the potential for groundwater contamination from nearly 830 underground detonations at the Nevada Test Site through 1992. The National Nuclear Security Administration released the once-classified information this week in a report titled "Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory 1951-1992." The report does not include data from individual nuclear tests. Instead, it divides the test site into five geographic areas and provides estimates for each area of the amount of radioactivity remaining from nuclear tests there. The Nevada Test Site covers approximately 1,350 square miles in Nye County. The five areas are Frenchman Flat, eastern Pahute Mesa, western Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa and Yucca Flat. Yucca Flat is further divided into two areas, one consisting of cavities more than 323 feet above the water table and others consisting of cavities below that level. The report is available in the public reading room of the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Operations Office at 2621 Losee Road in North Las Vegas. Copies of the report can be obtained by calling 702 295-3521, and the document will soon be available on the Nevada Operation Office's website at www.nv.doe.gov. ©Pahrump Valley Times 2001 ***************************************************************** 6 Russia: Navy Gambled and Lost Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001. Page 9 By Pavel Felgenhauer When Vladimir Putin assumed supreme executive power some two years ago, it soon became obvious that he was an enthusiast of naval power. He visited warships and even spent a night in a nuclear submarine of the Northern Fleet. While underwater at sea, Putin took part in a traditional Russian initiation ceremony for novice submariners: He gulped down a glass of sea water and kissed a hammer dangling from the sub's cabin ceiling. Maybe as a boy in St. Petersburg -- a city that was always the seat of Russian naval power -- Putin dreamed of battleships and submarines, so he used his new capacity as supreme commander-in-chief as an opportunity to get on deck. Naval commanders did their best to exploit Putin's soft spot. The navy prepared a draft of an ambitious naval doctrine that envisaged a massive shipbuilding program. Well-informed sources say that admirals were asking for a fleet with up to 15 aircraft carriers to challenge the United States on the open seas. The naval exercises in August 2000 in the Barents Sea -- unprecedented in scope since the 1980s -- were planned to show off to Putin the capabilities of the navy. It was believed that after this show of strength, Putin's favorite --- navy chief Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov -- would be promoted to defense minister or the No. 2 in Russia's military hierarchy, the chief of General Staff. It was also rumored in Moscow at the time that Northern Fleet commander Admiral Vyacheslav Popov would become the new naval chief, replacing Kuroyedov, while Popov's deputy, Vice Admiral Mikhail Motsak, would take over the Northern Fleet. But during the exercises, the nuclear submarine Kursk exploded and sank, killing all 118 men on board. The public was enraged by the incompetence and untruthfulness of the naval authorities and, first of all, the Northern Fleet command. Putin's popularity took a dip. The possible promotions of Admirals Popov, Motsak and Kuroyedov was postponed. But no one in the navy was disciplined or ousted. Putin weathered the public outcry without seeking scapegoats or punishing the guilty, while the naval chiefs did seek and soon discovered a scapegoat -- the West. It was alleged that a U.S. or British submarine hit the Kursk and slipped away. Within the Russian military hierarchy, the chiefs tend to be anti-Western, but the navy is a special case. Almost everybody else has potential enemies other than the West to confront in the south and east. The navy, especially the Northern Fleet (with more than half of all Russian warships and over 90 percent of the new ones), has only the United States and other NATO navies to confront in the Atlantic. If Russia becomes a long-time ally of the West, there is no need whatsoever to keep the Northern Fleet as it is today and no need at all to begin a massive new shipbuilding program. By constantly claiming, against all odds, that a mysterious "foreign submarine," presumably American, sunk the Kursk, Russian admirals were not merely trying to shift the blame, they were fighting to keep in place the navy they loved. After Sept. 11, Putin openly began to steer Russia's foreign policy toward the West. This apparent U-turn has caused lots of apprehension and even some opposition within the Russian military. It's hardly a coincidence that Putin responded by assaulting the most anti-Western faction of all -- the North Fleet command. Popov, Motsak and 12 other high-ranking naval officials were ousted or demoted last week for "serious failures" in maintaning the fleet, for mismanagement of the exercise in which the Kursk sank and the organization of the subsequent rescue operation. Putin also specifically mentioned that despite all the costly efforts, no solid evidence of a Kursk collision with a foreign sub was discovered. The military careers of former nuclear submarine captains Popov and Motsak have been broken. Kuroyedov and other chiefs are still in place, but all are surely terrified by the scope and severity of the ouster. The Russian military is in such a state of decay that any military chief can be fired anytime for "serious failures," so no one is safe. Meanwhile, Putin's approval ratings are growing and have reportedly passed 80 percent as the pro-Western part of the public joins the ranks of the traditional Putin fans. For the time being, Putin, if he so wishes, may proceed with his new pro-Western policies fully unopposed. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 7 Next year key for Rocky Flats closure [www.TheDailyCamera.com] By Katy Human Camera Staff Writer Rocky Flats cleanup managers will need to make some critical moves in the next year to meet the scheduled 2006 closure of the former nuclear bomb plant, said Nancy Tuor, a vice president of Kaiser-Hill, the company managing cleanup. By mid-next year, 600 white collar workers will move to an off-site office building so others can start demolishing their current digs; and managers must figure out how to get rid of one particularly troublesome type of highly radioactive material. Nancy Tuor, a vice president of Kaiser-Hill, briefed the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments on cleanup strategy Monday. Site managers are negotiating possible leases for building complexes near Wadsworth Boulevard and Colo. 128, she said. This spring, 450 Kaiser-Hill employees and 150 Energy Department employees will shift to the new site. "There's no room, we've got to get their buildings down," Tuor said. Tuor focused her discussion on a new plan to clean up the so-called "south side" of Rocky Flats ahead of schedule. Many of the 400 buildings and structures