ILLEGAL OPERATIONS AT LENINGRAD NPP RESULT IN FATALITY The ECOMET-S smelting plant reprocessing radioactive scrap metal and situated within the grounds of Leningrad nuclear power plant experienced another accident at 3 a.m. on December 15, this time resulting in the loss of a young man's life. (640.5738) WISE Amsterdam - An explosion in the plant's electrically heated furnace caused molten metal, at temperatures as high as 1200°C, to be expelled hitting three workers, one of whom, 33 year old Vitaly Lanbrozo, subsequently died from his injuries. The other two men, 22 and 32 years of age, received burns covering up to 90% of their bodies and remain in extremely serious condition at nearby hospitals. A spokesperson at the plant near the town of Sosnovy Bor, west of the city of St. Petersburg, said that the explosion had been caused when production rules were violated. But the fact is that ECOMET-S has never abided by any rules and that, sadly, this accident was the inevitable result of the reckless operations that have been allowed to continue unchecked by state and national authorities despite appeals by environmental groups and local residents for activities at the plant to be suspended. As yet, the cause of the blast has not been confirmed but as speculation grows, the Norwegian Bellona Foundation has reported that Sosnovy Bor's chief ecologist, Nataly Malevannaya, explained that a violation of the technical process guiding the operation of equipment is thought to be responsible. Before the radioactive metal is loaded into the kiln, it must be cut to remove air cavities that, when heated, can cause explosion. A special commission is to be established to determine the cause. Unauthorised A privately owned company, ECOMET-S has been allowed to operate without the necessary state environmental impact assessment (SEIA) on the design or construction of the plant and although this was reported to state prosecutors by Green World and Greenpeace, among others, on several occasions, no action was ever taken by authorities. In fact, following the horrific accident, deputy state prosecutor Miklina commented that there had been no grounds on which to initiate legal proceedings against the company while admitting that it had been allowed to operate without having conducted the required SEIA. One would have thought that not having completed the mandatory requirements prior to construction would be sufficient grounds but apparently not. The plant was built with the aid of a US$50 million investment from Gazprom- bank, part of the Russia's oil and gas monopoly Gazprom. In February 2002 Valery Lebedev, Deputy Minister for Atomic Energy, signed the act that DECEMBER 23, 2005 | No. 640 ILLEGAL OPERATIONS AT LENINGRAD NPP RESULT IN FATALITY 1 KEY KHAN NETWORK MIDDLEMAN CONVICTED 3 URANIUM MINING ISSUES: 2005 REVIEW 5 NUKES AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE 9 PSR REPORT ON DEPLETED URANIUM HEALTH ISSUES 11 IN BRIEF 13
metal and situated within the grounds of Leningrad nuclear
power plant experienced another accident at 3 a.m. on
December 15, this time resulting in the loss of a young man's life.
(640.5738) WISE Amsterdam - Anexplosion in the plant's electricallyheated furnace caused molten metal, attemperatures as high as 1200°C, to beexpelled hitting three workers, one ofwhom, 33 year old Vitaly Lanbrozo,subsequently died from his injuries. Theother two men, 22 and 32 years of age,received burns covering up to 90% oftheir bodies and remain in extremelyserious condition at nearby hospitals.
A spokesperson at the plant near thetown of Sosnovy Bor, west of the city ofSt. Petersburg, said that the explosionhad been caused when production ruleswere violated. But the fact is thatECOMET-S has never abided by anyrules and that, sadly, this accident wasthe inevitable result of the recklessoperations that have been allowed tocontinue unchecked by state andnational authorities despite appeals byenvironmental groups and local residentsfor activities at the plant to besuspended.
As yet, the cause of the blast has notbeen confirmed but as speculationgrows, the Norwegian BellonaFoundation has reported that SosnovyBor's chief ecologist, NatalyMalevannaya, explained that a violationof the technical process guiding theoperation of equipment is thought to be
responsible. Before the radioactive metalis loaded into the kiln, it must be cut toremove air cavities that, when heated,can cause explosion. A specialcommission is to be established todetermine the cause.
Unauthorised
A privately owned company, ECOMET-Shas been allowed to operate without thenecessary state environmental impactassessment (SEIA) on the design orconstruction of the plant and althoughthis was reported to state prosecutors byGreen World and Greenpeace, amongothers, on several occasions, no actionwas ever taken by authorities. In fact,following the horrific accident, deputystate prosecutor Miklina commented thatthere had been no grounds on which toinitiate legal proceedings against thecompany while admitting that it hadbeen allowed to operate without havingconducted the required SEIA. One wouldhave thought that not having completedthe mandatory requirements prior toconstruction would be sufficient groundsbut apparently not.
The plant was built with the aid of aUS$50 million investment from Gazprom-bank, part of the Russia's oil and gasmonopoly Gazprom. In February 2002Valery Lebedev, Deputy Minister forAtomic Energy, signed the act that
DECEMBER 23, 2005 | No. 640
ILLEGAL OPERATIONS AT
LENINGRAD NPP RESULT IN
FATALITY 1
KEY KHAN NETWORK
MIDDLEMAN CONVICTED 3
URANIUM MINING ISSUES: 2005
REVIEW 5
NUKES AND THE CLIMATE
CHANGE DEBATE 9
PSR REPORT ON DEPLETED
URANIUM HEALTH ISSUES 11
IN BRIEF 13
2 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
allowed ECOMET-S to begin operatingwith full knowledge of the fact that noSEIA had been approved or evencarried out. When interviewed byBellona Web in October 2003, then-director of ECOMET-S, Mikail Voronkov,said that the company's lawyers wereworking on obtaining the necessaryapprovals. The documents still have notbeen received - perhaps because theplant does not conform torequirements?
Had the plant been regulated, thelicense issued would have stipulatedthat it have emergency plans in placeand provided guidelines on appropriatelevels of emissions among other things.Documents seen by Bellona andGreenpeace indicate that no such planexisted and since the authoritiesshowed no interest, it is not surprisingthat the company did not initiate one ofits own accord.
Radiation levels
Russia's nuclear agencyRosenergoatom or Rosatom (formerlyMinatom) was quick to report that noradiation had been released. Accordingto the agency, the nuclear reactor (ofwhich there are four) closest to thesmelting plant (officially said to be 1kmaway) was undergoing repairs so wasnot in operation at the time of the blast.Local environmental activist, OlegBodrov of Green World said that theplant was actually built 700 metresfrom the reactor and just 50 metresfrom a radioactive waste pond.
The claims that no radiation wasreleased was initially questionedbecause no independent confirmationwas available and the local population,lacking complete trust in theirauthorities, was showing signs ofpanic. In 2002 the regional ecologicallaboratory permanently monitoringradiation levels within 30km of thenuclear power plant was effectivelyclosed down by the nuclear agency,then Minatom, when its financing wasstopped. The lab had been operatingfor thirty years. ECOMET-S' pubicrelations officer said that no damagehad been done to the vent filters, whichcollect radioactive particles, of theelectric furnace and that meant that noradiation had been released, addingthat in any case, at the time of the
accident, the kiln contained only non-radioactive metal. Green World hassince been able to measure the gammabackground and confirmed that levelscorrespond with background level,reading 15-18 microentgen per hour.Bodrov also reports that the buildinghousing the furnace was not visiblydamaged.
Vladimir Slivyak of Ecodefense (WISERussia) has revealed that although thenews of the explosion was covered bymuch of the international media, aRussian official from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, and part of officialdelegation at UN forum on energy forsustainable development (Geneva,December15-16), denied that there hadbeen an accident during a plenarydiscussion on a paper proposingnuclear power as option for sustainabledevelopment. In fact when questionedby Ecodefense, the official told theplenary at the UN meeting that noaccident had occurred and that NGOscould not be trusted. Interesting howsimilar this response was to that ofauthorities in 1986 - nearly 20 yearslater, the first instinct of some Russianofficials remains steadfast.
