***************************************************************** 11/22/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.303 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: NRC: 3rd year reactor oversight Process comment request 2 Inspectors to Check Well-Known Sites 3 N. Korea Open to Salvage Nuke Pact 4 US: Ed & Deabate: Nuclear power gets stupidity from both ends of the 5 Canada: Ontario power failure 6 CIA: N. Korea Can Build More Nukes 7 Fact Sheet: NATO: Building New Capabilities for New Challenges 8 CIA: Pyongyang could make 50 nukes a year* 9 Greenpeace wins right to challenge UK nuclear aid 10 Greenpeace: Russians seize computers 11 Tokyo may face power crunch as utility shuts nuclear plants - 12 Seoul Worries `Wrong Move¡¯ May Follow NK Silence 13 Kawaguchi Stresses Need for NK to Scrap Nuclear Program 14 Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President 15 North Korea bans KEDO officials 16 Court allows review of British Energy bail-out 17 US: Current energy policy paints dismal future NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: CY slows decommissioning process, awaiting plan approval from NR 19 US: NRC inspector wasn?t clear on TMI protocol 20 US: FR: NRC decision: Riverkeeper proposal to close Indian Point 21 India: Govt mulls nuclear power station in state 22 Will the neon lights go out in Tokyo? (Japan Nuclear controversy) NUCLEAR SAFETY 23 US: Compensation claims rise to nearly $1 million* 24 UK: 'Dirty bomb' attack clear-up could end in borough 25 US: RAB to be briefed on IAAPair NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 26 FW: Panama to make nuke shipment presentation to ACS 27 US: *Officials look to the future of Shpack* 28 Kazakhstan: Surviving on nuclear waste* 29 Minatom and Environmentalists Square Off on Ministry Steps Over 30 Do Tatars Have to Live In Radioactive Dumps? 31 UK: BNFL PLAYS DOWN FEARS OF ATTACK - 32 US: More nuclear fuel to be stored at Surry plant 33 US: Durango OP: Contamination cleanup won't hurt land 34 US: Hearing On Nuclear Waste Requested By State 35 US: State Asks Nuclear Regulatory Commission For Hearing On Maine 36 US: Hansen nuclear bill dies in Congress 37 US: Toxic Interpretations NUCLEAR WEAPONS 38 NATO must not clone US nuclear first-strike policy at Prague meeting 39 US: The Failsafe Point: Spending Ourselves to Death 40 Notes of a lawyer: The Belt of Light and Control 41 North Korea, Accusing U.S., Says Nuclear Pact Has Collapsed 42 Fire breaks out on Russian nuclear submarine 43 US: Testimony in Support of Baltimore's Anti-Iraq War Resolution 44 Iran's N-programme raises new worries 45 CIA: North Korea may have 2 nukes 46 US doubts success of weapons inspection US DEPT. OF ENERGY 47 SC Gov. Sanford meets with Energy Secretary Abraham 48 Sanford, U.S. energy chief to review SRS plan 49 IAAP flyover expanded by 3,000 acres 50 Energy Department to Study Atlas Site 51 Incinerator raises debate on SRS permit 52 DOE to expand research program OTHER NUCLEAR 53 U.S., Philippines ink five-year military plan 54 The Bomb Project Compiles Nuclear Bomb Imagery, Documents for 55 Tanker wreck off Spain adds to toxic seabed horror ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 NRC: 3rd year reactor oversight Process comment request FR Doc 02-29736 [Federal Register: November 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70468-70470] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no02-123] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Solicitation of Public Comments on the Third Year of Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: Nearly 3 years have elapsed since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implemented its revised Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). The NRC is currently soliciting comments from members of the public, licensees, and interest groups related to [[Page 70469]] the implementation of the ROP. This is a followup to the Federal Register notice (FRN) issued in November 2001 requesting feedback on the second year of implementation. DATES: The comment period expires on December 27, 2002. The NRC will consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Comments may be e-mailed to [nrcrep@nrc.gov] or sent to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T6-D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. Lesar at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html] . From this site, the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, or by e-mail at [pdr@nrc.gov] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael J. Maley, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop OWFN 7A15), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Maley can also be reached by telephone at 301-415-2919 or by e-mail at [mjm3@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program Overview The mission of the NRC is to regulate the civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment, and to promote the common defense and security by preventing the proliferation of nuclear material. The mission is accomplished through the following activities: [sbull] License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear materials. [sbull] Develop and implement requirements governing licensed activities. [sbull] Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure compliance with these requirements and the law. While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate licensee's performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee. As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured for more than 25 years, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply insights from these years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. The NRC has also incorporated risk-informed principles and techniques into its oversight activities. A risk-informed approach to oversight enables the NRC to more appropriately apply its resources to oversight of operational areas that contribute most to safe operation at nuclear facilities. After conducting a 6-month pilot program in 1999, assessing the results, and incorporating the lessons learned, the NRC began implementing the revised Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) at all 103 nuclear facilities (except D.C. Cook) on April 2, 2000. Inherent in the ROP are the following key NRC performance goals: (1) Maintain safety by establishing and implementing a regulatory oversight process that ensures that plants are operated safely. (2) Enhance public confidence by increasing the predictability, consistency, and objectivity of the oversight process; providing timely and understandable information; and providing opportunities for meaningful involvement by the public. (3) Improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and realism of the oversight process by implementing a process of continuous improvement. (4) Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden through the consistent application of the process and incorporation of lessons learned. Key elements of the ROP include revised NRC inspection procedures, plant performance indicators, a significance determination process, and an assessment program that incorporates various risk-informed thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and enforcement. Since process development began in 1998, the NRC has frequently communicated with the public by various means. These have included conducting public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial nuclear power plant, issuing FRNs soliciting feedback on the process, publishing press releases about the new process, conducting multiple public workshops, placing pertinent background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and establishing an NRC Web site containing easily accessible information about the new program and licensee performance. NRC Public Stakeholder Comments The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from members of the public, various public stakeholders, and industry groups on their insights regarding the third year of implementation of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self- assessment report. Questions Questions Related to Specific ROP Program Areas (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (1) Does the Performance Indicator Program minimize the potential for licensees to take actions that adversely impact plant safety? (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program? (3) Do reporting conflicts exist, or is there unncessary overlap between reporting requirements of the ROP and those associated with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the World Association of Nuclear Operations (WANO), or the Maintenance Rule? (4) Does NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline'' provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators? (5) Is the information in the inspection reports useful to you? (6) Does the Significance Determination Process yield equivalent results for issues of similar significance in all ROP cornerstones? (7) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance issues for those licensees outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix? (8) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English? [[Page 70470]] Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (9) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (i.e., controlled by the process) and objective (i.e., based on supported facts, rather than relying on subjecting judgement)? (10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions are graduated on the basis of increased significance? (11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures and products clear and written in plain English? (12) Does the ROP provide adequate assurance that plants are being operated and maintained safely? (13) Does the ROP improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism of the regulatory process? (14) Does the ROP enhance public confidence? (15) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments? (16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP? (17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents? (18) Does the ROP reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees? (19) Does the ROP result in unintended consequences? (20) Please provide any additional information or comments on other program areas related to the Reactor Oversight Process. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November, 2002. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Cynthia A. Carpenter, Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 02-29736 Filed 11-21-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 2 Inspectors to Check Well-Known Sites Las Vegas SUN: November 21, 2002 By CHARLES J. HANLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS BAGHDAD, Iraq- U.N. experts plan a low-key re-entry into the weapons inspections business in Iraq, probably heading first for well-known sites inspected in the 1990s to look for signs of new clandestine weapons-making, a U.N. spokesman said Thursday. After a four-year gap in inspections, the advance U.N. staff was hurrying preparations for next week's first field operations. Specialists had computer disks, satellite photos and intelligence reports to pore through in choosing prime targets for their surprise inspections. As the U.N. teams readied for months of work - months that could spell the difference between war and peace in Iraq - the NATO alliance warned Iraq anew of "serious consequences" if it fails to cooperate with the effort to deny it chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. A summit of 19 NATO leaders reaffirmed their governments' support for the U.N. Security Council resolution governing the resumption of inspections. But they didn't threaten any NATO military action if Iraq is defiant, in the way U.S. President George W. Bush has threatened unilateral U.S. military action. Most governments say they want to see Security Council authorization for any eventual military operations. American allies generally responded noncommitally this week to a U.S. request for support in a potential military move in Iraq. In Baghdad, the newspaper al-Thawra, organ of President Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party, editorialized that Washington cares less about Iraq's weapons arsenals than about a "new-century political strategy" of world domination, "and destroying Iraq is the first step toward achieving this goal." On leaving Baghdad after two days of talks this week, the chief U.N. inspectors said Iraqi officials told them they would do "everything humanly possible" to cooperate. The test of that begins next week, when the first operational contingent of 18 inspectors arrives on Monday and the first inspections are expected Wednesday. "Most likely the inspectors may go back to the sites previously monitored," said Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the inspection agency, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC. They'll check whether cameras and other surveillance equipment set up at such sites in the 1990s are still functioning, and look for any signs that forbidden weapons activities have resumed during the recent four-year gap in inspections. The 1991-98 inspection regime dismantled Iraq's nuclear program before it could build a bomb, and destroyed large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and longer-range missiles forbidden to Iraq by Security Council resolutions after the Gulf War. The inspections ended in 1998 amid disputes over access to sensitive Iraqi "presidential sites" and Iraqi complaints that the U.N. operation was infiltrated by U.S. spies. The resumed inspections are a "final opportunity" for Baghdad to meet its U.N. obligations, the new Security Council resolution says. Although next week's inspections are unlikely to provoke a showdown with the Iraqis, they're significant for another reason: They'll begin a 60-day countdown to the first comprehensive report by UNMOVIC. That January report - and any intervening trouble reports from the inspectors - will be closely reviewed by Security Council members as they assess how cooperative Iraq has been. In planning their inspections, the U.N. experts can draw on mountains of information from many sources. Among them: -U.S. and other intelligence reports tell of rebuilding at Iraqi sites where inspectors in the 1990s destroyed facilities for making or storing chemical or biological weapons. -The Iraqi government has turned over computer disks to UNMOVIC that list destinations for recently purchased "dual-use" equipment, technology capable of producing either civilian or militarily useful products. -The Iraqis must respond to the experts' requests for updated lists of possible witnesses - that is, scientists and technicians who have worked in nuclear, chemical and biological areas of potential military use. -By Dec. 8, Iraq must make a declaration to the United Nations of all nuclear, chemical, biological and missile-related activities. That list, collated with outside information, is expected to help the U.N. experts narrow the focus of their inquiry. Ueki, the U.N. spokesman, said UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency, handling the nuclear inspections, have more than 300 specialists available on their rosters. He said typically 80 to 100 inspectors will be in Iraq at one time, a level expected to be reached by year-end. If the inspectors certify that Iraq has cooperated fully with their disarmament work, U.N. resolutions stipulate that the United Nations should lift international economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990. The chief inspectors said that could happen as early as one year from now. (cjh/rr) All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 N. Korea Open to Salvage Nuke Pact Las Vegas SUN: November 21, 2002 By JAE-SUK YOO ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea- North Korea said Thursday that a 1994 nuclear agreement with the United States collapsed because of the U.S.-led decision to suspend fuel oil deliveries to the communist country. But in a vaguely worded statement, North Korea's Foreign Ministry appeared to leave open the possibility that the deal might be salvaged. It said an earlier appeal for a nonaggression pact with the United States was aimed at preventing the nuclear agreement from being "derailed at any cost." It said such a pact was the only "realistic solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula" and did not say it had any plans to restart a suspected nuclear weapons program that was frozen under the 1994 deal. Last week, the United States and its allies, South Korea, Japan and the European Union, suspended deliveries of fuel oil to the energy-starved North to punish it for violating the 1994 pact by embarking on a second nuclear weapons program. The oil deliveries are part of the pact known as the Agreed Framework that required a U.S.-led consortium to build two modern nuclear reactors in North Korea. In exchange, the North agreed to dismantle a suspected nuclear weapons program using plutonium. Despite recent revelations that the North has a second nuclear program, an unidentified North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said the blame for the erosion of the Agreed Framework lay with the United States. "Now that the U.S. unilaterally gave up its last commitment under the framework, the (North) acknowledges that it is high time to decide upon who is to blame for the collapse of the framework," the spokesman said in a statement carried by the North's official news agency, KCNA. It was the first time that North Korea had publicly said it considered the agreement to have collapsed. In Washington, a senior State Department official declined comment Thursday, but noted that North Korean officials took a similar position when Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly visited Pyongyang last month. After his trip, Kelly said North Korean officials told him they considered the 1994 agreement dead, and they admitted to the second nuclear program that uses highly enriched uranium to build bombs. In recent months, North Korea had repeatedly threatened to abandon the accord, complaining about delays in the construction of the reactors. It also accused Washington of trying to undermine its political system and even invade, citing President Bush's labeling of the North as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iran and Iraq. The North Korean spokesman said the U.S. assertion that the North violated the Agreed Framework "is a burglary logic of America-style superpower chauvinism that a big country may threaten a small country as it wishes but a small country should not try to cope with such threat." The North has offered to resolve U.S. security concerns if Washington signs a nonaggression treaty with it. But the United States has ruled out any talks unless the North first scraps its uranium-based nuclear program. Koh Yu-hwan, a North Korea expert at Dongguk University in Seoul, speculated that the North Korean statement was "a diplomatic card to pressure the United States" into negotiations. Earlier Thursday, China, North Korea's biggest ally, urged the two sides to salvage the Agreed Framework. The agreement "is useful in realizing a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said. "China hopes that the relevant parties can carry out their obligations." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Ed & Deabate: Nuclear power gets stupidity from both ends of the spectrum Posted by a head-shaking Aurelia Westlake on Nov. 22, 2002 People who are scared of nuclear power abound. When we're in school, these are the words we hear in conjunction with nuclear energy: Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Truth is, nuclear power is probably the best power source available right now. It's readily available, consistent (unlike wind), can be set up anywhere (unlike wind, geothermal, or solar power), and, while it does produce waste which needs containment, is far cleaner than coal and oil burning power plants. But people hear the word "radiation" and they flip out. Why? Because radiation's scary, glowing and green, right? Not many Americans even understand how it works or what it is - some of them think the nuclear fuel EXPLODES, others think radiation just magically produces power. In truth, it's all steam. The radioactive material produces heat. The heat boils water. They run the steam through a turbine. Yay power. A nuclear fuel rod is a pretty unscary thing. I've held them in my hands more than once, and my hands are not bleeding, blistered masses. I think schoolchildren should be taught what nuclear fuel really looks like - not glowing and green, but dull, greyish metal cylinders. Now, why, you ask, am I writing about this? Well, when I looked in the URL queue this morning, I noticed someone had submitted an article from WorldNetDaily (a disgustingly right-wing website). Their headline? "Dumbass quacks downplay the effects of Chernobyl." Let's have a little talk about Chernobyl, shall we? Let's say you have an airplane design. All through the design process, the engineers assure you: "This plane can come out of a complete stall, no matter what." Everyone takes these engineers at their word until one day, the plane's up in the air with a full load of passengers. The pilot says to his co-pilot: "Hey, Jerry, remember how this thing's supposed to be able to get out of a stall? Let's try that." "Okay! But first, let's turn off the guidance system, oh, let's see, and...the ENGINE!" "Yeah, exactly! Oh, man, this'll be great." I trust you see the problem? At Chernobyl, it was roughly the same. The plant design was shitty in an extreme way and lacked any sort of proper containment. There was no regulatory agency at all to control it. The plant operators decided to conduct a test, turning several key systems off completely and hoping the system wouldn't fail. It did. The WND article addresses this. Sort of. It leaves out the intentional screwy errors of the Soviets. It attributes it all to bad design. The WND article also mentions the fact that planes can't fly into nuclear plants and wreck them because "planes are not designed to penetrate reinforced concrete four feet thick." Well, that may well be true. But also, all nuclear reactors have a panic button that stops a reaction within a second. If you're a plant operator and there's word of a plane going toward your plant, you only need a second of warning - and with the air patrols that are still up, that I listen to on my scanners every day, believe me, they'll know. Right-wingers, refusing to eat from that sinful tree of knowledge, don't bother to get all the facts. Neither do knee-jerk left-wing environmentalist assholes. Ahem. Ralph Nader, in the seventies, campaigned to keep any new nuclear plants from being opened in the US. He succeeded. Why? Because people were damn scared, and he pushed a fearmongering campaign onto the American people. Cities deemed themselves proud "nuclear free zones" because of his campaign of misinformation and hysterics. As Dennis Leary would say, he's an asshole. But recently, new nuclear plant designs, safer, more efficient and less waste-producing than ever, have been created. But we can't build any because of Ralphie and company. Instead, we have to watch as EVERY nuclear facility in America reaches the end of its design life. Every last one. Power plants don't last forever, folks. Nuclear plants had a design life averaging at about 25 years. The last nuclear plants were opened in the mid-70's. Eventually, this is going to cause problems. Something's going to happen. Already, I've seen reports: "there are cracks in the nuclear plant's concrete," et cetera. These things are treated as if they're terrible design flaws, and as if the nuclear plants will eventually kill us all - but in truth, the buildings are older than they were ever supposed to get! When a major problem happens, though, mark my words, the left will say "see, we warned you this would happen!" - conveniently forgetting that they were the ones who prevented newer, safer plants from being built in the first place. /(Oh yes, and my AIM name, for those who care, is MusingMelpomene. I won't even bite your head off if you don't understand nuclear power, so send me a message!)/ Would you recommend this article for our weekly mailing? Not really Very highly Reader Comments Posted by Technogeek on Nov 22 2002 18:11:19 UTC Post it here too. I want to watch you get torn apart by the searing light of intelligence. Technogeek: That is, people who want to troll you. Sorry, should have been clearer. Brother Scrim: Thanx for the clarification. It took me a minute to realize what you were... Technogeek: Yeah, I realized how unclear it was about 5 seconds after posting. Posted by Brother Scrim on Nov 22 2002 18:22:48 UTC Unfortunatley, even modern nuclear power plants aren't enough to solve our ever-increasing need fore more energy. The very well could - but in order to do that, we'd have to make them run off of plutonium. Try convincing the world's nations that it would be a good idea for the US to refine uranium into plutonium. MusingMelpomene: *blink* why do you say that? show your sources, boy! Brother Scrim: will do, but I am at work, so it'll take me a while. Tell you what, if you're... Pansy Bedwetter: I am rather ignorant about the whole of reprocessed fuel mechanics, so I won't... Posted by Deslea on Nov 22 2002 18:40:15 UTC Finally was prompted to post in response to an article! This is great. I read some fabulous academic literature about nuclear power plants ages ago and it was such an eye opener. People just don't understand what it is or how the waste matter is disposed of. It's actually safer in terms of human mortality than almost any other power supply, besides the really natural and unreliable ones like wind/sun. GWTPict: The sun is unreliable? Wow, I'll being checking every morning to see it's... Space Butler: Well, it is constantly blowing up.. The unreliability comes from weather... Posted by Yetipants on Nov 22 2002 18:44:47 UTC from Norway Thanks for the informative article. To tell you the truth, I've been regarding nuclear power as "bad" and "scary" myself up until now. Why? Because I live in Norway, and we get all our power from hydroelectric plants (almost). We do have one nuclear reactor, but that one is only used for research purposes. Still, I don't know why I should be scared. Sweden (our closest neighbor) has lots of nuclear reactors, and how many nuclear catastrophies have happened there? That's right, none. Well. Again, thank you. You've contributed to my (limited) pool of knowledge today. :) MusingMelpomene: Woowoo! I aims to please! Posted by Acheon on Nov 22 2002 18:51:18 UTC I don't buy it. The are some important omissions in your Grand Speech. Starting with the understated problem caused by nuclear waste. But well, its been debated over and over again -- I don't have to explain you why it's been "understated". There are other names to remember apart Hiroshima and Chernobyl. Like Three Miles Island or Gentilly II, among others. Nuclear plants that don't fit your description of Chernobyl. Ask Google. Also : There are quite a few more (and cleaner) energy sources around, like hydro-electricity. May not be readily available everywhere, yet it's far more available and powerful than the other sources you bothered to list. And there's the problem of radiations too. Morons may very well fall into coma just by hearing the name ; it doesn't make it any less harmful from other angles. There is more and more scientific evidence (I mean, *credible* evidence, not the initial scams and panic) that you should think twice before moving next to a power plant if you care about your health. It's even true of believed "harmless" radiations like EMFs emitted by electric devices and power lines. Again, ask Google. Morale of the story : Morons may be scared of something for wrong reasons, but there may be *good* reasons to be scared too. MusingMelpomene: Three Mile Island. Yep. Which is why I'd like SAFER plants. you know, like the... Tonyschmo: If I remember correct...wasn't Three Mile Island mired in a bunch of human... psychojosh13: i read somewhere once (i think in a book about chernobyl) that three mile... Neil Creek: I don't know all the details of 3mile Is, but I do know that the total... Random Guest: I think it might be good for the european economy if a bunch of companies... Slavik91: Better yet, satalites need radioactive matirial to funcition well in the cold... Big Pansy: The plants probably wouldn't be as remote as you think. People need to be... Pansy Bedwetter: You also lose power when transmitting over long distances, so they'd have to... Space Butler: As for disposal, I reccomend finding a deep ocean trench (or plain, etc.)