there are contaminated with radiation or chemicals, but none are considered as dangerous as the site's plutonium buildings. In a cleanup plan released a few years ago, most of the south side was scheduled for cleanup during 2005 and 2006, theoretically the last two years of work at the site. Community members expressed concern about that plan, fearful that Congressional cleanup money might disappear before the work was done. It may also prove difficult to pay for south side work ahead of schedule, Tuor said. Officials had hoped to save money — and shuffle the savings to the south side — by reducing Rocky Flats' security force sometime next year. Managers can reduce security spending as soon as they ship out the remaining weapons-grade plutonium. But the long-envisioned recipient site for that material, the Savannah River Laboratory in South Carolina, is not an option at the moment. The Department of Energy, which owns both Savannah River and Rocky Flats, is currently embroiled in a dispute with South Carolina's governor. Gov. Jim Hodges doesn't want the radioactive material without a promise that the federal government will resurrect a program designed to transform or immobilize it. For the moment, shipment delays are only affecting managers' ability to spend saved money elsewhere, said the Energy Department's Hank Dalton. But the building currently housing the vaults will eventually need to be emptied for demolition, in what may be one of the site's most challenging projects. "After some point next year," Dalton said, "we begin affecting the ability to finish the project at the 2006 date." December 4, 2001 Copyright 2001 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any ***************************************************************** 8 Group seeks Flats museum [www.TheDailyCamera.com] By Katy Human Camera Staff Writer A journalist, an engineer, an activist and a public relations specialist are just four among a dozen or so people committed to one day building a Rocky Flats/Cold War museum near the former bomb plant. The group of the Rocky Flats/Cold War History Project board will present part of its vision tonight at the monthly meeting of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Meeting. Because the Cold War had such a profound effect on so many people and because Rocky Flats played such a key role in the Cold War, it is essential to understand and preserve the site's history, said Len Ackland, a journalism professor at the University of Colorado. "It just makes sense," he said. "I think everybody feels that what happened at Rocky Flats was so significant and needs to be understood. One way to do that is to have this museum and interpretive site." Rocky Flats workers built plutonium bomb triggers for all of the 10,000 atomic weapons in the U.S. stockpile, Ackland said. The work at the plant had many legacies. "We could have exhibits showing workers' perspective of themselves as Cold War warriors," Len said. Many workers thought bomb-building helped bring about the end of the war. "And you're also going to have to show protesters who regarded Rocky Flats as a great danger to the world as well as the community," he said. The museum board, led by Carol Lyons of Arvada, does not yet have land for a building, nor the millions it could take to build one. But the group earned nonprofit status last summer, and it just received a $150,000, no-strings-attached grant from Kaiser-Hill, the company cleaning up Rocky Flats. That should be enough to hire a part-time director and start some serious fund raising, Ackland said. "It's important to have a museum because it serves as a vehicle to cultivate and keep alive public memory," said LeRoy Moore, a member of the museum project board and an activist with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. Fred Fraikor, another member of the board, emphasized the cutting-edge research that took place at Rocky Flats. "There were a lot of firsts out there in terms of engineering and research in nuclear materials," said Fraikor, now with the Colorado School of Mines, who worked as a Rocky Flats scientist for almost two decades. Tonight's meeting will begin with dinner at 6 p.m. at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities, 6901 Wadsworth Blvd. At 7 p.m., four people will share stories: Two longtime Rocky Flats employees, one with cancer, a woman who lives immediately downwind of Rocky Flats and an anti-nuclear activist. It is free and open to the public. For more information, please call (303) 420-7855. Contact Katy Human at (303) 473-1364 or humank@thedailycamera.com. December 6, 2001 Copyright 2001 The Daily Camera. All rights reserved. Any ***************************************************************** 9 India, Pakistan and the Bomb: December 2001 Scientific American: Feature Article: India, Pakistan and the Bomb The Indian subcontinent is the most likely place in the world for a nuclear war by M. V. Ramana and A. H. Nayyar [Pasban atomic bomb demostration] THROUGH THE STREETS OF KARACHI, a mock missile is paraded by Pasban, a youth wing of Pakistan's main fundamentalist party, Jamaat-e-Islami. The parade took place in February 1999 on a day of solidarity with Kashmiris in India-administered Kashmir. Such enthusiasm for nuclear weapons is widespread, though not universal, in both India and Pakistan. AAMIR QURESHI AFP Photo/Corbis As the U.S. mobilized its armed forces in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the world's attention focused on Pakistan, so crucial to military operations in Afghanistan. When Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf pledged total support for a U.S.-led multinational force on September 14, many people's first thought was: What about Pakistan's nuclear weapons? Could they fall into the hands of extremists? In an address to his nation, Musharraf proclaimed that the "safety of nuclear missiles" was one of his priorities. The Bush administration began to consider providing Pakistan with perimeter security and other assistance to guard its nuclear facilities. The renewed concern about nuclear weapons in South Asia comes a little more than three years after the events of May 1998: the five nuclear tests conducted by India at Pokharan in the northwestern desert state of Rajasthan, followed three weeks later by six nuclear explosions conducted by Pakistan in its southwestern region of Chaghai. These tit-for-tat responses mirrored the nuclear buildup by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, with a crucial difference: the two cold war superpowers were separated by an ocean and never fought each other openly. Neighboring India and Pakistan have gone to war three times since British India was partitioned in 1947 into Muslim-majority and Hindu-majority states. Even now artillery guns regularly fire over the border (officially, a cease-fire line) in the disputed region of Kashmir. [underground nuclear tests] UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS conducted by India on May 11, 1998, caused the surface immediately above