Lax safety
The ECOMET-S plant reprocessesmetallic radioactive waste, said mostlyto originate from the Leningrad nuclearplant itself, although it is known thatmetal from elsewhere is also processedthere allowing the company to makemoney from reprocessing as well asfrom selling on the re-smelted metal.There are no controls over whatproducts can be made from this metal;ECOMET-S can sell it on as clean metalto be used in the manufacture of anynumber of household products.
This is not the first serious accident tohave occurred at the plant. In August2002, a similar incident left 2 workersinjured after they too were burnt whenmolten metal spilled from a kiln. Therehave also been other incidents at theplant and in 2003, an incident wascaused by defective measuringequipment.
An anonymous worker told GreenWorld that workers had to risk theirlives on a regular basis as they wereforced to violate safety regulations by
using faulty tools and equipment thatwere 'repaired' by the workersthemselves. The whistleblower addedthat a lack of air funnels (to removepollutants) meant that gases andparticles containing radionuclides wereingested by staff and after an hourworking under such conditions,workers would complain of nausea andheadaches as their eyes wateredprofusely. 'Protective' clothing was saidto be so deteriorated that any strayspark would lead to such itemscatching fire, vehicles transportingradioactive metal were allowed accessto the unit without radiologicaltreatment or controls, meal breaks hadto be taken in the production buildingwith the contaminated metal and attimes, sanitary checkpoints were attimes closed leaving cold showers asthe only resort after work so workerswere left to traipse radioactive dirt totheir homes and families.
The death of a worker should not havebeen required for state nuclearregulatory authorities in Russia toensure that the company follow the ruleof law instead of openly floatingregulations and fostering an appallingsafety culture - if such a thing can besaid to exist at all at ECOMET-S. A manhas perished and we would hope thatsome action will now be taken toensure that no more will follow.Unfortunately, given the attitude ofauthorities to date, the worst is feared -that nothing whatsoever will change.
Sources: Baltic Newsletter of theGreen World, No. 89, December 20,2005; Ecodefense by email,Greenpeace Russia press release,Bellona, Aljazeera and CBS News,December 16, 2005
Contact: WISE Russia or Green Worldat P.O. Box 93/7, Sosnovy Bor 188544,Leningrad Oblast, RussiaTel/Fax: +7 81369 72991E-mail: [email protected]: www.greenworld.org.ru
3NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
KEY KHAN NETWORK MIDDLEMAN CONVICTEDFollowing an 18-month long juridical process, the district court of Alkmaar in the Netherlands,
convicted Henk Slebos, two of his companies and a former employee of five violations of the
export law on December 16.
(640.5739) Campagne tegen
Wapenhandel - In all five cases, thegoods (graphite, bearings, manometers,O-rings and triethanolamine) were sentto the Institute for IndustrialAutomation, widely believed to be thepurchasing arm of KRL, Pakistan's keynuclear facility, without an exportlicence.
Slebos was sentenced to a one-yearprison term, of which eight monthswere suspended, and, with hiscompanies, fined 197,500 Euro (approx.US$237,000). The St-Pancras (NL)based businessman was granted twoweeks to consider an appeal and untilthen remains free. The ex-employeewas sentenced to 180 hours ofcommunity service and told to pay a5,000 Euro (approx. US$6,000) fine.
Remarkably, the case was only pursuedby the Dutch authorities followingrequests from both the German andU.S. governments in 2001, this despitethe fact that Slebos had previoushistory where illicit nuclear technologyand Pakistan were concerned.
Old school network
From 1961, the disgraced Pakistaniscientist Abdul Qadeer Khan studied informer West Germany, the Netherlandsand Belgium, where he received hisdoctorate. Khan and Henk Slebos metmore than forty years ago when theyboth studied metallurgy at DelftTechnical University, they becamefriends and stayed in contact eversince.
Khan's professional career began inMay 1972 at FDO ('Fysisch DynamischOnderzoekslaboratorium' or PhysicalDynamic Research laboratory foundedas in-house laboratory for Stork-Werkspoor in 1971) in Amsterdam. Atthat time FDO was the mainsubcontractor to UCN, the Dutchbranch of uranium enrichment companyUrenco. After suspicions around Khan'sintentions arose, he was transferred toa different position within the company
in 1975 but suddenly left for Pakistanand resigned his post at FDO. Khanhad apparently taken full advantage ofthe freedoms he enjoyed while workingwithin the Dutch nuclear industry andreturned to Pakistan armed with awealth of knowledge, technology andcontacts.
Khan soon became head of Pakistan'sultracentrifuge (UC) project, rivalling theplutonium route then pursued by thePakistan Atomic Energy Commissionand in his new function quickly set up anetwork of suppliers and intermediaries,mainly from Europe, to enable the swiftdevelopment of the UC-project withinPakistan. Sooner than many expected,Pakistan was ready to enrich uraniumto nuclear weapons grade.
After university Slebos worked in theDutch Navy as a 'trouble shooter' forship repairs for five years and was alsoinvolved in purchasing titanium tubesfor submarine exhaust systems anddoing research on underwater welding(1). The Navy job put him in contactwith Explosive Metal Works Holland(EMWH), a specialised firm treatingsteel and other materials usingexplosives. He later secured a job withthe firm and became commercialdirector around 1974. With EMWH,Slebos worked on the Kalkar fastbreeder reactor (2) and for UCN.(Although building was completed inthe mid 1980s, Kalkar was never usedas such and the entire project wasfinally stopped in 1991. Today it is anamusement park…) Khan (at FDO) andSlebos were then able to develop aprofessionally relationship as bothworked for UCN as subcontractors.They were able to meet at the 1975Nuclex fair in Basel and workedtogether researching the highly secret4M-type UC (3). This was first revealedby Dutch radio programme 'Argos' inApril after it obtained a copy of a secretJune 1979 annex to a Dutchgovernment investigation into A.Q.Khan and his activities in theNetherlands. The report and its annexes
were recently largely declassified.
The cooperation continued after Khan'sreturn to Pakistan and in late 1976 -shortly after leaving EMWH - Slebosflew to Pakistan for the first time. As herecalled on a 2002 recording obtainedby the Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad,"And there problems came up. You lookat things purely as a boffin, both of usbeing metallurgists. I had a knack foraircraft construction, and had also beendoing troubleshooting work for theNavy where you worked with all thekinds of materials (...). That is how mycontact started and continued. At acertain moment business resulted fromthat. I delivered him (...) the whole lot,the whole range from electronics to theconstruction materials, all kinds ofthings that were not forbidden to dealin." (4)
That was partly true. Slebos knew whathe was doing and willingly took risks,even exporting goods that required alicence without actually obtaining one.Part of his modus operandi was to usefront companies in Europe, the GulfStates and Pakistan, as well asconcealing parcel contents and finaldestinations. Moreover, Dutch exportlaws were in an embryonic stage at thetime, especially on the nuclear side.
Unmasked
Slebos was first caught illegallyexporting a U.S.-made Tektronixoscilloscope from Schiphol airport onOctober 23, 1983. During the trial, itwas revealed that Slebos hadpreviously been warned by the exportcontrol authorities not to export theoscilloscope without a licence.Assuming that he would not get one, hedecided to evade Dutch customs bysending the mainframe to Sjarjah in theUnited Arab Emirates, from wheretransport to Pakistan would bearranged.
The abstract of his testimony to thecourt that sentenced him in 1985 reads:"Early in 1977, I met Khan again in the
4 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
Netherlands (...) During a conversationhe asked me whether I could delivergoods to Pakistan for a project he wasworking on. The project he wasreferring to was the establishment of alaboratory at which fuel would beenriched for a reactor in Karachi. Fromthat time till today I have regularlyacted as supplier of various goods forthe Khan-project." (5)
An initial one-year prison term wasnevertheless overruled by an appealscourt in 1986 and reduced to a six-month suspended sentence and a fineof 20,000 guilders (around 9,000 Euroor US$10,500). The court decided thatthe prosecution had not proven theintent for nuclear end-use and took intoaccount that Slebos had no previouscriminal record.
