NucNews - November 4, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety CT Power plant finds contaminated soil By JOSH MROZINSKI, Middletown Press Staff 11/04/2005 http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15513697&BRD=1645&PAG=461&dept_id=10856&rfi=6 HADDAM -- Elevated levels of radioactive isotopes were found in the soil by Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant workers Monday when they were excavating the eastern side of the spent fuel pool. Officials, who notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday about the discovery, think that the isotopes had seeped through hair-line cracks that were found in the spent fuel pool’s outer wall. Boron, a nonmetallic element that had been placed in the spent fuel pool to prevent nuclear fission, was found on the cracks, indicating that there had been a leak. The spent-fuel rods are no longer in the pool, which only contains water. Connecticut Yankee employees found the radioactive isotopes, identified as cesium 137, cobalt 60, strontium-90 and tritium, in a four-foot by four-foot area of soil. "We believe it is a small amount of water contaminating a small amount of soil," said Kelley Smith, Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman. "We are going to continue to excavate the soil further." Smith said that the radiological material did not reach the ground water and did not travel beyond Connecticut Yankee’s property. Stainless steel and six-foot thick walls line the spent-fuel pool. Soil around three of the four sides of the spent fuel pool have been excavated and proven clean, said Smith. Connecticut Yankee, which began decommissioning its plant in 1998, had stored spent-fuel rods in the pool. This year the last of the spent-fuel rods and radioactive reactor vessel metal pieces were placed in casks that were brought to a storage pad three-quarters of a mile away from the plant site. Smith said that it is impossible to tell how long the water had been seeping through the cracks. She added that if the leak had been worse a larger area would have been contaminated. "There is no active leak," said Smith. Connecticut Yankee workers have previously excavated radioactive soil. Bedrock in one area of the plant that had tested positive for low radioactivity was excavated in September. The bedrock, contaminated with strontium 90, will be removed from the plant property. Smith said that the plant area is where Connecticut Yankee officials had expected to find levels of radioactivity because that is where nuclear power had been produced. She said finding the contamination will not slow decommissioning. Monday’s discovery has triggered a response from the NRC and stunned First Selectman Tony Bondi. Next week the NRC will investigate the incident when representatives visit the plant. An inspection had already been scheduled. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said decommissioning is going smoothly. The state Department of Environmental Protection and NRC will not consider decommissioning complete until Connecticut Yankee reduces the radiation exposure level of its property to less than 19 millirems per year. Bondi said he spoke with NRC and Connecticut Yankee officials, who assured him that the leak was small. He said that the continued discovery of contamination makes it less likely Connecticut Yankee would be able to sell or transfer the land to another owner. Connecticut Yankee officials have indicated that their property will most likely become open space. "As we moved on through the decommissioning, more things are coming out," said Bondi. To contact Josh Mrozinski, call (860) 347-3331, ext. 222 or e-mail jmrozinski@middletownpress.com ---- Indian Point leak sources found By GREG CLARY gclary@thejournalnews.com THE NY JOURNAL NEWS November 4, 2005 http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051104/NEWS02/511040325/1025/NEWS09 BUCHANAN — Entergy engineers told a group of elected and public officials yesterday that they have isolated three locations inside Indian Point 2's spent-fuel pool that may be the source of leaking radioactive water at the site and will start to work on those areas next week. They also said they will start drilling at least five new wells at the same time to make sure the leak has been contained properly. Though the tests are not yet conclusive, engineers said the flaws in the tank — which range in size from 1 to 6 inches — were discovered this week at joints along a quarter-inch stainless steel pool liner during an underwater-camera inspection of the 400,000-gallon tank. By next week, a diver will go into the pool and place a box over two of the locations — between 16 and 22 feet from the top of the 40-foot-deep pool — to create a vacuum and verify if the flaws are actual openings. If the leaks are coming from those locations, officials said, divers will seal the spots with new welds or an industrial coating. The third location, according to company officials, is too far down to allow a diver and would have to be sealed by another means, which engineers still are considering. The five new wells, as deep as 90 feet into the ground, will be dug to test how the underground water around the fuel pool is moving. State health officials yesterday asked for samples of the earth and water collected during those borings and were promised they could independently analyze whatever is found. Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state's Department of Environmental Conservation yesterday corroborated the leak findings, which were announced during a presentation and tour of the plant for about four dozen elected officials, their representatives and members of government agencies. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the owner of Indian Point, invited the group to answer officials' growing concerns and questions about the leak, which was discovered in late August and continues to produce between 1 and 2 liters of radioactive water per day. "We don't have all the answers," said Fred Dacimo, an Entergy vice president in charge of Indian Point. "We're working to get all the answers." Two hairline cracks at the base of the spent-fuel tank were found Aug. 22 during an excavation to put in a new crane to handle spent-fuel assemblies as they're being moved in and out of water for storage. Since then, samples near the leaks have turned up cesium, cobalt and tritium, all radioactive elements. Tritium, the weakest of those, was the only material found far from the leak site, officials said, probably because it can be carried in water through the ground, while the other two materials were likely stopped by dirt. Yesterday's visitors watched as workers continued to excavate 30 feet below ground level, at the base of the spent fuel pool, while a plastic sheet connected to a hose collected whatever water came through the wall. Initially, engineers said it took days just to collect 2 teaspoons of water to be analyzed. The water is being collected and disposed of properly, Entergy officials reiterated yesterday. Both plant officials and those from the NRC said there was no threat to public health or workers at the plant. After touring the site of the leak, near excavation work at the southwest corner of the spent-fuel storage pool at Indian Point 2, and the locations of wells used to check for further leaking, officials from Westchester, Putnam and Rockland counties said they had a better idea of what the problem was and what Entergy was doing to fix it. "I think it puts things in perspective," said Susan Tolchin, Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano's chief adviser. "I thought it was a really good presentation. It could have been worse." Tolchin, who said Entergy's effort to educate leaders about the leak didn't change Spano's call for the plant's closing, called on the NRC to expand its monitoring of older spent-fuel pools nationwide, a suggestion NRC officials at the meeting said was under consideration. Assemblywoman Sandra Galef, D-Ossining, who attended the tour, asked Indian Point officials for more frequent and comprehensive updates. U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-Harrison, who sent a representative, in a later statement said the NRC must provide "independent oversight of Indian Point to ensure that local officials and the public have accurate and up-to-date information on any potential health and safety risks." Dacimo said he would ensure that stakeholders were updated via conference calls every few weeks. NRC officials said they also would increase their efforts to inform the public. ---- Preliminary Information on the Potential for Columbia River Contamination from the Hanford Site November 4, 2005 Department of Energy http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0677r.pdf The Honorable David L. Hobson Chairman The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Subject: Department of Energy: Preliminary Information on the Potential for Columbia River Contamination from the Hanford Site The Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford site in southeastern Washington state was established in 1943 to produce nuclear materials, especially plutonium, for the nation's defense. The site occupies 586 square miles northwest of the cities of Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick, with a combined regional population of over 200,000. The Columbia River, the nation's second largest river and a source of hydropower production and drinking water for downstream communities, as well as a major route for salmon migration, flows through the site for almost 50 miles. DOE built nine nuclear reactors to produce plutonium and other materials near the river shore to take advantage of river water for reactor cooling. Several miles away from the river, DOE built other facilities used in making nuclear materials. During operations from 1943 to 1989, activity at these reactors and other facilities generated large volumes of hazardous and radioactive waste. Some of this waste was deposited directly into the ground in trenches, injection wells, or other facilities designed to allow the waste to disperse into the soil. Some of the most hazardous and radioactive material was stored in large underground tanks. Over time, concern has developed about the impact of Hanford's waste moving through the ground and toward the Columbia River. Besides the waste discharged directly into the ground, DOE has assumed, based on tank monitoring data and other techniques to detect contamination in the soil, that 67 of the 177 underground storage tanks have also leaked contaminants into the soil. Many types of hazardous and radioactive waste produced at Hanford can be borne by water through the ground. While Hanford is a near-desert location with limited rainfall and thick layers of soil and rock beneath its surface, water from precipitation and other sources moves through these layers, and the groundwater moves in the general direction of the river. In the center of the site, the groundwater is more than 200 feet below the surface, but at the river, the groundwater is at or near river level. Over time, the movement of these contaminants through the "vadose zone"-the span of soil and rock between the surface and the groundwater beneath-has resulted in a number of contaminant "plumes." These plumes are volumes of contamination extending downward and outward from their sources. When these plumes reach the level of the groundwater, the contamination they contain enters the groundwater. In some cases, contamination from these plumes has already reached the river. Since the early 1990s, DOE has shifted its efforts at the Hanford site from production of nuclear materials to cleaning up the contamination and other materials left over from the production era. DOE carries out these activities primarily under the requirements of two environmental laws: (1) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), and (2) the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA). Milestones and requirements for this cleanup are specified in an agreement between DOE and its regulators--the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology.1 DOE spends about $2 billion per year on the cleanup of the Hanford site and estimates that the cost of Hanford's cleanup effort will eventually total about $45 billion and will be completed around 2035. The cleanup effort includes exhuming and treating buried waste, cleaning up facilities, and other necessary steps, including protecting the Columbia River by keeping contamination from migrating through the groundwater to the river. To this end, DOE established a groundwater management program at Hanford in 1997. Overall efforts to address groundwater and related activities, such as eliminating contaminated soil and monitoring river water and sediments, received about $100 million in fiscal year 2005. This report responds to your request for preliminary information about DOE's efforts to address river contamination. It addresses (1) the past, current, and future sources of contaminants to the Columbia River and the status of the contaminant plumes that threaten the river; and (2) DOE's planned approach to prevent contamination from reaching the Columbia River and DOE's efforts to implement its plan. To address these objectives, we reviewed key documents, including Hanford's 2003 Groundwater Management Plan, the 2004 Hanford Site Groundwater Strategy, and various other DOE technical, budget, and cost related reports. We also reviewed a 2001 National Academy of Sciences study and two recent DOE Inspector General reports on Hanford's groundwater protection program.2 We visited various groundwater protection projects at the Hanford site and discussed river contamination issues with DOE and contractor officials at Hanford and with state and federal regulators. In reviewing the data related to the groundwater and river programs, we determined that it was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We conducted our work from August through October 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. On September 21, 2005, we briefed your staff on our results to date. This report summarizes that briefing, and includes the briefing slides we presented. Our work on these objectives is continuing. We plan to complete our work and issue a final report in the spring of 2006. Sources and Extent of Contamination from the Hanford Site that May Threaten the Columbia River Sources of contaminants to the groundwater-and possibly the Columbia River-are numerous and stem both from past production activities, current and future cleanup efforts, and the permanent storage of waste on the Hanford site. While some contamination has already reached the river, DOE has found that it is barely detectable in the water because of the high volume of water in the river, which dilutes the contamination. DOE routinely monitors the river's water quality, which meets federal drinking water standards. Sources of Contamination Contamination from the Hanford site that may threaten the Columbia River includes (1) contamination that resulted from disposal activities during the era in which DOE produced nuclear material; (2) contamination that could occur during cleanup activities, such as from an accidental spill; and (3) possible future migration of contamination from waste that will be permanently disposed of on the Hanford site in accordance with the cleanup actions DOE and the regulators plan to use. Contamination from production era. Contamination at Hanford resulting from plutonium production (which occurred from 1943 to 1989) that is currently migrating to the river is primarily3 from: o Intentional disposal of liquid waste and contaminated water to the ground (about 450 billion gallons). DOE and its contractors disposed of this waste in various facilities including trenches, ponds, wells into which waste was pumped, and underground structures known as cribs that allow the waste to percolate to the soil. o Leaks into the soil from waste tanks and the pipelines that connect them (between 500,000 to 1 million gallons containing about 1,000,000 curies of radioactivity). o Contamination that has begun to migrate from solid waste (more than 710,000 cubic meters) disposed of on site in burial grounds, pits, and other facilities. The extent of contaminants coming from this waste is unknown but DOE believes it is not a major contributor to the contamination found in the vadose zone. These past practices, illustrated in figure 1, resulted in chemical and radioactive contamination currently affecting more than 180 of the 586 square miles of the site's groundwater and large areas of the vadose zone. As the figure shows, much of the Hanford site sits above the elevation of the Columbia River, with the groundwater beneath the site at roughly the elevation of the river itself. Contaminants entering the groundwater thus have opportunity to enter the river. While there are numerous contaminants now in the vadose zone and the groundwater below, DOE has reported that the key contaminants in the groundwater include hazardous chemicals (such as carbon tetrachloride, chromium, nitrate, and trichloroethane) and radioactive materials (such as iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, tritium, and uranium). These contaminants are of concern because of the extent of the contamination, its mobility in the groundwater, and the potential health risk. The health risk occurs because at sufficient levels, some of the contaminants are toxic to humans or fish while others are potential carcinogens. Potential contamination from current activities. Current cleanup efforts at the Hanford site could contribute some additional contamination to the vadose zone and groundwater that eventually reaches the river. For example, some of the waste put into underground storage tanks as liquid has since turned into sludge or saltcake.4 To dissolve it, more water will have to be introduced into the tanks-including tanks known to have leaked. This process may cause additional discharges into the soil. To minimize this risk, DOE is attempting to develop technologies that will reduce the amount of liquid needed. Another source of potential contamination from current activities is DOE's discharge of treated waste water into the river and soil as permitted by Washington state. This treated waste may still contain small amounts of contaminants, including tritium. Possible future contamination. Under DOE's cleanup plans and with regulator approval, a large amount of contaminants will remain on site even after the cleanup is completed. This contamination may be in buildings, in mostly empty underground tanks, in covered burial grounds and waste disposal areas, and in approved disposal facilities. Contaminants may leach out of these facilities in the future and join existing contamination in the vadose zone and migrate to the groundwater, where they could migrate to the river. DOE is currently using computer modeling to develop an overall analysis to estimate the effects of potential contaminant migration. Extent of Contamination Based on groundwater sampling results, DOE reports that plumes of contamination continue to move through the vadose zone and the groundwater and are leaching into the river. DOE estimates that about 80 square miles of groundwater under the site contain contaminants at or above federal drinking water standards.5 Because the groundwater and the river are at the same relative elevation, these plumes are leaching directly into about 10 of the nearly 50 miles of river shore on the site. Specific examples of this include: o Groundwater in one such plume leaching into the river contains uranium at up to three times the federal drinking water standard. This groundwater enters the river about four miles above the drinking water intake for the city of Richland, which has about 43,000 residents. o Strontium-90 is found in the groundwater at up to 900 times drinking water standards near the river and key nesting areas for salmon, which migrate to the Pacific Ocean and return to lay their eggs. o Chromium is entering the river at more than twice drinking water standards. o Strontium-90, chromium, and technetium-99 have been detected in river shellfish located near the point that groundwater containing these contaminants enters the river. According to environmental monitoring studies performed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (under contract to DOE), because of the large volume of water in the river, the contamination seeping into the river from the groundwater is generally barely detectable after entering the river and the river water meets all federal drinking water standards. As required by various environmental regulations, DOE performs routine monitoring of water quality and aquatic life, and its conclusions are based on samples taken both above and below the Hanford site. For example, DOE's annual environmental reports state that no uranium above background levels is detectable at the Richland drinking water intake. DOE's Approach to Addressing Columbia River Contamination from the Hanford Site DOE's approach to addressing contaminants in the vadose zone and groundwater that threaten the river is to first address threats from contamination at sites located near the river or requiring immediate action and then to address contamination threats that are farther away from the river's edge. In conjunction with these efforts, DOE has a groundwater monitoring program to better understand the threats. These efforts are carried out by several DOE and contractor organizations. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the DOE Inspector General have issued reports noting concerns about DOE's management of the program. Addressing Threats from Contamination Near the River DOE's efforts to address contamination near the river take two main forms. The first is actively removing waste and contaminated soil as a way of reducing contaminants that could begin migrating. DOE has removed 6 million tons of soil and debris from waste disposal areas, burial grounds, and buildings since 1996. As of August 2005, it had done so at 354 locations on the Hanford site. DOE has been disposing of this material in a lined trench in the site's central area located about 5 miles from the river.6 DOE plans to complete cleanup of the river shoreline and areas near the river by 2015. DOE's second main effort to address contamination near the river is to treat the groundwater to prevent contaminants from further migrating. DOE has three main approaches to treating the groundwater: o Pump-and-treat. With this approach, DOE uses wells to extract contaminated groundwater, treats the groundwater in above-ground facilities, and reinjects the treated water back into the ground. Since 1995, DOE has operated five pump-and-treat systems to remove strontium-90, chromium, carbon tetrachloride, or uranium from the groundwater. Four of the five groundwater pump-and-treat systems that DOE is currently operating are intended to address near-river contamination of chromium and strontium-90. DOE spent about $8 million in 2004 to operate and maintain these 5 systems. o Chemical treatment. This approach has been used in one instance: DOE relies on a chemical barrier near the Columbia River to block chromium from entering the river near major fish breeding areas.7 The barrier consists of a 750-yard series of wells through which DOE injected a chemical into the groundwater that reacts with the chromium to change it to a less hazardous and less mobile form. o Natural attenuation. This approach relies on subsurface processes such as dilution, adsorption, and chemical reactions with subsurface materials to reduce contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels. A large uranium plume in the groundwater from past fuel fabrication activities is entering the river about 4 miles above city drinking water intakes. In 1996 DOE and its regulators agreed to allow the plume to dissipate through natural attenuation of the contamination. DOE is experiencing problems with all three of these approaches, leading both DOE and its regulators to determine that, in several instances, the results are unsatisfactory. More specifically: o In a 2004 report, the DOE Inspector General concluded that the pump-andtreat system to remove strontium-90 was ineffective and that the other systems have shown mixed results. A DOE Hanford project manager told us that while the four other pump-and-treat systems are meeting remedial objectives agreed to with Hanford's regulators, the system to remove strontium-90 is largely ineffective. DOE and the regulators have agreed to continue to operate the strontium-90 pump-and-treat system so that some treatment is in place until a more effective remedy is found. DOE has begun field testing of a chemical barrier to prevent the strontium-90 from entering the river. o In 2004, DOE reported that, based on groundwater samples, the chemical barrier for dealing with chromium was not fully effective, and that the hazardous form of chromium was detected beyond the barrier and close to the river. DOE is currently evaluating alternative approaches to contain the chromium or improve the barrier. o DOE's approach for addressing a uranium plume near the city of Richland by relying on natural attenuation is failing to control the migration of uranium to the river. According to monitoring well data, the plume has not dissipated over the 10-year period since the natural attenuation strategy was adopted. DOE is currently investigating the plume and ways to mitigate the problem but no treatment decision is expected before 2006. To improve its groundwater treatment and monitoring programs, DOE funds research and technology efforts totaling about $4 million a year. A 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences criticized DOE's technology development effort and identified several improvements needed, such as the need to develop new methods to understand the nature and extent of contamination in the vadose zone. In addition, site regulators have expressed concerns about the lack of technologies available to address contamination issues. While DOE is investing in some limited technology testing and development to support groundwater remediation, the DOE groundwater project manager at Hanford said that other program activities generally have a higher priority under current funding levels. Addressing Contamination Threats that Are Farther from the River For those production activities that took place several miles away from the river, DOE's efforts have involved four main types of actions: Characterization of the vadose zone and groundwater to help understand the risks. DOE is investigating numerous sites where liquid wastes were discharged into the ground and numerous areas where spills occurred to determine the extent and nature of contamination and how contaminants move through the vadose zone. The investigations involve activities such as reviewing operating records, sampling the soil, and analyzing results in the laboratory. DOE relies primarily on data from monitoring wells to identify the migration of contaminants and the condition of the groundwater. Once the investigation is complete at each group of sites, DOE will prepare a report proposing appropriate remedies. This report is due to regulators by December 2008. Upon regulatory approval, DOE plans to implement the remedies. Remediation of contaminated sites. DOE is studying potential problems from certain production era disposal areas in Hanford's central plateau which it believes may present a high-risk of waste migration. These disposal areas, which mainly received waste from facilities involved in extracting and purifying plutonium, are located about 8 miles from the Columbia River and between 200 and 300 feet above groundwater. At some sites, DOE is considering installing surface barriers to prevent water from infiltrating the soil and driving existing contamination farther toward the groundwater. For most of these sites, however, DOE is still studying the nature and extent of the contamination and its migration. Under its agreement with regulators, proposed remediation plans for these sites are not due until December 2008. Decommissioning unneeded monitoring wells. The Hanford site has over 7,000 wells for monitoring groundwater, the vadose zone and other purposes. Monitoring wells are important, but they can also contribute to pollution by serving as conduits for rain, snow melt, or other liquids to flush contaminants into the vadose zone and groundwater. About half of these monitoring wells are no longer used because of shifts in groundwater flow, lower groundwater levels, or problems with individual wells. The Washington State Department of Ecology, one of DOE's regulators, requires well owners, in this case DOE, to decommission unused wells,8 but no schedule is prescribed. From fiscal years 2003 to 2005, DOE decommissioned 257 wells. Reducing water intrusion. Water leaking from pipelines and from surface drainage is a source that can drive contamination from the vadose zone to the groundwater. DOE is modifying surface drainage and repairing leaking water and pipelines to reduce the discharge of water to the ground above contaminated areas. From 2001 through 2002, DOE took steps to eliminate water intrusion above some of the underground waste storage tanks by modifying surface water drainage and eliminating six leaking water lines. Also, from 2003 through 2005, DOE refurbished about 26,000 linear feet of water line to reduce the risk of leaks. DOE officials said that they are repairing Hanford's aging infrastructure of water pipes but much more needs to be done. They said problems will be addressed as funding becomes available. Groundwater Monitoring Program Monitoring groundwater and its effect on the river to detect and assess threats involves three interrelated efforts. First, DOE monitors groundwater contamination levels to detect new or increasing levels of contamination. These monitoring efforts have detected emerging plumes containing high levels of technetium-99 and/or tritium in the groundwater from certain waste sites. Second, DOE conducts studies to detect radionuclide and chemical contamination in river life and river sediments that could impact human health and the environment. DOE has detected such contamination but the effects of the contamination are not fully understood. Third, DOE uses the results of these monitoring efforts to identify, propose, and evaluate remedial actions and treatment strategies. These efforts are ongoing. Program Management While DOE has had a groundwater monitoring and management effort for years, some studies have raised concerns about DOE's management of the program. DOE first took steps to establish a comprehensive and integrated groundwater and vadose zone program in response to a 1998 GAO report.9 In a 2001 review of DOE's groundwater science and technology efforts, the National Academy of Sciences expressed concern about management of DOE's integrated program. The Academy reported that responsibility for the groundwater program was distributed among two DOE offices and eight site projects. It reported that DOE had superimposed its integration program over a collection of preexisting, highly complex projects, which left unclear who had authority for making final cleanup decisions. The Academy also reported that it was unclear which project had responsibility for achieving results from technology development efforts. Although DOE had reorganized the program by 2002, various program elements continue to be fragmented among two DOE site operations offices (the Richland Operations Office and the Office of River Protection) and four site contractors. The DOE Inspector General also raised concern about management of the groundwater effort at Hanford. He noted in a 2004 review of the groundwater program that actions DOE planned to take, such as installing surface barriers on the ground to prevent water infiltration, may be premature. Since a final end state for the groundwater has not been agreed to between DOE and the regulators, these expensive barriers may be inconsistent with final remedies. However, DOE officials said that the proposed surface barriers are needed to protect the groundwater from further degradation and the barriers will be installed in consultation with site regulators. Because of these issues, the potential for inefficiencies still exists in DOE's efforts to protect the Columbia River. We provided a draft of this report to DOE's Office of Environmental Management, the Richland Operations Office, and the Office of River Protection. We obtained views on the report's contents from the Deputy Manager of the Richland Operations Office and other officials from each of these offices who were knowledgeable about DOE's efforts to protect the Columbia River. DOE generally agreed with our report's findings. However, DOE did not fully agree with the information we cited from the Inspector General's 2004 report that installing surface barriers to prevent water infiltration may be premature since final cleanup standards have not been established. We modified our report to more fully explain DOE's strategy for using surface barriers. DOE also offered technical comments on the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, we will make copies of this report available to others upon request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Major contributors to this report include Chris Abraham, Nancy Kintner-Meyer, Jeff Larson, Tom Perry, Stan Stenersen, and Bill Swick. Gene Aloise Director, Natural Resources and Environment Enclosure: Briefing for Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, House Committee on Appropriations September 21, 2005 (Full document at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0677r.pdf ) Footnotes: 1 Formally titled the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, it is better known as the Tri-Party Agreement. The Agreement was signed in May 1989. 