to collapse. Seismic readings (inset) suggest that the total explosive yield was between 16 and 30 kilotons, about half of what India claimed. AP Photo; TERRY C. WALLACE University of Arizona (inset) In May 1999, just one year after the nuclear tests, bitter fighting broke out over the occupation of a mountain ledge near the Kashmiri town of Kargil. The two-month conflict took a toll of between 1,300 (according to the Indian government) and 1,750 (according to Pakistan) lives. For the first time since 1971, India deployed its air force to launch attacks. In response, Pakistani fighter planes were scrambled for fear they might be hit on the ground; air-raid sirens sounded in the capital city of Islamabad. High-level officials in both countries issued at least a dozen nuclear threats. The peace and stability that some historians and political scientists have ascribed to nuclear weapons--because nuclear nations are supposed to be afraid of mutually assured destruction--were nowhere in sight. Wiser counsel eventually prevailed. The end of the Kargil clash, however, was not the end of the nuclear confrontation in South Asia. The planned deployment of nuclear weapons by the two countries heightens the risks. With political instability a real possibility in Pakistan, particularly given the conflict in Afghanistan, the dangers have never been so near. Learning to Love the Bomb Both countries have been advancing their nuclear programs almost ever since they gained independence from Britain. Understanding this history is crucial in figuring out what to do now, as well as preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although the standoff between Pakistan and India has distinct local characteristics, both countries owe much to other nuclear states. The materials used in their bombs were manufactured with Western technology; both countries' justifications for joining the nuclear club drew heavily on cold war thinking. The continued reliance of the U.S. and Russia on thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert only adds to the perceived need for nuclear arsenals in India and Pakistan. While setting up the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) in 1948, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, laid out his desire that the country "develop [atomic energy] for peaceful purposes." But at the same time, he recognized that "if we are compelled as a nation to use it for other purposes, possibly no pious sentiments will stop the nation from using it that way." Such ambivalence remained a central feature of India's nuclear policy as it developed. To Indian leaders, the program symbolized international political clout and technological modernity. Over the next two decades, India began to construct and operate nuclear reactors, mine uranium, fabricate fuel and extract plutonium. In terms of electricity produced, these activities often proved uneconomical--hardly, one might think, where a developing nation should be putting its resources. Politicians and scientists justified the nuclear program on the grounds that it promoted self-sufficiency, a popular theme in postcolonial India. Rhetoric aside, India solicited and received ample aid from Canada, the U.S. and other countries. Scientific American articles on nuclear proliferation Since the dawn of the nuclear age, Scientific American has published articles on nuclear weapons policy. A sampling: The Hydrogen Bomb: II. Hans A. Bethe. April 1950. The Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. William Epstein. April 1975. Stopping the Production of Fissile Materials for Weapons. Frank von Hippel, David H. Albright and Barbara G. Levi. September 1985. The Future of American Defense. Philip Morrison, Kosta Tsipis and Jerome Wiesner. February 1994. The Real Threat of Nuclear Smuggling. Phil Williams and Paul N. Woessner. January 1996. Iran's Nuclear Puzzle. David A. Schwarzbach. June 1997. After India's defeat in the 1962 border war with China, some right-wing politicians issued the first public calls for developing a nuclear arsenal. These appeals became louder after China's first nuclear test in 1964. Countering this bomb lobby were other prominent figures, who argued that the economic cost would be too high. Many leading scientists advocated the bomb. Homi Bhabha, the theoretical physicist who ran the IAEC, claimed that his organization could build nuclear weapons "within 18 months." Citing a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report, Bhabha predicted that nuclear bombs would be cheap. He also promised economic gain from "peaceful nuclear explosions," which many American nuclear researchers extolled for, say, digging canals. In November 1964 Indian prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri compromised, permitting the commission to explore the technology for such an explosion. It turned out that Bhabha had already been doing some exploring. In 1960 he reportedly sent Vasudev Iya, a young chemist, to France to absorb as much information as he possibly could about how polonium--a chemical element used to trigger a nuclear explosion--was prepared. Bhabha died in 1966, and design work on the "peaceful" device did not begin for another two years. But by the late 1960s, between 50 and 75 scientists and engineers were actively developing weapons. Their work culminated in India's first atomic test--the detonation on May 11, 1974, of a plutonium weapon with an explosive yield of five to 12 kilotons. For comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of about 13 kilotons. Nuclear Tipping Point The 1974 test was greeted with enthusiasm within India and dismay elsewhere. Western countries cut off cooperative efforts on nuclear matters and formed the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which restricts the export of nuclear technologies and materials to nations that refuse to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including both India and Pakistan. In the years that followed, the bomb lobby pushed for tests of more advanced weapons, such as a boosted-fission design and a hydrogen bomb. It appears that in late 1982 or early 1983, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi tentatively agreed to another test, only to change her mind within 24 hours. One of the causes for the volte-face is said to have been a conversation with the Indian foreign secretary, whom an American official had confronted with satellite evidence of preparations at the test site. The conversation seems to have convinced Gandhi that the U.S. reaction would create economic difficulties for India. Instead, it is reported, she wanted to "develop other things and keep them ready." The "other things" she had in mind were ballistic missiles. In 1983 the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program was set up under the leadership of Abdul Kalam, a renowned rocket engineer. This followed an earlier, secret attempt to reverse-engineer a Soviet antiaircraft missile that India had purchased in the 1960s. Although that effort did not succeed, it