Slebos later told the makers of theDutch documentary programme'Zembla' that the people that helpedPakistan build its bomb, had all knowneach other and admitted to being incontact with "maybe even a thousand"companies across Europe that hadsupplied him with the requiredmaterials. Even when he wasprosecuted for the oscilloscope, hisbusiness continued.
The earlier stories of Khan'sproliferation activities were long sinceconsidered old news, that was at leastuntil the story of his 'nuclear blackmarket network' broke in the winter of2003/2004. In January 2004, and afteryears of denial, the Dutch governmentthen admitted that Urenco technologyhad been found in both Libya and Iranand by February, Khan had publiclyadmitted to selling nuclear technologyand materials to both countries andNorth Korea. Henk Slebos' crucialinvolvement with Khan in the earlydevelopment of Pakistan's nuclearweapons program was later revealed.Slebos admitted to having helpedPakistan build a bomb, but deniedfurther involvement in proliferationactivities (6).
Close call
Slebos may not have had provencriminal records but the oscilloscopecase was no 'accident'. It recentlyentered the public domain that theDutch internal intelligence service had
been watching Slebos from the late1970s, when he had arranged a dealwith Dutch company VDT for the exportof over 6,000 UC rotor tubes toPakistan. In the aftermath of the firstrevelations on AQ Khan's nuclearespionage (1979/1980), the case wentto court. Although it was stated that thetubes had UC specifications, aloophole in the export laws that appliedat the time (1984) saved the companyfrom prosecution - it could not beproven that the tubes were specifically
developed for ultracentrifuge purposes.Middleman Slebos escaped trial eventhough his involvement was made clearin a statement given to the internalsecurity service, BVD, by his formerboss at EMWH, who was alsoapproached by Slebos for the order.
From the late 1980s to the late 1990s,Slebos managed to stay under theradar but shortly after Pakistan's 1998nuclear tests he and his two companiesSlebos Research BV and BodmerhofBV were linked with intercepted exportsto Pakistan.
Between February 1998 and February2002, A.Q. Khan was known to havemade mysterious journeys aroundAfrica accompanied by high-rankingPakistani nuclear officials and HenkSlebos on occasion. The London-based accountant Siddiqui recorded hismemoirs of travel with Khan and friendsin the Urdu language booklet "A shorttrip to Timbuktu" published in 2000. (7)
In September 2003 'Slebos Research'became a sponsor of ISAM, aconference organized by Khan'snuclear laboratory KRL. As more detailson Khan's nuclear proliferation networkbecame public in early 2004, aPakistani government spokesmanstated at a press conference that,among others, a Dutch businessmancalled "Hanks" had been involved.Soon after the Dutch press discoveredthat the Public Prosecutor was buildinga case against Slebos, resulting in thislatest prosecution.
Ideology or greed
Despite denying all knowledge, itremains to be seen whether Sleboswas actually aware of Khan's dealingswith North Korea, Libya, Iran andpossibly others. He did continue
dealing with Pakistan long after it hadattained its nuclear status, which -according to Slebos - was his maingoal. And if Slebos - as he also claims(9) - is both Khans' best friend and longtime business partner, it seems strangethat he would only have known aboutPakistan's nuclear programme and notthe other dealings.
Although he now portrays himself as aman driven by ideology - having helpedPakistan counterbalance India's nuclearpower - in earlier statements he hadadmitted to being driven by financialmotives. Either way one crucialquestion remains; how was Slebos,despite almost 30 years of known linksto the Pakistani nuclear programmeable to continue operating as a keysupplier for Pakistan's nuclearprogramme. Much is still unknownabout the role that the differentintelligence services, export controlauthorities, ministers and high-levelbureaucrats played with respect to bothKhan and Slebos. This story may yettake another three decades to fullyunravel.
Sources:
(1) Jaco Alberts and Karel Knip, "De vriend van een
atoomspion" (The friend of a nuclear spy), NRC
Handelsblad, February 21 2004.
(2) Eric van Staten, "Ideaal droomhuis" (Ideal
dream house), De Telegraaf, August 20 2003;
Alberts and Knip, February 21 2004.
(3) Dutch radio programme 'Argos' on April 29
2005
(4) Alberts and Knip, NRC Handelsblad, February
21 2004
(5) District court of Alkmaar, July 2 1985.
(6) From interview with Dutch TV documentary
programme 'Zembla', November 7 2005.
(7) Edward Harris and Ellen Knickmeyer, "Head of
Pakistan's nuclear ring made repeated visits to
uranium-rich Africa", AP, April 20 2004.
(8) David Rohde and David E. Sanger, "Key
Pakistani Is Said To Admit Atom Transfers", New
York Times, February 2 2004.
(9) 'Zembla', November 7 2005.
Contact: Frank Slijper, Campagnetegen Wapenhandel (Dutch Campaignagainst Arms Trade), PO Box 7007,9701 JA Groningen, the NetherlandsTel: +31 50 3133247Mobile: +31 6 28504778E-mail: [email protected]: www.stoparmstrade.org
5NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
URANIUM MINING ISSUES: 2005 REVIEWThe spot market price of uranium climbed from 20.70 to 36.25 US$/lb U3O8 (as of December 19)
in 2005, a 70% increase and five times the record low of 7 US$/lb U3O8. And, after a long period
of decline, world production reached 40251 t U in 2004, a 13% increase over 2003.
(640.5740) WISE Uranium Project -The increase in the price of uranium isdriven by fears that the secondaryresources and stock holdings (currentlysupplying nearly half the demand) maysoon expire leaving a supply gap, evenif demand remains unchanged. At thesame time, several countries haveannounced plans for a massiveexpansion of nuclear power capacities.
The recovery of the uranium price hasled to more companies entering theuranium business; the number ofuranium mining and explorationcompanies listed on the WISE UraniumProject website doubled from 180 to361 during the course of the year (afterhaving already increased by nearly 50%the year before).
Most of these companies are restartingexploration efforts where work washalted some 20 years ago due to pooreconomics. It is, however, not yet clearwhether the next uranium boom willreally resemble the first with a largenumber of small underground minesworking many dispersed low-gradedeposits (particularly in the U.S.).
Kazakhstan is concentrating its effortson boosting uranium production fromin-situ leaching from the current 3719 tU (2004) to 16,000 t U in 2015.
BHP Billiton, the new owner of theOlympic Dam copper/uranium mine inSouth Australia, has also announcedplans to increase production from thecurrent 4000 t to 30,000 t U per year(three quarters of the current worldproduction!).
It is not certain that the new uraniumboom will be as welcome as the firstmostly was. In countries, such asSweden, opposition is already growing,even against exploration.
As in 2004, WISE Uranium Project
takes the opportunity to award its
order of merit, this time in the
following categories:
The 2005 Gold Award for Carelessness
goes to… the AustralianCommonwealth authorities for securinginsufficient decommissioning funds forERA's Ranger mine trust fund.
The 2005 Silver Award for Carelessness
goes to the Namibian authorities foraccepting Paladin Resources'absolutely flawed EnvironmentalAssessment for the proposed LangerHeinrich uranium mine.
The 2005 Award for Forwardness goesto Areva/Cogéma for postulating a"moral obligation" for uranium miningcountries to take back spent fuel.
Newly discovered uranium deposits
Just one discovery in 2005 has thepotential for a new high-grade deposit,the first in about 20 years - CogemaResources intersected 27.4% U3O8over 8.8 metres during drilling at itsShea Creek property in Saskatchewan.Other new uranium finds were reportedfrom central India, six Nigerian states,and Zimbabwe, although no detailswere made available.