2 National Research Council, Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford (Washington, DC: 2001); Office of Inspector General, Groundwater Remediation Activities at Hanford, DOE/IG-0655, (Washington, DC: July 22, 2004); and Office of Inspector General, Well Decommissioning Activities at the Hanford Site, DOE/IG-0670, (Washington, DC: Jan. 3, 2005). We did not assess the scientific content of these reports. 3 In addition, during Hanford's past operations, DOE directly discharged to the river contaminated cooling water from the reactors containing about 110 million curies of mostly short-lived radionuclides. (Radioactivity is measured in curies. One curie equals 37 billion atomic disintegrations per second.) Operations also resulted in air emissions of about 20 million curies from 1944 to 1972. The portion that went to the river is unknown. These discharges are no longer occurring. 4 Saltcake is a moist sand-like material such as sodium salts that have crystallized from the waste. 5 While the groundwater at Hanford is generally not used as a source for drinking water, drinking water standards are still a common measure of the extent of contamination. The EPA sets the maximum contaminant level which is the maximum amount of a contaminant allowed in water delivered to a user of any public water system. This is the federal standard for the contaminant. 6 Because the waste will be permanently on the site, it is possible that it will eventually leach out of the lined trench. DOE is currently analyzing the potential long-term impacts of this and other waste that will remain on the site. 7 Chromium is toxic to fish and this portion of the Columbia River is a major salmon breeding area. 8 Decommissioning of wells at Hanford requires removing or shredding the casing and sealing it with special materials. 9 U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Waste: Understanding of Waste Migration at Hanford is Inadequate for Key Decisions GAO/RCED-98-80 (Washington, DC: March 13, 1998). -------- australia BHP not backing nuclear power industry Friday, November 4, 2005 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1497489.htm Mining giant BHP Billiton says it has no plans to push for a nuclear power industry in Australia. South Australian Premier Mike Rann is touring the company's Olympic Dam uranium mine in the state's north, which may be expanded by its new owner. Despite a potential four-fold increase in uranium production at the mine, BHP Billiton's base metals chief, Roger Higgins, says nuclear power is not on his agenda. "Without the copper and the other products, the gold and silver, there wouldn't be a mine here," he said. "So the uranium is a very important by-product that's the part of the nuclear energy cycle that we're in and there is no policy in Australia for nuclear power and we're not interested in seeing that change, and if it does then we'll react to that at the time." -------- britain Four bids vying for Westinghouse-sources November 4, 2005 (Reuters) http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/11/04/four_bids_vying_for_westinghouse_sources/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News LONDON - Four bidders have been shortlisted to submit second-round bids of more than 1 billion pounds next month for British nuclear energy company BNFL's Westinghouse unit, sources familiar with the situation said. The bidders are General Electric Co. , which has teamed up with investment fund Cerberus, Shaw Group Inc. and two Japanese bidders, Mitsubishi Heavy <7011.T> and Toshiba <6502.T>, the sources said on Friday. They are now undertaking due diligence ahead of the offers, and BNFL hopes to decide on a preferred bidder by late in 2005 or early in 2006, the sources said. BNFL declined to comment. U.S.-based Westinghouse provides nuclear fuel services, technology, plant design and equipment for nuclear power producers. BNFL had bought the business, which employs about 9,000 people, from Swiss engineer ABB in 1999. One issue is whether U.S. regulators will favor the sale of the business to a domestic bidder, possibly foregoing the highest offer for political reasons, the sources said. ---- Nuclear terror fears over new synagogue editorial@hamhigh.co.uk 04 November 2005 Katie Davies http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED03%20Nov%202005%2018%3A28%3A14%3A480 Neighbours fear a synagogue planned for Chalk Farm could become a prime terrorist target. The synagogue is proposed for Adelaide Road beside the North London line, which carries nuclear waste trains to Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria. And residents say it will be a target for terrorists and could lead to an unprecedented attack on London. Henry Wood, 83, from King Henry's Road said: "The synagogue authorities have gone ahead without thinking what could happen in such a vulnerable site, not only to the people in the synagogue but to the public in general. The track serves mainline stations as well as nuclear waste trains. Terrorists couldn't have a better target than this or an easier one." Kim Jacobson, 50, of Constable House, Adelaide Road, said: "No one is thinking about these issues. It is a threat not only because of the railway but there is also a main road where a number of buses go past. It is very difficult but being a synagogue certain issues have to be considered." Residents are forming a petition against the building which has been proposed by South Hampstead Synagogue. The synagogue wants to relocate to the bigger site from its current premises at Eton Villas. Rabbi Shlomo Levin, said: "We are familiar with all the arguments but I think this is a bit extreme and far-fetched. "Residents can put their views across to the planning officers and at the end they will decide on planning merits. We are not coming out of nowhere - we have a synagogue up the road and there have never been any security issues." The nuclear train that carries waste from three power stations has been labelled a terrorist target in the past. London's Green Party compiled a 5,000-signature petition calling for the trains to be banned in October 2003 because of such fears. Jane Wood, 55, from King Henry's Road, said: "We've been assured that the nuclear train is secure but it is not a good idea to build something which could convince people into action next to it." Maureen Hamilton-Hill, 71, also of King Henry's Road, said: "The security concerns are strong, especially when you consider what recently happened in London." The plans for the synagogue will be discussed by Camden Council planning officers on December 1. katie.davies@hamhigh.co.uk -------- business Prison term requested for Dutch businessman over suspected illegal exports THE HAGUE (AFP) Nov 04, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/051104185540.vhovtdc0.html The prosecutor in the trial of a Dutch businessman suspected of illegally exporting material that could be used in the manufacture of an atomic bomb on Friday requested an 18-month prison sentence, news reports said. Businessman Henk Slebos, who is close to the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has been charged with exporting the material to Pakistan between 1999 and 2002. The ANP news agency said prosecutor Julia Horzinek asked the court at Alkmaar to suspend six months of the requested sentence but to also slap a 100,000-euro (120,000-dollar) fine on Slebos, and fines of 250,000 euros on his two companies. She asked that a suspected accomplice, Zoran Filipovic, who worked for Slebos, pay a 20,000-euro fine and do 240 hours of community work. Slebos and Filipovic have denied the charges and told the court the material did not need an export license. The verdict was expected on November 18. -------- canada Nuke storage idea has few fans in NWO By BRYAN MEADOWS Nov 4, 2005, 00:17 Thunder Bay Ontario Chronicle Journal http://www.chroniclejournal.com/thunderbay/publish/article_1467.php The Canadian Shield is suitable for nuclear waste disposal, says a new study by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. But there likely won’t be many Northwestern Ontario communities eager to have such waste buried nearby. In its final report submitted to the federal government Thursday, the industry-led group recommends radioactive waste produced by the country’s nuclear reactors be buried deep underground in mausoleum caverns of hard rock. It has proposed a multi-year management system which would include periodic evaluations and citizen input on whether to proceed, stop or reverse the process. The $24-billion master plan calls for the containment of used nuclear fuel deep underground in the granite-bound rock of the Canadian Shield, or in sedimentary Ordovician rock (in areas west and north of Hamilton and Toronto) that also has a low risk of fractures and underground water seepage. Through three implementation stages, lasting perhaps 300 years or more, the waste would be monitored and remain retrievable. A proposed mausoleum would not actually be built for roughly 60 years. If the proposal is approved by the Ottawa, the NWMO will begin a siting process for a central facility to store Canada’s two million bundles of spent nuclear fuel. Officials said the organization would not force any area to take the waste. “We intend to seek an informed, willing community to host the central facilities,” NWMO president Elizabeth Dowdeswell said. She told The Canadian Press “the issue that really gets people excited is where it’s going to happen.” Dowdeswell said it’s reasonable to expect to find a community willing to host a central mausoleum because that’s happened in Finland and Sweden. That may be so, but the Seaborn Report of 1998 found little public acceptance of the disposal idea. Opposition has been expressed by several municipal leaders in the Northwest. Some communities like Thunder Bay have proclaimed their territories nuclear-waste-free zones. Atikokan passed a nuclear-free resolution in 1990, but that was long before the provincial government announced it was going to close the nearby coal-fired power plant in 2007. Some wonder if the community will bite now. There would have to be “a complete community decision” to participate in the siting process, Mayor Dennis Brown said Thursday. “I certainly won’t be bringing that forward,” he said, adding that council also hasn’t discussed the issue. While “nothing is carved in stone,” Brown said “the only way” he’d be in favour of looking at the concept was after all the information was provided, and after everyone in the community voted in favour of it. In the early 1980s, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. conducted drilling tests in the Atikokan area, and community information meetings were held. The community eventually rejected the concept of burying nuclear waste in the area. Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Stan Beardy said community leaders in member First Nations haven’t taken a definitive stance on nuclear waste storage. But “we’re very strict in protecting the natural environment,” he added. Beardy said he plans to bring up the topic at NAN’s next Assembly of Chiefs meeting in January. At an Assembly of First Nations meeting in Regina this week, Union of Ontario Indians Grand Chief John Beaucage said he would advise any reserve on the Canadian Shield not to store nuclear waste on its territory. Beaucage said promises of large amounts of money may be enticing for poorer communities, but the long-term impact should be considered. “It might look good in the short term, but when you’re talking about nuclear waste there’s no such thing as short-term,” he said. The NWMO report says Canadians want a system for future management of nuclear waste put in place that “is safe, secure and fair.” The used fuel is currently safely stored on an interim basis in licensed facilities at the reactor sites where it is produced. “Our recommendation is firmly rooted in values that Canadians hold dear,” said Dowdeswell. “It commits this generation to take first steps now to manage used nuclear fuel we have created. And it is flexible, allowing for the ongoing involvement of citizens in decision-making about how it is implemented.” The NWMO will focus its siting efforts in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan — provinces with nuclear power plants. Communities in other regions which express an interest will be considered. NWMO’s Choosing a Way Forward report can be downloaded at www.nwmo.ca. ---- Lord cautious on nuclear waste storage suggestion Last updated Nov 4 2005 08:54 AM AST CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/nb/story/nuclearstorage20051104.html?ref=rss Premier Bernard Lord is taking a wait-and-see approach to a new report that suggests New Brunswick could be a storage site for Canada's nuclear waste. The final report of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization was handed to the federal government on Thursday. It recommends "a responsible path forward" for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. * LINK: Nuclear Waste Management Organization Canada is running out of storage room at its nuclear power stations, where used fuel is currently held on a temporary basis. The organization says that "in the interest of fairness," an eventual storage site will likely come from one of the four provinces involved in nuclear fuel production - New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is the world's biggest producer of uranium, used in nuclear power plants. The other three provinces have nuclear plants. "Communities in other regions and provinces may express an interest and should be considered," says the report. Lord said Friday he won't have a knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion. "I think the decision has to be based on science and data, what is the safest for Canadians," said Lord. But he added that because there are more nuclear reactors in central Canada than New Brunswick's one reactor at Point Lepreau, "it would probably make sense to do it somewhere else." Elizabeth Dowdeswell, president of the NWMO, says he organization hasn't determined if any location in New Brunswick is suitable to be a permanent disposal site. "That is something that we'll have to be looking at very closely. We haven't actually got into the site selection process," said Dowdeswell. The report also suggests burying the waste deep in rocky areas around Toronto and Hamilton. The best rock formations to bury nuclear waste are in the Canadian shield or some forms of sedimentary rock, said Dowdeswell. If the recommendations in the report are adopted by the government, the site should be chosen in about 30 years, says the report. Nuclear waste storage is controversial because the material remains radioactive for thousands of years. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is made up of energy executives from those four provinces. -------- europe France looks to cash in on nuclear revival Published: November 4 2005 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/de0762c0-4d6e-11da-ba44-0000779e2340.html Five years ago, Gérard Kottmann did not know whether the small French company he managed would survive. A leading supplier of nickel alloy tubes to nuclear power stations, employing 290 people, Valinox Nucleaire was facing a dearth of orders and no obvious prospect of any more soon. “Our industry was dead,” says Mr Kottmann, executive vice-president of the Burgundy-based subsidiary of France’s Vallourec group. “The refurbishment sector was not active, and there were no plans for new nuclear power stations. For all the members of our industry it was a question of survival.” Today however, the outlook is brighter than it has been for some time, as high oil prices and supply concerns prompt governments to reconsider the role of nuclear power in energy policy. In addition, Europe’s ageing fleet of nuclear power stations will have to be renewed in coming years. These stations, at an estimated 300GW, represent roughly three-quarters of the world’s installed capacity. For France’s long-established atomic industry, and the more than 100,000 people it employs, business is already improving. Five years ago, Valinox had barely a year’s worth of orders and was forced to cut its workforce to 90 people. Now its capacity has been allocated up to 2009. “The perspectives are getting better,” says Mr Kottmann. France is one of the world’s leading nuclear power generators, an expertise developed to secure supply after the oil shock of the 1970s. Today EDF, the soon-to-be-privatised electricity group, runs 59 reactors, which generate almost 80 per cent of the country’s electricity. Apart from Lithuania, no other country relies so heavily on nuclear power for its electricity. According to government statistics, the industry generates €3bn-€4bn ($3.6bn-$4.8bn, £2bn-£2.7bn) in export revenues a year. France also boasts the world’s largest nuclear group. Areva does everything from the design and construction of power stations through its Framatome joint venture with Siemens of Germany, to supplying and recycling the uranium that fuels them. Areva is expected to be one of the winners in the competition to build four Chinese nuclear power stations, one of the biggest contracts put to international tender in many years. At least two of the planned reactors are likely to be Areva’s new generation €3bn EPR, whose first model is being built in Finland. For President Jacques Chirac, selling France’s nuclear expertise abroad is an obvious way to help redress the country’s export weaknesses. Unlike Germany, France exports relatively little to the rapidly growing Asian economies. Last spring, when Jean-Pierre Raffarin, then prime minister, visited China, he took with him not only Areva’s chief executive Anne Lauvergeon, but dozens of smaller French nuclear suppliers, in the hope they would win business. Yet despite the obvious renewal of interest in nuclear power, insiders warn that it will be some time before the French economy really benefits. Despite increasingly optimistic noises, many European countries such as Belgium, Germany and Spain still have laws against the construction of new nuclear plants. And those that do not, such as the UK, have yet to commit themselves to development programmes. Then there is the time it takes to get a nuclear power station up and running. “Even in our best scenarios, where we imagine a huge surge in demand for new nuclear plants, it will take time for them to be built, and for them to be connected to power grids,” says Guillaume Dureau, Areva’s strategy director. The whole process from contract award to grid connection can take up to six years. “For the moment it is mainly about modernisation of the existing reactors and nuclear fuel services,” according to Mr Dureau. For Mr Kottmann, the delay is not necessarily a bad thing. The years of famine have left many of France’s small but vital nuclear power suppliers under-invested and with outdated equipment. Moreover, demographics are posing a serious challenge to the nuclear industry. “We didn’t hire a lot of people in the lean years and our pyramid of ages has shifted a lot,” he says. “We need trained people. Not only doctors and engineers, but skilled workers.” For that reason, France’s nuclear industry has formed a partnership with public research and higher education to lend the sector weight in winning international orders and government support. “There are only two clusters in the world that can do everything on a nuclear power station,” says Mr Kottmann, who is also head of the Pole Nucleaire Bourgogne partnership. “One is in Japan [uniting Westinghouse of the US with Japanese manufacturers], and the other is ours.” In the meantime, he says, even though the revival will not happen overnight, “we are feeling more serene”. The industry may not be cracking open the champagne just yet, but “the bottles are in the fridge”. This is the final article in a series about the fortunes of the nuclear power industry across the globe. Read the full series at www.ft.com/nuclear Atomic comeback Part 1: Nuclear solutions needed for intractable problems http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5369c638-392a-11da-900a-00000e2511c8.html Atomic comeback Part 2: German poll hinders nuclear revival http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e73fc6a2-3eaa-11da-a2cb-00000e2511c8.html Atomic comeback Part 3: Wind of change in US blows dust off nuclear facilities http://news.ft.com/cms/s/509bd614-43eb-11da-b752-00000e2511c8.html ---- French company to construct nuclear reactor buildings in Olkiluoto Construction to take three years 18:45 Helsinki time Friday 4.11.2005 http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/1101978933155 The French construction company Bouygues Travaux Publics SA has won the contract to build the buildings and structures required by for Finland’s fifth commercial nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto on Finland’s west coast. The supplier of the power plant itself, Framatome, announced the result on Wednesday. The three-year construction project should commence next summer. The deal is for the single largest construction project relating to the third nuclear reactor in Olkiluoto, which has been ordered by power company Teollisuuden Voima (TVO). Framatome sources reported on Wednesday that Bouygues won the contract in a tight competition, with the other participants coming from Finland, France, and Germany. Bouygues will carry out the construction work in cooperation with Finnish companies. The contract covers the reactor building, four security system buildings, as well as a building for the nuclear fuel. According to Framatome, construction companies will be asked for bids concerning numerous auxiliary structures within the coming year. Framatome did not publish the value of the contract. The structures will be among the largest construction projects ever carried out in Finland. The solid concrete outer shells are in compliance with the security design of European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) power plants. The reactor building is designed to withstand even being hit by a large airplane. The capacity of the new power plant will be 1,600 megawatts, and it should be operational be the end of the decade, beginning commercial electricity production in 2009. ---- Finnish Construction Trade Union threatens strike at nuclear plant construction site Dispute over union officials' access Friday 4.11.2005 18:45 Helsinki time http://www.helsinginsanomat.fi/english/article/Construction+Trade+Union+threatens+strike+at+nuclear+plant+construction+site/1101981470839 The Construction Trade Union has threatened to stop work at the construction site of Finland's fifth commercial nuclear reactor. A dispute has erupted between the union and the power company TVO over the granting of access to the site for union officials wanting to inspect the enforcement of the conditions of the present labour contract. Discussions on the issue are scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, and if they are not successful, work at the Olkiluoto site could stop later in the week. Kyösti Suokas, second chairman of the Construction Trade Union, says that he expects the talks to be successful, but warns that if they are not, a strike will be implemented rapidly. He also believes that support from other unions will be forthcoming; discussions have already been held with the Transport Workers' Union (AKT) over possible action at Finnish harbours. On Tuesday, the Construction Trade Union complained that its officials were being prevented from entering the construction site. "On Tuesday it was revealed that it is only possible to get in at the invitation of the companies", Suokas says. The union's organisational secretary Jukka Asikainen and regional chief Ismo Mansikka were turned away at the gate as they were trying to enter the building site to meet with Timo A. Kallio, the union's intermediary at the site. Suokas said that the union cannot accept such a decision. There are hundreds of foreign workers at the site, and this is expected to increase to more than 1,000. As Suokas sees it, only the Construction Trade Union can protect their interests well enough. The union has two representatives at the building site - Timo A. Kallio and occupational safety representative Jukka Lindgren. Suokas says that they cannot monitor all aspects of work at the construction site on their own, and that therefore, union officials need to have access to the site without a specific invitation from the companies in question. The head of the project, Martin Landtman of TVO, says that long-term passes are available only to workers at the construction site, as well as to state officials, such as representatives of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). "We have a legal obligation to act in this manner", Landtman emphasises. However, STUK official Petteri Tiippana says that TVO can grant long-term passes to anyone it wishes - including trade union representatives - if they meet certain conditions, and if there is a sufficient need. The conditions for a pass include a drug test and a background check, as well as half a day's orientation on the construction site. When TVO's Landtman was called again, he said that stricter practices came into effect when the earth-moving phase ended and the actual construction phase began. The Construction Trade Union's Mansikka has a different view: "Apparently the question is one of cultural differences. German and French companies see the trade union movement as an enemy, and cannot conceive that it could be a partner." ---- U.S. Nuclear Security Agency Converts Czech Reactor 04 November 2005 U.S. State Dept. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=November&x=20051104173721adynned0.200802&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html Russian-supplied research reactor no longer uses weapons-grade fuel Washington -- For the first time, a Russian-supplied research reactor has been converted successfully from weapons-grade fuel to a fuel not of weapons grade, after a secret mission that removed its weapons-usable fuel and returned it to Russia, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) says. The reactor belongs to the Czech Technical University, NNSA said in a November 4 statement. Its original fuel, highly enriched uranium (HEU), is one of two principal substances from which nuclear weapons are made (the other is plutonium). The Czech reactor has now been converted to use low enriched uranium (LEU), which is not suitable for use in nuclear weapons. The reactor was converted as part of NNSA's Global Threat Reduction Initiative program, in which research reactors are converted from using HEU to LEU fuel. This is done by developing high-density LEU fuels, and by assisting with the reactor conversion process. The assistance can include feasibility studies, conversion analysis and licensing support, according to NNSA. So far, 42 research reactors have been either fully or partially converted from HEU to LEU fuel, but this is the first conversion of a Russian-made reactor to be finished. "The Czech government is the first country to convert a Soviet-supplied reactor and should be commended for showing leadership that benefits international security," said NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks. This specific research reactor is a low-power, university training reactor, NNSA said. It had been operating with an HEU fuel core. The HEU (14 kilograms, or 31 pounds) was removed in secret on September 27, and sent to Russia as part of the GTRI's Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return program. The HEU was airlifted under guard from an airport near Prague, Czech Republic, to a secure facility in Dimitrovgrad, Russia. There the material will be down-blended to LEU. This was the eighth shipment of HEU from various countries (a total of 122 kilograms), according to the NNSA. After removal of the HEU fuel, the reactor was then converted to use LEU. In October, replacement LEU fuel was delivered to the Czech Technical University, and the research reactor was restarted with it. "We are proud to lead the way in nonproliferation efforts, and in particular we are pleased to be the first Russian-supplied reactor to convert to LEU," said Professor Karel Matejka, head of the Department of Nuclear Reactors at Czech Technical University. "We look forward to working with NNSA and other U.S. programs to further cooperation on nonproliferation efforts worldwide." The complete announcement is available on the NNSA Web site. (Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) ---- Armenia To Allocate $190,000-Plus To Build Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage From: "Katia M. Peltekian" Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:17:10 +0400 (AMT) ARMENIA TO ALLOCATE $190,000-PLUS TO BUILD SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE RIA Novosti, Russia Nov 4 2005 http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg128110.html YEREVAN, November 4 (RIA Novosti, Gamlet Matevosyan) - The Armenian government said Friday it had allowed the energy ministry to spend over $190,000 to build a new dry storage of spent nuclear fuel. The contract for building the storage was signed by the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant and France's Cogema Logistics on September 30, 2005. Plant director Gagik Markosyan said Cogema Logistics would share its technology with Armenia and consult the republic on the construction of the facility. Markosyan said 24 new storage modules designed for 56 casks would be built. The first batch of spent fuel is scheduled to be loaded in September 2007. Armenia's first dry storage facility was built by France's Framatom. It was commissioned in 2000 and currently stores about 600 spent nuclear fuel casks. Armenia's nuclear power plant was opened in 1980 and shut down in March 1989 for political reasons, but was reopened in November 1995 during an acute energy crisis in the republic. Outfitted with a Russian-made first-generation reactor, the plant's second unit generates up to 40% of Armenia's overall power output and can remain operational until 2016, experts estimate. Since 1993, the republic has received a total of $80 million to improve security at the plant. Since September 2003, the plant has been run by an affiliate of Unified Energy Systems and Rosenergoatom, Russia's major electricity producers and its trust managers for a five-year period. The EU has said the plant should be shut down temporarily and it would be willing to provide 100 million euros in funding. Armenian experts, however, said building alternative power facilities would require