led to the development of several critical technologies, in particular a rocket engine. Kalam adopted an open management style--as compared with the closed military research program--and involved academic institutions and private firms. Anticipating restrictions on imports, India went on a shopping spree for gyroscopes, accelerometers and motion simulators from suppliers in France, Sweden, the U.S. and Germany. In 1988 India tested its first short-range surface-to-surface missile. A year later came a medium-range missile; in April 1999, a longer-range missile. The latter can fly 2,000 kilometers, well into the heart of China. Despite this ability, India is unlikely to achieve nuclear parity with China. According to various estimates, China has 400 warheads and an additional 200 to 575 weapons' worth of fissile material. If India's plutonium production reactors have been operating on average at 50 to 80 percent of full power, India has somewhere between 55 and 110 weapons' worth of plutonium [see illustration]. The stockpile could be much larger if commercial reactors earmarked for electricity generation have also been producing plutonium for weapons. Eating Grass FATHERS OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS: A. Q. Khan (left) set up the Kahuta centrifuge plant, which produces the uranium used in Pakistan's bombs. Homi Jehangir Bhabha (right), a theoretical physicist educated at the University of Cambridge, laid the groundwork for India's nuclear capability. B. K. BANGASH AP Photo (Khan); Courtesy of Bhabha Atomic Research Center (Bhabha) Pakistan's nuclear program drew on a general desire to match India in whatever it does. The country set up its Atomic Energy Commission in 1954, began operating its first nuclear research reactor in 1965 and opened its first commercial reactor in 1970. As scientific adviser to the government, physicist Abdus Salam, who later won the Nobel Prize in Physics, played an important role. The program was severely handicapped by a shortage of manpower. In 1958 the commission had only 31 scientists and engineers; it was run by Nazir Ahmad, the former head of the Textile Committee. The commission pursued an active program of training personnel by sending more than 600 scientists and engineers to the U.S., Canada and western Europe. With generous help from these countries, some of which also aided India, Pakistan had a few nuclear research laboratories in place by the mid-1960s. After the 1965 war with India, many Pakistani politicians, journalists and scientists pressed for the development of nuclear weapons. The most prominent was Foreign Minister Zulfikhar Ali Bhutto, who famously declared that if India developed an atomic bomb, Pakistan would follow "even if we have to eat grass or leaves or to remain hungry." After Pakistan's defeat in the December 1971 war, Bhutto became prime minister. In January 1972 he convened a meeting of Pakistani scientists to discuss making bombs. As the first prong of their two-pronged effort to obtain weapons material, researchers attempted to purchase plutonium reprocessing plants from France and Belgium. After initially agreeing to the sale, France backed down under American pressure. But a few Pakistani scientists did go to Belgium for training in reprocessing technology. Returning to Pakistan, they constructed a small-scale reprocessing laboratory in the early 1980s. Using spent fuel from a plutonium production reactor that opened in 1998, this lab is capable of producing two to four bombs' worth of plutonium annually. As the second prong, researchers explored techniques for enriching uranium--that is, for concentrating the bomb-usable isotope uranium 235. In 1975 A. Q. Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist who had worked at an enrichment plant in the Netherlands, joined the group. With him came classified design information and lists of component suppliers in the West, many of which proved quite willing to violate export-control laws [click here]. Success came in 1979 with the enrichment of small quantities of uranium. Since then, Pakistan is estimated to have produced 20 to 40 bombs' worth of enriched uranium. Every year it produces another four to six bombs' worth. By 1984 designs for aircraft-borne bombs were reportedly complete. Around this time, some American officials started alleging that China had given Pakistan the design for a missile-ready bomb. China and Pakistan have indeed exchanged technology and equipment in several areas, including those related to nuclear weapons and missiles. For example, it is believed that Pakistan has imported short-range missiles from China. But the accusation that China supplied Pakistan with a weapons design has never been substantiated. And understandably, Pakistan's nuclear scientists have denied it. In spring 1990 events in Kashmir threatened to erupt into another full-scale war. According to a 1993 New Yorker article by American journalist Seymour M. Hersh, U.S. satellites detected a convoy of trucks moving out of Kahuta, Pakistan's uranium-enrichment facility, toward an air base where F-16 fighter jets stood ready. Hersh reported that American diplomats conveyed this information to India, which recalled the troops it had amassed at the border. But the overwhelming opinion among scholars who have analyzed these claims is that Pakistan never contemplated the use of nuclear weapons; experts are also skeptical that U.S. satellites ever detected the claimed movement. Nevertheless, the Pakistani bomb lobby has used the allegations to assert that nuclear weapons protect the country from Indian attack. In India, officials have never acknowledged Hersh's story; it would be an admission that Pakistan's nuclear capability had neutralized India's conventional military advantage. "Now I Am Become Death" [nuclear reactor] KHUSHAB NUCLEAR REACTOR in Pakistan produces a few bombs' worth of plutonium every year. Based on the size of the cooling towers visible in this Ikonos commercial satellite image, nuclear analysts estimate that the reactor generates about 50 megawatts of heat. Courtesy of SPACE IMAGING Futher buildup of nuclear capabilities in both countries took place against a background transformed by the end of the cold war. Superpower arsenals shrank, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits explosive tests, was negotiated in 1996. But the five declared nuclear states--the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China--made it clear that they intend to hold on to their arsenals. This ironic juxtaposition strengthened the bomb lobbies in India and Pakistan. Domestic developments added to the pressure. India witnessed the rise of Hindu nationalism. For decades, parties subscribing to this ideology, such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had espoused the acquisition of greater military capability--and nuclear weapons. It was therefore not surprising that the BJP ordered nuclear tests immediately after coming to power in March 1998. The Indian tests, in turn, provided Pakistani nuclear advocates