New uranium mining projects
The Canadian Nuclear SafetyCommission (CNSC) approved themining license for the McClean LakeSue E project in Saskatchewan,Canada, thereby introducing the newpublic service of withholding theRecord of Proceedings from publicdisclosure. Approval was also given forthe expansion of the JEB Mill atMcClean Lake to receive and processore from the new Cigar Lake mine. Thelicensing process for the proposedprocessing of uranium-rich solutionsfrom Cigar Lake at the Rabbit Lake millis still underway.
In the U.S., Cameco's subsidiary PRIfiled a license application for itsReynolds Ranch in-situ leach (ISL)project in Wyoming. Plans were alsoannounced for several idle uraniummining sites, such as the SheepMountain mines in Wyoming, the Tony
M Mine in Utah, and the WhirlwindClaim mine in Colorado, among others,to resume mining. Further, a licensewas requested for the reopening of themothballed Shootaring Canyon uraniummill in Utah. The license for theCrownpoint ISL project in New Mexicois still on hold after NRC judgestightened the groundwater restorationstandard.
Namibian authorities issued a mininglicense for Paladin Resources' LangerHeinrich uranium mine project - atbreath-taking speed. Paladin releasedthe related environmental assessmentreport after the mining license wasobtained. An evaluation by externalconsultants later showed the report tobe full of inconsistencies and seriousflaws that should have stopped it beingaccepted by the Namibian authorities.For accepting the thoroughly flawedEnvironmental Assessment, theNamibian authorities clearly deserve the2005 Silver Award for Carelessness.The Langer Heinrich groundbreakingceremony was accompanied byprotests from environmentalists andPaladin's next project, the Kayelekerauranium mine in Malawi, has alreadybecome the subject of seriousenvironmental concerns raised by alocal Human Rights organization.
Kazakhstan continued its efforts toexpand the uranium production from in-situ leaching from the current 3719 t U(2004) to 16,000 t U in 2015. The InkayISL project received its firstconstruction permit with the MunkudukISL project due to start uraniumproduction in 2006 and the Korsanproject in 2009.
In India, Uranium Corporation of IndiaLtd (UCIL) faces serious oppositioneverywhere it plans to develop newuranium mines. In Jharkhand, residentopponents kept the State PollutionControl Board from holding a hearingon the proposed Mohuldih uraniummine project. In Andhra-Pradesh,overwhelming opposition was voiced at
6 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
a public hearing against the new siteproposed for the uranium processingplant for the Lambapur-Peddagattuproject; a demonstration was also heldin Nalgonda. In Meghalaya, activiststemporarily sealed off the Domiasiaturanium mine project site.
Energy Resources of Australia (ERA)and Traditional Owners signed a long-term deal, obliging ERA (and itssuccessors) to secure Mirarr consentprior to any future mining developmentof uranium deposits at Jabiluka.
Cogéma revived efforts to mine itsKoongarra deposit in Kakadu NationalPark, after a five-year moratoriumended in April. The Northern TerritoryGovernment had blocked theKoongarra uranium mine, however, inAugust the Federal Governmentoverruled the ban on new minesdeclaring the territory open for uraniumbusiness.
Issues at operating uranium mines
According to press reports,Areva/Cogéma will invest Euro 500-600million (US$ 600-720 million) indoubling uranium output from its minesby 2010 (from 6125 t U in 2004).
The Supreme Court of Canada upheldthe license of the McClean Lakeuranium mine in Saskatchewanquashed by a Federal Court at therequest of local environmentalists.Cogema Resources was able tocontinue operation of the mine duringthat time, since it was granted stay andan Appeals Court had overruled theFederal Court decision in 2004.
In the U.S., the Colorado Departmentof Public Health and Environment(CDPHE) and residents continued theirstruggle with General Atomics'subsidiary Cotter Corp. on its CañonCity uranium mill in Colorado. RejectingCotter's appeal, a judge denied thecompany the right to dispose of 24,000tons of contaminated soils fromMaywood, New Jersey. This did notdeter the company, however, fromapplying for the disposal of othercontaminated soil (from the AMAXResearch and Development site inColorado) at its mill site. In otherdevelopments, CDPHE invited publiccomment on the planned remedial
action of the Old Ponds Area at the millsite, and cited Cotter for twocontamination incidents at the mill. InNovember, Cotter Corp. announced theclosure of six uranium mines and thelay off of most of its Cañon City millworkers due to poor economics.
In Argentina, a judge ordered a halt tothe restart of the Sierra Pintadauranium mine at San Rafael, Mendozaprovince after several organizations,including the local Chamber ofCommerce, had called for a cleanup ofold uranium mining activities at the sitebefore reopening.
In the Czech Republic, the lifetime ofthe country's last active uranium mineat Rozná could again be extended,given the recent rise in the uraniumprice.
In Niger, environmental issues at theuranium mines of Cogéma'ssubsidiaries at Arlit and Akoutareceived wide publicity. In April, twostudies found several deficiencies andconcluded that permissible dose ratesmay have been exceeded in certaincases. In response, Cogéma launcheda health study at the sites but inNovember received a poor rating forenvironmental issues at its Nigeruranium mines.
In Namibia, the life of the nearlydepleted Rössing uranium mine will beextended to 2016. In June, elevateduranium concentrations were detectedin groundwater (used for irrigation)downstream from the Rössing mine.
In South Africa, Aflease Gold andUranium Resources Ltd is preparing toconstruct a processing plant at itsDominion Reefs mine where uranium isto be recovered as a by-product fromgold mining from 2007.
In Afghanistan, illegal mining of uraniumand gold reserves in Kohistan district ofthe northern Faryab province continuesunabated.
In the Indian state of Jharkhand, anenquiry committee was set up to probealleged illegal mining of uranium in theState.
At WMC's Olympic Dam
copper/uranium mine in SouthAustralia, a state government taskforcewas set up to investigate a huge spikein the number of birds killed at themine's 400 ha tailings dam. In June,BHP Billiton became major shareholderof WMC and began preparing plans foran expansion from the current uraniumoutput of 4000 t/a up to 30,000 t/a.Ironically, a large geothermal resourcehas been identified at Olympic Dam,with a potential for 1000 MW's ofrenewable geothermal power, whichcould be used to run the expandedmine.
Energy Resources of Australia's (ERA)Ranger mine in the Northern Territorywill soon be depleted and is due toclose in 2008. Processing of stockpiledores will keep the mill operating until2014, rather than 2011 as previouslyplanned, due to the increasing uraniumprice allowing for the processing oflower cut-off grades. In June, ERA wasfined AU$150,000 (approx.US$112,000) having plead guilty tocharges related to water contaminationin 2004.
In July, ERA disclosed that the Rangermine closure is to cost AU$176 million(US$131 m), of which only AU$65million (US$48 m) is covered byguarantee - AU$41.4 million (US$31 m)in a government-administered trustfund, and AU$23.6 million (US$18 m)through a bank guarantee. Forevidently failing to secure sufficientdecommissioning funds for ERA'sRanger mine, AustralianCommonwealth authorities deserve theGold Award for Carelessness. ShouldERA go bankrupt, the taxpayer wouldhave to fund the cleanup. Such fearswere further fuelled, when onDecember 6, Cameco, Cogéma, andJapan Australia Uranium ResourcesDevelopment Co Ltd. (JAURD) soldtheir combined 25% stake in ERA at asteep 27.6% discount. The formershareholders apparently lost confidencein the possible development of theJabiluka deposit in the foreseeablefuture and, considering that the Rangerdeposit will soon be depleted, cut theirloses.
Abandoned mines
The Canadian Federal Governmentfinally provided funding for the cleanup
7NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
of the former Port Radium mine(operated 1931-1960). A new reportrecommends immediate remediation.
The Governments of Canada andSaskatchewan announced a cost-sharefor the remediation of the Gunnar andLorado uranium mines inSaskatchewan, active from the 1950suntil the early 1960s.