... GWTPict: And in a few years time there's a chance you'll be watching the oceans die.... Griff: I would think firing it into the sun would be a idea... Titan: First of all, all the radioactive material launched into space to power probes... mwad: there was a whole buttload more material released during aboveground testing... Slavik91: Still, you forget the fact: Nuclear power is cleaner and safer than fossil... Space Butler: [NOTE: this is the first of two parts to my comment, since the whole thing has... Space Butler: [NOTE: this is the second part of my response.] -- Also : There are quite a... Magi: OUTSTANDING rebuttal... Bravo. Space Butler: Thanks! Took me a while, so I'm glad someone liked it. ;) Slavik91: Great work! mwad: Nice work!*claps* Acheon: Thanks for the info. Just one thing I must mention : I didn't claim coal... Space Butler: True; I didn't mean to imply that. I used coal as my primary comparison... Pansy Bedwetter: I once read somewhere that dental x-rays give you a higher dose of radiation... Posted by h_ank on Nov 22 2002 19:59:11 UTC from Portland, Oregon, USA The love of my life has Thyroid Cancer. The only known cause of this is expusure to radiation. The only exposure anyone in her family can think of, other than dental X-Rays, is when they lived a fair distance from Hanford, Washington and the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project. http://www.hanford.gov/d oe/snf/ Brother Scrim: Not to argue here, but I found this rather interesting:... Brother Scrim: Oh, found this too:... Slavik91: I have to agree with Scrim. There is a better chance of the cancer being... Mom23bouncers: I am really sorry your love has thyroid cancer but the fact is because we know... Space Butler: Everyone is exposed to a certain amount of potentially cancer-causing... Posted by spatula on Nov 22 2002 21:17:54 UTC from morons.org lair I'm pleased to see all these folks discussing this potentially emotional and contraversial issue in a fairly level-headed manner. Good show, folks! reply Posted by Smeg on Nov 22 2002 23:20:02 UTC I don't have a problem with nuclear power, it's the morons building/running the place that scare me. That and dumping nuclear waste in unsafe places... Spud: Yeah, like Nevada. Yucca Mountain is a disaster waiting to happen. Earthquakes... Posted by GWTPict on Nov 23 2002 01:10:49 UTC Got to agree with smeg, I don't trust a company that's primary aim is to make a profit to run a nuclear power plant safely, but even more important is the waste produced, current science can't make it safe so we hide it out of the way and leave it for our children, our grandchildren, our great grand children etc. etc. to deal with. Sorry but until that problem is solved nuclear power is a non starter. Unless you really hate you kids of course. Space Butler: We don't exactly leave it for future generations to deal with; a proper... Posted by Pansy Bedwetter on Nov 23 2002 13:43:43 UTC When I submitted the article URL, I was mad because the writers claim that almost no citizens became ill because of Chernobyl. Having been in the area, I can attest that this is not the case at all. I I was not campaigning against nuclear energy in general, just against the ignorance of those "scientists" who downplay the real number of victims. mwad: I was under the european plume of chernobyl, working as a cook for the army.... Posted by SonicSamurai on Nov 23 2002 16:37:14 UTC As informitive and insightful as this article may well be, I am STILL holding out for antimatter reactors. I know this is still a long way off, but hopefully, in my lifetime, somebody will discover how to contain plasma well enough and then we can see how well it works with antimatter. Plus, if an accident were to happen, we would all know it. Try fining the center of the power plant after one of those. reply Posted by Pansy Bedwetter on Nov 23 2002 21:35:27 UTC The main reason that governments - including the US - push nuclear power is because they want nuclear weapons. Other technologies - MHD for example - would be as reliable and safer for generating power, but they have no weaponry association. Why did you not mention the meltdown at Three Mile Island, in your nice, safe, regulated power plant? Pansy Bedwetter2: So, what's it like living under a bridge? Posted by Santa on Nov 24 2002 01:15:07 UTC I agree with Smeg and GWTPict, you cannot trust the people running these plants. All you have to do is look at Sellafield in Wales, the Irish sea is now the most Radioactive Sea in the world, aswell as the fact they falsified the safety records on those processed uranium rods which they sent to japan. While Nuclear plants are much more favourable to fossil fuel plants, they're not the answer. reply morons.org Copyright morons.org and its contributors ***************************************************************** 5 Canada: Ontario power failure [A part of canada.com] [NATIONAL POST] Friday » November 22 » 2002 Electricity prices would have eventually stabilized in a competitive market. Government overreaction prevented the market from solving the problem Larry E. Ruff National Post CREDIT: Paul Lachine An illustration of a hand holding a light bulb that shows the United States (with the state of California shaded in). Ontario's advance into the world of competitive electricity markets was always half-hearted, particularly when it came to privatizing or breaking up the provincial generation monopoly (now called Ontario Power Generation, or OPG). So perhaps it is not surprising that, at the first signs of trouble -- trouble caused largely by the failure to go far enough initially -- the Ontario government has ordered a hasty and poorly planned retreat. This need not result in a California-type disaster, but it has all the signs of a rout that will put Ontario's electricity system in a position even less tenable than it was five or 10 years ago. The original political decision to leave OPG in control of most of Ontario's generation capacity created the obvious risk that OPG would use its dominant market position to drive up prices and to discourage competitors. In the original market design, this risk was managed with a Market Power Mitigation Agreement (MPMA) that, in effect, required OPG to sell most of its potential output at no more than a specific price. The MPMA removed OPG's incentive to drive up spot prices artificially, it created incentives for OPG to give up some capacity, and it protected consumers from most of the effects of the higher spot prices needed to stimulate new supplies. Unfortunately, market design alone could not reduce the other major risk created by leaving OPG as a provincially owned monopoly: the risk that this new incarnation of "Mother Hydro" would continue using taxpayer money and credit to overindulge her favorite, if delinquent offspring -- the CANDU fleet of nuclear reactors. The threat that OPG would soon show up in the market with several thousand megawatts of force-fed nuclear power in tow has had a chilling effect on private investment in new supplies. As the mirage of cheap nuclear power has continued receding into the distance, Ontario has experienced a tightening supply-demand balance and increasing spot prices, but little new supply. This all sounds disturbingly like California a few years ago. In California, a tight supply-demand balance drove spot prices very high, threatened consumers with massive price increases, drove major utilities to or beyond the edge of bankruptcy, required the state to purchase power for consumers, and saddled the state -- i.e., ultimately taxpayers and/or electricity buyers -- with billions of dollars in debt and high-priced long-term power purchase contracts. Could anything like this happen in Ontario? Until a few weeks ago, it was inconceivable that Ontario could experience California-type problems, because the Ontario market -- although designed before the California disaster -- avoided the biggest mistakes made there. Most importantly: - California's retail power utilities were required to sell at a fixed retail price while buying at the spot price, so when spot prices exploded they were caught in the middle; in Ontario, the retail utilities simply bought and resold at the same spot price, so they bore no market risk. - California generators had no contract obligations to retail utilities or to consumers, so when spot prices exploded, generators took the money and ran; in Ontario, the MPMA required OPG to rebate most of any spot price increase for the ultimate benefit of Ontario consumers. If the original market arrangements had been left to play out as intended, consumers would have paid somewhat higher prices until OPG's nuclear plants or something else came on line, but eventually prices would have stabilized at market-determined levels with no real crisis and certainly nothing like a California disaster. But instead of letting the market develop naturally, the Ontario government has proposed -- and the major opposition parties have largely endorsed -- changes that would essentially destroy the Ontario electricity market. Under the government's recent proposals, Ontario's local retailers must sell to all consumers at a low, fixed price even though the retailers must purchase from the spot market at uncertain but probably higher prices. Not only will this encourage overconsumption, it will also put the Ontario retailers in the same position that bankrupted the California retailers, except that when spot prices are high in Ontario OPG must pay large rebates under the MPMA and these can be used to cover most of the retailers' losses. In fact, because OPG is still provincially owned, the government can unilaterally modify the MPMA to require OPG to subsidize the retailers' energy purchases to any politically determined extent, a process it has already begun with its order that OPG pay MPMA rebates for capacity it no longer controls or receives revenue from. So Ontario's panicky retreat from the market need not cause its retailers to go broke as rapidly or as certainly as California's did. But this is only because OPG has taken on the obligation to deliver on the government's unrealistic political promises, while simultaneously pushing ahead with the nuclear program that is a major cause of the current high prices. Lying in wait down this road are some version of Mother Hydro and massive public deficits and debts as far as the eye can see. Some will no doubt blame this fiasco on the decision to introduce markets into the electricity sector. But it was the political decision not to break up and/or privatize OPG that allowed public funds to be used in pursuit of a nuclear program that has accomplished nothing except to drive off private investment. And it was the political overreaction to the resulting price increases that prevented the market from solving the problem. Both California and Ontario provide dramatic examples of political failure, not market failures. Larry E. Ruff, a consultant to Ontario's power sector restructuring, is a senior advisor at Boston-based Charles River Associates. © Copyright 2002 National Post ***************************************************************** 6 CIA: N. Korea Can Build More Nukes Las Vegas SUN: November 21, 2002 By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- North Korea has enough stored plutonium to make several more nuclear weapons in addition to the one or possibly two it already is believed to possess, the CIA says in a new estimate. The plutonium has been under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency through a 1994 U.S.-North Korean agreement. But that agreement has begun to unravel with North Korea's acknowledgment last month that it has initiated a uranium-based nuclear program in violation of the accord. Since that admission, the fate of the remaining provisions of the agreement has been in doubt, including the IAEA's supervision. The North has made no move to expel the agency even though it informed U.S. diplomats last month that the 1994 agreement was nullified. On Thursday, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said the agreement had collapsed as a result of last week's U.S. decision, made in cooperation with other allies, to suspend shipments of heavy oil to North Korea. The unclassified CIA assessment, distributed to Capitol Hill staff on Tuesday, said, "Reprocessing the spent ... reactor fuel now in storage at Yongbyon site under IAEA safeguards would recover enough plutonium for several more weapons." A copy of the assessment was made available to The Associated Press. The document repeated an earlier CIA assessment that North Korea produced one or possibly two nuclear weapons before the 1994 agreement took effect. As for the weapons program disclosed to U.S. officials last month, the CIA said it recently learned that North Korea "is constructing a plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons per year when fully operational - which could be as soon as mid-decade." The analysis said North Korea began work on a uranium-based bomb about two years ago. North Korean officials said last month it undertook the uranium program early this year in response hostile rhetoric from Washington, including President Bush's designation of North Korea as a member of an international "axis of evil." Henry Sokolsky of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center said the CIA assessment plus data from other sources suggests that North Korea could have seven or eight nuclear weapons by the end of next year. He said Chinese government figures indicate that North Korea already has five or six weapons, many more than the CIA estimate. Once two additional plutonium-producing nuclear reactors, now under construction, are completed, Sokolsky said the North's bomb production capacity would greatly increase. He added that, politically, there is not much difference between one nuclear bomb and eight because an adversary country, such as South Korea, would have to take measures to protect against all potential targets, not knowing which one or ones would be attacked. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 Fact Sheet: NATO: Building New Capabilities for New Challenges Photos [Secretary General of NATO Lord Robinson and President George W. Bush meet for a bilateral meeting in Prague, Czech Republic, Wednesday, Nov. 20.] For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary November 21, 2002 NATO is transforming to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. NATO's core mission of defending the nations of the Alliance remains; but the threats of the Cold War have ended, and the new threats -- a dangerous nexus of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and rogue dictatorial regimes -- is growing. After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, America's NATO allies wanted to help fight terror and most did, but because of the speed with which the Afghan campaign was planned and their limited combat power projection capabilities, many NATO allies were not able to contribute as fully and meaningfully as they wanted. Our agenda for NATO capabilities improvements at Prague is intended to make NATO able to play the vital role its members on both sides of the Atlantic want in defending against new threats. The capabilities improvements have four interrelated components: (1) a NATO response force; (2) the Prague Capabilities Commitment; (3) streamlining NATO command structures; and (4) creating a strategic command dedicated to shaping the transformation of our military forces. NATO Response Force (NRF). The NRF will be a force that can quickly deploy to undertake the full range of military missions and sustain itself for 30 days. It will consist of air, maritime, and ground units rotating in assignment for 6 months and commanded by a Combined Joint Task Force headquarters. The size of the force will be determined by the mission, but would notionally consist of air assets and command and control capabilities to support up to 200 combat sorties per day, a brigade-sized land force, and maritime forces up to the size of a NATO Standing Naval Force. This translates into roughly 21,000 personnel. The units will train prior to that assignment to ensure they are capable of fighting together on 7-30 days notice anywhere in the world. NATO will focus its exercise program and joint training on units that will be participating in an upcoming NRF rotation. SACEUR will certify the units' readiness prior to assignment and tailor contributions into high-readiness force packages that NATO could employ for combat operations. The NRF will link high-readiness forces with combined joint task force headquarters to better integrate NATO's command and force structures. By doing so, it increases the deployability, sustainability, and fighting capability of the Alliance for new tasks we may face. Prague Capabilities Commitment. NATO is embarking on a focused program to concentrate spending on specific near-term capability improvements. The goal is to encourage European allies, old and new, to focus their defense spending on the most critical combat shortfalls identified by NATO military authorities: deployability, sustainability, interoperability, information superiority, and chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear defense (CBRN). Rather than attempting to sustain interoperability across the combat spectrum, our goal is to focus on creating niches of excellence in these areas of allied forces. Through their Prague Capabilities Commitment, NATO leaders have resolved to equip Alliance forces with leading-edge communications and weaponry essential to NATO dominance of the battlefield. New members, as well as existing Allies, will be able to produce specialized niche capabilities in their forces by concentrating modernization and transformation efforts on units identified for the NATO Response Force. NATO Secretary General George Robertson has organized several efforts to fill shortfalls through multinational efforts: + Germany is committing to lease C-17 transport aircraft as an interim measure, and lead a consortium of nations aimed at pooling airlift resources and capabilities; + Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey are individually committing to buy UAVs; + The Netherlands is leading a consortium with Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway to pool purchases of precision-guided munitions; Spain and the Netherlands are buying munitions for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD); + Denmark and Norway are contributing air-to-air refueling and Spain is leading a consortium of nations interested in pooling their refueling capabilities; + Norway and Germany have committed to improving maritime counter-mine capabilities; and + Poland and Hungary, are improving nuclear, chemical, and biological identification and defense capabilities. Command Restructuring. NATO's current headquarters structure was designed to fight in place with a fixed contribution of forces. It is undergoing a major restructuring to make it limber enough to run joint task forces of varying sizes and composition. Large, static headquarters are having personnel reduced and missions reassigned. Lower-level headquarters are being redesigned to command joint task forces of varying sizes and composition. Other headquarters will become specialized to functions like improving special operations forces or assigning transport assets (comparable to U.S. Specified Commands). Allied commands will have greater flexibility in organizing their staffs to increase their ability to address new threats and missions. The new command structure will include two commands at the highest (military-strategic) level -- one for operations and one for functional transformation of Alliance forces. Previously, two NATO commanders divided responsibility for operations between Europe and the Atlantic. In the new structure, the strategic commander for operations will be responsible for the preparation and conduct of all operations, including defense of the NATO territory previously under the responsibility of SACLANT. Reducing headquarters is a difficult political challenge, akin to closing military bases in the U.S. However, NATO has committed to making those difficult choices so that our structure is better able to meet the challenges of deploying combined and joint military forces. The new NATO command structure provides an effective but streamlined organization capable of performing the full spectrum of Alliance missions. We expect the new command structure to be fully agreed at the Spring 2003 NATO Ministerial meetings and implemented by 2004. Allied Command Transformation (ACT). NATO will establish a new command at the highest level, based in Norfolk, Virginia, and co-located with the U.S. Joint Forces Command. NATO's SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) command will focus on the near-term operational requirements (as do U.S. Combatant Commanders). ACT will focus on the longer-term shaping of the force (akin to the role of JFCOM and U.S. Service Chiefs). Its work will focus on improving the interoperability of NATO forces and reducing the "transatlantic capabilities gap" over time by sharing innovation and experimentation with new concepts of warfare now possible because of improvements in technology. ACT will develop concepts and doctrine; design and conduct experiments; identify future force requirements; supervise military education and training; and set and assess unit standards for jointness and transformation. We expect the command to begin functioning by the summer of 2003. There will be some realignment of responsibilities between SHAPE and ACT. Allied Command Transformation will be NATO's means of synchronizing efforts across our national programs and forces to create a more effective alliance fighting team. ACT will increase interoperability by ensuring that as transformation accelerates in U.S. and other militaries, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are able to find solid, creative solutions to the operational challenges of coalition warfare against the new threats. This ambitious program of capability initiatives will dramatically change NATO military operations. These improvements in NATO's military forces, and thus the effectiveness and credibility of NATO, depends on our ability to create this new, more capable NATO. # # # ***************************************************************** 8 CIA: Pyongyang could make 50 nukes a year* United Press International By Eli J. Lake UPI State Department Correspondent Published 11/21/2002 5:57 PM WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- The Central Intelligence Agency estimates that North Korea could eventually produce enough plutonium to make at least 50 nuclear bombs per year in the event a 1994 agreement that places key reactors under international monitoring collapses. On Thursday in Pyonyang, the state-run news service released a statement from the Foreign Ministry saying the 1994 Agreed Framework that places the country's nuclear reactors under international monitoring had in fact collapsed. The article said, "Now that the U.S. unilaterally gave up its last commitment under the framework, the DPRK acknowledges that it is high time to decide upon who is to blame for the collapse of the framework." State Department Deputy spokesman Phil Reeker Thursday told United Press International, "North Korea has clearly violated the agreed framework and they are the ones who said they considered it nullified." A CIA estimate shared on Capital Hill this week says two such reactors -- a 50 Megawatt Electronic reactor in Yongbyon and a 200 Megawatt electronic reactor in Taechon --would "generate about 275 kg per year, although it would take several years to complete construction of these reactors." Most analysts believe it requires five to six kilograms of plutonium to produce one nuclear bomb. The 1994 agreed framework agreement placed the Yongbyon and Taechon reactors under monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency in exchange for shipments of heavy fuel oil and assistance in constructing a light water nuclear reactor. U.S. officials say North Korea's Foreign Ministry told Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia James Kelly in October on a trip to Pyongyang that the agreement was null and void. The statements came after confirmations the North Koreans had continued a nuclear program despite pledges not to do so under the agreement. In the past month statements from the North Koreans suggest they may be open to a new understanding based on a proposal for a non-aggression pact with the United States. The CIA says the Yongbyon and Taechon reactors are several years away from being fully operational. Henry Sokolski, the director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (which made the unclassified CIA estimate available to the media), a critic of the 1994 agreed framework, said he believed it would be at least six years until the North Koreans would be able to bring these reactors up to working condition. "In six years who knows the country could implode," he said. But the agency's estimate also says the North Koreans could produce nuclear weapons by reprocessing fuel at the Yongbyon reactor in storage. "Reprocessing the spent 5 MWe reactor fuel now in storage at Yongbyon site under IAEA safeguards would recover enough plutonium for several more weapons." The CIA's estimate also says they have recently learned North Korea is "constructing a plant that could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons per year when fully operational -- which could be as soon as mid-decade." Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 9 Greenpeace wins right to challenge UK nuclear aid 22 Nov 2002 20:22 (Adds details throughout) By F. Brinley Bruton and David Lawsky LONDON/BRUSSELS, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Environmental group Greenpeace won the right to challenge state aid for stricken nuclear generator British Energy Plc on Friday, but the case may be undermined by a European move to approve the bailout. Britain's High Court granted leave for a judicial review of the emergency state loan to the privatised power generator that produces a fifth of Britain's power. The ruling offers Greenpeace and its ally in the court case, renewable energy firm Ecotricity, a high-profile platform to argue that nuclear power is uneconomic, dangerous and should face an orderly shutdown. British Energy hit problems this year as wholesale UK electricity prices fell below its cost of production. It begged for help from the government, which gave it a 650 million pound ($1 billion) loan, maturing next Friday. The European Commission, in its role as Europe's over-arching industry regulator, has described the handout as technically "unlawful" because it was provided without its permission. This is the basis of Greenpeace's case. But commission officials say they could still approve the aid despite the technical breach. On Friday, sources close to the commission said it would approve the aid retrospectively by the end of December, overcoming the UK government's legal problems and raising doubts over Greenpeace's case. Under EU rules, state financial help deemed to be "rescue aid" can run for six months. The government first gave aid to British Energy in September. The government's Department of Trade and Industry could not be reached immediately for comment. Greenpeace was adamant it would press ahead. "EU clearance doesn't necessarily stop our case," said a spokesman. "Either the aid is unlawful or it isn't." Greenpeace's first hearing is not due until January 27, and the legal wrangling is likely to fade into the background as the government's loan repayment deadline approaches. "They (Greenpeace and others) can argue all they like in British or EU courts," said an industry analyst. "By the time any ruling is made, a restructuring could be done and dusted." The government has already extended the loan once, but sources say Friday's deadline should bring with it some indication of what the government plans to do for the long term. The company's board and the government are locked in talks that could lead to a debt restructuring and/or changes to the structure of the UK's electricity market, to allow the business to emerge as a solvent power provider. British Energy shareholders have already seen their one-time blue chip holding become a penny stock, and bondholders expect to suffer too in any restructuring. The firm's bond prices trade below 50 percent of face value. VARIABLE REPROCESSING CHARGE? Sources close to the situation said the government was looking at how it could benefit from any recovery in British Energy's fortunes in return for continued financial support. One source said there were talks about the government receiving preferred, non-voting equity in the company, but that now it was most likely to opt for a plan that could cut the amount it pays state-owned BNFL to reprocess nuclear fuel. Under the plan, BNFL's reprocessing fee would be tied to wholesale electricity prices. This would enable BNFL to cut its charges when British Energy is finding times tough, but raise them when power prices recover. The current fixed-price charge costs British Energy about 300 million pounds a year. It makes BNFL, and therefore the government, one of British Energy's biggest creditors. The sources said the government had ruled out taking a substantial equity stake in British Energy directly, or indirectly through state-owned BNFL -- something that had been on the table in the early stages of the crisis. "Any sort of substantial equity involvement would clearly cause quite a lot of problems associated with state aid," said one source involved in the talks. (Additional reporting by Tom Bergin and Andrew Callus) AlertNet news is provided by www.reuters.com/> ***************************************************************** 10 Greenpeace: Russians seize computers CNN.COM: Friday, November 22, 2002 Posted: 2:29 PM EST (1929 GMT) *MOSCOW (AP) --* *Russia's security service on Friday confiscated computers and maps from a Siberian environmental group that has studied radioactive contamination in Lake Baikal, Greenpeace said.* Officers of the Federal Security Service in Irkutsk, about 2,600 miles east of Moscow, searched the office of Baikal Environmental Wave, seizing the hard drives from all the group's computers, as well as maps showing contaminated areas around the Angarsk chemical plant near Irkutsk, Greenpeace Russia said in a statement. Both the central and the Irkutsk offices of the security service refused to comment on the report. Revealing state secrets? Greenpeace said the official reason for the search was Baikal Wave's contract with the Sosnovgeos geological lab for the creation of maps showing levels of radioactive contamination in the water and soil around the Angarsk plant, which works with uranium. Greenpeace said the security service accused the group of revealing state secrets. However, Greenpeace said the maps were printed and distributed to officials 10 months ago and that a more likely reason for the search was Baikal Wave's opposition to plans by Yukos, Russia's second-biggest oil company, to build a pipeline through a national park on the shores of Baikal. Baikal is the world's deepest lake and contains thousands of unique species. Copyright 2002 The Associated Press . All ***************************************************************** 11 Tokyo may face power crunch as utility shuts nuclear plants - November 22, 2002 15 of Tokyo Electric Power's 17 reactors could be shut down early next year IF they're unlucky, Tokyo residents could be huddling for warmth under blankets this winter. If they're really unlucky, the city's bright neon lights may dim and residents may swelter without air-conditioning next summer. The capital of the world's second-largest economy could face a power crunch in the coming months as its largest utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc (Tepco), struggles to keep supplies flowing with more than half of its nuclear capacity shut for checks. Tepco president Tsunehisa Katsumata said on Tuesday he believes his company has secured enough supply to cover winter demand. There is still some concern, however, that it may not be fully equipped to cover a spike in demand should the winter turn out to be exceptionally cold. 'Much will depend on temperatures in winter,' Mr Katsumata said. Fears of a power crunch will heighten with the approach of summer when power demand typically soars. 'If the current situation continues, supply could become quite critical during the summer peak demand season,' said Mitsubishi Securities senior utilities analyst Tadatoshi Utaka. Nine nuclear plants, supplying almost half of Tepco's nuclear generation capacity, have been shut, six for safety checks because of controversial past inspections. Four more reactors will close down for checks in January and February, and Tepco may move forward the maintenance schedule of two other reactors. This will mean that a maximum of 15 of its 17 nuclear reactors could be shut down early next year - a major issue for a country that relies on nuclear power for a third of its energy. Tokyo's plight is different from the last well-publicised power crisis in 2000, when California suffered rolling blackouts as demand outpaced capacity and the newly liberalised market fell into chaos. Japan's potential energy crunch is based on allegations that Tepco falsified nuclear safety records in the 1980s and 1990s. The company has admitted to some regulatory breaches. The company, which supplies the heavily industrialised Tokyo area, has begun cranking up mothballed thermal generating units to make up for some of the lost capacity but will close another four nuclear units in February for regular maintenance. - Reuters Copyright © 2002 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights ***************************************************************** 12 Seoul Worries `Wrong Move¡¯ May Follow NK Silence KoreaTimes : Hankooki.com > Korea Times > Nation By Oh Young-jin Staff Reporter North Korea has not replied to an international ultimatum for it to renounce its nuclear program or face the consequences, keeping the rest of the world guessing about how it will react. A week after a decision by South Korea, the United States, Japan and the European Union to phase out oil shipments to the North, Pyongyang has not made an official response. Nor has it responded to a series of conciliatory overtures by U.S. President George W. Bush and his senior officials. The lack of response concerns South Korean officials, who believe that this is the typical North Korean pattern of behavior that has preceded its ``wrong moves¡¯¡¯ in the past. However, they are hedging against the worst-case scenario pointing out a vulnerable situation the North is now in. In a sign of impatience with the lack of a North Korean reaction, President Kim Dae-jung this week warned the North that it is running out of time. ``Pyongyang didn¡¯t take the chance for dialogue suggested by President Bush last June,¡¯¡¯ one official remembered. ``Before that, it missed the chance provided by former president Bill Clinton to improve its relationship with the U.S.¡¯¡¯ The official said that on both occasions, the North responded too late. ``A wrong move often comes after a long period of consideration,¡¯¡¯ he said. The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) is tentatively scheduled to hold its next executive board meeting in New York on Dec. 11, where it is expected to make an official announcement on the suspension of monthly oil shipments and take further punitive steps against the North. ``Pyongyang is in a more vulnerable situation than eight years ago,¡¯¡¯ another government official said. ``It just needs ways of saving face so as not to give the outside world the impression that it is offering the U.S. unconditional surrender. The problem is that it is hard to find such ways.¡¯¡¯ The North is believed to have started an experiment with introducing elements of a market economy, a sign which experts say shows the North has concluded that it can¡¯t overcome the dire straits its economy is in. ``I don¡¯t know whether Bush¡¯s promise for `a different future¡¯ for the North can qualify as a face-saving measure for it,¡¯¡¯ the official added. North Korean watchers say that the North is looking at other factors such as the Dec. 19 presidential election and future U.S. course of action against Iraq, a fellow member of the infamous ``axis of evil¡¯¡¯ club. ``The North needs to see whether the next government in the South will be friendly before charting out its course of action,¡¯¡¯ another official said. ``It may think time is on its side, as long as Washington is engaged in its campaign against Iraq.¡¯¡¯ oh@koreatimes.co.kr 11-21-2002 17:59 ***************************************************************** 13 Kawaguchi Stresses Need for NK to Scrap Nuclear Program KoreaTimes : Hankooki.com > Korea Times > Nation By Shim Jae-yun Korea Times Correspondent TOKYO _ Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi yesterday renewed demands for North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons program that pose a threat to regional security. ``The ball is in North Korea's court,¡¯¡¯ Kawaguchi said in a meeting with Korean reporters in Tokyo. ``What the North has to do is halt its nuclear weapons program in a swift and visible manner.¡¯¡¯ She added that the future of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) hinges on how North Korea responds to such demands. KEDO is a U.S.-led international consortium comprising South Korea, Japan and the European Union formed in accordance with the Agreement Framework struck with North Korea in 1994. The consortium decided last week to suspend fuel oil provisions to the North for violating the accord. North Korea last month revealed it had a covert uranium enrichment program. Kawaguchi said Japan and South Korea have been consulting closely on the nuclear issue and share a common opinion on the matter. She also recognized the effectiveness of KEDO in preventing the North from seeking plutonium-based nuclear weapons development. ``However, it is also true that the North is pursuing a program using highly enriched uranium. This must be stopped,¡¯¡¯ she said. Kawaguchi also stressed the importance of close Japan-South Korea-U.S. consultations on the matter. The Japanese foreign minister also said her country has made it clear to Pyongyang that their normalization talks will never reach agreement unless the North abides by its nuclear obligations. As for the Japanese abductees that Tokyo has refused to return to the North, breaking earlier agreements, Kawaguchi said she ``expects North Korea to accept Japan¡¯s demands on the issue.¡¯¡¯ 11-22-2002 18:16 ***************************************************************** 14 Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin on Development of the U.S. - Russian Energy Dialogue energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: November 22, 2002 [Print Friendly Version] Last May, we launched an energy dialogue to strengthen the overall relationship between our countries, and to enhance global energy security, international strategic stability, and regional cooperation. Already we can see important benefits from this new aspect of our relations. A key success in this new dialogue was the first-ever U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Summit held in Houston in the beginning of October with the participation of both countries' governmental, business and scientific circles. The Houston Summit created new avenues for dialogue and cooperation on energy issues and led to decisions on concrete new investment projects and programs and business arrangements. We thank the more than 70 companies that contributed to its success and look forward to the next energy summit, to be hosted in Russia in 2003. We also support the further strengthening of relations between the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Ministry of Energy of Russia, and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Russia. We welcome as well the activities of the intergovernmental American-Russian Working Group on Energy Cooperation. We note our Ministers' commitment to educational initiatives to promote best technical and managerial practices. Commercial cooperation plays the key role in the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue. One of the most important results of the Houston Summit was the establishment of the Commercial Energy Working Group. We strongly support the efforts of the American and Russian companies involved to identify new and mutually beneficial commercial opportunities and to take down barriers to trade and investment. At present, American and Russian companies are working hard to further connect the American and Russian energy markets. We welcome the first delivery to the United States of Russian crude oil in July; the establishment of enterprises that will market Russian energy in the U.S.; and the proposal to build a deep-water port in Russia for energy exports. As a symbolic example of our deepening energy relationship, we note that for the first-time ever Russian crude oil was delivered to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Investment is necessary to ensure the further development of Russia's energy and energy transportation sectors. To that end, we welcome several memoranda of understanding recently signed by Russian companies with the Export-Import Bank of the United States, as well as agreements signed with the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. ***************************************************************** 15 North Korea bans KEDO officials welcome to Korea Herald!!_National http://www.koreaherald.com North Korea has banned the entry of officials from the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), who were scheduled to visit the country sometime next week to verify the use of heavy oil delivered by the United States, a government source said yesterday. Observers said the move is seen as retaliation for the U.S.-led international consortium's decision to suspend heavy oil shipments to the North from December to punish the Pyongyang regime for harboring a nuclear weapons program in violation of a previous agreement. "North Korea notified the decision to a KEDO office in New York, and I think this is a reaction to KEDO's decision to halt oil deliveries," the source said. Seoul officials said, however, that they have not received any information regarding the matter. Pyongyang's notification of its decision to prohibit KEDO officials' entry came after its Foreign Ministry spokesman blamed Washington for causing a 1994 nuclear deal to "collapse" by deciding to halt the oil supplies. "The North is making a retort to KEDO's decision, but I don't think the reaction is drastic," an analyst said. Pyongyang and Washington have accused each other of driving the 1994 Agreed Framework into the ground since U.S. envoy James Kelly revealed the North's acknowledgement of its uranium enrichment scheme for atomic bombs last month. Under the framework, North Korea promised to freeze all nuclear weapons programs in return for 500,000 tons of annual heavy fuel oil and the construction of two light-water reactors by KEDO. KEDO officials have traveled to the North on a regular basis to check on the country's use of heavy oil, whose use is confined to power production and heating. (shj@koreaherald.co.kr) By Seo Hyun-jin Staff reporter 2002.11.23 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights ***************************************************************** 16 Court allows review of British Energy bail-out Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Staff and agencies Friday November 22, 2002 The government faces a major legal challenge over its £650m bail-out of ailing private nuclear generator British Energy, after a ruling today at the high court. Environmental pressure group Greenpeace and renewable energy provider Ecotricity were today granted permission by the high court to seek judicial review of the decision by the trade and industry secretary, Patricia Hewitt, to make the loan. They argue that the loan was a breach of European law, which requires member states to obtain EU approval before providing state aid to companies. The European commission is expected to rule during the next two weeks on the government's late application for approval, which was submitted only after funding was made available. Even if the commission gives approval, Greenpeace and Ecotricity will press ahead with their court challenge - set for January - as a matter of principle to ensure that "no further illegality can take place". They contend that the loan is distorting the electricity market and damaging renewable energy companies such as Ecotricity. The Department of Trade and Industry insists that the loan was made as a matter of urgency because British Energy's nuclear power stations needed to be properly managed and could not simply be shut down. Mr Justice Maurice Kay granted permission for the January hearing "without prejudice" to the DTI's argument that Greenpeace had no legal standing to bring the case, because it involved fair competition rules and not environmental issues. Paul Lasok QC, for Greenpeace and Ecotricity, told the judge the case was of particular importance in the light of the current over-capacity in the industry, which had led to cutthroat price competition. In normal circumstances, the weakest companies would go to the wall. This did not happen to British Energy because it was given state aid. "This cast on to the shoulders of other companies the serious consequences of over-capacity in the market," said Mr Lasok. The government could have acted legally by allowing British Energy to go into insolvency or administration and then paying for the closing-down of the power stations. Instead it chose an unlawful route, which caused damage to innocent parties in the market. "This choice appears to have been made for financial reasons because it was cheaper to engage in unlawful conduct," said Mr Lasok. · A strategy to develop offshore wind farms while ensuring that this "abundant" energy source is harnessed without damaging the marine ecosystem was launched by the government today. The energy minister, Brian Wilson, said: "The potential contribution towards our energy needs is enormous and this, in turn, will underpin a substantial manufacturing industry." The news was immediately welcomed by green lobby groups. Matthew Spencer of Greenpeace said: "This is fantastic, the government's blinkers have finally come off and they've recognised the potential for huge amounts of energy from wind farms at sea. " Nick Goodall, chief executive of the British Wind Energy Association said: "This consultation document proves that we are seeing the birth of a new industry. The UK now stands to harness an abundant resource as a key part of its move to a low carbon future." Useful link Green party of England and Wales [http://www.greenparty.org.uk] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 17 Current energy policy paints dismal future Newton Kansan Online - 11/21/02 [http://thekansan.com/cgi-bin/printme.pl] 112102 agriculture 1 6 The Newton Kansan Folly is what I think our national energy policy is, until we wake up and remember to conserve natural gas for more important uses than generating electricity for Los Angeles. --> Current energy policy paints dismal future By Jim Suber This Side of 60 Folly is what I think our national energy policy is, until we wake up and remember to conserve natural gas for more important uses than generating electricity for Los Angeles. Michael Whatley, principal deputy assistant secretary for congressional and intergovernmental affairs at the U.S. Department of Energy, came to the annual meeting of the Kansas Farm Bureau in Manhattan a few days ago to talk about energy issues and to seek questions from the audience. I goaded a longtime friend and staff member into asking Whatley about our national supply of natural gas and what the future might hold for using more nuclear energy to produce electricity. As most of you realize, the United States a few years ago abandoned restrictions on the use of natural gas to make common electricity except in emergencies. However, short term considerations about compliance with ever-tightening clean air laws and regulations -- pushed onto society by alarmists and extremists -- led to the quiet discarding of any constraints against the use of natural gas to make electricity. At the same time, venal politicians and short-term thinking board rooms in the oil and gas industry, shrugged and said, "Let the gas flow if you won't let us build new coal-fired plants and new nuclear reactors." Together, this constitutes one of the most egregious and criminal sell-outs of the national interest in perhaps our country's short life. The hypocrisy is greatest in states like California, where radicals prance in the streets at the drop of a smoldering match stick, but where they insist on importing electricity derived from natural gas and hydroelectric dams. Natural gas is a finite commodity that represents a permanent loss, which has provided for years for many lower income people a safe, fairly cheap way to heat their homes and protect family health. Future pricing is an issue of which the administration is keenly aware, as it is of other uses such as nitrogen fertilizer production. Whatley said we're "importing more from Canada each year," and we're in "pretty good shape as long as things remain the same." He quickly added things don't always remain the same. No, they don't. He said the Bush administration noted in the next 25 years the United States will need 1,400 new electrical generation plants. "As it stands now you cannot build new coal plants because of environmental strictures; you cannot build new nuclear plants because of too many concerns about Chernobyl and what not. You cannot build a new oil plant." Whatley said if those 1,400 plants were fed by natural gas, then we'd have a problem. The administration wants to triple imports from Canada with the construction of a new pipeline. It also wants to diversify energy sources, he said, and is pushing for five nuclear plants by 2010, as well as the reopening of one in the old TVA district. We must build a responsible energy policy now, while we still have time. I'm not for trashing the environment; in fact, quite the contrary. If 30 years from now we have no reliable electricity, no affordable home heating source, no affordable nitrogen fertilizers, then we will truly have reduced ourselves to a Third World level, and what forests we have will be burned for fuel. People will weaken in the cold, and they'll riot and loot and kill. They could well lack the skills and technologies available today if we don't stay current. France uses nuclear energy for electricity. If France can ... oh don't make me say it. Jim Suber is a freelance writer. He formerly was a business and agriculture writer for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He and his wife live near Maple Hill. Letter to the Editor at [danstaet@thekansan.com] Contact the Webmaster at [nkweb@thekansan.com] © Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 by The Newton Kansan ***************************************************************** 18 CY slows decommissioning process, awaiting plan approval from NRC* By MATTHEW HIGBEE, Middletown Press Staff November 22, 2002 *HADDAM -- Decommission-ing work at Connecticut Yankee has slowed down as the company waits for Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of its license termination plan. Before the plan is approved, however, the NRC will oversee a hearing on two contentions filed by the Citizens Awareness Network, a volunteer nuclear industry watchdog group.* The CAN contentions deal with the way Connecticut Yankee will measure the amount of radioactive material left behind. "Each thing we?re arguing for would force the company to clean more contamination," said CAN member Rosemary Bassilakis. The first contention, said Bassilkas, calls for a more rigorous detection of so-called "hot particles," the radioactive nuclides that are difficult to detect when covered by soil, but could give a person a high dose if kicked up. Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman Kelly Smith countered that company was using a methodology created by several federal agencies, including the NRC. "The methods we?re using are sufficient to detect the hard to detect nuclides," said Smith. CAN?S second contention takes issue with Connecticut Yankee?s model for measuring an acceptable dosage of radiation. During the clean-up, workers measure ambient radiation levels on and around the plant site. They then translate those measurements into what the dosage would be to a person over the course of a year. The "person," in this case, is actually a composite individual of 160 pounds of various ages and both genders, living on a family farm and eating food raised on the power plant site. Bassilakis said that this model individual fails to account for children. "The dose to children may be higher because they are closer to the ground, their organs are more susceptible and they ingest more soil," she said. Twenty-five millirems of radiation per-year or under is the acceptable dosage level that Connecticut Yankee has set for itself before it can be considered clean. Smith said that 100 millirems/year above and beyond naturally occurring background radiation was the amount that the composite individual used in the model could safely receive. "We?re going down and setting it at 25 because 100 is protective. One hundred millirem is okay for children and a female," Smith said. Smith also noted that 25 millirems/year was well within the spectrum of normal background radiation that Connecticut residents receive. Background radiation at Devil?s Hopyard in East Haddam, for example, has been measured at 79 millimrems/year while the Dock & Dine parking lot in Old Saybrook registers at 43 millierms/year. The average person receives 360 millirems/year from natural and man-made sources. Bassilikas said that contaminated groundwater from spills and leaks over the years will ultimately make it difficult to determine when the site is clean. "They have a reasonable sense of how far the contamination fans out. But they don?t know how deep it goes into the bedrock and the fractures in the rock. It?s quite chilling. It?s amazing that they haven?t been severely penalized," she said. To contact Matthew Higbee, call (860) 347-3331 ext. 223, or email mhigbee@middletownpress.com /©The Middletown Press 2002/ ***************************************************************** 19 NRC inspector wasn?t clear on TMI protocol The NRC called extra staff to a response center after an Oct. 17, 2001, threat. By SEAN ADKINS Daily Record staff Friday, November 22, 2002 The same day the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured the public that clear lines of communication had been established between the agency, nuclear plant operators and Pennsylvania emergency officials, an NRC inspector complained of a lack of direction when responding to a possible terrorist threat against Three Mile Island. A two paragraph e-mail sent by Joseph Furia to a former NRC manager and a commission specialist states, ?Having me come in after a full day of conducting an outage inspection, (then) sit around for several hours, served none of us well.? The York Daily Record obtained the e-mail regarding an Oct. 17, 2001, threat through a Freedom Of Information Act request. Furia?s e-mail stated that if NRC officials call people to the Incident Response Center for future events, they should: # Be ready to forward NRC staff on to the event site; # Be ready to forward NRC staff on to a hotel near the event site, where a staff member can relieve someone the following morning; or # Have an active position for NRC staff member to fill in the IRC. When asked about the content of the e-mail, Furia referred all questions to the NRC?s public affairs office. Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the NRC, would not comment Thursday whether any of the suggestions have been put into action. The nature of the possible threat has never been made public. In an Oct. 18, 2001, news release regarding the possible threat, NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve declared that ?clear lines of communication among the state, the NRC and licensees have been established.? Although the intelligence community eventually deemed the threat not to be credible, about 150 pages of documents ? including a chronology of events, handwritten logs and lesson learned reports ? sought by the Daily Record were withheld by the NRC. However, some new information released by the commission points to the inner workings of the Incident Response Center and how it operated the night of Oct. 17, 2001. Each NRC regional office, including the Region 1 bureau in King of Prussia the monitors Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station and TMI Unit 1, has an incident response center. Filled with computers, telephones and workstations, the center operates as a place where NRC staff can gather and monitor an event, Screnci said. Immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, the Region 1 center, which covers nuclear power plants in states from Maine to Washington, D.C., was manned by two or three NRC staff members around the clock in readiness for an attack or emergency, she said. On the evening of Oct. 17, an additional 23 NRC staff members, including Furia, were called into the center to address the possible terrorist threat. Military jets patrolled the skies within a 20-mile radius of TMI while plant security was notched up to respond to what the commission then termed a ?potential terrorist threat.? The Federal Aviation Administration halted flights from Harrisburg International Airport and Lancaster Airport for about four hours while officials alerted the state Emergency Management Agency and other state and federal authorities. NRC reactor safety inspectors, public affairs officials, state liaisons and protective measure authorities were called to the Incident Response Center in response to the threat. Furia, a radiation specialist who completes nuclear reactor inspections, was called to the center in case it would become necessary to send relief staff to TMI. One month after the non-credible threat, the commission began to staff its incident response centers on an event basis rather than at all times. Copyright © York Daily Record 2002 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 20 FR: NRC decision: Riverkeeper proposal to close Indian Point FR Doc 02-29738 [Federal Register: November 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 226)] [Notices] [Page 70467-70468] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22no02-122] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-003, 50-247, and 50-286, License Nos. DPR-5, DPR-26, and DPR-64] Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision with regard to a petition dated November 8, 2001, filed by Riverkeeper, Inc., et al., hereinafter referred to as the ``Petitioners.'' The petition was supplemented on December 20, 2001. The petition concerns the operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (IP1, 2, and 3). The petition requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): (1) Order the licensee to suspend operations, revoke the operating license, or adopt other measures resulting in a temporary shutdown of IP2 and 3; (2) order the licensee to conduct a full review of the facility's vulnerabilities, security measures, and evacuation plans; (3) require the licensee to provide information documenting the existing and readily attainable security measures which protect the IP facility against land, water, and airborne terrorist attacks; (4) immediately modify the IP2 and 3 operating licenses to mandate certain specified security measures sufficient to protect the facility; and (5) order the revision of the licensee's emergency response plan and Westchester County's radiological emergency response plan (RERP) to account for possible terrorist attacks and prepare a comprehensive response to multiple, simultaneous attacks in the region, which could impair the efficient [[Page 70468]] evacuation of the area. In addition, the Petitioners requested that the NRC take prompt action to permanently retire the facility if, after conducting a full review of the facility's vulnerabilities, security measures, and evacuation plans, the NRC finds that the IP facility cannot be adequately protected against terrorist threats. Further, separately from the above issues, the Petitioners requested that the NRC order the licensee to undertake the immediate conversion of the current water-cooled spent fuel storage system to a dry-cask system. As the basis for the November 8, 2001, request, the Petitioners stated that: (1) The IP facility is a plausible target of future terrorist actions, (2) actual threats against nuclear power plants have been documented, (3) IP is currently vulnerable to a catastrophic terrorist attack, (4) a terrorist attack on IP2 and 3 would have significant public health, environmental, and economic impacts, and (5) the Westchester County's RERP is inadequate because it is based on erroneous assumptions. The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the Petitioners and to the licensee for comment on May 16, 2002. The Petitioners responded with comments on August 9, 2002, and the licensee had no comments. The Petitioners' comments and the NRC staff's response to them are included with the Director's Decision. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has determined that the request to order the licensee to suspend operations, revoke the operating license, or adopt other measures resulting in a temporary shutdown of IP2 and 3, be denied. The reasons for this decision, along with the reasons for decisions regarding the remaining Petitioners' requests, are explained in the Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD 02-06), the complete text of which is available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html] ). As stated in its letter to the Petitioners on December 20, 2001, the NRC has, in effect, partially granted the Petitioners' request for an immediate security upgrade at IP2 and 3. On September 11, 2001, the NRC took action to enhance security at all nuclear facilities, including IP2 and 3. Immediately after the attacks, the NRC advised all nuclear power plants to go to the highest level of security, which they promptly did. These facilities have remained at a heightened security level since that time. The NRC continues to work with other Federal agencies and is monitoring relevant information it receives on security matters at nuclear facilities. The NRC is prepared to make immediate adjustments as necessary to ensure adequate protection of the public. The NRC issued Orders on February 25, 2002, to all commercial nuclear power plants to implement interim compensatory security measures for the current threat environment. Some of the requirements made mandatory by the Orders formalized the security measures that NRC licensees had taken in response to advisories issued by the NRC in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Orders also imposed additional security enhancements, which have emerged based on the NRC's assessment of the current threat environment and its ongoing security review. The requirements will remain in effect until the NRC determines that the level of threat has diminished, or that other security changes are needed. The specific actions are sensitive, but include increased patrols, augmented security forces and capabilities, additional security posts, installation of additional physical barriers, vehicle checks at greater stand-off distances, enhanced coordination with law enforcement and military authorities and more restrictive site access controls for all personnel. Regarding the Petitioners' request for specific information about the security measures, the NRC's policy is to not release safeguards information to the public. Thus, this request is denied. The NRC in its February 25, 2002, Orders also directed licensees to evaluate and address potential vulnerabilities to maintain or restore cooling to the core, containment, and spent fuel pool and to develop specific guidance and strategies to respond to an event that damages large areas of the plant due to explosions or fires. These strategies are intended to help licensees to identify and utilize any remaining onsite or offsite equipment and capabilities. If NRC's ongoing security review recommends any other security measures, the NRC will take appropriate action. The NRC denies the Petitioners' request to mandate certain security measures, as specified by the Petitioners, for the protection of the facility, such as a system to defend a no-fly zone. The NRC considers that the collective measures taken since September 11, 2001, provide adequate protection of public health and safety. The NRC finds that the existing emergency response plans are flexible enough to respond to a wide variety of adverse conditions, including a terrorist attack. The NRC advisories and the Orders issued since September 11, 2001, directed licensees to take specific actions deemed appropriate to ensure continued improvements to existing emergency response plans. The Petitioners' concern that the emergency plans do not contemplate multiple attacks on the infrastructure is alleviated by the fact that the emergency plans are intended to be broad and flexible enough to respond to a wide spectrum of events. Thus, the Petitioners' request that the onsite and offsite emergency plans be revised to account for possible terrorist attacks has been, in part, granted. The NRC finds that the current spent fuel storage system and the security provisions at IP adequately protect the spent fuel. Thus, the Petitioners' request to order the installation of a dry-cask storage facility is denied. However, the licensee has stated its intention to add such a facility. A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided for by this regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision, unless the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the Director's Decision in that time. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of November, 2002. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samuel J. Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 02-29738 Filed 11-21-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 India: Govt mulls nuclear power station in state SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2002 THE TIMES OF INDIA CITIES: HYDERABAD POWERED BY INDIATIMES TIMES NEWS NETWORK �[ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2002 01:58:00 AM ] HYDERABAD: The government has sent a proposal to the Centre to set up a nuclear power station at Kovvada-Machilesam in Srikakulam district to meet the increasing demand for power in the state, energy minister Kothapalli Subbarayudu said in the Assembly on Thursday. Replying to S Aruna (TDP) during Question Hour, the minister said in March 2000, the government had promised to provide required assistance to the Atomic Energy Commission in finding a suitable site for a nuclear power station. The Commission informed the government in April 2000 that a site selection commission had included the Srikakulam in its list of possible locations. The minister said the Nuclear Power Corporation informed the state government in April 2000 that they had all the data for preliminary evaluation of the site. Final decision was awaited. The proposal to set up a 1,000 mw nuclear power station in the Nagarjuna Sagar-Srisailam region was rejected by the Union ministry of environment due to power station’s proximity of the Srisailam reserve forest and the Nagarjuna Sagar reservoir. New power sub-stations: Replying to another question by D S Redya Naik (Congress), the minister said the government wanted to construct 246 new power substations in the state during 2002-03 at an estimated cost of Rs 488 crore. Not satisfied with the minister's reply, Congress members P Laxmaiah, N Raghuveera Reddy, Sunita Laxma Reddy, D Nagender and others wanted to know how many sub-stations were required in the state to overcome the low-voltage problem, and whether land acquisitions had been completed for the proposed sub-stations. Nagender alleged there were many irregularities in the purchase of transformers and government could have saved at least Rs 2 crore had it took proper measures. He demanded the government to constitute a committee of all floor leaders to probe the matter. However, the minister said the government followed all rules and there was no need for a committee. Many legislators from opposition and treasury benches raised the problems of transformers and low voltage in their constituencies. The minister said that the government would consider the proposal to bring all ERO offices online with e-Seva centres for updating the information regularly. Replying to the main question by D Umamaheswara Rao (TDP) and K Laxman (BJP), he said that the spot billing system was introduced in Hyderabad during July 2001 and was extended to all parts of the state and interior villages by 2002 June. More revenue from spot billing: Additional revenue to the extent of Rs 100 crore was generated due to the spot billing which was an increase of 2.5 per cent, he said.With various measures including reduction in transmission and distribution losses and spot billing, Rs 510 crore was generated additionally, he said. The government was paying Rs 1.95 per bill to private agencies, which took the contract for meter reading, he added. Subbarayudu, replying to a question by K Dayakar Rao and G Jaipal Yadav (TDP), said that a 132 KV sub-station was sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs 8.56 crore which is covered under REC loan assistance. He said that tenders were called for substation construction but cancelled, as the contractors had not submitted tenders as per specifications. Copyright 2002 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. �|�Feedback ***************************************************************** 22 Will the neon lights go out in Tokyo? (Japan Nuclear controversy) Planet Ark : FEATURE - JAPAN: November 22, 2002 TOKYO - If they're unlucky, Tokyo residents could be huddling for warmth under blankets this winter. If they're really unlucky, the city's bright neon lights may dim and residents may swelter without air-conditioning next summer. The capital of the world's second-largest economy could face a power crunch in coming months as its largest utility, Tokyo Electric Power Co Inc (TEPCO), struggles to keep supplies flowing with more than half of its nuclear capacity shut for checks. TEPCO President Tsunehisa Katsumata said on Tuesday he believed his company had secured enough supply to cover winter demand. There is still some concern, however, that TEPCO may not be fully equipped to cover a spike in demand should the winter turn out to be exceptionally cold. "Much will depend on temperatures in winter," Katsumata said. Fears of a power crunch will heighten with the approach of summer when power demand typically soars. "If the current situation continues, supply could become quite critical during the summer peak demand season," said Mitsubishi Securities senior utilities analyst Tadatoshi Utaka. Nine nuclear plants, supplying almost half of TEPCO's nuclear generation capacity, have been shut, six for safety checks because of controversial past inspections. Four more reactors will close down for checks next January and February, and TEPCO may move forward the maintenance schedule of two other reactors. This will mean that a maximum of 15 of TEPCO's 17 nuclear reactors could be shut down early next year - a major issue for a country that relies on nuclear power for a third of its energy. Tokyo's plight is different from the last well-publicised power crisis in 2000, when California suffered rolling blackouts as demand outpaced capacity and the newly liberalised market fell into chaos. Japan's potential energy crunch is based on allegations that TEPCO falsified nuclear safety records in the 1980s and 1990s. The company has admitted to some regulatory breaches. TEPCO, which supplies the heavily industrialised Tokyo area, has begun cranking up mothballed thermal generating units to make up for some of the lost capacity but will close another four nuclear units in February for regular maintenance. But TEPCO vice-president Ryoichi Shirato said last month that power supplies were tight. "...We could see a significant impact if the winter is cold," Shirato told a news conference in late October. "(The situation will be) totally insufficient for the summer." "The magnitude of the generating capacity taken off line is vast," said report on the crisis by Boston-based Energy Security Analysis Inc. SCANDALS HIT CONFIDENCE Japan is no stranger to nuclear scandals and public support for the industry has fallen away over the last decade after a string of accidents. In the worst incident, in 1999, an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction was triggered at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, north of Tokyo. Two workers died. TEPCO's nine shut reactors provide about 8.63 gigawatts (gW) of power, or roughly 14.6 percent of TEPCO's total output. The restart of oil-fired thermal plants will add about 4.13 gW to supply but the company's costs will rise as it has to buy extra fuel - Japan has little by way of energy resources and is virtually entirely dependent on imported crude oil and gas. TEPCO said on Tuesday, when it announced its half year earnings, that extra costs from the shutdown of nuclear reactors are likely to amount to 140 billion yen ($1.14 billion) for the year to end-March. Of this, about 130 billion yen stems from fuel procurement costs for thermal power plants. Analysts say TEPCO will likely survive through winter unless temperatures turn exceptionally frigid. The real test will come in the summer when power demand shoots up for air-conditioning. TEPCO is uncertain when it may be able to restart any of the nuclear units and analysts say it may face public as well as regulatory resistance to bring plants back on line. It started shutdowns in early September after admitting that some employees had falsified data and some reactors were operating despite evidence of cracks in protective casings. But in another safety breach, TEPCO said in October that personnel had manipulated the air pressure of nuclear reactor containers to pass safety tests. It was forced to close a 460-mW reactor for possibly as long as one year after the admission. Masanori Maruo, at Deutsche Securities, said maintenance checks typically take a little over a month but TEPCO would probably have to make more rigorous inspections this time. "Even at the end of a 40-day inspection, local residents and authorities are unlikely to give TEPCO automatic approval to restart the reactor," Maruo said. Any prolonged closure will eat into TEPCO's bottom line as it pays out for expensive fossil fuels or has to buy electricity on the local spot market. TEPCO has said daily generating costs rise by about 100 million yen ($800,000) if a one-gigawatt nuclear plant is replaced by a thermal power plant. Story by Miho Yoshikawa REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 23 Compensation claims rise to nearly $1 million* City By City: Middletown, IA UPDATED: 11/21/02 4:37 PM ASSOCIATED PRESS *MIDDLETOWN, IOWA* - The Labor Department has so far paid out $950,000 to former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers. Injury compensation claims have been paid to 12 former workers or their survivors. That's up from seven in late September. So far, claims have been filed representing 842 workers. Claims representing 54 workers have been denied. The compensation program was authorized by Congress two years ago. It provides a payment of $150,000 and medical expenses to former workers whose illnesses can be linked to beryllium, radiation or silica exposure. Some of the materials were used in the assembly of nuclear weapons at the plant from the late 1940s through the mid-70s. /Copyright 2002, Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material cannot be published, broadcast, rewritten, or distributed. / All content © Copyright 2001 - 2002, WorldNow and WQAD. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 UK: 'Dirty bomb' attack clear-up could end in borough Radioactive waste fear for Rainham Recorder Series By ROSS HINDLEY A SHOCK report claims Rainham could be used as a dumping ground for tonnes of radioactive rubble if a "dirty bomb" is used on London. Ever since terrorists crashed two hijacked aircraft into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11 last year, the authorities have been revising plans to cope with a large terrorist attack in Britain. Now a national newspaper claims to have obtained secret documents outlining plans for handling thousands of tonnes of waste left from a gas attack or a bomb designed to spread radioactive material over a wide area. One possibility could be to clean the debris as far as possible and ship it to a landfill site in Rainham  probably the waste area off Gerpins Lane, pictured on page one. Hornchurch Labour MP John Cryer says he is shocked at the news. He has written to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, seeking an explanation. He said: "This is absolutely unacceptable. Populated "I cannot think of a plan more ludicrous than to dump tonnes of radioactive rubble in a highly populated area, surrounded by highly populated areas, with millions of people very close by. If these reports are true, I want it stopped as soon as possible." Jeff Tucker, Residents' Association councillor for Rainham and Wennington, says he will demand a full investigation before anything is dumped in the area. "I'm obviously not happy about this," he said. "Moving waste to Rainham is what always happens, but that is going to stop. "If anyone says they are going to dump anything here, then I would call for an investigation first. The people of Rainham have had enough." A Havering Council spokesman said: "The council is involved in continuous working groups in how to deal with an incident or emergency." A spokesman for the Deputy Prime Minister's office said: "A great deal of contingency planning has been taking place since the September 11 attacks. There has been planning for handling wide-scale debris, and a number of potential landfill sites have been identified, but no decision has been taken." Ham&High Highbury&Islington Recorder Series Newham Recorder Ilford Recorder Romford Recorder HertsAd W&H Times The Comet Buchan Observer N.Devon Gazette Copyright © 2002 Archant [http://www.archant.co.uk] Regional. ***************************************************************** 25 RAB to be briefed on IAAPair The Hawk Eye Newspaper Thursday, November 21, 2002 By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye MIDDLETOWN — An American Ordnance official will brief citizen advisers today on air emissions at the ammunition plant. Jean Brewster, the contractor's environmental manager, will address a 5 p.m. meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board at The Burlington Apartments, 206 N. Third St. The meeting is open to the public. The subject arose at a previous RAB meeting, and American Ordnance agreed to explain how the plant monitors emissions from its weapons production operation. No air quality problems have been reported. RAB members also will be briefed on the low–level, helicopter flyover of the plant compound the Army late conducted last month to scout for possible radioactive hot spots. State officials convinced the Army to conduct the flyover to search for any residual radioactive hazards left behind by the Atomic Energy Commission, which built, disassembled and test–fired components of nuclear weapons at the plant for about 25 years, ending in the mid–1970s. Rodger Allison, the Army's environmental projects manager at the plant, is expected to outline how the flyover was conducted. State regulators, who monitored the flyover, have said that no imminent threats to public health or the environment were found. Final results of the flyover are not expected until June, however. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 26 FW: Panama to make nuke shipment presentation to ACS Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:31:58 -0600 (CST) See the next-to-last paragraph in this column, which will appear in the upcoming issue of The Panama News. It seems that, in face of the ACS member states' nearly unanimous rejection of nuclear waste shipments through the Caribbean Sea, Panama is for the first time in a very long time paying attention to the Caribbean --- just enough to argue with our neighbors on behalf of European and Japanese corporations. Eric Jackson Editor, The Panama News ~~~ The Greater Caribbean This Week ACS meets in Belize by Norman Girvan Foreign Ministers and senior officials of the 25 members and three Associate Members of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) meet in Belize on November 26-29. They will be reviewing progress in sustainable tourism, transport, trade and natural disaster mitigation; the main elements in the emerging Greater Caribbean Zone of Cooperation. Since the Third ACS Summit in Margarita Island, Venezuela, in December 2001 the ACS has been consolidating its program of cooperation in specific areas where it can make a difference. Establishment of the Sustainable Tourism Zone of the Caribbean (STZC) is one initiative where a consensus has been built through careful negotiation and technical work over the last six years. The STZC Convention signed at last years Summit provides a broad legal framework for the development of the Zone. But the work has only just begun. The Convention needs to be ratified and brought into force. Even more important, the principal stakeholders in tourism --- hotels, airlines, local communities, the media, and government agencies --- need to take ownership of the Convention and its strategies. Only they can put flesh and blood on the legal bones. The annual conference of the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) in the Bahamas in October provided an opportunity for ACS officials to develop joint initiatives with key players in the industry. The ACS is now collaborating with the CTO in planning the 2003 Caribbean Sustainable Tourism Conference. Another joint ACS-CTO project is the development of multi-destination tourism packages targeted at the intra-Caribbean market and the Caribbean Diaspora in the developed countries. ACS and CTO officials worked the World Travel Market global convention in London earlier this month and stimulated considerable interest in the development of such packages. The Regional Council of Martinique is providing assistance to the ACS for this project as its contribution to the development of sustainable tourism in the region. All this requires improved intra-Caribbean air links, especially to serve the "new and emerging" smaller destinations. Member states of the ACS have negotiated a draft Air Transport Agreement that will be discussed at the Belize Ministerial meeting. But several leading regional countries have reserved their position on "Fifth Freedom Rights" --- the rights to traffic between third countries. They prefer to reserve this area for bilateral negotiations. ACS officials fear that this will rob the regional agreement of its effectiveness. The challenge is to give up some short-term negotiating advantages in return for creating a framework within which airlines will be encouraged to be innovative in route development within the region, forging new linkages with hotels and tour operators. At the Belize meeting the host country will lead a Ministerial dialogue on Human Security and Sustainable Development in the Caribbean Sea area. Panama will also make a presentation on the movement of hazardous substances through the Canal. Both are of vital interest to the region. The recent massive oil spill off the Spanish coast has brought home the vulnerability of shared eco-systems to maritime accidents of one kind or another. The ACS is collaborating with the ECLAC Office for the Caribbean and UNEP in helping regional countries advance the proposal for the United Nations to recognise the Caribbean Sea as a Special Area in the context of sustainable development. The Belize meeting will provide a further political impetus to this initiative. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ***************************************************************** 27 *Officials look to the future of Shpack* KEVIN SALEEBA Gazette Staff Writer November 22, 2002 *NORTON ? Town officials hope to not only protect current residents near the Shpack Landfill, but also safeguard those residents yet to be born.* The future use of the Shpack Landfill site hinges on what the town would like to do with the land in the ?foreseeable future.? The Army Corps of Engineers, the group ordered to clean up the site, told the town it will not clean up the radioactive waste on the 8-acre abandoned domestic and industrial landfill until the town knows what it wants to do with the land over the next 50 years. Members of the ad hoc Shpack Technical Committee, whose job is to make this decision for the town, are concerned that the town can?t predict what Norton will look like in 50 years. The committee wants to use the land for passive recreation, which would require the greatest level of cleanup from the Army Corps. However Heather Graf, chairman of the Shpack Team, said the use of the land could change in 50 years and the town needs to protect the Norton residents beyond the ?foreseeable future.? ?We're not going to be here forever and what they use the land for now isn?t what the land could be used for in the future,? Graf said. ?Many years down the road, this property can conceivably be taken out of the town?s hands and wind up as a residential development. There is no guarantee this land will be cleaned up well enough for residential use. When we are gone and in 50 years Shpack in forgotten about, I don?t want something to be there to haunt the Town of Norton.? Graf said the committee will seek assistance from town counsel (Kopelman & Page) to draft a document that would protect future residents. The document would require anyone purchasing the Shpack property from the town with the intentions of changing it from ?passive recreation? to ?residential? to clean the property up to the proper residential health standards. The ad hoc Shpack committee should not be confused with the Shpack Landfill committee, which is made up of local residents and environmental experts. The ad hoc committee is also made up several town officials and department heads, including Selectman Jim Brown, Conservation Agent Jennifer Carlino, Norton Fire Lieutenant Paul Schleicher, Board of Health member Fred Watson, as well as seven Norton residents and one Attleboro resident. The committee?s final meeting will be on Jan. 6. The Shpack Landfill operated from 1946 to 1965. It left radioactive waste (uranium) on the site. Local residents want the site cleaned because they are concerned about potentially hazardous material on the site. /©The Taunton Gazette 2002/ ***************************************************************** 28 Kazakhstan: Surviving on nuclear waste* United Press International By Sam Vaknin UPI Senior Business Correspondent Published 11/22/2002 1:44 PM SKOPJE, Macedonia, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- Nuclear waste is both an environmental problem and an economic solution in the countries of east Europe and central Asia. Kazakhstan announced on Wednesday that it plans to import other countries' nuclear waste -- and get paid for its shoddy disposal-by-burial, a method contrary to international conventions. Ironically, the money generated is earmarked for ridding of Kazakhstan of its own pile of fissionable trash. This emulates a similar scheme floated two years ago in Russia. The Atomic Energy Ministry planned to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste to earn $21 billion in the process. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact left many countries in the former Soviet bloc with an aging and prohibitively expensive to maintain nuclear arsenal. Dismantling the warheads -- often with American and EU Euratom funding -- yielded mounds of lethal radioactive materials. Abandoned nuclear test sites -- such as the USSR's central facility in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan -- contain thousands of tons of radioactive leftovers. Add to this the network of decrepit, Chernobyl-like, reactors strewn throughout the region and their refuse and the gargantuan dimensions of the threat emerge. Take, again, Kazakhstan. According to Mukhtar Dzakishev, president of Kazatomprom, the country's national nuclear agency, the country is immersed in 230,000 tons of waste. It would cost more than $1 billion to clean. The country should earn this amount in a single year of imports of nuclear litter. The going rate in Europe is about $3,000-$5,000 per 200-liter barrel, only a fifth of which is spent on its burial in old mines or specially constructed depositories. This translates to a profit of $80-$140 per cubic meter of uranium buried -- compared to less than $10 per cubic meter of uranium extracted. The countries of east Europe have entered the fray with relish. Last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed through the State Duma a much-debated law that allows for the importation and disposal of nuclear waste. Getting rid of nuclear waste and dismantling nuclear facilities -- both military and peacetime -- do not come cheap. According to the ELTA news agency, Lithuania's decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant would require 30 years and should cost $90 million in 2008 alone. Last month, Russia's Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov pegged the cost of a U.S.-Russian agreement to dispose of 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium at $750 million. Russia plans to resell the end product, mixed oxide, to various countries in Europe and to Japan. MOX can be used to fuel specially fitted power plants. The European Commission, alarmed by these developments in its backyard, announced, according to EUObserver.com, that it "gives priority to geological burial of dangerous material as the safest disposal method to date. Member states will be required to establish national burial sites for the disposal of radioactive waste by 2018. Research for waste management will also be stepped up." Even private non-governmental organizations got into the act. In August, Russia reclaimed from the Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 99 pounds of highly enriched uranium. The Nuclear Threat Initiative, a Washington-based NGO established by Ted Turner of CNN fame and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, was instrumental in arranging the air transport of the sensitive substance. According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Vinca Institute conditioned its surrender of the uranium rods on financial aid to dispose of 2.5 tons of spent nuclear fuel. NTI provided the $5 million needed to accomplish the cleanup. A donor conference, in the framework of the Northern Dimension Environmental partnership pledged last week about $110 million to tackle environmental and nuclear waste in northwest Russia. This fund will supplement loans from international financial institutions. Yet, according to the BBC, of the 12 priority projects worth $1.3 billion that have been agreed, not one concerns atomic trash. The NDEP, set up in 1997, is a partnership of the European Commission, Russia, the European Regional Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, the Nordic Bank and the World Bank. But it is predicated on a crucial document -- the Multilateral Nuclear Environment Program in Russia -- which Russia has hitherto evaded signing. The sorry state of under-funded efforts to cope with the aftermath of nuclear power and weaponry and the blatant venality that often accompanies shady waste deals provoked a green backlash throughout the otherwise docile region. The Guardian quoted courageous Kazakh environmental activists as saying: "The same is repeated again and again. It is just another money-making venture ... The World Bank is worried about corruption in Kazakhstan. In our current situation there is no guarantee of public safety, no system for compensation, no confidence in the ability of customs to deal with these cargoes. Everyone has a human right to a safe environment -- but apparently not here." Similar sentiments are expressed by groups in Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Poland and elsewhere. Being "environmentally correct" is so important that Tanjug, the Yugoslav news agency, in its relentless campaign against NATO, implausibly accused Germany of storing its waste in the mines of Kosovo. A prime example of activism involved a Russian scientific expedition which recently found a nuclear submarine dumped, with spent radioactive fuel, in the northern Kara Sea. According to news agencies, quoting environmental groups, dumping nuclear waste, hundreds of submarines and decommissioned nuclear reactors into Arctic waters was common practice in the Soviet Union. The governor of the Murmansk region, bordering on Norway, has announced a 6-year cleansing program of the Kola peninsula, designed to assuage the worried Scandinavians. The Norwegians built a waste recycling facility in the area, constructed a special train to ferry the waste away and invested in renovating a storage dump. Many east European countries do not store nuclear waste but serve merely as transit routes. The waste the Kazakhs plan to dispose of, for instance, should cross Russian territory. Yet, the Russians are the easy part. In 1998, they agreed to continue to store in east Siberia fission by-products from Bulgaria's controversial Soviet-built Kozloduy nuclear power plant. Russia also stores waste from Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Lithuania. Waste disposal was part of the standard construction contracts of Soviet reactors abroad. But getting the waste to Russia often requires permission from other, much less forthcoming, countries such as Moldova, Ukraine and Romania. By the beginning of 2003, according to the Bulgarian reactor's management, the old storage pits will be exhausted and the plant will have to close down. According to the Regional Environmental Center, the transit countries cite ill-equipped railways, antiquated containers and other environmental concerns as the reasons for their reluctance. In reality, they are under pressure by the European Union and the United States to collaborate with waste transport and disposal companies in the West, such as British Nuclear Fuels or Cogema. In the wastelands that constitute large swathes of the post-communist world, nuclear waste, it seems, is a growth industry. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 29 Minatom and Environmentalists Square Off on Ministry Steps Over SNF Imports Spent fuel imports The Russian Ministry of Nuclear Energy (Minatom) is actively promoting plans for large scale imports of spent nuclear fuel to Russia for storage or reprocessing. MOSCOW - Some fifty environmentalists Thursday swarmed the rainy sidewalks in front of the Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, and went head to head with the bureaucrats inside — at least from shouting distance — to once again draw attention to the dangers associated with Russia's policy of importing radioactive waste. Some fifty environmentalists Thursday swarmed the rainy sidewalks in front of the Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom. Charles Digges/Bellona Charles Digges, 2002-11-22 13:49 The hour-long protest — which resulted in no arrests, despite a heavy police presence and the several Minatom security personnel dispersed among the crowd — was arranged by Green Yabloko, an offshoot of the consistently anti-Kremlin, pro-environmental Duma faction led by Grigory Yavlinsky — and the Moscow anti-nuclear group Ecodefense!. Featured on the sidewalk in front of the ministry were activists dressed in gas masks and death-shrouds, holding banners that read "Say No to Nuclear Imports." Another banner featured a mock-up of the periodic table that replaced the entries for radioactive elements with dollar signs — a lampoon of Minatom's scheme to import nuclear waste and charge for its storage and eventual reprocessing, a plan ministry head Alexander Rumyantsev said will net Russia $20 billion over ten years. Also visible from the windows of the bureaucracy were dozens of Yabloko party flags. From the sidewalk, protestors hectored Minatom employees through bullhorns with chants of "Down with nuclear imports" and "Nuclear money in social hands," and distributed literature to passers-by. "The Ministry of Atomic Energy thinks it has won this war [to import radioactive waste], but it is mistaken — all it has won is a tactical battle. The war is ahead," said Vladimir Yashin, of Yabloko's youth movement, to the crowd. "Today we demand that any money made on nuclear imports be put under strict, independent, social control," Yashin said to a cheering audience and the camera and microphones of Russia's remaining independent television and radio stations. A statement released by the Moscow Yabloko offices prior to the demonstration alleged — in contrast to Minatom's earlier pronouncements about publicizing the kind of funding it was drawing from the import plan — that "information about what the federal budget is getting [from imports] is a state secret." Another banner featured a mock-up of the periodic table that replaced the entries for radioactive elements with dollar signs — a lampoon of Minatom's scheme to import nuclear waste and charge for its storage and eventual reprocessing, a plan ministry head Alexander Rumyantsev said will net Russia $20 billion over ten years. Charles Digges/Bellona With some 90 percent of the world's spent nuclear fuel (SNF) controlled by the United States, however, it is no secret that Minatom is having trouble signing contracts with all but former Soviet Bloc states, and has sent several delegations to Washington, hat in hand, to request rights to at least some of that fuel. The occasion for Thursday's demonstration was the four-year anniversary of the first arrests made against protestors of Russia's imports of radioactive waste, when two members of Yabloko party were detained in front of Minatom's monolithic Stalin-era offices on Bolshaya Ordynka street for picketing SNF imports from the Soviet-built Kozlodui nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. The activists have long since been freed, but the Kozlodui imports remain an especially thorny issue with environmentalists and government authorities alike. The Bulgarian plant, like many others in the former Eastern Bloc, has been shipping its SNF back to Russia for some 20 years — many years prior to the passage of last year's laws legalizing radioactive imports — because it ran on Soviet, now Russian, fuel, which means that what happens to the fuel after it is burned in Bulgaria is Russia' prerogative. In the majority of cases, that means Russia takes the fuel back for storage and future reprocessing. But since 1998, SNF returns by the Kozlodui plant have been characterized by shoddy waste packaging, one barely averted and potentially catastrophic railroad accident, and a financial scandal when, in 2001, the Cyprus-based Energy Invest and Trade Corporation, through which Bulgaria's waste removal payment was to be transferred to Russia, was discovered not to exist. In the fallout of that scandal, government sources said that President Vladimir Putin was so enraged he fired Deputy Atomic Minister Valentin Ivanov and top officials at Tekhsnabexport, or Tenex — Russia's international fuel broker. Minatom Thursday begged to differ. Nikolai Shingarev, Minatom's chief of information policy, put in an appearance at the demonstration. Charles Digges/Bellona "The arguments I am hearing are absolutely unfounded," said Nikolai Shingarev, Minatom's chief of information policy, who put in an appearance at the demonstration. He papered over Bulgaria's apparent lapses in waste packaging and payment policy. According to Alexander Dmitriev, deputy chairman of Gosatomnadzor, or GAN, Russia's nuclear regulatory agency, the last Bulgarian shipment of SNF, in 2001, included so-called absorption rods — a strict violation of GAN's SNF import safety policies. Shingarev, however, said that nothing untoward had been found in that 2001 shipment, which amounted to a flat contradiction of Dmitriev. Furthermore, Shingarev asserted that payments for the 2001 SNF shipment from Bulgaria were made to Russia in three instalments through a British bank "that didn't involve any offshore transactions." He would not specify the amount received for the shipment, and offered no further evidence of the involvement of the British bank, but he said that 20 percent of the proceeds from Bulgaria's check had gone to ecological improvements. Last year's laws allowing radioactive imports stipulated that "up to 39 percent" of the profits would be put toward ecological improvements — meaning the Bulgarian fee contributed almost half of the sum allowable for environmental clean-up. A year after the legislation's passage, however, Russia has yet to sign any major import contracts. The recent refusals of the formerly cooperative Moldova and Romania to allow transportation of Bulgarian spent fuel through their territories to Russia have doubtless added insult to injury for Minatom's import plans. According to Ecodefense! co-chairman Vladimir Slivyak, sustained pressure from environmental groups in the Eastern European countries hobbled the Russian-Bulgarian deal so severely. Charles Digges/Bellona Environmentalists, however, are enjoying the laurels of their success. According to Ecodefense! co-chairman Vladimir Slivyak, sustained pressure from environmental groups in these countries hobbled the Russian-Bulgarian deal so severely that only three shipments from Kozlodui have been made to Russia in the past four years. "This attests to our huge success and I think it is worth noting this as an anniversary and a time to congratulate one another," he told the demonstrators. Late this summer, Minatom officials negotiated SNF transportation contracts from Kozlodui with Ukraine, and Kozlodui officials predicted the first shipments would be leaving by the beginning of November. What makes this latest deal especially unpalatable to the environmental community is the suspicion — which was confirmed to Bellona Web by a member of the Bulgarian government — that Bulgaria is simply trying to get rid of as much radioactive waste as possible before joining the European Union. When that happens, at an unspecified date in the future, European Commission regulations will prevent Bulgaria from sending toxic waste abroad to countries that are considered not to have adequate facilities to deal with this waste. Though the EC has no stated policy on SNF exports to Russia, EC officials generally agree that Russia is unequal to the task of safely storing, reprocessing or disposing of spent nuclear waste. Slivyak, while cautioning that some storage capacity was available at Zheleznogorsk, added that the fuel would sit for some 30 years before it is ever reprocessed or interned permanently. As for Mayak, a southern Urals reprocessing facility and the prime candidate for handling foreign SNF, Slivyak said, "they don't have a kopek to modernize or reconstruct their storage and reprocessing equipment." "The equipment they are using is more than 30 years old, so taking more fuel from abroad is just crazy." Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 30 Do Tatars Have to Live In Radioactive Dumps? Pravda.RU:Top Stories:More in detail 14:36 2002-11-22 It is strange that the government takes no interest in people living in contaminated territories Forty five years ago, an accident at the Mayak enterprise in the Chelyabinsk region resulted in an outburst of radioactive waste, which poisoned the water and the land in a radius of many kilometers around the accident site. Many people suffered from the accident. Over 200 settlements vanished from the face of the earth, and thousands of people were removed from their homeland. As it turned out later, not all people were resettled from the contaminated area. Tatars are still living in some of the villages and settlements in the contaminated area. It is strange that the government took no interest in the people remaining there, but these people have been living in contaminated territories for decades. The settlement of Tatarskaya Karabolka suffered from the tragic accident most of all; since that tragic day, its population has been reduced from 4,000 to 640 people, and 80% of them suffer from cancer. There are eight cemeteries around the settlement. The only aid the authorities render to the people of the settlement is a 30 ruble (roughly one USD) compensation for their funerals. However, it is unbelievable that officials consider this sum enough for anything at all. Some time ago, special payments were made to people who helped neutralize the accident at the Mayak enterprise. But later, the authorities decided to save the cash and removed the item on the payments from the budget. Those who still live in the contaminated settlement demand that Tatarskaya Karabolka should be recognized as an area that has suffered as a result of the catastrophe. They also want the cash payments to resume Duma deputies from the Yabloko Party have developed an amendment to the state budget for the next year and submitted it for consideration of the parliament. The main point of the amendment is that villagers from Tatarskaya Karabolka must be relocated to a safer place. The cost of the plan is 10 million rubles. A special report was sent to the RF EMERCOM to explain the necessity of this amendment. A response to was given on November 11. Russian EMERCOM Minister Sergey Shoigu stated: “At present, there is no evidence proving any harm to the health of the people still living in that area that was affected by the accident at the Mayak enterprise in 1957. This also concerns the villagers from Tatarskaya Karabolka. That is why, the RF EMERCOM has no reason to back the suggestion of the deputies to resettle these people and provide budgetary financing for the removal.” Unfortunately, Tatarskaya Karabolka is not Russia’s only radioactive contaminated territory where Tatars are living. There is a research institute for nuclear reactors in the city of Dimitrovgrad, in the Ulyanovsk region, close to Tatarstan. Radioactive waste from the reactors are buried in a special nuclear-waste disposal, which is quite close to a geological stress point. The number of people with cancer in a village situated right above the area is abnormally high. The geological stress point is located from Dimitrovgrad to the territory of Tatarstan. There is every reason to believe that nuclear wastes from the disposal may get into the territory of the Tatarstan republic and cause much harm there. And the situation may get even more dramatic if the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Energy begins the realization of plans for the importation and burial of spent nuclear fuel on Russian territory. The wastes will be poured into the same disposal; fuel obtained as a result will be burnt at nuclear power plants (by the way, it is deadly for the environment and for the personnel of nuclear power plants). It is highly likely that two such places will soon appear near Tatarstan: one will be on its territory and another is being constructed in the neighboring republic of Bashkiria. Wastes will stream down to the Kama River. All eastern areas of Tatarstan will suffer from the consequences of the nuclear plant’s work. The settlement of Tatarskaya Karabolka, the Dimitrovgrad nuclear-waste disposal, and other similar instances reveal that the RF Minister of Nuclear Energy takes no account of ordinary people’s interests. With a view to gain more profits, the Ministry is building more and more nuclear plants, and it is even ready to turn Russia into the world’s nuclear dump. Officials don’t care that this harms local populations. What is more, although nuclear objects are apparent targets for terrorisit attacks, the ministry is saving money on the protection of the dangerous objects. And if tragedies occur, like it the one in Tatarskaya Karabolka, officials ignore the lives of ordinary people who fall victims to such tragedies. The Yabloko faction is going to persist in the promotion of its amendment to the federal budget for 2003, saying that the families from the settlement of Tatarskaya Karabolka must be resettled. However, the deputies need active support of the Russian population in order to guarantee that tragedies of this kind will never occur in the future. If the population of Tatarstan actively protests against the construction of nuclear objects on its territory and in neighboring regions, they will be able to protect the planet from a nuclear catastrophe and save the Earth for the generations to come. Konstantin Dorokhin Vecherniye Chelny newspaper Translated by Maria Gousseva Read the original in Russian: http://science.pravda.ru/science/2002/6/20/55/3354_.html [http://science.pravda.ru/science/2002/6/20/55/3354_.html] Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU [http://www.pravda.ru/] ". When ***************************************************************** 31 UK: BNFL PLAYS DOWN FEARS OF ATTACK - The Whitehaven News BNFL PLAYS DOWN FEARS OF ATTACK BNFL has moved to play down fears that Sellafield could be a target for terrorism, after a national newspaper report suggested it was a soft target. The Sun ran a story on Monday about the arrest of an al-Qaeda member in London and about the possible targets that the terror group could have in the UK. They mentioned possible "dirty bomb" attacks on large cities, poisoning and spreading disease - all of which, according to the paper, could be carried at various locations throughout the country. Sellafield was the only individually-named potential target. The report said, under the heading Sellafield: "A suicide bomber could drive a truck packed with explosives into the heart of the Sellafield nuclear power plant in Cumbria. "The terrorists' aim would be to detonate the lethal load at the centre of the complex. "A radiation leak would almost certainly result, possibly killing hundreds. "Scores more could receive low-level exposure, leaving them with long-term health problems." However, Jamie Reed of BNFL said: "Since September 11 last year the security at Sellafield has been reviewed in consultation with the civil nuclear secretary and every security procedure that can be taken is being taken. "There is absolutely no intelligence whatsoever that Sellafield is a target." In a report to the secretary of state for trade and industry, the civil nuclear secretary said that all the UK nuclear industry had the appropriate level of security cover, including the RAF, for any potential air strike attack, such as happened in New York. Mr Reed said: "We have received no indication from anybody that there is any threat - and of course safety is of paramount importance to BNFL." ***************************************************************** 32 More nuclear fuel to be stored at Surry plant (Pilot Online/HamptonRoads.com) Associated Press © November 22, 2002 Last updated 1:15 PM Nov. 22 Work on the third concrete storage pad will start in 2003 or 2004, said Richard Blount, the Surry site vice president for Dominion Virginia Power. One of the site's two pads is full, holding 28 containers of high-level radioactive spent fuel, and the other is about half full. Congress this summer approved President Bush's plan to make Yucca Mountain a repository, but until federal agencies complete what could be a 10-year licensing process, nuclear power plants like Surry will have to continue to store their own spent fuel. The plans were disclosed in a report prepared by the power station for the Surry County Board of Supervisors. ... Read more in The Virginian-Pilot or at PilotOnline.com ThinkIn--> SURRY -- Officials at Surry Power Station plan to build a third facility to store spent nuclear fuel at the plant because long-term storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada won't be available for a decade. Work on the third concrete storage pad will start in 2003 or 2004, said Richard Blount, the Surry site vice president for Dominion Virginia Power. [http://ads.hamptonroads.