with the perfect excuse to test. Here again, religious extremists advocated the bomb. Qazi Hussain Ahmad of the Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the largest Islamist groups in Pakistan, had declared in 1993: "Let us wage jihad for Kashmir. A nuclear-armed Pakistan would deter India from a wider conflict." Meanwhile the military sought nuclear weapons to counter India's vastly larger armed forces. This lobbying was partially offset by U.S. and Chinese diplomacy after India's tests. In addition, some analysts and activists enumerated the ill effects that would result from the economic sanctions that were sure to follow any test. They suggested that Pakistan not follow India's lead--leaving India to face international wrath alone--but to no avail. Three weeks after India's blasts, Pakistan went ahead with its own tests. Bombast notwithstanding, the small size of seismic signals from the tests of both countries has cast doubt on the declared explosive yields [see illustration at top]. The data released by the Indian weapons establishment to support its claims are seriously deficient; for example, a graph said to be of yields of radioactive by-products has no units on the axes. Independent scientists have not been able to verify that the countries set off as many devices as they profess. Whatever the details, the tests have dramatically changed the military situation in South Asia. They have spurred the development of more advanced weapons, missiles, submarines, antiballistic missile systems, and command-and-control systems. In August 1999 the Indian Draft Nuclear Doctrine called for the deployment of a triad of "aircraft, mobile land-missiles and sea-based assets" to deliver nuclear weapons. Such a system would cost about $8 billion. This past January the Indian government declared that it would deploy its new long-range missile. A month later the Pakistani deputy chief of naval staff announced that Pakistan was thinking about equipping at least one of its submarines with nuclear missiles. Critical Mass [MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL] Making Nuclear Weapons Material Deployment increases the risk that nuclear weapons will be used in a crisis through accident or miscalculation. With missile flight times of three to five minutes between the two countries, early-warning systems are useless. Leaders may not learn of a launch until they look out their window and see a blinding flash of light. They will therefore keep their fingers close to the button or authorize others, geographically dispersed, to do so. Broadly speaking, there are two scenarios. The first postulates that India crosses some threshold during a war--its troops reach the outskirts of Lahore or its ships impose a naval blockade on Karachi--and Pakistan responds with tactical nuclear weapons as a warning shot. The other scenario supposes that under the same circumstances, Pakistan decides that a warning shot would not work and instead attacks an Indian city directly. In 1998 one of us (Ramana) conducted the first scientific study of how much damage a modest, 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Bombay would cause: over the first few months, between 150,000 and 850,000 people would die. DONNING THE MASK OF DEATH and bearing the Indian flag, protesters gather outside the Pakistani Embassy in New Delhi after Pakistan's nuclear tests in 1998. Some are holding up baby bottles to mock Pakistan as an infant nation. It is not known whether the same protesters had objected to India's own nuclear tests several weeks earlier. AP PHOTO The Indian military is already preparing for these eventualities. This past May it carried out its biggest exercises in more than a decade, called Operation Complete Victory. Tens of thousands of troops, backed by tanks, aircraft and attack helicopters, undertook drills close to the border with Pakistan. The stated aim was to train the armed forces to operate in an "environment of chemical, biological and nuclear assault" and "to teach the enemy a lesson once and for all." In one significant exercise, the military had to "handle a warlike situation wherein an enemy aircraft is encountered carrying a nuclear warhead." Abdul Kalam, head of India's missile program, said that India's nuclear weapons "are being tested for military operations ... for training by our armed forces." Even before September 11, South Asia had all the ingredients for a nuclear war: possession and continued development of bombs and missiles, imminent deployment of nuclear weapons, inadequate precautions to avoid unauthorized use of these weapons, geographical proximity, ongoing conflict in Kashmir, militaristic religious extremist movements, and leaders who seem sanguine about the dangers of nuclear war. The responses of India and Pakistan to the events of September 11 and the U.S.-led attack on targets in Afghanistan reflect the strategic competition that has shaped much of their history. India was quick to offer air bases and logistical support to the U.S. military so as to isolate Pakistan. Attempting to tie its own problems in Kashmir with the global concern about terrorism, Indian officials even threatened to launch attacks on Pakistani supply lines and alleged training camps for militants fighting in Kashmir. Pakistan, for its part, realizing both the geopolitical advantage it possessed and the dangers of civil instability, deliberated before agreeing to provide support to fight the Taliban. The diplomatic machinations, war in Afghanistan and violence in Kashmir may well have worsened the prospects for peace on the subcontinent. The lifting of American sanctions, which had been imposed in the 1990s, freed up resources to invest in weapons. The limitations of Western nonproliferation policy are now painfully obvious. It has relied primarily on supply-side export controls to prevent access to nuclear technologies. But Pakistan's program reveals that these are inadequate. Any effective strategy for nonproliferation must also involve demand-side measures--policies to assure countries that the bomb is not a requisite for true security. The most important demand-side measure is progress toward global nuclear disarmament. Some people argue that global disarmament and nonproliferation are unrelated. But as George Perkovich of the W. Alton Jones Foundation in Charlottesville, Va., observed in his masterly study of the Indian nuclear program, that premise is "the grandest illusion of the nuclear age." It may also be the most dangerous. Further Information: Fissile Material Production Potential in South Asia. A. H. Nayyar, A. H. Toor and Zia Mian in Science and Global Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, pages 189-203; 1997. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial State. Itty Abraham. Zed Books, 1998. India's Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation. George Perkovich. University of California Press, 1999. Out of the Nuclear Shadow. Edited by Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian. Zed Books, 2001. Related Links: For articles by M. V. Ramana, visit www.geocities.com/CollegePark/5409/nuclear.html [http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/5409/nuclear.html] For extensive information on both countries' nuclear weapons, visit www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/index.html [http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/index.html] www.ceip.org/files/Publications/trackingTOC.asp [http://www.ceip.org/files/Publications/trackingTOC.asp] www.fas.org/nuke/hew/ [http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/] The Authors M. V. RAMANA and A. H. NAYYAR are physicists and peace activists who have worked to bridge the divide between India and Pakistan. Ramana, a research staff member in Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security (www.princeton. edu/~globsec [http://www.princeton. edu/~globsec] ), is a founding member of the Indian Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. He was born and raised in southern India and has written extensively on the region's classical music. Nayyar, a physics professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, is co-founder of the Pakistan Peace Coalition. He also runs a project to provide education to underprivileged children. ***************************************************************** 10 Russia questions U.S. on nuclear reductions 12/05/2001 - Updated 04:51 PM ET WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States said Wednesday it has complied fully with nuclear arms reductions prescribed in the START I treaty signed 10 years ago by former Presidents Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union. In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said it, too, is in compliance, but it questions whether the United States is living up to its end of the deal. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a statement issued as he was traveling in Europe and made available by the State Department, said the treaty's "final ceilings came into effect today, and they have been met." The 1991 treaty obligated the United States and the then-Soviet Union to reduce their numbers of nuclear warheads from about 10,000 to 6,000 each by Dec. 5, 2001. The treaty also required each country to reduce the number of its ballistic missiles and strategic bombers to 1,600. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said in a statement Wednesday that Russia has brought down its number of nuclear warheads to 5,518 and reduced its number of missiles and bombers to 1,136. "We expect the United States to also reach the thresholds designated by the treaty," Yakovenko said. "At the same time, we have questions concerning (its) fulfillment of some obligations under the treaty." "We proceed from the assumption that these issues will be solved in the nearest future," Yakovenko said without elaborating. A team of Russian military experts led by Maj.-Gen. Nikolai Artyukhin has arrived in the United States to check compliance with START I, the Interfax news agency reported. The agency quoted an unidentified Defense Ministry spokesman as saying the U.S. military denied Russian inspectors access to some facilities. There was no hint in Powell's statement of any disagreement. "Today we mark an important milestone in dismantling the legacy of the Cold War," Powell said. He added that all the former Soviet states except the Russian Federation are free of nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Russia have cut their arsenals nearly in half to a level of 6,000 deployed warheads each. "As we cooperate in building this new strategic relationship, and as we move beyond the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, we will make further reductions in strategic nuclear forces," Powell said. President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to agree last month at their summit meeting on Bush's plans for a national missile defense, which is forbidden by the ABM Treaty. Russia opposed any effort to dismantle the treaty. Putin said Moscow was open to further discussions on possible modifications to the treaty and pledged that the issue wouldn't mar bilateral relations as it has in the past. Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 11 UNITED NATIONS TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT COULD STOP UK PLUTONIUM PLANT 3 December 2001 Hamburg - The UK government remained under pressure today not to begin operations at its controversial new Sellafield nuclear fuel plant after a ruling today by a United Nations Tribunal on a legal challenge by the Irish government which was based on concerns about radioactive pollution of the Irish Sea and dangers of terrorist attacks. Ireland had requested The United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, made up of 21 judges, to issue provisional measures (a form of injunction) against the UK government, including that the Sellafield MOX fuel plant (SMP)authorization should be withdrawn and that there be no nuclear transports into or out of Sellafield associated with the SMP. The Tribunal did not issue the measures requested by Ireland. However, in a move that will embarrass the UK government, the Tribunal did issue provisional measures that may have the same effect as those originally sought by Ireland: - the judges unanimously rejected UK claims that the Law of the Sea Convention Tribunal did not have jurisdiction; - the judges called on the UK and Ireland to undertake no action "which might aggravate the dispute" – for Greenpeace this means that BNFL should not proceed with MOX production, scheduled to begin around December 20th 2001; In terms of provisional measures, the Tribunal instructed: Both parties to "cooperate" and enter into consultation to exchange information with regard to possible consequences for the Irish Sea arising out of the commissioning of the MOX plant, to monitor risks or the effects of the operation of the MOX plant for the Irish Sea, and to devise as appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might arise from the operation of the plant. "The judges have recognized that the UK should not do anything that would aggravate the dispute between Ireland and the UK. The obvious point here is that turning on the MOX plant will certainly aggravate the dispute – the UK should therefore abandon its plans for MOX production to start at the end of the month," said Duncan Currie, legal counsel for Greenpeace International. "It also seems impossible to design appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might arise from the operation of the MOX plant once it is commissioned”. The provisional measures agreed to by the Tribunal will remain in force until the conclusion of international arbitration to be held under the auspices of the International Convention on the Law of the Sea. Hearings are expected to begin in early 2002. The Tribunal also stated that further measures could be passed by the Tribunal if necessary. Greenpeace is also encouraged by the views of seven of the judges that "the Tribunal has identified