The reclamation of the White King andLucky Lass mines in Oregon, U.S.,active from 1955 to 1959, began thissummer. The reclamation will be paidfor by the successors of the previousowner companies.
The U.S. Forest Service released acleanup plan for the abandonedJuniper uranium mine in California.
Funding was awarded for therestoration of the Uravan mill and minesite in Colorado.The hazard cleanup at someabandoned uranium mines in HardingCounty in South Dakota could costUS$20 million, according to the U.S.Forest Service. Beginning in the late1940s, more than 200 uranium mineswere dug in South Dakota.
The Japan Nuclear Cycle DevelopmentInstitute (JNC) started paying a fine of750,000 yen (US$7,210) a day to localresidents in the town of Yurihama onMarch 11, for its failure to meet adeadline to remove 3000 cubic metresof uranium-contaminated soil left fromthe former Ningyo-Toge uranium mine.In October, JNC shipped the mostcontaminated 290 cubic meters of thematerial to IUC's White Mesa uraniummill in Utah, USA, for recovery of theuranium and disposal of the remainingmaterial - at cost of about 660 millionyen (US$6 million). The resulting cost ofUS$20,700 per cubic metre of soilprobably represents a new world recordfor the management costs of uraniummining waste. No decision has beenmade yet on the fate of the remaining2700 cubic metres...
Decommissioning issues
The Canadian Nuclear SafetyCommission (CNSC) issued a WasteFacility Operating Licence to CamecoCorporation for the Beaver Lodgeuranium mine and mill site located in
Northern Saskatchewan. The decisionwas taken despite the relatively highincidence of deformities observed infish in the vicinity.
CNSC also renewed Rio Algom'slicense for its Elliot Lake tailings inOntario, withholding the Record ofProceedings.
In the U.S., relaxed groundwaterstandards were requested and/orapproved for the following sites:Umetco's East Gas Hills uranium millsite (Wyoming), Pathfinder's ShirleyBasin uranium tailings site (Wyoming),United Nuclear's Church Rock uraniummill tailings site (New Mexico), and atHomestake's Grants uranium milltailings site (New Mexico). Western Nuclear withdrew its requestfor permission for the cessation ofactive groundwater restoration at itsSplit Rock uranium mill tailings site inWyoming; the company had intendedto supply residents in the area with analternate potable water supply, ratherthan cleaning up the groundwater butapparently could not convince the NRCon this plan.
For the Atlas Moab uranium mill tailingspile in Utah, DOE released a FinalEnvironmental Impact Statementstipulating a preferred alternative torelocating the tailings to CrescentJunction. On September 14, DOEsigned the long-awaited historicdecision to move the Moab tailingsaway from the banks of the ColoradoRiver, where they threaten the drinkingwater supply to millions of downstreamresidents.
In Germany, a local environmentalgroup raised concerns regarding theenvironmental impact of the floodingprocedure currently in progress atWismut's Thuringian undergroundmines and regarding the rather highpermeability of the cover applied tocertain waste rock piles.Meanwhile, Wismut is preparing therelocation of the conical landmarkwaste rock piles near Ronneburg,Thuringia, to a former open pit. Sincethis relocation will remove the mostvisible signs left from Wismut's vasturanium mining operations in EasternGermany, the environmental group nowcalls for some memorial site
commemorating the consequences ofWismut's uranium mining.
In France, after six years of legalevasions, mining company Cogémawas forced to appear before theCriminal Court of Limoges for allegedpollution at its former uranium minesites in the Limousin area. The CriminalCourt, however, cleared Cogéma of thepollution charges.
In South Africa, groundwatercontamination from abandonedgold/uranium mines raised increasingconcern.
In Kazakhstan, the rising groundwatertable in the Aktau area increases thehazard of contaminant dispersal fromthe Koshkar-Ata uranium mill tailings tothe region and to the Caspian Sea.Scientists called for efforts to isolatethe tailings.The reclamation of the closed Zharkenturanium mine is scheduled to start in2006.
Miners' and Residents' Health
A Canadian report has concluded thatscientific data collected could not showa definitive link between cancer rates inthe community of Deline and the PortRadium mine. Local men were hired tocarry sacks of uranium ore from themine, which opened in 1929 andoperated for decades. Cancer casesstarted occurring and the communitybecame known as the "Village ofWidows". But, the report says thoseemployees' exposure levels were nothigh enough to cause cancer,contradicting widely held opinions.
In the U.S., a National Academy ofScience committee recommended thata determination be made as to whetherCold War era residents of uranium millsshould be eligible for radiationexposure compensation. So far,compensation has been applicable onlyfor former uranium workers and down-winders of nuclear weapon tests.
In Spain, parliament demanded medicaltests for former workers at the nowclosed Andújar uranium mill, after highcancer rates had been observed.
Other Developments, Policy Issues
On April 29, Navajo Nation President
8 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
Joseph Shirley Jr. signed the DinéNatural Resources Protection Act of2005 outlawing uranium mining andprocessing on the Navajo reservation.The bill was passed by the NavajoNation Council on April 19, in a 63-19vote; it could, however, be overturnedby U.S. federal legislation.
In China, uranium mine employee SunXiaodi disappeared at the end of Aprilafter reporting contamination from theGansu No. 792 Uranium Mine in theGannan Tibetan AutonomousPrefecture. The organization HumanRights in China (HRIC) fully supportsthe efforts of Sun Xiaodi's family andfriends to ascertain his whereaboutsand secure his release. HRIC urges theinternational community to press theChinese authorities to conduct an in-depth investigation into Sun'sallegations of corruption, severe humanhealth impacts and environmentaldegradation at the Gansu No. 792Uranium Mine.
Australia conducted an inquiry into thefuture role of its uranium industry. Whilethe inquiry was still ongoing, Australiabegan formal negotiations on uraniumexports to China. China refuses tocommit to IAEA inspections of itsnuclear power facilities as a conditionof buying uranium from Australia,though. China even announced that itwants to explore for uranium inAustralia. Meanwhile, Rössing becamethe first Western producer to exporturanium to China (see above).
Uranium exporting countries are notalone in rethinking their role in a futureuranium boom. There also appears tobe an about-face in some areas of the(formerly?) ethical investmentcommunity; the Anglican Church'sinvestment fund in Australia removedits ban on uranium mining shares.
So, while it seemed that morals are ona deplorable but inevitable decline inthese days of a looming uranium boom,it was rather surprising to learn that
Areva/Cogéma, of all companies, isapparently attempting to upholdstandards stating that uraniumexporting countries have a "moralobligation" to take back spent fuel!Cogéma, the company that showed noscruples when it came to leavingbehind a dangerous and damagingmess when it closed its uranium minesin Gabon (see 2004 Review). For thisoutrageous statement, Areva/Cogémaclearly deserves this year's"Forwardness of the Year Award".
While Cogéma's comment was meantfor Australia, it was later adopted byCanada's Nuclear Waste ManagementOrganization who said that the uraniummining province Saskatchewan has a"responsibility" to take back spentnuclear fuel.
The full review is available athttp://www.wise-uranium.org/
Contact: WISE Uranium
9NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
NUKES AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATEAt the first meeting of the Members of the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) in Montreal at the beginning
of December, the big decision taken was to start negotiations for a second climate treaty as a
follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty, which expires in 2012.
(640.5741) WISE Amsterdam - Among the observing NGOsand businesses was the low-key but unmistakable presenceof the nuclear lobby, notably from International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) and European Nuclear Society (ENS).
Both bodies had organised side events at the Conference,and there they repeated the predictable tales about nuclearenergy being a necessary part of the solution to climatechange. Given the rise in fossil fuel prices, they claimed thatthere is a role for nuclear energy to play, if not as apermanent solution then as a solution for a transitional period- although considering that industry thinks 50 years is short-term, who knows how long they envisage this 'transition' tobe. They boasted that public support for nuclear energy isgrowing fast and were opposed by the majority of theaudience, most notably by young Finnish anti-nuclearactivists who stressed that their government had actedagainst popular opinion when it decided to start the first newnuclear plant project in western Europe since the Chernobylaccident.