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.hampt onroads.com/news@Middle?x] One of the site's two pads is full, holding 28 containers of high-level radioactive spent fuel, and the other is about half full. Congress this summer approved President Bush's plan to make Yucca Mountain a repository, but until federal agencies complete what could be a 10-year licensing process, nuclear power plants like Surry will have to continue to store their own spent fuel. The plans were disclosed in a report prepared by the power station for the Surry County Board of Supervisors. [http://www.pilotonline.com] | ***************************************************************** 33 Durango OP: Contamination cleanup won't hurt land Durango Herald Online November 21, 2002 By Jim Greenhill Herald Staff Writer The U.S. Department of Energy is set to release a final environmental assessment that outlines how the department plans to deal with groundwater contaminated by uranium tailings near Durango. The department also has said it will release a finding that will say the way it will deal with the contamination problem will not have any adverse environmental impacts and that no environmental-impact statement is needed. The documents will be available on the Web at www.gjo.doe.gov /ugw/sites/co/durango/durango.htm, the energy department said. The site was not working Wednesday. Printed versions will be available for view at the Durango Public Library, the Cortez Public Library, the Mesa County Public Library in Grand Junction and the Department of Energy’s Grand Junction Office Public Reading Room in Grand Junction by Tuesday, Nov. 26. Durango has a Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project site, one of 22 sites in nine states mostly in the West. The Durango site is north and south of Santa Rita Park on the west side of the Animas River. From 1942 to 1946, vanadium – a rare element used to strengthen steel and in nuclear applications – was produced at the site. From 1949 through 1963, uranium oxide – also used in nuclear applications – was produced at the site, ownership of which is now split between the city of Durango and the Animas-La Plata Water Conservancy District. Milling left 1.2 million cubic yards of uranium tailings on the site, and 33 of the 40 acres of millsite property were contaminated, an energy department fact sheet states. The tailings were moved to Bodo Canyon and the mill site was cleaned up, contoured and reseeded. An additional 20 acres forms the raffinate ponds area, where liquids from the milling process were discharged into a series of ponds. The energy department reports groundwater contamination under all 60 acres. The mill-tailings area has groundwater contaminated with uranium, selenium, cadmium and molybdenum. The raffinate ponds area has contamination from uranium and selenium. In the mill-tailings area, the energy department plans to allow natural flushing of the aquifer to take care of the groundwater problem and reduce contamination to acceptable levels within 100 years. The energy department plans no further remediation in the raffinate ponds area because the department says groundwater contamination is natural and unrelated to the uranium-ore processing. The department plans to discourage the use of groundwater near either the milling tailings or the raffinate ponds are and to monitor water at the site. No buildings are on the sites. A pump station for the Animas-La Plata project is scheduled to be built where the raffinate ponds were. Reach Staff Writer Jim Greenhill at jim@durangoherald.com [jim@durangoherald.com] Contents copyright © 2002, the Durango Herald. ***************************************************************** 34 Hearing On Nuclear Waste Requested By State TOP [http://WiscassetNewspaper.Maine.Com/] | Nov 21 2002 [The Wiscasset Newspaper - Online Edition] Charlotte Boynton "The disclaimer by the state that there is not a safety issue at Maine Yankee is a disservice to Maine people," said Ray Shadis spokesperson for Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Power. Shadis was referring to a letter signed by Maine's attorney general that was sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rowe filed a petition with the NRC requesting that the federal regulatory agency hold a hearing regarding the plan to store nuclear waste at the Maine Yankee site. The petition was filed with the support of Governor Angus S. King, Jr. who stated, "Our purpose is simply to ensure that the NRC applies a new set of standards when considering the management of high-level spent fuel at local facilities such as Maine Yankee." According to a news release from the attorney general's office, he states, "The purpose of filing this petition is two fold. First we want to clarify state and local responsibilities for providing public safety and emergency response services. Second, we want to know the time schedule for removing the spent fuel from Maine." "We certainly expect that the removal will be completed before expiration of the 20 years licensed life of Maine Yankee storage facility," Rowe said. Rowe and King stressed that the petition for a hearing with the NRC is not intended to alarm Maine residents about the present safety of Maine Yankee fuel storage site. "With this petition, we are not raising safety concerns about short-term storage. Our concern is longer term. The present storage site is licensed to Maine Yankee for 20 years. The federal Department of Energy has stated that it may be 50 years or more before the fuel can be removed from Maine," Rowe said. "It begs the question," Shadis said. "If the material is safe now, why won't it be safe still 20 years from now when it has cooled?" The Maine Congressional Delegation supports the petition for the NRC to hold a hearing on the nuclear waste being stored at Maine Yankee. Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and U.S. Representatives John Baldacci and Tom Allen recently announced their support for the petition. Maine Yankee spokesperson Eric Howes said, "We encourage the state to have a dialogue with the Department of Energy in removing the fuel." "Maine Yankee will be filing a response to the petition regarding some inaccuracies," Howes said. "We also look forward to presenting our additional perspectives on the petition." Howes said Maine Yankee has written to the state asking for an explanation on what the additional costs and burdens are on the state and local host governments referred to in the petition. According to a news release from the Maine Delegation, "an NRC hearing will provide a much needed opportunity for important issues surrounding this plan to be aired and resolved, including a specific timetable for removal of nuclear waste from the site." Wiscasset Newspaper P.O. Box 429, Wiscasset, ME 04578 Tel: 207.882.6355 MaineStreet [http://WWW.MaineStreet.Com/publishing/] http://wiscassetnewspaper.maine.com/2002-11-21/nuclear_waste_hear ing.html rev 2002-11-22 ***************************************************************** 35 State Asks Nuclear Regulatory Commission For Hearing On Maine Yankee Waste Storage Nov 21 2002 |Back Issues | Search | Masthead | Subscribe | Maine [http://Journal.Maine.Com/] Nov 21, 2002 "Serving The Communities of Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Southport, Edgecomb" Vol. 125-No. 45 Attorney General Steven Rowe filed a petition with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Friday, November 15, requesting that the NRC hold a hearing regarding the plan to store nuclear waste at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station in Wiscasset. The petition was filed with the cooperation and support of Governor Angus S. King Jr., who stated, "Our purpose is simply to ensure that the NRC applies a new set of standards when considering the management of high-level spent nuclear fuel at local facilities such as Maine Yankee. The Attorney General and I also want to continue to press the federal Department of Energy and the NRC on more specific plans regarding the time table for the removal of this waste from Wiscasset." Rowe stated, "The purpose of filing this petition is two-fold. First, we want to clarify State and local responsibilities for providing public safety and emergency response services. We want to know precisely what services the NRC expects the State and the host communities to provide and who the NRC expects to pay for those services. Second, we want to know the time schedule for removing the spent fuel from Maine. We certainly expect that the removal will be completed before expiration of the 20-year licensed life of the Maine Yankee storage facility." Rowe and King stressed that the petition for a hearing with the NRC is not intended to alarm Maine residents about the present safety of the Maine Yankee fuel storage. "With this petition, we are not raising safety concerns about short-term storage. Our concern is longer term. The present storage site is licensed to Maine Yankee for 20 years. The federal Department of Energy has stated that it may be 50 years or more before the fuel can be removed from Maine. That doesn't add up. It is clearly unacceptable," Rowe said. The requested hearing would formally be to address the NRC's October 16, 2002 Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures for the Interim Spent Fuel Installation ("ISFSI") that is being constructed at Maine Yankee. Boothbay Register Boothbay Harbor, ME Tel: 207.633.4620 MaineStreet [http://WWW.MaineStreet.Com/publishing/] http://boothbayregister.maine.com/2002-11-21/waste_storage.html rev 2002-11-22 ***************************************************************** 36 Hansen nuclear bill dies in Congress BYU NewsNet - Hansen nuclear bill dies in Congress Provo, UT By Krista Jorgensen [krj24@email.byu.edu] NewsNet Staff Writer 22 Nov 2002 Utah Congressman Jim Hansen is retiring after 22 years, and so is his Defense Authorization Act provision that was proposed to block a high level nuclear waste storage site in western Utah. The purpose of Hansen's provision was to use a wilderness designation for the Cedar Mountain area to block the necessary railroad spur to the Goshute Indian Reservation. This provision would lower both threats of nuclear waste, and encroachment dangers on Hill Air Force Base's Test and Training Range in the Goshute Valley. "Utah had its last, best chance to stop the introduction of dangerous, high level nuclear waste into our community," Hansen said. "They let their radical wilderness agenda stop it." Bill Johnson, Hansen's assistant, said the provision did not pass because environmental groups, led by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance have spent the last nine months gaining allies among House democrats. "These people wanted to put their own selfish interests ahead of what is best for Utah," Johnson said. Hansen said he felt his committee had offered every compromise and answered every concern the provision proposed. "They (SUWA) would rather have 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste in our back yard than give an inch on their extreme position on wilderness," Hansen said. SUWA Executive Director Larry Young said the provision was controversial because of the submission process and substance of it. "He (Hansen) tried to do too many things at the same time," Young said. "It was a really poor strategy on his part that doomed his provision to failure." Young said the bill would ultimately affect 20 percent of the landmass in Utah. If the bill would have passed, Young said it would have allowed the military to unilaterally close public access to public lands, use unauthorized air space and build new facilities in designated wilderness.The SUWA said they did not help Hansen with the provision because he was trying to change the traditional concept of wilderness. "I think he needed our help because you were going to have local utilities all over the country lining up in opposition to get their nuclear waste transferred from their backyards to this proposed site," Young said. Because the provision was denied, Johnson said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would issue a permit in the winter to bring nuclear waste into Utah. "If the Defense Bill would have passed, it could have put an area of wilderness in the way, keeping the waste from getting in," Johnson said. Johnson said there were no other options to prevent nuclear waste in Utah and serious encroachment problems on the training range. "If they (SUWA) have a better idea, then let's hear it," Johnson said. "Now is the time to let us know." Copyright ©2002 BYU NewsNet ***************************************************************** 37 Toxic Interpretations The Salt Lake Tribune -- Toxic Interpretations Friday, November 22, 2002 I would like to think that the reason that Utah voters voted against Initiative 1 had more to do with how much confusion $3 million can generate to a media-blitzed public than the fact that Utahns like to have our state used as a toxic dumping ground. If so, this warning is for them: Watch your state representatives very closely the next two months to see how they interpret the results of that vote. In an interview on public radio last week, state Sen. Curt Bramble of Provo stated that, while he voted against Initiative 1, he would be interested to see the Legislature "explore" the idea of accepting the more deadly class B and C radioactive wastes (currently not accepted in Utah) in order to possibly generate tax funds for education. When pressed, he would not say that he was "for" bringing in these wastes, but thought the Legislature should consider it. These hotter levels of waste would have been banned by Initiative 1, so it appears that Bramble, and possibly other state legislators, may be interpreting the results of the vote as proof that Utahns are OK with more deadly waste. It's up to us to make sure that they don't use a vote against Initiative 1 as a blank check for toxic waste dumping. JENNIFER KILLPACK Salt Lake City © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 38 NATO must not clone US nuclear first-strike policy at Prague meeting Greenpeace International Greenpeace International The two faces of NATO Thu 21 November 2002 CZECH REPUBLIC/Prague In public NATO speaks soothingly of disarmament and non-proliferation. But there is another face to NATO we don't often see, the warlike one of a well-armed nuclear force. In the firm grasp of the US, this shadowy face is being tilted toward a policy of nuclear first-strike. Will NATO leaders meeting now in Prague usher in darker and more dangerous days by adopting a new aggressive US stance? Hawks in doves' clothing They speak the peaceful words of the post-Cold War era. NATO member states say they are committed to the international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. And NATO has reduced the types and numbers of its sub-strategic nuclear forces over Europe since 1991. What they don't say is that the vast majority of those eliminated were out of date, unsafe and militarily useless. Others eliminated, such as Cruise and Pershing were deemed politically and publicly unacceptable by many European countries even during the Cold War. Unfortunately NATO remains politically and symbolically committed to nuclear weapons, and Europe's turf still bristles with them. Seven European NATO members (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Italy, Turkey and the UK) currently have an estimated 150 US air-launched nuclear bombs based on their territories. The NATO nuclear weapons states (USA, France and the UK) posses a combined force of over ten thousand nuclear weapons. Grim tango of risk takes new twist But with the tensions of the Cold War over, surely we are moving away from the risk of /actually using/ nuclear weapons, right? Wrong. The US Bush administration seems bent on reviving the spectre of nuclear war so vivid in the Reagan era -- but with a new twist. This year marked a frightening new shift in why and how US nuclear forces could be used. Previously the US described nuclear weapons as purely "defensive weapon[s] of last resort". But in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), they have been named as 'offensive' weapons that could be used pre-emptively. Mission impossible: hitting a bullet with a bullet A major cornerstone of the NPR is "Star Wars", the son of the failed Reagan-era missile defence system. Likened by critics to "hitting a bullet with a bullet" the system is unlikely to be truly effective, but carries the massive price tag of an estimated $US 60 to 200 billion. The Star Wars program can only lead to a re-ignition of the arms race and a return to the "Cold War". Bombshell It's no wonder the new US strategy of the NPR caused a storm when it was leaked to the public in March this year. Whilst US State Department officials have attempted to dismiss it by saying it is not formally adopted policy, the US Department of Defense report to the US president and congress describes the NPR as a "blueprint". This new warlike stance is a direct strike on peace and disarmament. It defies the policy agreed in 1995 by all five of the world's nuclear weapons states. At that time, the policy was that only nuclear weapons states or those in alliance with a nuclear state risked nuclear attack from a nuclear weapons state. Under the new US policy, any state could be attacked with nuclear weapons. Will NATO clone US policy? Again? Worse, extracts from the NPR reveal that the US is seeking to change NATO policy. NATO has a long history of marching obediently in the military footsteps of the US. With President Bush's nuclear doctrine shifting to an emphasis on first-use of nuclear weapons - even in a conventional conflict or before a military conflict has begun - NATO doctrine will be under pressure to do likewise. The question is: will NATO governments publicly endorse the new US nuclear policy? Or will there merely be a tacit acceptance of it? In fact, they should do neither. "In the post-Cold War era it is time for NATO to seriously review its addiction to nuclear weapons," said Greenpeace campaigner William Peden, "not to attempt to find new justifications for their continued possession." The US is also using the Prague summit to tell NATO it should have its own version of Star Wars. They want NATO to begin feasibility studies and to start developing a NATO-wide system. But the immense drawbacks of the scientific and political fantasy that is Star Wars remain. Bafflingly, those who voiced opposition in the past appear to be warming to this idea. NATO must go public These changes to NATO policy would be decisions of huge significance. They must therefore be publicly debated in all NATO countries, and that includes debate in all parliaments. Ultimately, NATO leaders must reject the frightening new US stance set down in its NPR because it is no basis for NATO policy. NATO leaders must clearly pledge not to support a pre-emptive or first-use of nuclear weapons. Police remove Greenpeace \'Stop Star Wars\' banner from Danish foreign ministry. Danish participation is strategic for US Star Wars plans. Police remove Greenpeace 'Stop Star Wars' banner from Danish foreign ministry. Danish participation is strategic for US Star Wars plans. November 21 update: NATO decision NATO's final declaration of its Prague Summit is feeble and pathetic, Greenpeace said today. Instead, they merely 'reaffirmed' that these types of regime are an 'essential contribution' to preventing the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction and stressed the 'importance of abiding by and strengthening' them. Member states failed to send any signal to the international community of how they plan to support, implement and improve upon the existing international nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regimes. NATO also authorised a new missile defence (Star Wars) feasibility study. "This is stupid," said Greenpeace campaigner William Peden. "The US does not have a single missile defense system anywhere near operational, there is no realistic threat to NATO and therefore no need for NATO to waste time and money on looking any further into this dangerous Star Wars programme." Recently the Danish governments has shown willingness to give the US permission to use and upgrade its radar station in Greenland for missile defence. In protest, twenty Greenpeace activists help three climbers scale the Foreign Ministry building in Copenhagen, Denmark today with banners reading 'Stop Star Wars' and 'No New Arms Race'. ***************************************************************** 39 The Failsafe Point: Spending Ourselves to Death 11/22/2002 @ 2:50pm Congress just passed the defense budget for 2003, and there are a few small pleasant surprises. According to an analysis by John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, our elected representatives: * Insisted on substantial oversight over the National Missile Defense program, rejecting a White House request for a blank check. There will now be a one-time review of the costs, performance record, ability to keep to schedule and military utility of a missile defense system. * Stopped speculation that missile defense might use nuclear weapon-tipped interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles. Defense Department officials had flirted with that idea earlier this year, and House Republicans had encouraged researching it. The Democratic Senate shot the idea down. * Refused to permit work on low-yield nuclear weapons, and slowed - but did not stop - work on a nuclear "bunker buster." The administration is intrigued by the possibility of deploying "mini-nukes" in otherwise conventional war situations. Arms control groups counter that use of any nuclear weapon crosses a dangerous and unnecessary line. * Sailed to the rescue of the Nunn-Lugar programs, which work to secure weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and knowledge, in the former Soviet Union. The Congress provided more than $1 billion in funding for those programs at the Energy Department, and freed up previously allocated money at the Defense Department for destroying Russian chemical weapons stocks. * Refused to approve the Defense Department's request for exemption from seven environmental laws. Collectively, it almost sounds like good news - a series of small victories for common sense. But, very, very small victories, says Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World. "If you look at it, it's an almost $400 billion budget, and the president got pretty much everything he wanted," Isaacs says. For those keeping track, this year's $396 billion is more than three times the combined defense spending of Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Syria. America outspends Russia, the second-biggest defense spender, by a factor of six. And for every "victory" for common sense, there's some backsliding in this bill. For example, it prohibits the Pentagon from encouraging military personnel to wear abayas while in Saudi Arabia - even as it bans abortions in overseas military hospitals. Or consider missile defense. Donald Rumsfeld may have to endure a (gasp!) one-time review of the controversial program's work. But the fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization bill still includes $7.6 billion to play with. That's nearly five times more than is being spent to secure anthrax, sarin nerve gas, enriched uranium and other proliferation worries across the former Soviet Union - this for a highly hypothetical future system that, even if it did work as advertised, would be helpless before the al-Qaedas of the world. This is why missile defense is low on the to-do list of most Americans. Asked in October to choose between missile defense or a prescription drug benefit, 51 percent chose the drug benefit and only 25 percent the missile shield. Americans also chose spending on homeland security over missile defense by 57 percent to 15 percent, and military training and pay by 55 percent to 17 percent. The defense spending bill is also a slap in the face of some 500,000 disabled veterans. Such veterans are now barred from receiving both their military retirement pay and their veteran's disability benefits. A Senate amendment would have struck down this ban on "concurrent receipt." Instead, the defense bill was cunningly recrafted so that only certain veterans - those with 20-plus years of service and a Purple Heart - get help. Isaacs reported the compromise "left veterans' groups furious because only a small number of disabled veterans will benefit (about 33,000 out of 550,000)." So goes the last hurrah of the Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats this year got to draft the spending bills, leaving the Republicans to pick and choose their fights. Next year, Republicans will draw up the legislative agenda -- and leave Democrats scrambling to respond. If billions for missile defense, crumbs for veterans and ambivalence about 'bunker-buster' nukes is the best the Democrats could offer this year, one shudders at what the Republican New Year might bring. OLDER The Energy Wars Welcome to "Failsafe Point," a new project funded by the Nation Institute. A failsafe point is the last point at which we can still exert control over events. We are at such a point now with regard to the environment, energy issues and nuclear weapons. FSP will follow the money and the science involving these issues, as well as the secretive bureaucracies, the public health issues, the national and international politics, and possible alternatives. by Matt Bivens A Clean, Green, Energy Machine ***************************************************************** 40 Notes of a lawyer: The Belt of Light and Control The Pasko Case 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. Jump to section [Yellow Report no.3:2001] ST PETERSBURG-USSURYISK - The Pasko case became fateful in my legal career, more than that — it split my whole life into two parts: before and after. But that is a long and altogether different story… Today, I have no regrets and I would have accepted no offer to take me back to that time when I had not yet started work on this case as a defender. Although, if it had at all been possible, I would have reviewed some of my steps… but this has nothing to do with the strategy of