nearly a billion euros. -------- japan Kelly reassures Japan on nuclear carriers’ safety Associated Press November 04, 2005 http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1222447.php YOKOSUKA, Japan (Kyodo) — The commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Japan, Read Adm. James Kelly, stressed Friday the safety of the type of U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier the United States plans for deployment in Japan. In an interview with a group of reporters, Kelly said there is ”a good safety record” of past visits of U.S. nuclear-powered warships to Japan, noting that these vessels have called on Japan ”more than 1,200 times” without an accident involving the leakage of radioactive materials. While saying that “100 percent safety” cannot be guaranteed, he said, ”We must have something pretty close to 100 percent.” The United States announced in late October that Washington and Japan agreed that the carrier Kitty Hawk, based in Yokosuka, will be replaced by one of the nine Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in 2008. Kelly explained that the power output of the nuclear reactors on the aircraft carrier is around 40 percent that of a reactor at a Japanese nuclear power plant and that they are designed to be 10 times stronger than Japanese buildings intended to withstand major earthquakes. He said the nuclear reactor core is protected with four strong barriers. He said top officials of the U.S. government and naval forces have ”absolutely taken into account” the local people’s request that the Navy continues to deploy a conventionally powered aircraft carrier in Japan, but decided that such vessels are becoming obsolete and would not be able to fully deal with emergency situations in and around Japan. -------- korea Gyeongju officially approved as nuclear waste storage site 2005.11.04 By Yoo Soh-jung (sohjung@heraldm.com) http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2005/11/04/200511040019.asp The government yesterday officially announced Gyeongju as the home of the country's first nuclear waste dumpsite, kick-starting the stalled 19-year-old initiative. The southeastern city had a voter turnout of 70.8 percent and the highest approval rate of 89.5 percent to house the controversial site among four competing cities through a plebiscite on Wednesday. Confirming the vote results, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy yesterday stressed the voting process unearthed the overwhelming support of Gyeongju residents in a fair and transparent manner. The legitimacy of the country's first plebiscite vote tied to national policy is being questioned by civic groups. Environmental groups have raised concern about the safety of nuclear waste storage facilities. "Since the site was selected by a direct vote of the people, there should be no attempt to avert future progress," said Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy Lee Hee-beom. "It was a democratic process and the government will give our utmost efforts in completing the project." The Commerce Ministry is in charge of the project. Minister Lee assured that the dumpsite will be safe and environmentally friendly. The government is aiming to complete the storage site by 2008 in the Yangbuk area of Gyeongju, which is 371 kilometers southeast of Seoul. The host city will receive a state subsidy of 300 billion won and a multi-billion won sub-atomic particle accelerator. It will also become the headquarters of the state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. Observers describe the government assistance as an economic windfall estimated to reach several trillion won. The commerce minister stressed the necessity of nuclear energy. He said that the country's electricity costs stayed almost unchanged for the last 20 years because 40 percent of the generated power comes from atomic energy. "The quality of electricity provided to Koreans is one of the world's best, and it is out of necessity that the public accept the idea of storing nuclear waste," said Lee. He noted that discussions on highly radioactive waste will take place in the future. Korea, scarce of natural resources, currently has 20 nuclear power plants in operation. By 2015, 10 more nuclear power plants are expected to be completed - but they have no facilities to store high-level radioactive wastes. A permanent storage facility needs to be established by 2008 at the latest, as existing facilities have limited storage capacity, the central government says. The government assures that high-level nuclear waste such as spent fuel will not be stored in the new site. Storage will be restricted to low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes from the power plants. They include gloves, clothing, radioactive filters and byproducts of X-rays. For the three other cities that competed in the bid - Pohang, Yeongdeok and Gunsan - the minister said discussions are underway to provide assistance in the context of promoting balanced regional development. Gunsan had 84.4 percent of voters who supported the plan, more than Yeongdeok's 79.3 percent. Pohang had a turnout of 47.2 percent with 67.5 percent approval. The winning region needed a turnout of at least one-third of eligible voters, along with the highest majority of supporters. Some opposing groups said they plan to take the "unfair" voting to court to block the building of the waste site. -------- security 'Dirty Bomb' Seen As the Likeliest WMD By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent October 4, 2005 http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051101/API/511010849&cachetime=5 A truck carrying a container destined for for export to the U.S. and elsewhere drives into a screening facility designed to spot dirty bombs in containers at Rotterdam harbor, Netherlands, Sept. 20, 2005. (AP Photo/Bas Czerwinski) Truckloads of vegetables, dishware, even cranberry juice are setting off the radiation alarms at Europe's biggest port, as thousands of shipping containers bound for America pass through Rotterdam's new "dirty bomb" detectors. "They talk about our 'false' or 'innocent' alarms," Dutch Customs' Bert Wiersema said of his equipment, sensitive to even traces of radioactivity. "It doesn't matter. We want to detect everything." And so far, over 18 months, they've detected everything but bombs. The Dutch are learning daily lessons in a 21st-century school of counterterrorism, pioneering use of technology Washington would like to see deployed at shipping hubs around the world, a forward defense against any terrorist bid to sneak a radiation dispersal device, or dirty bomb, into an American port. Such hypothetical weapons, pairing ordinary explosives with radioactive material, are seen as the likeliest "weapon of mass destruction" terrorists might use. They topped the list in a U.S. Senate survey in June of 85 government officials and other U.S. and international experts. From Siberia to the U.S. heartland, teams are busy locking down potential sources of dirty-bomb material, such as disused radiation therapy equipment. But how serious is the threat? Only 40 percent in that survey thought such an attack likely in the next 10 years. Many experts note that, unlike a nuclear bomb, a radiological device wouldn't cause tens of thousands of casualties or "mass destruction." Some complain the news media overplay the potential and underplay the difficulty of assembling such a weapon. An example from Russia's rebellious Chechnya illustrates that difficulty: In 1999 three looters tried to steal rods of highly radioactive cobalt-60 from an abandoned chemical factory. All three died of radiation exposure, one reportedly within 30 minutes. "It's not a trivial thing to do, build a dirty bomb. It's not simply a matter of tying a rod of cesium to a couple of sticks of dynamite and running away," said physicist Benn Tannenbaum, who has studied the question for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The rods, powders and pellets of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and other radioactive isotopes are housed in tens of thousands of heavily shielded pieces of equipment worldwide - for cancer radiation therapy, in industrial gauges, in food irradiators, among other uses. Old portable generators from Soviet days, powering Arctic beacons and other remote instruments, are among the most dangerous, each holding the equivalent of the strontium-90 radioactivity released by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. The Russians, with U.S. aid, have recovered 72 strontium generators and about 1,000 other disused or abandoned radioactive sources. In the United States itself, the Energy Department has recovered about 11,000 of these "orphan" sources, under a program greatly accelerated since the Sept. 11 attacks. Thousands more remain out there worldwide, including hundreds more old generators. In former Soviet republics, from Estonia to Tajikistan, the International Atomic Energy Agency has helped secure about 100 sources. But IAEA program chief Vilmos Friedrich said those were "the highest priority only. The job is not complete by any means." If a cache of iridium-192 or thulium-170 does fall into the wrong hands, U.S.-bound smugglers would have to evade almost 500 radiation monitors installed at U.S. land crossings, seaports and mail facilities in recent years. Washington is working to extend that line of defense abroad, to container ports of origin. But thus far only Rotterdam and Piraeus, Greece, participate in the "Megaports" network. Others have been slow to accept the added expense and the risk of delaying cargo traffic. Customs manager Wiersema says he's heard few complaints from shippers about delays, and Dutch Customs has ordered 30 more monitors - at a total cost of at least $18 million - to add to the four on loan from the Americans. At a container terminal at the heart of Rotterdam's vast harbor, the routine looks smooth. Trucks hauling 40-foot seagoing containers toward their cargo ships first roll slowly between two 20-foot-high white pillars, housing detectors that profile any gamma or neutron radiation on computer screens in a nearby command post. Manning those screens, Wiersema's agents are now expert readers of the distinctive "signatures" of vegetables, ceramics and other items with slightly radioactive minerals. If anything's suspicious, they order the container to an enclosure where powerful X-rays probe for material that is extremely dense, like radioisotopes. None has turned up, and that's fine, Wiersema said. "This isn't cocaine or cigarettes," his agents' usual smuggling haul. "There aren't a million bombs. But it's important for prevention. They know we're here." The greatest deterrent to would-be bombers remains the radiation itself. How would novices extract, handle, transport such material? "Very quickly," Tannenbaum said dryly. "You'd wear lead underwear and a lead apron. You'd use tongs to keep yourself separated from it." Some experts even theorize, improbably, that relay teams of "suicide technicians" would be needed. An official U.S. planning scenario envisions a worst case: a bomb laden with powerfully radioactive cesium chloride powder, whose blast kills relatively few people, but whose long-term contamination keeps many blocks of a city uninhabitable for years. A dirty bomb, if not a mass killer, would be "an economic weapon and a fear weapon," said Carolyn MacKenzie, an IAEA radiation source specialist. "Spreading radioactive materials around can shut down an area for a very, very long time." But is a highly lethal load of radioactivity necessary? Some suggest a dirty bomber could achieve his goal, terrorizing a population, with a small amount of low-level radioactivity, posing little threat - as long as Geiger counters go off in New York, Washington or whichever city. The IAEA urges governments to plan carefully to keep the public well informed in such an emergency. Then, said MacKenzie, "it is up to the press not to inspire fear." ---- Feds Mapping Millstone For Security Reasons By PATRICIA DADDONA Day Staff Writer, Waterford CT Published on 11/4/2005 http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=8754f018-0e2e-4310-97da-83132442a300 Waterford — The National Geo-spatial Intelligence Agency, a combat support agency at the U.S. Department of Defense, is mapping 10 nuclear power plants from the air, including Millstone Power Station. Maj. Paul Swiergosz of the national defense department, which is responsible for homeland security and defense, would neither confirm nor deny the work nor explain the reason for it. “If called upon, we do have a responsibility to safeguard critical infrastructure here in the U.S.,” he said, which is part of a broad mission to defend the country. Swiergosz said he is “not at liberty to discuss the specifics of this mission ... for obvious security reasons.” First Selectman Paul B. Eccard said, however, that Dominion informed him of the scheduled mapping exercise last week, which the company portrayed as part of data collection and not a cause for concern. Had there been a threat, Dominion would have alerted him, Eccard said. “The reason I was informed was to be prepared about any inquiry from the public about any low-flying aircraft doing surveillance,” Eccard said. The contractor, Woolpert Inc., flew low over Millstone on Monday, said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Cessna planes are being used to map “critical infrastructure,” Sheehan said. The NRC will have access to the maps, Sheehan said. Bob Brinkman, a program director for Woolpert, confirmed the contractor's role, but wouldn't comment further. NRC spokesmen could not say Thursday which other power stations are being mapped. According to its Web site, the NGIA works closely with the defense department to provide “timely, relevant and accurate imagery ... in support of national security objectives.” Its staff include cartographers, imagery analysts, physical scientists, geospatial analysts, computer and telecommunications engineers, the Web site states. According to Brinkman and the company Web site, Woolpert is a consulting firm that provides mapping services in addition to engineering, architecture and planning tools to the departments of Transportation, Education, local, state and federal governments, the military and the private sector. -------- space Non-union crew to finish Boeing booster Striking workers question use of replacements BY TODD HALVORSON FLORIDA TODAY November 4, 2005 http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051104/NEWS02/511040351/1007 CAPE CANAVERAL - Replacement workers are finishing an upper-stage booster for the plutonium-powered spacecraft NASA aims to launch to Pluto in January, Boeing officials. Striking workers are questioning whether it is safe to do so. "I think they are playing with dynamite, personally," said Johnny Walker, business representative for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1163 in Cape Canaveral. "What they are fixing to do is very dangerous, as far as I'm concerned," he said. Boeing machinists in Florida, California and Alabama went on strike Wednesday after the union and the company failed to reach an agreement on a new three-year contract. Striking workers had been preparing a Boeing upper-stage booster that will be used to propel NASA's New Horizons spacecraft on the first flight to Pluto. The solid-fueled motor is the third stage of the Lockheed Martin Atlas 5 rocket that is to fly between Jan. 11 and Feb. 14. A delay past then would force NASA to postpone the launch until early 2007. Boeing spokeswoman Tina Lange said the company intends to deliver the upper stage as scheduled on Dec. 1. Replacement technicians and inspectors from Boeing's current work force were trained and certified in advance of the strike to finish work on the upper stage, she said. "We knew the negotiations were coming, and we wanted to put in place a contingency plan because this mission is very important and has a very strict launch window," Lange said. The New Horizons spacecraft is equipped with a generator that will convert heat from the natural decay of 24 pounds of plutonium-238 into electricity to power spacecraft