Despite sticking to its usual ridiculous arguments, the lobbydid manage to come up with one new and rather hilariousargument in its own favour - that a nuclear reactor does nottake much space! Possibly an argument suitable for use onthe NIMBY groups fighting the expansion of onshore windfarms because turbines obscure the landscape…
More worrisome than the predictable presentations from thenuclear industry were the contributions of green activistspromoting nuclear power, such as Greenpeace co-founderPatrick Moore and Gaia-theorist James Lovelock whofeatured in a documentary shown at the Conference. Whileaccusing opponents of being anti-science and anti-technology, they claimed that the new generations of nuclearreactors are reliable and safe. Lovelock, when confrontedwith questions on radioactivity and waste, simply respondedthat of course there would be more cancers and accidents,but that this was acceptable because climate change isthreatening the whole earth system. Both appeared equallyblind to the fact that real sustainable solutions are available,can replace nuclear capacity in many instances whencoupled with efficiency and that every penny invested innuclear power instead of renewables is wasted by anindustry without a future but that, with the collusion ofgovernments and interest groups, will do and say anything toensure its own survival. In the United States, for example, itis calculated that for the last 40 years, for every dollar spenton wind energy research, 30 dollars were spent on nuclearresearch.
These issues were discussed at a workshop organised byWISE at the Conference. Activists from different continentsagreed there that is an urgent need for the anti nuclear
community to follow the climate debate more closely. Havingsucceeded in keeping nuclear out of the Kyoto Protocol bypresenting a united front in 2001, we need to do more tostop the nuclear industry disguising itself as the solution forclimate change as is reported on a horrifyingly regular basisin much of the world's media.
The general public on the whole seems to have forgotten ourbasic arguments about nuclear safety, waste and radiationand have largely become used to nuclear power as part oftheir reality. Lifetime extensions of aged reactors in countriesworldwide are contributing to the feeling that 'it is as it is'.Moreover, there has not been any really major accidents forthe media to focus on in 20 years (luckily), which contributesto the general public's view of nuclear as being 'safe' now.The recent IAEA/WHO report trivialising the effects ofChernobyl has not been placed under critical mainstreammedia review in any country, as far as we are aware. Thereport was accepted by the media because it originated froma body that should be trustworthy, the UN, and because thepress release was a clever product of nuclear spin, welltimed to precede the report and seemingly detailed enoughin its four pages to make journalists deem reading the fullreport (at a whopping 600 plus pages) unnecessary. Thearguments against the astronomical costs of nuclear energyare loosing their value as oil prices continue to rise andincreasingly, security of supply is used becoming the buzzphrase in the promotion of nuclear.
What we have to do is to borrow an old political phrase andgo back to basics, repeat the arguments against nuclearpower over and over again in easily accessible language andstress the potential of other solutions at every opportunity.We need to show that we are not just clinging to our beliefsfor the sake of it and that we are aware and do understandthat climate change is a real threat and deal with people'srightful concerns.
The nuclear industry is trying to discredit alternatives fromrenewable sources and we need to make it known thatrealistic scenario's do exist to change our whole energyproduction to solar, wind, small hydro and sustainablebiomass before 2050. Although many people now perceiveclimate change to be a bigger problem than nuclear power,we must move the debate on from a choice between thelesser of two evils as it is currently being portrayed. We havethe same solution for both evils and it is called sustainableenergy.
Source and contact: WISE Amsterdam
10 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
CHERNOBYL 20 YEARS ON: NUCLEAR COSTS & ENERGY FUTURES
CITY HALL, LONDON - 23 MARCH 2006
8TH IRISH & UK LOCAL AUTHORITIES STANDING CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR
HAZARDS
The conference will consider the safety and security issues around new nuclear construction; prospects for implementingpolicy for UK radioactive wastes; the vulnerability of nuclear sites on the Irish Sea coast to climate change impacts; andopportunities to meet energy needs and tackle climate change without recourse to nuclear energy.
For the first time the conference will link up with Chernobyl Children's Charities and leading environmental and energycampaigners for joint morning plenary presentations. In the afternoon each sector: local government; charities; andcampaigners, will separate and hold their own meetings within City Hall.
Conference Aims to:
· Review the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its continuing impact on theBritish Isles
· Report on voluntary action to mitigate health impacts· Report on key developments in UK nuclear energy policy and waste management policy process and how to engage
with them· Report on innovative strategies to meet future energy needs with low environmental and health costs
This conference offers a unique opportunity to be thoroughly briefed about these key policy issues and about how toengage with them. Places are limited and early registration is recommended.
Contact Nuclear Policy and Information Unit / Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat, tel. +44 (0) 161 234 3244, fax.+44 (0)161 234 3379, e-mail: [email protected], website: http://www.nuclearpolicy.info
DRAFT PROGRAMME
9.30-10.20 Registration, welcome and opening speeches
10.20 Chernobyl's Legacy
Chair: Cllr Darren Johnson, Member of the London Assembly1. Rebecca Harms, MEP (provisional confirmation)2. John Urquhart, Epidemiologist (confirmed)3. Linda Walker, Chernobyl Children's Project UK (confirmed)
Midday Innovative Energy Futures
Chair: Cllr Michael O'Dowd, Louth County Council (confirmed)1. Jean McSorley, Senior Nuclear Campaigner, Greenpeace UK (confirmed)2. Antony Froggatt, Energy Analyst (confirmed)
Committee Room 5, 14.00-17.00Session themes:· Nuclear Safety & Security· Development Control & Accountability through the Planning Process· Policy on UK Radioactive Waste Management· Climate Change Impacts on the Irish Sea Coast· Developing the UK & Irish Nuclear Free Local Authorities Network
11NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
PSR REPORT ON DEPLETED URANIUM HEALTH ISSUESA recently published Physicians for Social Responsibility report on the health issues associated
with depleted uranium surprisingly failed to draw on recent literature, studies and accepted
knowledge on the issue. In fact, the number of scientific health studies on DU poisoning
included were somewhat inadequate.
(640.5742) Laka Foundation - It is notknown why the authors of the PSRreport chose to focus on informationretrieved from outdated depleteduranium (DU) health literature reports bythe RAND Corporation but ignoredmore recent empirical studies like, forexample, that of the Armed ForcesRadiobiology Research Institute(AFRRI).
Since around 1998 there has been agrowing body of evidence from in vitroand in vivo studies indicating that DUoxides may be genotoxic, mutagenic,and tumorigenic. A significant amountof this work is currently beingconducted at the AFRRI under thedirection of Dr. Alexandra Miller. Sheand her colleagues demonstrated forthe first time that internalised DUoxides could result in "a significantenhancement of urinary mutagenicity",that they can transform human cellsinto cells capable of producingcancerous tumours when implantedinto mice with suppressed immunesystems. They also found that DU wascapable of inducing DNA damage in theabsence of significant radioactivedecay. Other experiments show thatalpha particle radiation is causing thecancerous mutation followed by a buildup of damage from either or both theheavy metal and radiation properties ofuranium aiding the spread of thecancer, or vice versa (1).
That the authors should describe theRAND Corporation and the WorldHealth Organisation (WHO) as'independent' organisations is bothsurprising and incomprehensible. TheRAND Corporation is an American thinktank first formed to offer research andanalysis to the U.S. military (2). TheCentre for Media and Democracy hassaid, "Two-thirds of RAND's researchinvolves national security issues. This isdivided into Project Air Force, theArroyo Centre (serving the needs of theArmy), and the National DefenseResearch Institute (providing research
and analysis for the Office of theSecretary of Defense, the Joint Staff,and the defense agencies)." (3) Askingthe RAND Corporation to study thehealth issues of DU oxide dust is akinto asking the CIA to investigate thetorture of prisoners captured in the waragainst terrorism.