defence. "Grigory is holding up like a man — although it's apparent how tense his nerves are." Galina Morozova Ivan Pavlov, 2002-11-22 15:08 I ask for lenience from all my colleagues who think a lawyer should not write anything but appeals. I am still certain that our team has done and is doing everything possible for the case. This is not only my own opinion, but that of well-recognized authorities in the legal profession as well. All our work, in the context of closed court sessions and the keen attention paid to the case by the public, has been covered by traditional media and in reports posted on Internet sites. The reason for that was to give everyone the opportunity to appraise the force of our arguments, which only prove that our client is innocent. I am confident that Pasko is innocent. And I am not stating this because I am his lawyer — you would not hear a lawyer say anything else. But I say this also because I know thoroughly all the subtleties and fine points of the case, otherwise I would deny any comments to the media. Trust me on this, the defender always knows better than the prosecutor or the judge. It is exactly this knowledge that has allowed me to comment on the trial and insist on the single outcome possible in the case — acquittal. This is why Pasko's conviction was also felt by me as a personal insult. It meant that if the court at all found anyone guilty, the guilt lay not on Pasko, but on us. It meant we had failed to defend an innocent person. However, one who raises one's gun must shoot it… Ahead is the opportunity to have the case reviewed with a higher authority — the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court, and in any case there are always international courts to turn to. The main goal is to wrest this case from the hands of military justice. The military court has only convicted itself and stained once and for all its own reputation as a body of justice. Yet, all of this pertains to strategies and tactics, while one fact remains: Grigory Pasko is doing time in jail. If only for a most ludicrous verdict, but a guilty one all the same. It is ludicrous because of the suspiciously lenient punishment the "guilty" person got for the most severe state crime. "The 2nd detachment of the correctional camp is comprised of 123 convicts." Galina Morozova The circumstances require immediate actions. One of them is to get familiar with the locality. Six months out of the last year I was in Vladivostok. In November this year I travelled to Ussuryisk. It is there, in a so-called hard labour camp, that journalist, writer, poet Grigory Mikhailovich Pasko was sent to serve his time by the military court. Ussuryisk is a small, typically provincial town. Only recently could you hear the thunder and rumbling of the main plant of the town — a military tank repair workshop. The plant defined the town's whole life and fed most its inhabitants. Now, as the locals say, there are only four workers at the plant, who are busy repairing two tanks. At the same time, Ussuryisk offers a hotel — bearing the same name — where the rate for a VIP luxury suite reaches 600 rubles ($20) per night, which includes the shameless roaches. The prison camp's barracks look much like the hotel, only they were probably "erected" a hundred years earlier… The camp is located outside Ussuryisk, and getting there involves either taking a coach bus, which goes on a schedule several times a day leaving from the centre of the town, or a cab — to my surprise, this small town seemed to teem with taxis. Wasn't it so natural that the little town of N., from the famous novel "Twelve chairs", came to my mind, with its abundance of barber shops and funeral parlours… Still — unless you have already taken care of the transportation problem — the trip back from the prison camp can cause significant trouble. And even turn into a long walk along a deserted road. True, before coming here — the wilful nature of the local climate being well-known to me from firsthand experience in Vladivostok last year — I had armed myself with wind-proof, rain-proof warm clothes, the bright green of which, by the way, was so conspicuously in contrast with what the local population seemed to prefer… Here, grey and black are all the fashion. "Start of work at 7:30 a.m., end of work at 6:00 p.m. Six workdays and a day-off on Sunday. Physical exercises in fresh air, especially "wholesome" in the damp Far Eastern winter for patients suffering from spinal problems." Galina Morozova I have preserved a very vivid recollection of how our university professor, who taught a course on criminal and executory law, sketched for us students a map of where living quarters and facilities are laid out in a typical correctional camp. I had no way of knowing then that the field practice for that course was awaiting me many years after the graduation. For those who are unfamiliar with prison life peculiarities, here is the explanation. Every prison colony, as they are called in Russia, is surrounded by a continuous, well-watched and well-gunned, perimeter or so-called control-and-light belt that is illuminated by searchlights and is especially clearly seen when you are approaching a facility like that during dark hours. Around the perimeter stand watchtowers, where soldiers, armed with machine guns, keep their guard. Inside, almost every colony is divided into two similarly sized zones, hence the Russian slang word for "prison camp" — zona. One of the zones is the dwelling quarters housing the barracks-type communal spaces where the inmates live and sleep, the solitary confinement block, the administration building and a number of subsidiary buildings. The name of the other could be translated as "the work zone". Already by its definition one can conclude that this is where everything relating to the modest means and methods of correcting the "special contingent" is located. Our country corrects criminals by putting them to work, and the colony, where Pasko was sent to do his time, proudly serves the cause of supporting Russia's woodworking industry. Speaking simply, inmates here are made to produce furniture, big massive doors, as their correctors try in this ingenuous way to return the wayward citizens back to the tracks of the law-abiding, order-respecting lifestyle. You never can tell — what if our "pseudo-almost-near-spy," under the influence of the work therapy, will reform and next time will think twice before causing damage to state security? The head warden of the camp was off on vacation, and I was — at the appointed hour, which was agreed upon from St Petersburg prior to my visit — received by his deputy, lieutenant-colonel of justice Sergei Artyukov. I have to give credit to the thoroughness and efficiency with which the administration was organizing my visit. Immediately after mutual introductions, Artyukov called for an officer and ordered him to show me into the office of a security officer, where our meeting with Grigory took place. Once I got to know the camp's authorities, it became clear that they would do anything to Pasko — if they get an appropriate order, or would do nothing — if no such order is issued. Grigory's wife, Galina, travels from Vladivostok to meet her husband, the number of meetings is restricted. To tell you the truth, I was so naive as to think that a convicted reporter sent to a prison camp would be used somehow according to his professional abilities. That he would be put to work in the library, or to run the cultural activities sector. But he is part of a brigade that manufactures doors. The brigade is always overfulfilling its plan — a quota of work it receives from the camp's authorities every month. One organization even offered to buy Pasko-made door products wholesale — as rarities. Grigory doesn't want to complain, he doesn't want to ask for a transfer to where it's easier, and that's not something inmates do anyway. As for the administration — which knows very well that Pasko's health was damaged even while in the pre-trial detention centre — it is in no hurry to transfer him elsewhere. You and I might ask: Why is not somebody versed in skills that few have, somebody who, furthermore, suffers from rheumatic back pains, given tasks that would be equivalent to his education and state of health? We will see the obvious answer if we give it some thinking. If we remember what goal was set by the initiators of this case. The goal is to destroy in Pasko everything that made his professional life. By using the methods of criminal proceedings, they want to kill the journalist in Pasko. But, to keep himself in a professional form, he is still managing to write… "By using the methods of criminal proceedings, they want to kill the journalist in Pasko. But, to keep himself in a professional form, he is still managing to write…" Galina Morozova Apart from the notes and articles he publishes in the Ekologiya i pravo (Ecology and Law) magazine, where as the editor-in-chief he has a regular column, Grigory is busy piecing together legal complaints and other documents for fellow convicts. And there are quite tangible results of "such Sunday assignments." Thanks to an appeal written by Pasko, one of the inmates received in court a two-year reduction in his sentence. You can only imagine what respect Pasko won among his fellow convicts for his help. In all, remembering the long courtroom marathon in Vladivostok, I have to say that after years of struggle, Pasko has mastered the qualities distinctive of a professional litigator. The 2nd detachment of the correctional camp is comprised of 123 convicts, with only two in their midst who are non-smokers. Among those two is Grigory. The daily regime is one of military simplicity: Reveille at 6:30 a.m., callisthenics and a synchronic attempt by 123 grownup men to conduct the usual morning hygiene procedures, using for these purposes three round holes in the floor of the bathroom and three taps with cold water. Start of work at 7:30 a.m., end of work at 6:00 p.m. Six workdays and a day-off on Sunday. Physical exercises in fresh air, especially "wholesome" in the damp Far Eastern winter for patients suffering from spinal problems. Formations, counts in the morning and at night, shmon, or cell-tossing by the guards in search of contraband in the living spaces. Marching to work, marching back from work. Meals, as it goes, at the level of the service. In short, the whole amusement park, a tour of which, according to our legislators' concept, would completely reform the criminals, and should they ever be freed, they would never commit anything reprehensible again. The only thing is, as usual, the system makes no provisions for the chance of a legal mistake. Just try to imagine what happens in the mind of an innocent man who has found himself dragged through the sawmill of the Russian penitentiary machine. Sometime Grigory himself will tell you about it. Time stops for one in the zona. But Grigory is holding up like a man — although it's apparent how tense his nerves are. While discussing the state of our affairs, among other things, I told him that his criminal case has been summoned by the Supreme Court for review as they are considering our latest appeal. At parting, we asked each other — was there anything we left out of our discussion? And I remembered how each night in Vladivostok, finishing another day of preparations for yet another court session, we asked each other the same question. We respect the law and we have to make peace with a verdict that has come into legal force, but we will only go along with it until the minute it is annulled. Truth will always remain truth. That's why we have to believe that annulling this openly unjust conviction is only a question of time. Even though now and then this time can look as eternal as a lifetime. Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 41 North Korea, Accusing U.S., Says Nuclear Pact Has Collapsed The New York Times November 21, 2002* *By HOWARD W. FRENCH* TOKYO, Nov. 21 ? Invoking a decision last week by countries including the United States to cut off fuel supplies, North Korea said today that a 1994 agreement intended to prevent it from producing nuclear weapons had collapsed, and accused Washington of destroying it. The North Korean statement comes just weeks after the Bush administration confronted the impoverished communist country with intelligence evidence showing that Pyongyang had already secretly violated the so-called agreed framework by importing equipment needed to produce highly-enriched uranium. After an overnight delay, North Korean officials reportedly confirmed their secret program to visiting American diplomats, but said the weapons program was justified by continuing American threats. Pyongyang pursued that logic again today, blaming the outside world for the breakdown. In today's statement, the North Korean government said the supply of fuel by the United States was the only one of four articles of the framework that Washington had respected. Citing American hostility, it said a "proposal for concluding a nonaggression treaty is, in essence, the only realistic solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula." Since the uranium-enrichment program was disclosed last month, the United States and its regional allies have struggled to come up with measures to force North Korea to verifiably abandon the program. Consultations with Japan and South Korea resulted last week in a decision to suspend indefinitely deliveries of heavy fuel oil, which the United States had agreed to provide North Korea under the framework until the allies can build two proliferation-resistant reactors for the energy-starved country. The United States was joined by Japan, South Korea and the European Union in suspending the oil shipments. The agreed framework was negotiated amid a major crisis between the United States and North Korea that led to preparations for war after North Korea refused to open its Soviet-era plutonium-based nuclear reactors under international inspection. Under the framework, North Korea shut down the reactors and allowed inspectors into the country in exchange for fuel supplies and the promised construction of replacement reactors. In theory, the abandonment of the framework agreement now puts the two countries back on their original collision course, with North Korea free to use its plutonium supplies from the mothballed reactors to produce nuclear weapons, rather than waiting for the much more cumbersome and lengthy process of uranium enrichment to bear fruit. After weeks of tough talking, the United States had recently spoken with a more measured tone on North Korea, with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, for example, saying that Washington could help North Korea if it ended its "destabilizing" weapons programs. Regional analysts say Washington's recent modulation does not stem from a change of heart about the country, but rather from a lack of levers readily available to influence North Korean behavior. Neither overt military threat nor even an economic embargo on a state recently subject to repeated famines would likely be supported by China or Russia, and perhaps not even by the United States' principal allies in East Asia, South Korea and Japan. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, and cooperation between the two countries is extremely narrow. They are essentially limited to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization consortium and a little-publicized program that allows the Department of Defense to search for the remains of American soldiers who died in the Korean War. The intermediary step that Washington has chosen, meanwhile, suspending the delivery of liquefied coal, known as heavy fuel oil, which it provided at a rate of 500,000 tons a year under the framework, may have far less impact than is commonly believed. "We feel pretty confident that within a 10- to 15-percent range of accuracy that the fuel oil accounts for only about 2 percent of the energy they consume," said Peter Hayes, director of the Nautilus Institute, a United States-based global security research group with extensive experience in North Korea in the field of energy. *Continued* 1 | 2 Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 42 Fire breaks out on Russian nuclear submarine Sify News *Help* *Vladivostok, Nov 22* Fire broke out early on Friday on a nuclear submarine anchored at a naval base near the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok, but was put out within a few hours, a spokesman for the Russian Pacific fleet said. There were no casualties and the sub, which is slotted for dismantlement at a later date, did not hold any nuclear weapons, the spokesman added. "There were no nuclear weapons aboard, nor any weapons," the spokesman said. The incident occurred at the Pavlovsky bay submarine base, which is located 100 kilometres east of Vladivostok and harbours decommissioned nuclear submarines awaiting to be scrapped. A large number of submarines in Russia's cash-strapped navy have fallen into disrepair following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. | *Sify Home* | ***************************************************************** 43 Testimony in Support of Baltimore's Anti-Iraq War Resolution home / *snapshots* Thursday, November 21 2002 @ 07:22 PM GMT "My name is William Hughes. I?m a resident of the 2nd District. I?m here tonight to lend my support to the 'Anti-Iraq War Resolution' .." *By William Hughes* /Re: Council Bill No. 02-0944, "In Opposition to A Declaration of War Against Iraq" Public Hearing-November 20, 2002/ Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Robert Curran, and Members of the Baltimore City Council?s Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee: My name is William Hughes. I?m a resident of the 2nd District. I?m here tonight to lend my support to the ?Anti-Iraq War Resolution? and to also to express my objections to the editors of the Baltimore Sun for criticizing this legislative body, in a Nov. 13 editorial, for holding this hearing. The right of the people to Petition their government is a right older than the Republic itself. When the Sunpaper disparaged that right, it only demonstrated its own ignorance of our history, and its indifference to the important issues being considered tonight before this Committee. I believe that there is no justification whatsoever for any U.S. led war against Iraq. And, under no circumstances, should President George W. Bush Jr. take any military action against Iraq, absent the approval of the UN?s Security Council. Bush?s ?Preemptive Strike Doctrine? is just a fancy way of allowing him to attack someone ?first? hat he doesn?t like. In the Nuclear Age, conducting foreign policy in that kind of reckless manner can lead one tragic day to a nuclear exchange, with possibly Russia, Red China, or North Korea. The nuclear club is growing as I speak. This new and dangerous policy, created by Bush?s ?Dr. Strangelove,? Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, makes us more prone to a nuclear attack, and not less. Also, our war on terrorism should be against the el Qaeda network, and not the innocent people of Iraq. We know that Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. We also know that Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney have been, in the past, part of the lucrative business of ?Big Oil.? This could be a possible motive for the U.S. wanting to now attack Iraq. After Gulf War I, we left 600,000 pounds of depleted uranium in Iraq. It?s a radioactive poison, with a half life of 4.5 billion years. Now, we?re planning to do it again, contaminate Iraq, and our own troops, too. Israel, also, wants us to attack Iraq first, and then, Iran! Meanwhile, Israel continues to brutally subjugate the Palestinians, making us more enemies in the Islamic world. Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela both have said: The Israeli oppression of the Palestinians must end! Finally, if we had a foreign policy based on the values and principles of our Republic, and not on the role of ?Global Cop,? we could have huge peace dividends for our people. And that money, in the billions of dollars, could be used to make our streets safer, educate our children, restore fully this city, and renew the economy of our state. Put America?s national interest first. Say ?No? to any war with Iraq and pass this Anti-Iraq War Resolution. /William Hughes is the author of ?Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order? (Authors Choice Press) and ?Baltimore Iconoclast? (Writer?s Showcase), which are available online. He can be reached at liamhughes@mindspring.com./ /-Palestine Chronicle (palestinechronicle.com < http://palestinechronicle.com/ >). Redistributed via Press ***************************************************************** 44 Iran's N-programme raises new worries Gulf News Online Edition <#> * Dubai:Friday, November 22, 2002* Washington |By Knut Royce and Earl Lane | 22-11-2002 * While the Bush administration has focused public attention on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Iran's nuclear weapons programme has in recent months begun to appear more worrisome than Iraq's, according to U.S. intelligence. Administration officials and nuclear proliferation specialists say Iran is trying covertly to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. A U.S. official with access to intelligence reporting on nonproliferation acknowledged in an interview that Iran's nuclear weapons effort is now more developed than Iraq's. The official asked not to be identified. With no fanfare, Mohammed ElBaradei, the top UN weapons inspector ? now in Baghdad to begin the search for Saddam Hussain's alleged nuclear weapons facilities ? plans a trip soon to look at nuclear sites in Iran. ElBaradei, director general of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview he hopes to visit sites that may be part of an effort by Iran to acquire a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including what many experts believe will include an ability to produce bomb-grade plutonium. Iran is developing a medium-range ballistic missile, based on a North Korean design, that would be capable of striking Israel, experts say. While some parts of the Iranian leadership have moderated their anti-Western rhetoric in recent years, key leaders in charge of the military have not and the hard-line Iranian leaders still call for destruction of Israel. What worries U.S. officials and experts most is Iran's interest in technology for the production of nuclear reactor fuel and the handling of spent fuel. This "fuel cycle" can include reprocessing of the spent fuel to extract weapons-grade plutonium, a step specialists in and outside the U.S. government are convinced the Iranians want to take. "They are pursuing clandestinely through false trading companies and a variety of other means an intensive effort to develop those attributes of the fuel cycle which are necessary" to building nuclear weapons, said John Wolf, assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. ElBaradei said last week that he expects to go to Iran soon and will seek to visit facilities that he said are under construction as part of Iran's fuel cycle programme. He declined to give specifics on the sites but said Iranian officials "assured me that whatever they are building they will be declared" to his agency and placed under an inspection regime. In a little-noted speech to the International Atomic Energy Agency's general conference in September, Gholamreza Aghaza-deh, head of the Iran Atomic Energy Organisation, invited "technologically advanced" nations "to participate in my country's ambitious plan for the construction of nuclear power plants and the associated technologies such as fuel cycle, safety and waste management." Aghazadeh said that "complete transparency of my country's nuclear activities is a serious commitment by my government." But U.S. officials and some independent analysts are sceptical. An Iranian official in New York denied this week that his government has any interest in nuclear weapons. The CIA, in a written follow-up to a question during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in February, said a chief goal of the Iranian nuclear programme "has been the acquisition of a large, heavy-water moderated, natural uranium-fuelled reactor and associated facilities suitable for production of weapons-grade plutonium." The CIA said Iran also is pursuing uranium enrichment strategies. An Iranian dissident group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said in August that it had learned from sources within Iran about two secret nuclear sites under construction. Wolf said the State Depart-ment's information is consistent with the dissident group's disclosures. "These are two clandestine sites, including one underground," he said. The administration official familiar with U.S. intelligence reports on nuclear proliferation said other sites in Iran are of interest as well, but he declined to discuss them further. The International Atomic Energy Agency is taking a wait-and-see stance. Mark Gwoz-decky, an agency spokesman, said Iran has the right to build facilities for fabricating and processing nuclear fuels as long as it declares their existence at the appropriate time and opens them for inspection. Such facilities are not technically subject to the agency's safeguards and inspection procedures until nuclear materials are introduced into them, Gwozdecky said. © Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service ***************************************************************** 45 CIA: North Korea may have 2 nukes Daily Yomiuri On-Line Takao Hishinuma Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent North Korea has at least one, possibly two, nuclear weapons produced with plutonium manufactured before 1992 and enough stored plutonium to make several more nuclear weapons, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency said in a report to Congress on Thursday, congresssional sources said. The CIA report stated that North Korea will be able to annually produce six kilograms of plutonium at a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor in Yongbyon if it nullifies the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework, the sources said. They said the CIA also believes Pyongyang will be able to produce 275 kilograms of plutonium annually at second reactor in Yongbyon and another one in Taechon. This means the North would be able to annually produce at least 50 nuclear weapons, as about five kilograms of plutonium is believed enough to make one weapon. The CIA had long believed Pyongyang only had enough plutonium to produce one or two nuclear weapons. However, the latest assessment dramatically increases the figure, and the CIA is gravely concerned that North Korea has made greater progress in its nuclear weapons program than was first believed. The CIA also said North Korea began last year importing a large number of centrifuges for enriching uranium after starting a uranium enrichment program two years ago. North Korea told the United States last month that it had initiated a nuclear-development program. The full operation of the centrifuges would enable North Korea in several years to obtain enough enriched uranium to produce more than two nuclear weapons every year, which is in violation of the bilateral accord. Copyright 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 46 US doubts success of weapons inspection Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, November 22, 2002 New York, Nov. 22. (PTI): US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld has said UN weapons inspectors in Iraq cannot be successful in their mission, even as he rejected suggestions that Washington should avoid using military force against Baghdad. "The Inspectors are trying to inspect a country that is not ready to disarm. They can't be successful," Rumsfeld said. Rumsfeld, a strong critic of the United Nations' weapon inspection programme, was skeptical about the success of the inspectors if Iraq continues to maintain that it has no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. "If a country is determined to fool the inspectors, they can do that. They can use all kinds techniques," he said in an interview yesterday with ABC Television Network in Prague. Rejecting views that US would be putting its interests at risk if it goes for an all-out military offensive against Iraq, he said "the course of action that says 'Don't make Saddam Hussein unhappy or mad because he might do something' is kind of like feeding an alligator hoping it eats you last." "If history has taught anything, it is that 'weakness is provocative.' It entices people into doing things that they otherwise would not do," Rumsfeld said. [letters@thehindu.co.in] with full postal address --> The Hindu Group: Home [http://www.hinduonline.com/] | About Us | Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of ***************************************************************** 47 SC Gov. Sanford meets with Energy Secretary Abraham AP Wire | 11/22/2002 | [thestate.com - The thestate home page] Associated Press COLUMBIA, S.C. - U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham met with Gov.