systems. Contact Halvorson at 639-0576 or thalvorson@flatoday.net -------- u.s. nuc weapons Inside U.S. War Plans By William M. Arkin | November 4, 2005; 04:15 PM ET Washington Post http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/inside_us_war_p.html#more "Do Pentagon war planners game-play war against Venezuela? Of course they do," says WS, commenting on my blog saying that the Pentagon was newly eyeing Venezuela as a military threat and initiating war planning, "they probably game-play war against the Swiss!" "I'd guess that there are hundreds of contingency plans in existence," Dave comments, "perhaps … even including some developed to respond to changes in our current allies' positions." WS and Dave credit the Pentagon with far more prescience and capability then it actually possesses. Though there is an awful lot of contingency planning going on in this military-first, post 9/11 world, there aren't plans for every country or even for every potentially hostile country. On the other hand, under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the military has made radical changes in both its methods of war planning and the plans themselves, a move that ultimately eases the ability of the government to take military action. Since the act of preparing a war plan for a country like Venezuela has such profound political consequences, it is a system that requires much greater transparency. Here is my small contribution: According to Pentagon documents, my research and a lot of educated guesswork, the United States military currently has some 70 overall plans. These plans themselves take many forms, some being full-fledged war plans, others short fused "strategic concepts" for plans. Of the 70 operations plans, only 48 are actual plans contemplating combat with other countries. That is because 10 plans deal with the air defense of the United States, homeland defense and other domestic defense tasks while 11 are generic "functional" plans (FUNCPLANs) dealing with humanitarian assistance, counter-narcotics, peacekeeping, and other military operations in "permissive" environments. Of the 48, five are what are called "complete" OPLANs, or operations plans. OPLANs are prepared for specific threats (that is, specific countries) of "compelling national interest" where prospective large scale operations demand detailed planning, actual target lists, and the logistics and choreography worked out for a conflict. Of the five current OPLANs (and that is all that there are), one is the United States nuclear war plan (OPLAN 8044, and sometimes known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan or SIOP). Two are contingencies in Asia, one regarding defense of South Korea against a North Korea invasion (OPLAN 5027) and the other presumably a different Korean peninsula scenario (OPLAN 5077). Two war plans exist for the Middle East: one for Iraq (OPLAN 1003) that has already been implemented and another for an unknown contingency, possibly Iran. A sixth OPLAN (OPLAN 2002) exists, but it deals purely with homeland defense. Thirty-nine of the remaining 43 plans are what are called CONPLANs, "Operations Plans in Concept Form Only." These are operations plans in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling contingencies, plausible but not likely in the near term. CONPLANs can be prepared for smaller scale operations as well as for what are called non-specific threats. In addition to OPLANs and CONPLANs, there are four "strategic concepts" that have been more recently prepared. Though every OPLAN and CONPLAN includes the commander's statement of his strategic concept, stand alone strategic concepts are a post 9/11 invention allowing regional commanders to develop plan concepts, enemy estimates, alternative courses of action, and target lists prior to the completion of a CONPLAN or OPLAN. By regional command, the OPLANs, CONPLANs, and Strategic Concepts plans are broken down as follows: * Central Command (Middle East): 2 OPLANs, 7 CONPLANs, 2 strategic concepts * European Command: 10 CONPLANs * Pacific Command: 2 OPLANs, 12 CONPLANs, 2 strategic concepts * Southern Command (Latin America): 7 CONPLANs U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in addition to preparing the central nuclear war plan (OPLAN 8044), also has responsibility for three global CONPLANs, one for nuclear and conventional "global strike" (CONPLAN 8022), which is the implementation of the Bush administration's policy of preemption, one for ballistic missile defense (CONPLAN 8055), and one of unknown nomenclature (CONPLAN 80??) presumably for "information operations," or cyber warfare, STRATCOM's newly assigned global mission. The Joint Chiefs of Staff organization is also responsible for two weapons of mass destruction plans, one (CONPLAN 0400) dealing with offensive counter-proliferation and the other (CONPLAN 0300) for special operations support in the event of a WMD incident. A third JCS CONPLAN is for unknown purposes. Finally, it is presumed that the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has a newly produced CONPLAN to fight the global war on terrorism. For some contingencies, such as North Korea, there are multiple OPLANs and CONPLANs: CONPLAN 5026, 5027, 5029, and 5030 are all known to deal with different Korean peninsula scenarios. There are also specific OPLANs and CONPLANs for Iraq. You must be thinking if you've kept up with the arithmetic that with some 30 plans left, clearly there is room for Venezuela. Not so quick. Each of the commands has war plans for the "defense" of key allies: CONPLAN 4305 exists for the defense of Israel; CONPLAN 5055 seems to deal with the defense of Japan. Add up U.S. treaty commitments and deployments, and the number now shrinks to about 20. Then there are the one or two generic CONPLANs each command has to guide unassigned small scale contingencies. European command, in addition, has a new set of "non-specific" CONPLANs dealing with potential regional action in the Transcaucasus, the Baltics, West Africa, Equatorial Africa and Southern Africa. Pacific Command has regional plans for South Asia, the Southeast Asia mainland, and Southeast Asian islands. Central Command has a regional plan for the Horn of Africa; Southern Command has one for the Caribbean. So there are no more than ten plans that deal with specific "threats" and that has to accommodate one or more plans for Iran and China, possible contingency plans if thing go sour with Russia, additional contingencies dealing with Syria and Cuba, and yes, even Venezuela. So on the one hand there are generic contingencies for virtually every corner of the planet, as well as war plans supporting transnational global combat -- preemption, cyber warfare, the war on terrorism -- that cross command boundaries and can apply to more than one country. On the other, there are only a limited number of staff officers and a limited amount of resources. A decision to undertake serious planning for a new contingency -- such as a Venezuela -- is a big one. It is particularly burdensome on the intelligence community, which has to produce "threat" estimates and enemy order of battle and target lists. As planning software improves and the military moves to integrated network operations, the ease with which a plan can be quickly prepared will also increase. Already the Pentagon has shaved the time it takes in the old process to build a plan from 12-22 months to 4-6 months. With Rumsfeld's new "adaptive planning" initiative -- the draft Adaptive Planning Roadmap was approved on March 11 -- a whole new process of quick reaction plans is in the works. Today, as far as I can surmise, there isn't a contingency plan for Venezuela. But there can be one real soon. ---- Weapons specialists paint bleak outlook Posted on Fri, Nov. 04, 2005 http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/13066778.htm As I listened to a group of specialists on weapons of mass destruction at a recent public forum, I could not avoid a pessimistic shiver. To a person, they sounded less than optimistic about the future. It certainly is easy to understand why. After all, more nations than ever possess nuclear weapons. Access to chemical and biological devices has expanded, with terrorists especially eager to obtain them. Such weapons, particularly if used in combination with one another, could terrify, devastate and -- in the worst-case scenario -- obliterate the United States. I have long had greater concerns about biological weapons than chemical ones, and have engaged in an ongoing public discussion via this column with federal officials on the need to bolster U.S. capabilities against smallpox, anthrax and other agents. It simply makes sense to erect barriers where possible through the use of mandatory vaccines and the distribution of appropriate medicines, thereby removing certain biological options from the list of miscreants' options. Some progress has occurred but far less than what this nation requires. What about nuclear weapons? As former senior U.S. arms-control negotiator Jack Mendelsohn aptly noted at the forum, there are international prohibitions on the use of chemical and biological weapons -- but not nuclear ones. It is more than a bit ironic that the devices that could wreak the most damage have not inspired humankind to ban their use. Meanwhile, nuclear-nonproliferation efforts, while succeeding in some respects, have not prevented the nuclear-armed camp from increasing its ranks by about 50 percent in the past decade. It particularly disturbs me that all of those developments have happened in the Asia-Pacific region, which so many people had looked to for global leadership and development in the 21st century. The prospects of a conflict involving nuclear weapons in Asia may appear too frightening to consider, but they are as tangible as the region's economic prowess. An India-Pakistan scenario readily comes to mind. So does one involving North Korea that could precipitate a series of reactions -- including a push for nuclear weapons by Japan. Nuclear weapons also shadow the China-Taiwan dispute, and some Chinese officials, though subsequently repudiated, have openly discussed the possibility of using that country's nuclear weapons against the United States in a conflict. Of those situations, the Korean imbroglio deserves the most attention at present. North Korea, an embattled, suspicious, destitute, essentially isolated state with meager capabilities -- except in the military realm -- presents a natural nightmare scenario. Three times since World War II, the United States has found itself drawn into tensions that could have resulted in the use of nuclear weapons. Two -- the Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1973 Arab-Israeli war -- happened during the Cold War. The third, which focused on North Korea and its nuclear program in 1994, was a new-world-order issue. Former President Bill Clinton has received a lot of flak for believing in an arrangement with Pyongyang aimed at stopping that country's reach for nuclear weapons. Although Clinton's bid failed, it was the right decision for its time. And President George W. Bush, despite his early brushing of North Korea with the "axis of evil" label, has shown similar good sense by emphasizing negotiation. For the record, I do not blindly trust the North Koreans, but I think that they would prefer accommodation to military confrontation. Therefore, I side with Chung Dong-young, South Korea's unification minister, who recently urged more active engagement by the United States to build trust with North Korea and facilitate its movement into the international community. Is the Bush administration game? Perhaps. Christopher Hill, the main U.S. negotiator on the North Korean nuclear matter, reportedly is planning a trip to Pyongyang. Hill steadily has nudged North Korea toward giving up its nuclear-weapons program and re-embracing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Similar to the original Clinton deal, the quid pro quo in this case would be for North Korea to receive energy assistance and security guarantees. Chung also is correct in asserting that engagement -- not containment -- has worked effectively in other Asian countries, including China and Vietnam. What might Hill offer and secure in Pyongyang? Could the six-party talks that have yielded some progress on the North Korean nuclear program deliver even more when they resume next month? Might the Cold War finally end on the Korean peninsula? Is lasting peace possible? Is it realistic to think of reunification of the Koreas? Americans, Koreans and their negotiating partners owe it to themselves to explore the possibilities. The alternative would take them to a deadly, dangerous place that would inspire only pessimism. John C. Bersia, who won a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing for the Orlando Sentinel in 2000, is a professor at the University of Central Florida, where he is also special assistant to the president for global perspectives. Readers can write to him by e-mail at jbersia@orlandosentinel.com. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california Nuclear agency downgrades safety rating at Diablo Canyon David Sneed Fri, Nov. 04, 2005 San Luis Obispo Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/13083629.htm Record keeping errors during recent emergency drills have caused the federal government Friday to downgrade a key safety rating at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission lowered Diablo Canyon’s performance rating in the area of emergency exercises. During three recent drills, plant operators misidentified the exercises as actual emergencies on reports they submitted to the NRC. “We place great importance on the accuracy of the reports we receive from our licensees,” said Victor Dricks, NRC spokesman. “It’s significant because it reflects a declining trend.” Plant owners Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is responding by having plant operators undergo additional training to make sure they are filling out their NRC documentation correctly, said Jeff Lewis, plant spokesman. They hope to have the problem corrected by the end of the year. Read Saturday’s Edition of The Tribune for the full story. --David Sneed, dsneed@thetribunenews.com -------- nevada Who really owns Yucca Mountain? TRIBE SAYS IT OWNS REPOSITORY LAND; WANTS TO BE RECOGNIZED By ROBIN FLINCHUM SPECIAL TO Pahrump Valley Times, November 4, 2005 http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2005/11/04/news/yuccamt.html Members of Timbisha Shoshone tribe, some pictured above, express their concerns regarding the Yucca Mountain project at the community center in Tecopa. At far left is Jennifer Viereck; in the middle is Corbin Harney. TECOPA - A small number of concerned citizens turned out for a meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Tecopa last week, expressing their concerns about the looming specter of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain some 50 miles away. The Commission's team of representatives nearly outnumbered the citizens on hand, but Janet Phelan Kotra, senior project manager for the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, said she was gratified by the turnout nonetheless. For Kotra and her team, meeting with an anxious and sometimes angry public can be a perilous process, "but part of our job is to make visible what we do," Kotra said. So the small cadre of scientists, lawyers, and one charismatic meeting facilitator named Chip Cameron, journeyed out of Washington and into the quiet desert where the Amargosa River flows practically under their feet, carrying with it water from Yucca Mountain. It wasn't the first time they visited the area, and the team members greeted local residents at the door with information packets and friendly, if perhaps guarded smiles. Kotra's team has weathered plenty of unpleasantness in its effort to bridge the gap between the affected public and the federal government when it comes to the issue of nuclear waste. But in the end, as team members pointed out repeatedly, the Commission's only job is to regulate what the Department of Energy does. They did not create the need for the repository, nor do they have the power to eradicate it. "We are an independent oversight agency," Kotra said. In other words, they don't name the game or even the players; they are simply the referees. The Commission had little news to impart to residents, with still no firm idea as to when the Department of Energy might submit a licensing application to begin the process of constructing the repository at Yucca Mountain. But Kotra did speculate that it could happen as early as January of 2007, after which the Commission would have three to four years to evaluate the application and decide whether to license the facility. Although law limits the timeframe for the evaluation, Kotra said, "We will take as long as it takes to do the job right." For those on hand who expressed the belief that the Yucca Mountain Repository was unofficially a "done deal," Bill Reamer, director of the Division of High-Level Waste Repository Safety said, "There is no secret decision-making happening. This is an independent agency. I have to be concerned with that because we can not do the job if we can not do it independently." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is governed by a board of five presidential appointees, but Reamer declared that this did not affect is ability to function independent of partisan interests. Reamer outlined the license application and evaluation process in a slide presentation and Bill Ruland, deputy director of the Spent Fuel Project Office, discussed methods of transportation and the construction of casks designed to transport nuclear waste. The information was similar to that presented during the Commission's last visit two and a half years ago, but the primary purpose of the meeting, said Kotra, "is to make people aware of the process and how to contact us." The other reason, she said, was to collect public comment. Community meetings are recorded and transcribed, Kotra said, so that all public comment could be added into the official record and taken into account in the decision-making process. Comments included concerns expressed by Western Shoshone elder Corbin Harney, who has campaigned against the Yucca Mountain repository and the production of nuclear waste for years. To date, a dispute over the ownership of the land on which Yucca Mountain is situated has not yet been resolved, since the Western Shoshone have alleged the federal government does not have a proper claim. Kotra said this is one of many issues that will have to be cleared up before a license could be granted. "Everyone of us knows that radiation is killing us," Harney said. "We know that and we see it. What you're bringing today, it sounds good on a piece of paper. But you're getting paid to say these things and when you get paid, you cannot go against it." Barbara Durham of the Timbisha Shoshone in Death Valley and Bishop expressed frustration that the tribe's attempt to gain status as a unit of affected government in relation to the proposed repository had been met with little or no response from the Department of Interior. "The federal government needs to respect our tribal government more," she said, "and deal with us government to government." Durham said the Timbisha needed to achieve affected unit of government status in order to apply for funding to train first responders and, more immediately, "to hire people to represent us who talk your language." As in most issues of major concern to local residents, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's team has no authority in matters such as granting status to local governments. However, Kotra said she had helped the Timbisha investigate what was happening to their application in the past and could possibly do so again. "We as a federal agency had an interest in seeing (the Department of the Interior) answer their request." Transportation was also an issue of concern, though both Bill Reamer and Bill Ruland stated that California Highway 127 was presently not on the list of proposed designated transportation routes, and that some 90 percent of shipments would be made by rail. However, said Reamer, the final decision about transportation would not be made unless the repository was successful in its license application so it would be at least five years before Inyo County officials would have a clear answer to that question. In fact, the Commission's team offered no clear answers at last week's meeting, but rather their best efforts to inform and be informed about the future decision-making process within the narrow limits of their job descriptions. Public participation is crucial, Kotra said, and has affected decisions made by the Commission in the past. For instance, the final licensing application will undergo a formal hearing process before a decision could be made. At one point the commission considered doing away with that formal process, Kotra said, "but the people affected wanted to retain that process and it was retained." Public comment was an "overwhelming factor" in that decision, Kotra said. Kotra added that while the Southeast Inyo area was sparsely populated and the amount of public comment was numerically small, she very much appreciates comment by residents like Jennifer Viereck of Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth, a non-governmental organization dedicated to dealing with nuclear waste issues. Viereck asked detailed questions about the science of some studies submitted by the Department of Energy at the public meeting. "Jennifer is a very unusual person, very thoughtful and I have a high regard for her comments," Kotra said. Soliciting public comment is an ongoing process, Kotra said, and she urged residents of affected communities anywhere in the region of Yucca Mountain to read the public documents available on the Commission's Web site at: www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal.html, or to go to the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site at: www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/index.html. Many of these documents are still open for public comment, Kotra said. "The strength of our ultimate decisions will be better, the more we interact with a variety of views," she said. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com -------- new york Entergy briefs government officials on Indian Point issues Friday, November 4, 2005 Mid-Hudson News Network http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/IP_briefing-04Nov05.htm Local, state and federal officials were briefed yesterday on the source of the recent leak at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan. Plant operator Entergy also conducted a tour of some areas of the facility. Among those at the briefing was Westchester/Rockland Congresswoman Nita Lowey. "I am very upset that Entergy and the Nuclear Regulator Commission did not inform local officials about the leak in the spent fuel pool and the presence of radioactive material outside of the spent fuel pool sooner,” she said after the briefing. “While today's meeting could be an indication of a more open dialogue between the plant operators and the community, I remain concerned about how this situation was handled from the beginning. “ Lowey said the NRC “must provide independent oversight of Indian Point to ensure that local officials and the public have accurate and up-to-date information on any potential health and safety risks.” She said the “continued failure of Entergy to provide timely information about this leak and other safety concerns at the plants gives the community little confidence that we would be notified in the event of a larger, more dangerous problem at Indian Point.” Just days ago, the NRC said it would take more of an oversight role at Indian Point. -------- north carolina Brunswick County residents react to possible nuclear plant expansion Nov 4, 2005, 08:15 AM WWAY-TV3 http://www.wwaytv3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4072079 (Brunswick County) -- Most of the people we spoke with share the very same opinion. They believe expanding Progress Energy's nuclear plant in Brunswick County would actually benefit the community, but others say some potentially dangerous challenges need to be worked out before any final decisions are made. As children play soccer at a park right next to the Brunswick Nuclear plant, parents share their opinions about the possibility of one day seeing a third nuclear reactor here. "I'm not very educated about nuclear energy and what it does to the area and of course the threat of making us a bigger target maybe for things that we don't want to come here makes it a little scary," said Amy Briggs, a Southport resident. "I'm kind of excited about it, because it will bring more jobs to our community. It will also hopefully lower some of the cost of the energy that we're presently paying," said Tony Dail, a resident who's lived here for 25 years. Progress Energy says, not only would an expansion bring an additional 500-600 jobs here, the fact that it's an existing site is very attractive; but it's not an attractive idea to those who have concerns about evacuation routes if something goes wrong in such a rapidly growing area. Bobi Kellett said, "It would be very frightening, especially since we have only bridge to get out of Oak Island." Progress Energy spokesperson Mike McCracken said, "We recognize the evacuation challenges, but in the unlikely event of a nuclear event, there are very detailed emergency plans in place, but it's up to the county and state to address those evacuation issues." The spokesperson also said this plant hasn't had any major safety problems in decades. "No, but 9-11 happened and it could happen here," said Kellett. Others, however, are putting their confidence in the plant's safety record. Tony Dail said, "Living right here next to it I have never doubted that I was safe, that my children were safe. We've lived here for 25 years and we don't have a problem with it. No problem whatsoever." A final decision on a location for the proposed new reactor is expected to by the end of the year. -------- utah Nuke waste on ice? Deseret Morning News editorial Friday, November 4, 2005 http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635158463,00.html Thanks to now-retired Rep. Jim Hansen, a proposed nuclear waste repository in Skull Valley may be in stall mode. In 2000, Hansen inserted language in the Military Appropriations Act that calls for a moratorium on land-use planning in the Skull Valley area. The manager of the Bureau of Land Management's Salt Lake office believes the moratorium prohibits him from signing an agreement needed to permit Private Fuel Storage to build a railroad spur to its proposed nuclear waste facility. The moratorium will remain in place unless Congress lifts it or the Air Force completes a resource study, which it appears to be in no rush to do. Considering that the Utah Test and Training Range is nearby the proposed above-ground nuclear repository, it strains logic that the Air Force would do anything to facilitate the placement of an above-ground storage facility considering the small but undeniable risk of airplane crashes or mishaps with live munitions used in training exercises. The moratorium and delays in the Air Force resource review are glimmers of hope that the PFS facility could be in limbo indefinitely. It's welcome news. Neither the proposed PFS facility nor Yucca Mountain are suitable solutions to the storage of nuclear waste stacking up at nuclear power plants throughout the country. But if the waste is as safe as PFS officials contend, there should be no rush to move it to the interior West. Moreover, the PFS and Yucca Mountain facilities have finite storage capacity. They would soon fill with the waste that has now accumulated at nuclear power plants. What then becomes of the waste stream from ongoing electrical production at nuclear power plants? Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, says Hansen's legislative work is part of multipronged attack on plans for the high-level nuclear waste repository. On Tuesday, Hatch also released letters from the U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman and a letter Hatch wrote to Nils J. Diaz, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has approved — but not yet issued — a license to PFS for the facility. In essence, the Bodman letter says if Yucca Mountain is constructed, the need for the PFS facility will be reduced, if not eliminated. Moreover, the DOE does not consider the PFS facility "as part of the department's overall strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste." The letter also states that the DOE cannot provide financing or funding for the PFS project, which will be privately constructed. Hatch says Bodman's letter is particularly important because it tells PFS, "This is never going to happen." At the very least, the BLM memorandum indicates to PFS that the project is "a long way from happening." Credit Jim Hansen, who retired from Congress in 2002 after 22 years of service, for a heads-up legislative move that at a minimum will postpone the PFS project. It is incumbent on the current congressional delegation to pull out all the stops to halt the PFS project once and for all. -------- vermont Yankee uprate report is released to public By K. CECCAROSSI BRATTLEBORO Reformer Staff Friday, November 04, 2005 http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8862~3117518,00.html The public and interested parties can now get their hands on the federal review of a plan to boost power at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. All 330 pages of the highly technical report were released Thursday, two weeks after it was distributed to Entergy Nuclear, owners of the plant. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave Entergy first glance so officials there could redact any proprietary information. The report is a safety evaluation of the plant and the components involved in a so-called power "uprate" that would raise the reactor's output to 120 percent. Nuclear watchdog groups and residents critical of the uprate are not concerned about what details may have been censured in the report, but rather the limited time they have to pore over its pages before an upcoming public hearing with the NRC. On Nov. 15 and 16, an NRC panel will be at the Quality Inn in Brattleboro from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. In the afternoons, the panel will take comments. "The NRC is showing a huge disrespect to the people of Vermont," said Raymond Shadis, technical advisor for the watchdog group New England Coalition. But Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, said public access to the agency's review of the uprate has been considerable, citing two open meetings in the region since Entergy applied for the uprate in 2003. Earlier in October, NRC engineers issued a tentative review, saying they would proceed only if Entergy agreed to a set of conditions. The crux of the conditions was that Entergy would have to gradually increase its power to 120 percent and, along the way, keep closer review of any possible hazards the added pressure creates within the plant. The report released Thursday gives further details on NRC's position on Entergy's uprate application. The report is up for public scrutiny now, but it will also go to an independent NRC panel called the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety for review. It's members of that panel who will come to Brattleboro in two weeks to hear what local people have to say about the uprate. Panel members will give a statement to the NRC on the uprate and the NRC will weigh that, along with public input, when it issues a final safety evaluation on the uprate next February. The New England Coalition, along with the state Department of Public Service, is challenging the uprate before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, another branch of the NRC. That challenge, dealing with safety issues not addressed by the NRC's conditions on the uprate, is still pending. However, the uprate could be approved by the NRC while hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board are still under way. If that happens, the plant could begin running at increased power even as the safety of the uprate is being challenged. The state's Public Service Board must also sign off on the uprate. Although the board already approved the uprate proposal, it did so with conditions. The board has yet to decide whether the safety assessment conducted by the NRC is satisfactory or if an independent safety assessment is necessary. The NRC safety report can be found at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html Enter accession number ML053010167. ---- Yankee clears federal hurdle November 4, 2005 By Susan Smallheer Rutland Herald Staff http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051104/NEWS/511040383/1003 A plan to boost power production at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has passed its first major federal milestone. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's technical staff has recommended that Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear be given approval to increase power by 20 percent. The NRC said there were no known health and safety concerns about the proposed change. "The commission has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner," the NRC report stated. NRC staff said its main concerns had been addressed when Entergy agreed to additional testing of the Vernon reactor as a condition of its operation. The draft permit was actually released two weeks ago to Entergy, but not to the public until Thursday. The permit had been a big hurdle in Entergy's quest to get approval to "uprate" or boost power by 110 megawatts at the 33-year-old reactor. "It's definitely a milestone, a technical milestone," said Entergy spokesman Robert Williams. "It demonstrates that there is technical merit that this plant is an excellent candidate to be uprated." He added, "It's good news; the process now moves to the ACRS stage, and we'll continue to work with the NRC staff and provide additional information." Williams was referring to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, which will conduct hearings later this month to review the report. He said Entergy engineering staff had already completed dozens of technical and engineering reports and still must prepare to satisfy NRC questions about a variety of topics. Most of the concerns centered on the 33-year-old reactor's ability to withstand the additional pressures placed upon it by the power boost. The Douglas administration's main concern is whether the safety margins of the emergency core cooling system would be reduced needlessly by Entergy's new operating scheme. Federal regulators were concerned that Entergy engineers hadn't done enough to review the impact on a problematic steam dryer, which had failed in other General Electric-designed reactors that had adopted similar power boosts. Those issues have not yet been resolved on all levels of the NRC review and the earliest Entergy can expect its final permit is February, which would put it more than two years behind schedule. "This has been a rigorous review by the NRC," Williams said. "And we provided responses to their questions throughout." The 330-page safety evaluation will be followed by the next big report, an environmental assessment, which is expected to be released next week. And the week after that, federal regulators will be in Vermont for two days of hearings on the proposed uprate and will take testimony from interested citizens, according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC's regional office. The recommendation from the NRC staff next has to be reviewed by an NRC advisory subcommittee made up of nuclear industry professionals, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. That subcommittee, which is coming to Brattleboro on Nov. 15 and 16 for two days of hearings, will make a recommendation to the full committee in December. The final safety evaluation won't be ready until late February, Sheehan said. Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor to the anti-nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition, said the decision was being handed over to its experts for review. He declined to comment on the specifics of the 330-page report on short notice, saying the coalition would have comments at the upcoming federal hearings in Brattleboro. Shadis said the coalition had hired two new experts, both retired NRC scientists, who have concerns about the direction taken by the NRC in recent years. He said the safety evaluation was also being reviewed by its current experts, Arnold Gunderson of Burlington and Paul Blanch of West Hartford, Conn., a pair of nuclear industry whistleblowers. Shadis pointed out that the state Public Service Board, which granted a conditional permit to the power boost almost two years ago, has not yet signed off on the permit. The PSB has concerns that the special engineering inspection of the plant in August 2004 did not meet its requirements. Entergy convinced the NRC to allow the company to black out those parts of the permit that it considered proprietary information, resulting in the two-week delay in the permit's release. Sheehan said very little of the 330-page report was censored by Entergy. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. -------- MILITARY -------- arms Pentagon Eyeing Cuts in Weapons Programs By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer Friday, November 4, 2005 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/11/04/national/w014154S81.DTL (11-04) 01:41 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Struggling to pay for a costly war in Iraq, the Pentagon is considering as much as $15 billion in cuts to aircraft, shipbuilding and other weapons purchases as it begins to craft a budget for next year. Defense analysts and congressional staff say such reductions could hamper efforts to replace equipment worn out in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and outdated Cold War-era weapons systems. Any proposed cuts are likely to set up a fierce battle, as members of Congress — including majority Republicans — strive to protect programs that pour millions of dollars and thousands of jobs into their local economies. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said cutting critical programs like the F/A-22 Raptor fighter or the Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation aircraft, could face resistance. "Such shortsighted cuts may yield greater budget flexibility now, but will hamper our national security potential far into the future," Cornyn said of possible cuts to funding for both warplanes, which are partly built in Texas. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday said the department has to move funds around to ensure that the country gets what it needs to fight both conventional conflicts and unconventional threats, such as the insurgency in Iraq. Compounding the pressures are the government's record budget deficits. The federal government ended fiscal 2005 on Sept. 30 with a shortfall of $319 billion, the third largest ever. While Rumsfeld and other military officials declined to talk about specific spending decisions, defense analyst Loren Thompson said Gordon England, the acting deputy defense secretary, is looking to trim $12 billion to $15 billion from previous plans to spend $443 billion in 2007. Defense contractors have cited similar figures. The Army, Navy and Air Force would be responsible for cutting as much as $3 billion to $5 billion each, Thompson said. "The war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and domestic needs are all combining to put downward pressure on weapons spending," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute. "At the very least, this means a difficult budget year, with lots of disagreements between Congress and the administration." Overall, the cuts would slice about 3 percent from each of the services' 2007 budgets that were envisioned last year. Among the programs being considered for significant cuts or delays are the Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's next generation, all-purpose fighter, which is built in Texas; the C-17 transport plane, which is built in California; the Navy's new and expensive DD(X) destroyer, being built by Northrop Grumman Ship Systems; and a reconnaissance aircraft called the Aerial Common Sensor, which is being developed by a team led by Lockheed Martin and has had a number of problems. Military contractors are bracing for the cuts, or even decisions to eliminate entire programs. Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer Chris Kubasik recently conceded to analysts that the future of its reconnaissance aircraft was in question, saying, "it is premature to predict an outcome at this time." A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, said no decisions have been made on the fiscal year 2007 budget, which will be unveiled next February. But she said all the military services and Pentagon departments have been asked to think about possible changes, and "all options are on the table." Under the current defense budget, weapons purchases — for everything from fighter jets and destroyers to communication systems — would increase from about $78 billion in 2006 to $91.6 billion in 2007. Pentagon officials are looking to shave as much as $15 billion from the planned $91.6 billion, triggering what would be a rare reduction in procurement levels. "This year it looks like the defense budget is cresting downward," said Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with the Teal Group, a defense consulting firm. "The defense budget is flattening. We haven't recapitalized a lot of equipment. Worse still, most of the military inventory is being worn out at five times the normal rate." The result, said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is a classic dilemma. "Are we going to continue to pour billions into Iraq, or are we also going to prepare for future conflicts, hopefully to deter them, by having the most sophisticated equipment?" Reed asked. Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier — the CVN 21 — which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007. The ongoing spending discussions coincide with the Defense Department's quadrennial defense review, a broad-based look at what the military will need — in people, equipment and structure — to fight 21st century wars. The review is expected to recommend what types of ships, aircraft and other systems should be bought. -------- europe EU accepts denials of 2 members on CIA prisons International Herald Tribune FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2005 http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/11/04/news/cia.php A European Union spokesman said Friday that the EU had accepted Poland's and Romania's denials that the United States was operating secret terrorist prisons. "So far we have no reason to complain nor to suspect any unfair or inappropriate policy," said Friso Roscam Abbing, the EU spokesman for justice, freedom and security. The statements issued by the Polish and Romanian governments were "crystal clear," he said. He said that other East European countries should release similar statements to clear the air, and added: "We can't obviously let's say run with every allegation, every story, and just in a panicky way start interrogating and grilling member states." So far, Hungary and the Czech Republic, as well as Romania and Poland, have issued denials. Although Polish officials also categorically denied the existence of any detention, Romanian officials were more circumspect. Government officials declined to give direct answers to questions like whether Romania had ever cooperated with the United States over receiving detainees or had ever been asked to cooperate and whether the officials could explain the alleged CIA flight records. Human Rights Watch, a U.S.-based human rights group, said Thursday that Romania, scheduled to join the EU in 2007, and Poland, which joined last year, were sites for secret prisons on behalf of the CIA. The allegations followed reports in The Washington Post about the possible existence of secret detention facilities, but the Post report did not name the host countries Human Rights Watch said the group had obtained what it said were flight records of CIA planes that moved high-level detainees out of Afghanistan on Sept. 23, 2003, and landed in Poland and Romania. The human rights commissioner of the Council of Europe, Álvaro Gil-Robles said Friday that the reports "must be investigated" and would constitute "a serious human rights violation" if confirmed. "The possible existence of such centers in member states of the Council of Europe is extremely worrying," the commissioner said. "Such practices would constitute a serious human rights violation and further proof of the crisis of values that the use of certain methods in the fight against terrorism is provoking." In Europe, enforcing specific breaches of international human rights law is largely the responsibility of bodies other than the European Commission. -------- haiti Installed Haiti Government Files Suit Against Aristide Friday, November 4th, 2005 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/1532212 This news from Haiti – the U.S.-installed interim government has filed a lawsuit against ousted President Jean Bertrand Aristide in U.S. federal court. The suit alleges Aristide and several accomplices engaged in drug trafficking and stole “millions of dollars” in public funds. Aristide was ousted in a U.S.-backed coup in February 2004. He currently lives in exile in South Africa. Aristide attorney Ira Kurzban called the charges “baseless”, saying : "The lawsuit is based on a fraudulent report issued by the unelected officials who are temporarily running the Haitian government, and has no credibility." 10,000 March for Preval in Haitian Capital In other Haiti news, an estimated crowd of 10,000 people marched through Port-au-Prince Thursday in support of the election campaign of former President Rene Preval. Preval was a close Aristide ally when he succeeded him in the country’s first ever democratic transition in 1996. Aristide’s political party Lavalas has split over whether to take part in the elections. Hundreds of political prisoners are in jail and many elected Lavalas officials remain in forced exile. -------- latin america Summit Protests Turn Violent in Argentina By BILL CORMIER, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 4, 6:38 PM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/americas_summit;_ylt=AjUK5vstolzlyziVST55tzCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- MAR DEL PLATA, Argentina - More than 1,000 demonstrators angry about President Bush's policies clashed with police, shattered storefronts and torched businesses Friday, marring the inauguration of the Summit of the Americas as leaders began debating creation of one of the world's largest free trade zones. The violence reflected the often violent, worldwide debate on free trade as the United States and Mexico pushed to relaunch talks on creating a free trade area stretching from Canada to Chile. Past summits on free trade — including last year's summit of Asian-Pacific leaders in Chile — have drawn bitter opposition and similar angry protests. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez emerged as the most strident opponent of the plan, addressing more than 10,000 protesters hours before the summit convened in this normally tranquil seaside resort. Chavez vowed to defeat the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, once and for all. Speaking before a six-story banner of revolutionary Che Guevara, Chavez urged the throng — including soccer great Diego Maradona and Bolivian presidential hopeful Evo Morales — to help him fight free trade. "Only united can we defeat imperialism and bring our people a better life," he said, adding: "Here, in Mar del Plata, FTAA will be buried!" Before Chavez's speech, demonstrators flooded the streets, shouting "Get out Bush!" and "Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!" Mexican President Vicente Fox said the FTAA proposal would move forward anyway because 29 of the 34 nations taking part in the summit were considering cobbling to