Also the WHO can be hardly describedas an independent body on ionisingradiation and health issues. In the 1959agreement signed between the IAEAand WHO, both parties recognized thatthe IAEA has the primary responsibilityfor encouraging, assisting andcoordinating research on atomic energythroughout the world, without prejudiceto the right of WHO to concern itselfwith promoting, developing, assistingand coordinating international healthwork, including research in all itsaspects. This clearly suggests that thepromotional bureau of nuclear energy(IAEA) considers itself to be thewatchdog on information distributed tothe public regarding the health effectsof radiation, while the WHO contributesto medical care and public healthassistance (4).
The superficial health studies by RANDand WHO help to perpetuate the myth,accepted by the PSR report authors,that the health impacts of DU oxidedust are comparable to those ofnaturally occurring uranium. Dr. KeithBaverstock and other scientistsresearching DU health impacts havepreviously observed that fine particlesof DU oxide have no natural analogues.Therefore the inhalation of DU oxidedust particles, and the reaction causedby that, cannot be compared withnatural uranium. In contrast with naturalforms, DU oxide dust particles arehighly concentrated, mainly insoluble orsparingly soluble and can be lodged inthe lungs for many years. Besides thisnotion, the WHO simply ignores thepotential risk routes in addition toradiotoxicity by direct irradiation,namely, chemical genotoxicity, synergy
between radiation and chemicaltoxicities and a bystander route. Theevidence for these three routes isgrowing (5).
From an independent organisation ofphysicians, we could have expected amore thorough, critical and up to dateoverview on scientific DU healthstudies. Unfortunately, this report didnot meet with this particular reader'sexpectations.
toxicity and politics given at the ICBUW conference
at the European Parliament in Brussels, June 23
2005.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=180
Contact: Henk van der Keur, LAKAFoundation, Ketelhuisplein 43, 1054 RDAmsterdam, the NetherlandsTel: +31 20 6168294Fax: +31 20 6892179E-mail: [email protected]: www.laka.org
12 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
SIGN THE PETITION!The campaign to gather 1 million signatures against nuclear power in Europe has gained momentum on all fronts. There is agreat need to restate our arguments against the nuclear case, and demonstrate the viability of alternatives.
The continued efforts of the campaign initiators, and new commitments made by Friends of the Earth Europe and FoE groupssuch as Global 2000 and BUND, have given the campaign a real boost - and a full-time coordinator based at WISEAmsterdam. A dedicated website, www.million-against-nuclear.net, will be online by January 9, 2006. Initially, in fourlanguages (French, German, Spanish and English) but more will follow shortly.
On March 11 2006, groups from all over Europe will hold a Europe-wide 1 Million Petition Kick-Off Day, with actions andactivities in as many European countries as possible. There will be more action in June, a Summer Estafette Tour, and a finalinternational action after October 1 2006, the end date for handing in signatures.
There are a million things you can do to help:· If you have signed already, then ask your friends and family to sign also· Order or download petitions, and distribute amongst your colleagues and neighbours - don't be shy to be anti-nuclear!· Get your group of friends together and do an action or circulate leaflets on March 11· Send out emails directing people to the petition on the website
We need you - again! Join us by adding your name to the list of people who want nuclear power out of Europe for good.
13NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
IN BRIEF
MPs to rebel against Blair's nuclear plans. Group of Labour Party MPs, reportedly backed by environment minister ElliotMorley, are organizing a parliamentary rebellion against Tony Blair's plans for new nuclear plants in the UK. The group arepublishing their own proposals in an effort to direct policy, arguing that the nuclear industry would need to be massively subsidisedto make it viable. The manifesto being drafted sets out the case for continued investment in renewable energy instead of "adangerous leap with nuclear". One section will also point out that uranium provides no greater long-term security of supply. TheMPs want the government to come clean about the real costs of nuclear power to consumers and want a parliamentary vote to betaken on any decision on new nuclear. Alan Whitehead, a former minister, said "If there was a free market in energy, i.e. noassistance for new nuclear build, no long term promise of a guaranteed market and no minimum price for nuclear, no one wouldbuild a new nuclear power station. Nuclear is not carbon-free, nor is it renewable".The Guardian, December 22, 2005
EU Commission's nuclear disagreement. The nuclear package containing three proposals on nuclear research,decommissioning funds and non-proliferation that was to have been discussed by the European Commission this month has beendropped following a row over how financial resources should be allocated. The package proposed by the energy department ofthe Commission would have set up a joint undertaking between it and member states on research into advanced wastemanagement options. But it is reported that the research department had other ideas, preferring for the money to be spent onadvancing nuclear fusion instead. Commission spokesperson Ferran Tarradellas said that discussions are still on going with theresearch department and that proposals were expected to be revealed "early next year". In 2003, two directives on nuclear safetyand waste were withdrawn after facing resistance from governments protesting at being told how to manage decommissioningfunds. Whatever the new proposal contains, it will likely still meet with disapproval from some governments opposed to what theysee as EU interference. However, given that in some countries - France and Germany for example - utilities are able to spenddecommissioning funds on anything other than the task they were set up to fund, it would seem that the only way to ensure thatthere are sufficient funds for the task is if the Commission stands firm.European Voice, December 21, 2005
Investors pulling out of Skull Valley (U.S.). Entergy Corporation, one of Private Fuel Storage's (PFS) eight original investors willhold future investments from the proposed nuclear waste storage site at the Goshute's Skull Valley reservation in Utah. It becamethe fourth PFS investor to change the terms of its financial support in the last month - two others, Southern Company and FloridaPower and Light have pulled out completely. The largest investor, Xcel, has also put a 'hold' on its funding. In a letter, Curt HerbertJr., Executive Vice President at Entergy said "We recognize the political obstacles to finding solutions to management of spent fuelfrom nuclear plants and believe the Utah facility is probably not the best solution to be pursued at this time". Happy news for thepeople of Skull Valley no doubt.Deseret Morning News, December 21, 2005; NEI News, December 14, 2005
Indo-US deal on rocky ground. In the face of growing controversy over the nuclear cooperation deal agreed between George W.Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in July, India has rejected demands that it curb its nuclear weapons programme.
The Indian ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, in November warned that any moves by the U.S. Congress to change theterms of the deal could undermine it completely. The agreement would grant India access to nuclear technology previously deniedto it because it have illegally developed and tested nuclear weapons. Many prominent American critics have called for the deal tobe tightening us because it undermines non-proliferation. India committed to separate its military and civilian nuclear facilities toensure that U.S. cooperation with the civilian part does not also benefit the weapons programme but New Delhi is not believed tohave make much progress in fulfilling this requirement. However, Ambassador Sen insists that India will make good on its promiseto reveal the nature of its facilities and to allow IAEA inspections of civilian plants for the first time as well as signing the safeguardsagreement. In the past, a Canadian supplied Cirus plant intended for peaceful uses ended up being diverted for military purposesand some U.S. critics fear that the same could happen again.