-elect Mark Sanford for about a half hour Friday to talk about plans for the Savannah River Site to handle weapons-grade plutonium and other issues. Abraham and Sanford met in Dana Point, Calif., while Sanford attended the Republican Gov.s Association conference. The Department of Energy plans to build facilities at the SRS facility near Aiken that will convert plutonium into a mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, that can be used in commercial nuclear reactors. DOE embraced that plan as its method of disposing of several tons of plutonium from Rocky Flats, Colo., and other Western states as it complied with a nuclear arms treaty. "This was the beginning of a good conversation about a number of issues of critical importance to South Carolina," Sanford said. "We talked about MOX production, pit production" among other issues. While the project could produce thousands of jobs, DOE plans to bring plutonium to South Carolina as it closed Rocky Flats turned into a pitched battle between Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges and federal officials. Hodges didn't want the material transferred to SRS unless the Energy Department offered ironclad assurances that the material would not be stored permanently in South Carolina. Sanford says he also wants assurances on the proper disposal of the material. He favors a bill that Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., pushed to set timetables for the removal of plutonium from SRS and imposes fines if the proposed facility fails to process material on schedule. Hodges once threatened to lie down in the road to block the shipments. He ordered a drill with state police officers to practice turning back shipments, and he sued DOE to block the radioactive material from entering the state. Hodges' lawsuit said Energy officials had not conducted the proper environmental studies on the safety of shipping plutonium to SRS. The governor lost the lawsuit in U.S. District Court and the appeal to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit is now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to decide early next year whether to hear the case. Billy Want, the lawyer working on Hodges' lawsuit, says Sanford's office hasn't contacted him about the case. The lawsuit was discussed in the meeting with Abraham, a former Republican senator, but Sanford did not offer details about that part of the conversation. On Nov. 6, a day after Sanford, also a Republican, defeated Hodges, the governor-elect told The State newspaper, he "would be inclined toward dropping the lawsuit. ... I've long believed that the legislative strategy is a much more valid way of bringing about change." But he added he had not made a final decision. Sanford said recently that he favors new missions at SRS and would work better with DOE than Hodges. "We were encouraged to see his comments regarding the (mixed oxide fuel) program after the elections," agency spokesman Joe Davis said. Energy officials requested the meeting with Sanford, Davis said, but Abraham also was scheduled to talk with other governors at the meeting. Another issue tied to SRS is a $2 billion to $4 billion plutonium trigger plant, which would provide key components for nuclear weapons. SRS is one of five sites being considered for that facility, which could create thousands of jobs. Environmentalists see such a facility as a threat to public health and natural resources. After meeting with Abraham, Sanford said he looks "forward to a good working relationship with Secretary Abraham's office and this meeting was certainly a good start to that relationship." TheState.com | About Realcities ***************************************************************** 48 Sanford, U.S. energy chief to review SRS plan The State | 11/22/2002 | By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer Gov.-elect Mark Sanford is expected to meet today with U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham about new missions and environmental cleanup at the Savannah River Site. The meeting, to be held at the Republican Governors Association conference in Southern California, provides a chance for Abraham to brief the incoming governor on nuclear issues, DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. The DOE asked for the meeting, Davis and Sanford spokesman Will Folks said. "It's an opportunity, when two people are in the same vicinity, to talk about the issues," Davis said. One key matter is a government plan to convert plutonium sent from other weapons complexes into mixed oxide fuel at SRS. The fuel would then be used in commercial nuclear power plants. Shortly after defeating Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges two weeks ago, Sanford said he was inclined to drop a state lawsuit against the DOE challenging plutonium shipments to SRS. The plutonium is coming initially from a closed weapons site at Rocky Flats, Colo. Hodges' lawsuit said the DOE had not done the proper environmental studies on the safety of shipping plutonium to SRS. He lost the case in federal district court, but has appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court. Davis said he didn't know whether the lawsuit would come up during today's meeting. Hodges' lawyer, Billy Want, said Thursday he had not been contacted by Sanford's office about the case. Another big issue at SRS is a $2 billion to $4 billion plutonium trigger plant, which would provide key components of nuclear weapons. The DOE is considering five sites across the country, including SRS. Thousands of jobs could be created, but environmentalists say the new missions are dangerous to public health and natural resources. Sanford said recently that he favors new missions at SRS and would work better with the energy department than Hodges did. Sanford said Nov. 6 that he supports legislation in Congress, pushed by U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham of Seneca, that would require timetables for the removal of plutonium at SRS. Graham, a Republican, was elected to the U.S. Senate earlier this month. The legislation has passed both houses of Congress and is awaiting President Bush's signature, Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said. The Bush administration has not opposed the measure. Bishop applauded the meeting between Sanford and Abraham. "Savannah River Site is the crown jewel of the Department of Energy and it's a big economic player in South Carolina," Bishop said. "So our governor and the DOE always have a lot to discuss." TheState.com | ***************************************************************** 49 IAAP flyover expanded by 3,000 acres The Hawk Eye Newspaper Friday, November 22, 2002 By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye The recent low–level radiation flyover of the Iowa Army Ammunition plant was expanded at the last minute to include about 3,000 acres that had formerly been part of the plant south of the present gates, and the Great River Medical Center in West Burlington, just outside the Army installation's current fences. Rodger Allison, the plant's environmental projects director, said the pilot of the specially–equipped helicopter decided to fly over the hospital as he was making a turn on a pass over the plant. The helicopter also flew over about half of Middletown just outside the fences, and followed Brush and Long Creeks from the plant about four miles south to the Skunk River. The flyover occurred Oct. 23 to 28. Allison's remarks came at a meeting of the Restoration Advisory Board, which monitors the Superfund cleanup of the compound. Allison said the Army also decided to survey the area down to the Skunk River, which had previously been part of the compound. All in all, the helicopter, equipped, with state–of –the art radiation detection gear and flying at 100 feet above the ground, passed over 22,000 acres, in 200–foot wide swaths. Buildings that were being used for production were flown over on the weekend, during non–production hours, Allison said. State officials convinced the Army to conduct the flyover to search for any residual radioactive hazards left behind by the Atomic Energy Commission, which built, disassembled and test–fired components of nuclear weapons at the plant from the late 1940s until the mid 1970s. Dan McGhee, a regulator with the Radiological Bureau of the Iowa Department of Public Health, praised Allison and the Army for how the flyover was conducted. "It went off without a hitch," McGhee said of the flyover which was conducted by the Bechtel Corp. and the Argonne National Laboratory for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. McGhee described the operation as "one of the best .. for that type of survey that I have ever seen." He said deciding to expand the flyover to cover the plant's original boundaries was a stroke of genius. Allison said the flyover did detect what is believed to be depleted uranium at storage locations and at a firing site, areas officials knew depleted uranium would be found. Other radioactive contaminates being searched for included cesium 137, radium 226 and plutonium, all used in the production of nuclear weapons. A draft report is expected in March, with the final report due out in June, Allison said. Nancy Canavit Harman, of West Burlington, a member of a former–IAAP–workers' health advisory board, said she was pleased that the helicopter flew over so much of Middletown, especially along U.S. 34 north of the plant. Harman said residents have been concerned how AEC operations may have affected their families' health. She said residents have wondered "what did the husband bring home to the spouse and family?" Vaughn Moore, a former security guard at the plant, said the flyover was "part of the process" but that scientists must still do a ground search for radioactive contaminants. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 50 Energy Department to Study Atlas Site The Salt Lake Tribune -- Energy Department to Study Atlas Site Friday, November 22, 2002 BY JUDY FAHYS The U.S. Energy Department is launching an environmental review to help decide what to do with the Atlas uranium mill tailings pile outside of Moab. Bill Hedden of the Grand Canyon Trust called the announcement "a big step in a long process." He also applauded the agency's plan for an in-depth look at ground- water as part of the review -- a factor that has not been examined in past impact studies of mill sites. "This is a breakthrough for the Department of Energy," said Hedden, whose environmental group has led the fight to get the tailings pile removed. Originally, the agency planned to do its environmental analysis only after deciding either to cap the tailings in place or to have polluted dirt hauled away. Ammonia, heavy metals and mildly radioactive materials are seeping into the Colorado River, putting endangered fish and downstream water supplies at risk. By fast-tracking to the environmental study, the Energy Department lopped off more than six months of review. Now a final move-or-cap recommendation is expected in September 2004. "We hope the EIS will lead us to a determination of the best site for the tailings, whether it's on-site or offsite," said Audrey Berry, spokeswoman for the DOE's Grand Junction office. The review will include lots of input, with soon-to-be-announced public meetings in Moab, Blanding, Green River and East Carbon. The study will also consider 20 factors raised by the National Science Council last spring in a report requested by Congress. Scientists on the panel, among other things, urged the DOE to evaluate the long-term costs that might be associated with water-quality monitoring and flooding at the site. The site was transferred last year from bankruptcy trustees to the DOE. The waste pile, considered an eyesore for the tourist community of Moab three miles away, amounts roughly to six times the debris hauled away from the World Trade Center collapse. © Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 51 Incinerator raises debate on SRS permit Augusta Georgia: Metro: Web posted Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:20 p.m. EST By Eric Williamson [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] South Carolina Bureau JACKSON - Air quality surrounding the Savannah River Site could become more radioactive if the Consolidated Incinerator Facility at the site's H-Area were allowed to resume operations. Although site officials have stated no plans for resuming the facility's operations, a public meeting Thursday night revealed that a new air emissions permit being sought by SRS might keep the possibility open. The meeting, conducted by South Carolina's Department of Health and Environmental Control, was held at Silver Bluff High School as a step in the permitting process. DHEC requested public comment on any potential flaws in the permit proposal, which was submitted by the Department of Energy through the nuclear reserve's management contractor, Westinghouse Savannah River Co. The main opposition during the brief meeting was presented by Louis Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. "As good as the permit is, it lacks important elements," Mr. Zeller said. He said the incinerator facility poses a particular threat because the radioactive nuclides in the materials potentially burned there cannot be destroyed, only dispersed into the atmosphere. "Although it may not be operating at this time, the draft permit plainly allows it in the future," Mr. Zeller said. "BREDL recommends that DHEC delete it from the permit and that it not be reinstated." SRS is required to keep radionuclides to less than 10 millirems per year at the site's borders, according to Brett Caswell, a DHEC Bureau of Air Quality permit writer. The average American receives about 360 millirems of radiation per year from both natural and man-made sources, scientists say. Mr. Zeller also questioned why a coal-fired power facility in D-Area, which has a history of excessive sulfur dioxide emissions, was separated from inclusion in the permit request. Permitting regulations seek to combine all rules on polluting areas at a site into one document. Mr. Zeller said that, regardless of the fact that the power station changed hands from Westinghouse to South Carolina Electric &Gas, the history of consent orders to force environmental compliance should be reflected in the permit. Carl Richardson, the director of DHEC's engineering services division, said SRS is in compliance with air quality standards. The defense league, based in North Carolina, began as an environmental watchdog group in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The group has expanded its efforts over the years to speak out on a number of regional environmental concerns. Reach Eric Williamson at (803) 279-6895 or eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com [eric.williamson@augustachronicle.com] . --From the Friday, November 22, 2002 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle ***************************************************************** 52 DOE to expand research program The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 12:55 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 2002 Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced Thursday that the Department of Energy will move into a new, expanded phase of its program to develop "carbon sequestration," an area of research in which carbon emissions are captured and permanently stored, rather than being released into the atmosphere, according to a DOE news release. Abraham said that the federal government intends to create a nationwide network of four to 10 "regional sequestration partnerships," and called on industry, state and local agencies, universities, and others to join with the DOE in forming the partnerships. Abraham also announced that DOE has given the go-ahead to a research team headed by American Electric Power and Battelle to begin studying potential sequestration sites in the Ohio River Valley where carbon emissions from power plants might be injected deep underground instead of being released into the atmosphere. "The focus will be on the deep saline formations that lie thousands of feet below the surface -- well below the aquifers commonly used for drinking water," Abraham said. More details on sequestration efforts can be found at www.fossil.energy.gov. President Bush and others have singled out carbon sequestration as one of the most "promising new approaches" for countering the threat of global climate change, according to the release. In one of his first major addresses on climate change, on June 11, 2001, the President said, "We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce emissions -- especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies." The government will offer up to $2 million per partnership for initial planning efforts. Later, as much as $7 million per partnership could be provided for actual field verification tests and more detailed regulatory and infrastructure planning, said the release. The first partnerships are expected to be announced next spring. Researchers will study whether the deep saline formations beneath the Ohio-West Virginia border are suitable for permanently entrapping large quantities of carbon dioxide. The study is especially important because it takes place in the heart of the largest concentration of fossil fuel power plants in the nation, according to the release. AEP has volunteered its Mountaineer Plant in New Haven, W.Va., as the test site for investigating the concept. During the next 18 months, researchers will conduct seismic surveys of the underground rock formations and drill a 10,000-foot exploratory well on the power plant property. No decision will be made on proceeding beyond the current study phase until the subsurface geology is deemed safe and suitable for carbon sequestration and cost estimates have been prepared. DOE, through its National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), is providing $3.2 million of the project's total $4.2 million cost. Other partners providing financial and in-kind support include AEP, BP, Battelle, and Schlumberger. The Ohio Coal Development Office, part of Ohio's Department of Development, is also supporting the project. Technical support to the project will be provided by experts from NETL, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, West Virginia University, the Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Ohio State University, and others. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 53 U.S., Philippines ink five-year military plan eTaiwanNews.com/ [http://www.etaiwannews.com/] 2002-11-22 / Associated Press / MANILA, Philippines The United States and the Philippines yesterday finalized a five-year military logistics agreement seen as a key element in enhancing Manila's fight against terrorism. Philippine military spokesman Brigadier General Eduardo Purificacion said navy Commodore Ernesto de Leon and a representative of the U.S. Defense Department, U.S. Army Colonel Mathias R. Velasco, had signed the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement. The agreement is designed to enable "reciprocal logistic support" between the armed forces of the two countries for the duration of an "approved activity" such as "combined exercises and training, operations and other deployments." It also shall apply during "other cooperative efforts" such as humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and rescue operations and maritime anti-pollution efforts within or outside Philippine territory. The agreement specified that no U.S. military base, facility or permanent structure will be allowed, apparently to appease critics who said the logistics agreement was a cover for the return of U.S. bases closed in the early 1990s. Supplies such as food, water and fuel, and support and services such as billeting, transportation, communications and medical services, will be exchanged or transferred under the agreement. But it will not allow the transfer of major armaments such as weapons systems, guided missiles, naval mines, nuclear ammunition and warheads and chemical weapons. Although the agreement will remain in force for five years, both sides are to review it one year before it expires for a possible extension. Purificacion said the agreement does not require approval by the Philippine Senate because it only implements the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement between the United States and the Philippines. Vice President Teofisto Guingona, who earlier quit his second post as foreign secretary over differences with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo regarding the presence of U.S. troops in the Philippines, has urged the government to allow the Senate to review the accord because of constitutional questions. Leftist groups who are leery of any U.S. military influence in the Philippines have opposed the accord. © 2001-2002 Taiwan News. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 The Bomb Project Compiles Nuclear Bomb Imagery, Documents for Artists Alert! [http://www.ericward.com/linkalert/] The Bomb Project [http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/Index.html] is a comprehensive on-line compendium of nuclear-related links, imagery and documentation. [http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/Index.html] The Bomb Project [http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/Index.html] seeks to gather and present these resources as a research archive and platform for analysis, creativity and discussion. New developments, commissions and projects will be announced. The Bomb Project [http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/Index.html] is intended specifically as a resource for artists, and encourages those working in all media, from net.art, film and video, eco-intervention and site-specific installation to more traditional forms of agitprop, to use this site to search for raw material. The Bomb Project has gathered together links to nuclear image archives (still and moving), historical documents, current news, NGOs and activist organizations as well as government labs and arms treaties. It makes accessible the declassified files and graphic documentation produced by the nuclear industry itself, providing a context for comparative study, analysis and creativity. The Bomb Project [http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/bombproject/Index.html] is inspired by the basic tenets of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS - see their Mission Statement). The FAS was founded in 1945 by the members of the Manhattan Project, who produced the first atomic bomb; it is the oldest organization dedicated to ending the global arms race and to achieving complete nuclear disarmament. The Bomb Project seeks to gather and present these resources as a research archive and platform for analysis, creativity and discussion. New developments, commissions and projects will be announced. [http://www.ericward.com] Copyright © URLwire. Online news headline linking services are ***************************************************************** 55 Tanker wreck off Spain adds to toxic seabed horror Reuters AlertNet - 22 Nov 2002 15:35 By Alister Doyle OSLO, Nov 22 (Reuters) - A tanker wreck off Spain has added a new environmental time-bomb to seabed horrors ranging from sunken nuclear submarines to Hitler's mustard gas that are too difficult or dangerous to salvage. Corroding toxic cargoes in deep waters are likely to haunt the world for decades before they break up or dissipate in the oceans. Nuclear waste will stay radioactive for thousands of years. The Bahamas-registered Prestige sank on Tuesday in waters 3,600 metres (11,810 ft) deep off north-west Spain, taking most of its 77,000 tonnes of fuel oil to the seabed after also releasing giant slicks that have blackened the coastline. Tankers such as the Castillo de Bellver, which sank off South Africa in 1983, or the Atlantic Empress, sunk off Tobago in 1979, took tens of thousands of tonnes of oil to the seabed after disastrous spills. That oil is apparently still aboard. "Experience indicates that cargo can be stable for decades once it is on the seabed," said Ian White, managing director of the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation. He said the oil was likely to coagulate as thick as "chewing gum" due to the pressure and the cold. But what goes down must come up, if it is buoyant in water like oil. In the best case, it will flow out slowly. In the worst, wrecks can suddenly crack open as they rust. Last year up to 91,000 litres (20,020 gallons) of fuel leaked from the USS Mississinewa, a U.S. military oil tanker sunk by a Japanese suicide submarine in World War Two off the remote Yap atoll in the South Pacific. The spill stopped the 700 islanders from fishing. That wreck is one of 1,080 World War Two warships charted in the South Pacific alone. DUSTBIN The oceans have been humanity's preferred dustbin through the ages but the long-term impact of toxic waste on fish stocks and other marine life, already hit by overfishing, are unknown. World leaders at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg in September agreed to reverse the decline in fish stocks by 2015. In one of the worst cases of deliberate atomic pollution, seven Soviet nuclear reactors with nuclear fuel aboard were dumped in the Arctic Kara Sea off the north of Russia. "These seven dumped atomic reactors can have consequences for many thousands of years," said Thomas Nilsen at Norwegian environmental group Bellona. "Dumping is a false pillow that passes the problem to the next generations." Nuclear submarines have also sunk in accidents, with reactors and warheads. "As far as I'm aware there has been no detection of nuclear leaks from these submarines to date," said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. "Obviously they have to be monitored...but this may be the best place for them," he said. Of two U.S. sinkings, the USS Thresher went down off the coast of New England in 1963 and the USS Scorpion sank in the Atlantic in 1968. Among accidents by the Soviet Union's fleet, a "November" class submarine sank in the Atlantic off Spain in 1970, a "Yankee" class sank off Bermuda in 1986 and a Mike class submarine sank off Norway in 1989. In a rare salvage, the Russian Kursk was raised last year after it sank in the Barents Sea in 2000, killing all 118 aboard after a torpedo explosion. And between Norway and Denmark dozens of ships were scuttled after World War Two containing mustard gas, a deadly chemical that burns and blisters, and other Nazi chemical weapons. A Norwegian report this week said that the wrecks showed little signs of corrosion and that sea-life around the wrecks was abundant. It recommended leaving the ammunition where it is. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************