the duty to cooperate as a fundamental principle in the regime of the prevention of pollution of the marine environment under Part XII of the Convention and general international law." In terms of nuclear transports, BNFL will not be able to make any MOX transports into or out of Sellafield while the ITLOS judgment is in force. Perhaps of most significance the planned return of rejected MOX fuel from Japan to Sellafield, due in 2002, will now be under threat. The fuel was originally shipped by BNFL in 1999, but after admitting that it contained falsified quality control data, it was agreed by Japan and the UK governments to ship it back to the UK. BNFL hopes that its return will help secure new large contracts for the SMP with Japanese utilities. Ireland in its evidence to the Tribunal held in November, made the case that there were major safety and security issues involved in nuclear transports which the UK have not adequately addressed. The Tribunal has also established the right of states threatened by pollution from transports to be consulted – this is a major step forward for the rights of en- route states opposed to the transport of nuclear material, including high level waste and plutonium MOX fuel. "The UK government has to seriously reflect on today’s judgement. A plutonium business that makes no economic sense, leads to widespread contamination of the environment, whilst presenting a major proliferation and terrorist threat, deserves no future. The Tribunal has issued an important judgement today, the Irish government is right to be pleased by this judgement, and BNFL and the UK government know that this is a red not a green light to MOX production,” said Shaun Burnie nuclear campaigner with Greenpeace International. A Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth UK expect to hear within days the result of their lawsuit against the UK government’s decision to authorize the MOX plant. The Court of Appeal in London heard the case last week. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: - Shaun Burnie – Greenpeace International nuclear campaigns - +44 1557 814 288 - Duncan Currie – legal counsel for Greenpeace International - +64 21632335 Visit www.britishnuclearfuels.org [http://www.britishnuclearfuels.org] Notes: Language of the Tribunal December 3rd 2001 1. Unanimously, Prescribes, pending a decision by the Annex VII arbitral tribunal, the following provisional measure under article 290, paragraph 5, of the Convention: Ireland and the United Kingdom shall cooperate and shall, for this purpose, enter into consultations forthwith in order to: exchange further information with regard to possible consequences for the Irish Sea arising out of the commissioning of the MOX plant; - monitor risks or the effects of the operation of the MOX plant for the Irish Sea; - devise, as appropriate, measures to prevent pollution of the marine environment which might result from the operation of the MOX plant. Unanimously, Decides that Ireland and the United Kingdom shall each submit the initial report referred to in article 95, paragraph 1, of the Rules not later than 17 December 2001, and authorizes the President of the Tribunal to request such further reports and information as he may consider appropriate after that date. Unanimously, Decides that each party shall bear its own costs. P.Chandrasekhara Rao,President. ***************************************************************** 12 Russia in Nuclear Compliance IHT: Reuters Reuters December 6, 2001 MOSCOW Russia said Wednesday that it had reduced its stockpile of strategic weapons to levels required by the START-1 arms control treaty, which was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1991. The Foreign Ministry said the number of weapons carriers had been reduced to 1,136 and the number of nuclear warheads to 5,518, well below the ceilings established by the treaty, which were 1,600 and 6,000, respectively. "We expect the United States will reach the level of reduction established in the treaty," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Copyright © 2001 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 13 Bill would fund health study for weapons workers Omaha.com December 6, 2001 MIDDLETOWN, Iowa (AP) - The U.S. Senate is expected to consider a bill this week that would provide $1 million to study the health of weapons workers once employed at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. The legislation, a small part of the defense appropriations bill, was passed by a key funding committee Tuesday. Dozens of former ammunition plant workers and their families have complained of health problems and early deaths they think may be related to their work. Former nuclear-weapons workers at the plant have been the focus of much attention over the past couple of years, and conventional-weapons workers claim that their complaints have gone unheard. "I think its great. It's what we need," said Paula Graham, 69, of Farmington, who worked at the plant during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Graham has been a vocal advocate for health studies that include former employees who worked on conventional weapons at the Middletown plant. Graham believes that exposure to hazardous materials contributed to the illnesses and deaths of her sister, mother and father, who also worked on the Army side. University of Iowa researchers recently received a second year of funding - $790,000 - from the U.S. Department of Energy to continue surveying the health status of former atomic weapons workers at the plant. For the past year, the team has been identifying thousands of former workers who helped build nuclear weapons at the plant from 1945 through 1975 under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission. "As the health work with former workers at the nuclear facility at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant enters its second year, I'm proud to announce initial funding for similar health work with employees on the Army side of the plant," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. "We must not forget any of the workers who served us so well." ©2001 Omaha World-Herald. All rights reserved. Copyright ***************************************************************** 14 Ohio nuclear plant won't be closed early Thursday, December 6, 2001 Associated Press The Columbus Dispatch OAK HARBOR, Ohio (AP) -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided that safety concerns won't force the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant to shut down early. The federal agency said Tuesday that the plant, about 25 miles east of Toledo, can continue to operate until a scheduled shutdown in February. Plant operators then will be able to inspect the reactor to see whether there is a crack in a safety feature on top of the reactor. A surprise discovery of a crack at a nearly identical plant in Seneca, S.C., nine months ago raised concerns about Davis-Besse and 12 other plants identified by a research group as being most susceptible to having problems with equipment called control rod drive mechanism nozzles. Eleven of the 13 plants have provided the NRC with enough documentation to continue operating until their next refueling shutdown, the agency said. Another, a D.C. Cook plant near Benton Harbor, Mich., agreed to shut down voluntarily Jan. 19 to conduct more inspections. Plant operator FirstEnergy will wait to inspect the reactor until Feb. 16, when it shuts down for refueling. Until then, control-room operators will be instructed to keep the reactor at lower temperatures to prevent any cracks that might exist from spreading. FirstEnergy requested permission to keep operating the plant until then because it has conducted three inspections since 1996 and didn't find any reason to believe there are cracks, spokesman Richard Wilkins said. Copyright © 2001, The Columbus Dispatch. Content may not be ***************************************************************** 15 DOE security is focus of meeting Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:42 p.