Two U.S. lawmakers have proposed a resolution expressing congressional disapproval of the agreement. Democratic Rep EdwardMarkey of Massachusetts, who introduced the resolution with Republican Rep Fred Upton of Michigan, said, "Supplying nuclearfuel to countries that are not party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty derails the delicate balance that has been establishedbetween nuclear nations and limits our capacity to insist that other nations follow that important non-proliferation policy". "Wecannot break the nuclear rules (…) and demand everyone else play by them."Reuters, December 21 and November 22, 2005; AFP, December 7 2005
Chinese nuclear deal collapses. The US$ 8billion contract to build four nuclear reactors in China is off because off the massivecosts involved. Westinghouse, Areva and Atomstroiexport had been competing for the lucrative contract to build the reactors butthe Chinese have decided that although they only planned to import the arts of the plants that could not be produceddomestically, the prices offered by the bidders were too unreasonable to consider. The Chinese government has said that new
14 NUCLEAR MONITOR 640
improved bids in terms of price and the transfer of nuclear technology would have to be offered before it would reconsider.Reuters, December 20, 2005
Radiation release in Chechnya. High radiation levels have been detected at an abandoned factory in the Russian Republic ofChechnya. Russian state television reported that one storage facility at the plant had recorded levels of radioactivity 58,000 timeshigher than normal levels - half of what was released at Chernobyl - and could have serious impacts on the health of localpopulations. The discovery was reportedly made by a group of looters and prosecutors in Chechnya have now launched acriminal investigation. According to prosecutors, the radioactive materials have been identified as Cobalt-60, an isotope of cobaltused in food processing and by hospitals. It is also said to be one of the most likely elements to be used in the manufacturing of"dirty bombs".ISN Security Watch, December 18 2005; Aljazeera, December 17, 2005; BBC News, December 16, 2005
Earthlife Africa loses Eskom court case. Earthlife Africa's (ELA) application for access to Eskom board minutes under SouthAfrica's Access to Information Act were dismissed by a Cape Town court. ELA had initiated the case in an effort to force Eskom toreveal why it had failed to provide adequate information on the health impacts and economics of the PBMR project. (See alsoWISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor 639.5737 "South Africa's PBMR nightmare continues") The group were also ordered to pay all courtcosts. The judgement came as a huge blow to the organization but it will consider the full implications before making a decisionon an appeal. ELA press release, December 15, 2005
IAEA chief calls for disarmament. During his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Mohamed ElBaradei said "If we hope toescape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons have no place in our collective conscience, and no role on our security." ElBaradeiappealed to nuclear weapons states to reduce the strategic role given to nuclear weapons and said efforts towards disarmamentmust be accelerated. He also suggested that world regard nuclear weapons as taboo as slavery or genocide. "Imagine that theonly nuclear weapons remaining are relics in our museums. Imagine the legacy we could leave our children," he said. Imagineindeed… We hope this means that the UN agency will now concentrate its efforts on disarmament and reduce the time it spendson promoting nuclear power.The Independent and AP, December 12, 2005; Sunday Herald (UK), December 11, 2005
Global IAEA poll. An 18-country IAEA sponsored survey of around 18,000 people from all regions was conducted by GlobescanInc. between May and August and has found that six out of ten people are against the construction of new nuclear plants -unfortunately, six out of ten also believe that existing plants should continue to be used. Still, it does suggest that despite themassive PR efforts of governments and the nuclear industry, the public is still not convinced by the arguments for new nuclearpower. The survey also revealed that 46% did not believe IAEA inspections effective in monitoring countries' nuclear programmesand that 54% believe that the risk of nuclear terrorism is high because of insufficient protection measures.IAEA press release, December 17, 2005
Britain accused of Israeli nukes 'cover-up'. Following an August broadcast of the BBC's Newsnight programme - based ondocuments found in the British National Archive - that revealed Britain had sold heavy water to Israel more than 40 years ago, theUK is being accused of attempting to hide its role in the development of Israel's nuclear weapons programme. Heavy water is akey element in plutonium production and shipments bought by Britain from Norway were sold back to Noratom, a Norwegianstate firm and then resold to Israel. UK authorities were apparently aware that the 20 tons of heavy water was destined for Israel -Israeli ships actually collected it directly from a British port.
The Arab League requested that the IAEA investigate the allegations but UK Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells denied the UK'sinvolvement in a letter to the IAEA sent to all member governments. MPs are now calling for an investigation into the veracity ofBritain's response, claiming that Norway is being used as a smokescreen.
A 1958 letter from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to foreign office official Donald Cape said "it could be argued that the Israeli'swill receive the heavy water by reason of our reselling it to Noratom; that therefore we are parties to the supply to Israel". Inaddition, the contract between Israel and Noratom obtained by Newsnight stated that Norway's responsibility would be "limited"to that of "consultant", taking a commission of two percent on the four million dollar deal. Cape has since claimed that ministerswere not informed of the sale because Israel was not suspected of trying to develop weapons. However, other confidentialdocuments obtained by Newsnight under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the Foreign Office knew that Israel hadtried to buy uranium from South Africa. One letter quoted CIA reports from 1957 and 1958 that said "The Israelis must beexpected to try and establish a nuclear weapons programme as soon as the means were available to them". The author of theseletters? Donald Cape. Although other documents accepted that Israel wanted an independent supply of plutonium in order tomake weapons, the Foreign Office failed to impose any restrictions on how the heavy water was used. Cape said it would be"over zealous" to impose safeguards and agreed to keep the deal secret from the U.S.BBC News, December 9, 2005
Reproduction of this material is encouraged. Please give credit when reprinting.
Editorial team: Tinu Otoki and Peer de Rijk (WISE Amsterdam), Michael Mariotte (NIRS).
With contributions from Campagne tegen Wapenhandel, Laka Foundation, WISE Uranium Project.
The next issue (641) will be mailed out on January 27, 2006.
All of us at WISE and NIRS would like to wish all our colleagues and readers the very best for theholiday season and a happy, peaceful and successful 2006!
Korea in nuclear deal with Indonesia. Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) has entered into an agreement with PT PerusahaanUmum Listrik Negera (PLN), an Indonesian state-owned power company, to help complete a yearlong feasibility study on buildingthe country's first nuclear power plant. Under the memorandum of understanding, KEPCO and its affiliate Korea Hydro & NuclearPower Co. will work together with PLN on a business plan for the construction. Once the proposal is in place, Indonesia will openan international tender processThe Korea Herald, December 14, 2005; Asia Times, December 15, 2005
The NUCLEAR MONITORThe Nuclear Information & Resource Servicewas founded in 1978 and is based inWashington, DC. The World Information Serviceon Energy was set up the same year and ishoused in Amsterdam, Netherlands. NIRS andWISE Amsterdam joined forces in 2000,creating a worldwide network of informationand resource centers for citizens andenvironmental organizations concerned aboutnuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, andsustainable energy.
The Nuclear Monitor publishes internationalinformation in English 20 times a year. ASpanish translation of this newsletter isavailable on the WISE Amsterdam website(www.antenna.nl/wise/esp). A Russian versionis published by WISE Russia, a Ukrainianversion is published by WISE Ukraine and aJapanese edition is published by WISE Japan(latter two available at www.nirs.org). Backissues are available through the WISEAmsterdam homepage: www.antenna.nl/wiseand at www.nirs.org.
Receiving the Nuclear MonitorUS and Canadian readers should contact NIRSto obtain the Nuclear Monitor (address seepage 11). Subscriptions are $35/yr forindividuals and $250/year for institutions.
Receive the Nuclear Monitor by E-MailWe encourage our North American readers toreceive their copies by e-mail in Adobe Acrobat.pdf format. You receive your issues muchsooner--at least a week or more earlier than themail--and NIRS saves on printing and postagecosts. To convert your subscription at no cost,just send a message to [email protected]. Pleaseinclude your name and mailing address. Or callus at 202-328-0002.
Atomic WatchdogThe Atomic Watchdog provides behind-the-scenes looks at NIRS and our activities, profilesof NIRS supporters and much more. It's free toeveryone who contributes $100 or more toNIRS during the year. If you'd like a samplecopy, just e-mail or call us.
Sustainable Energy PetitionDon’t forget to sign the Petition for aSustainable Energy Future! We expect a lotmore legislative activity on energy issues incoming months and the next Congress. Youcan sign at www.nirs.org. And you can help byasking your friends to sign and by distributingthe petition at concerts, meetings, etc. Call usat 202-328-0002 if you’d like paper copies sentto you.
![Leningrad [FFM44] - Days of Wonder](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/61570983a097e25c765067bd/leningrad-ffm44-days-of-wonder.jpg)
![[Wiki] Siege of Leningrad](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/55cf8573550346484b8e2d27/wiki-siege-of-leningrad.jpg)