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Security measures pertaining to the local Department of Energy facilities will be the focus of a presentation Monday night at the Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board. Bobby Davis, leader of DOE's Emergency Management Team, and Steven Wyatt, director of public affairs for DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, will discuss the security measures and communications plans the federal agency has put in place at the local facilities. The public meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. Monday at the Garden Plaza Hotel, 215 S. Illinois Ave. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Oak Ridge facilities have been implementing heightened security measures, which have resulted in restricted parking, random searches and lots of overtime for local guards, among other things. Just this week, UT-Battelle, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory, announced that it was indefinitely restricting access to a 5-mile stretch of Bethel Valley Road. The SSAB is a federally appointed citizen's panel that provides advice and recommendations to the Department of Energy on its Oak Ridge environmental management program. The group was formed in 1995 and chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 16 The Home-Front Emergency December 6, 2001 The need to do more to guard against terrorism at home is obvious. Tom Ridge, the director of homeland defense, and members of Congress have certainly endorsed the idea — in principle. Yet today, when the Senate takes up a measure that would add $7.5 billion to the budget for items like airport security and defense against germ warfare, Republican leaders will be trying to block it. The appropriation is tacked onto an emergency military spending bill that no one opposes. But an emergency also exists at home. Senators should put the safety of their constituents first and vote for the entire package. President Bush has threatened to veto the $7.5 billion measure if it reaches his desk, and Mr. Ridge has urged the senators to wait until next year, when he acknowledges he will be asking for more money for things like public health and food safety. Senators have been appropriately skeptical of his plea for delay. "That, simply stated, is too late," said Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Why would the White House, which has just issued another generalized terrorism warning, want to temporize on mounting an American response? The answer is old-fashioned budget politics. Earlier this year the administration and Congress settled on a ceiling of $686 billion in so-called discretionary spending for the current fiscal year. After Sept. 11, Mr. Bush and Congress agreed to add $40 billion to deal with the terrorist attacks, half of which was supposed to be set aside for New York. Not surprisingly, the money has been used up quickly. About $20 billion is going to the military to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Only $10 billion may go to New York. Only $8.5 billion is set aside for homeland defenses. It makes no sense to postpone help for the nation's health facilities to recognize and treat victims of biological or chemical attack when federal health officials have testified that their departments could use the money now. If the American people were asked whether they wanted to wait until next year to appropriate money to keep nuclear facilities secure and protect the nation's borders, they would undoubtedly opt for immediate action. The other great unmet need this year is New York City's recovery. The Bush administration argues that the promise of at least $20 billion to help the city will, eventually, be spent as costs are incurred. But that is beside the point. The Senate bill would give New York a further $7.5 billion for costs that would not be covered under those emergency procedures, such as grants to businesses to keep them from moving out of Lower Manhattan. It would also commit money to the Port Authority, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and other agencies to start rebuilding now. Other parts of the package would help reimburse utilities for rewiring the area and hospitals for the emergency care they provided. The only serious argument against the Senate package appears to be the president's opposition. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee, says he would vote for the bill except that the White House asked him not to. Mr. Bush has lately accused Congress of overspending, though lawmakers have stayed within all the agreed-upon limits except those related to the emergency. Recently Mitchell Daniels, Mr. Bush's budget director, has been citing new deficit projections as evidence that Congress needs to keep spending down. But the administration has found room to expand the separate economic stimulus package to include huge giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. About $25 billion in the Republican stimulus bill would simply go to help the biggest corporations in America avoid taxes altogether. This is a time for Senator Stevens, and all his colleagues, to vote on the merits. The merits dictate that the bill be passed. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 17 Indian research centre develops anti-nuclear terrorism device BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 5, 2001 Text of report by Indian news agency PTI New Delhi, 5 December: India's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed a device that that can form an important element in combating nuclear terrorism. It can play a vital role in detection of unauthorized movement and transportation of special nuclear materials and items, an official release said Wednesday [5 December]. The device not only detects special nuclear materials but also raises alarm and will be helpful in combating nuclear terrorism, it said. Source: PTI news agency, New Delhi, in English 2004 gmt 5 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************