***************************************************************** 06/01/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.137 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Daschle says Yucca Mountain a dead issue 2 Official criticizes lack of final plan for repository 3 Town sued by new owners of power station 4 AEP subsidiary to install pollution control system in Piketon 5 Statement of Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Agency 6 Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs 7 Nuclear reactor restarted four months after fire shut it down 8 Residents Back Power Plant Plan 9 Nuclear Power: Worth the Risk? 10 Nuclear plant passes annual test by agency 11 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UTAH CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 12 WNA News Briefing 01.22 | 23 - 30 May 2001 13 Comments on Supplement to Draft EIS for Proposed Yucca Mountain 14 Tepco puts MOX debut on hold 15 Fukushima Energy Review Committee Set Up 16 Legislation ignored 17 Leak at Czech nuclear plant - 18 Studsvik is Launching a Sweeping Programme of Change 19 Editorial: Mothballing dump would be grand idea 20 Trade union conference votes on nuclear power 21 Russia MP Sees Soviet-Style Muzzling of Scientists 22 Daschle: Switch may stall bills that would affect Nevada 23 ENERGY / A Failed Technology / No, no, nuclear 24 Daschle: Nuclear Waste Plan 'Dead' 25 Daschle high on Nevada's future 26 Alternate cooling process proposed for nuke waste 27 Energy firms eye Nevada 'green' power 28 Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects - Meeting Agenda, June 8, 2001 NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Tracy urged to fight against cleanup cuts 2 Tauscher to talk at Livermore Lab 3 Compensate children of sick nuclear workers 4 Grassley says he may press Congress on Army plant flyover 5 Hazard network 6 N-Weapons Need Costly Overhaul 7 World and I Magazine - Ernest Rutherford 8 Residency ruled irrelevant in atomic-bomb payouts 9 U.S. Fears Pakistani Nuclear Proliferation - Paper 10 DOE plans to store stockpile of recycled nickel 'indefinitely' 11 Plutonium means prosperity at Savannah River Site ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Daschle says Yucca Mountain a dead issue By Angie Wagner Associated Press June 1st, 2001 LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada got a boost in its fight to keep nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain when the incoming Senate majority leader on Thursday put up a formidable partisan roadblock. “I think the Yucca Mountain issue is dead,” Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said after arriving in Las Vegas. “As long as we’re in the majority, it’s dead.” Since 1987, Yucca Mountain has been the only site studied to become the graveyard for 77,000 tons of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste. The Energy Department is scheduled to forward its recommendation next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who will make a recommendation to President Bush. The earliest it could open is 2010. The state’s bipartisan congressional delegation, Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, state and city leaders and the gambling industry are opposed to the dump site, 90 miles from Las Vegas. The state Senate on Wednesday passed a bill to put up $4 million for a legal and public relations fight against the proposed dump. Daschle, in town to speak at a private fund-raiser for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke with reporters when he arrived at the Las Vegas Executive Air Terminal. Daschle’s trip to Las Vegas was his first outside of South Dakota since Vermont Sen. James Jeffords left the Republican Party last week to become an independent, giving Democrats control of the Senate with a 50-49 majority. Daschle will become the Senate’s new majority leader next week and Reid the majority whip, the No. 2 man in the Senate. Daschle said the new positions he and Reid will have “will allow us to put Nevada’s agenda on the national agenda.” He then spoke briefly about Yucca Mountain and predicted a proposed ban on college sports betting won’t pass the Senate either. “Because it passed on a committee 10-10, it’s very likely it’s in for a rough road,” he said. “I think we can convince the majority of senators to be opposed to it as well.” Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee split 10-10 over whether to gut a bill outlawing betting on college sports, which is legal only in Nevada. The tie vote meant the bill survived and now goes to the full Senate. Thursday’s $1,000-a-head fund-raiser at the Bali Hai Golf Club was expected to bring in $500,000 for Reid’s 2004 re-election campaign. © 2001 Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 2 Official criticizes lack of final plan for repository [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, June 01, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Energy Department's impact statement has no definite design for nuclear waste dump By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nevada wants the Energy Department to pin down its final design for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain instead of using a flexible design as described in impact documents. That message was delivered Thursday night in a two-page statement from state Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux in Amargosa Valley during the first of three hearings on a supplement to the project's final environmental impact statement. "A set of evolving design scenarios, with variable design features and operational parameters, is neither sufficient for a final EIS nor for a site recommendation, if one is to be made," wrote Loux, who prepared the comments for the state and local governments. Yucca Mountain Project spokesman Allen Benson said that while the Energy Department will evaluate and respond to the state's comments, designing the repository will continue to evolve as scientists define the safest conditions to hold the waste and displace its heat into the repository's volcanic rock walls. "It's more important to have a safe design than a quick design," Benson said in a telephone interview. "It's going to be an evolving process to present the safest design we can." A final design will not be available until about 2003, when the Energy Department expects to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate a repository. "That's the design that's going to count. Even then it's subject to amendment," Benson said. Loux's statement, read by consultant Steve Frishman, requests a 45-day extension of the public comment period. The statement asks for engineering specifications for the repository and for the Energy Department to assess what would happen if a pool is damaged outside the repository's entrance where 12,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies would be submerged. "The supplement fails to consider that if the waste handling building collapses, the large fuel blending pool ... will also fail. It also does not recognize that with collapse of the building, electric power will be terminated, ending the ability to cool the spent fuel. "In any case there will be a rapid, and possibly catastrophic heating of the damaged spent fuel in the pool," Loux wrote. Yucca Mountain is the only site being studied to entomb the nation's most lethal radioactive wastes, 77,000 tons of it, most of which is spent nuclear fuel pellets encased in metal rods. The waste is stored at reactor sites across the nation. The two remaining hearings on the Energy Department's supplement to the Yucca Mountain environmental impact statement will be Tuesday in Las Vegas at the Suncoast and Thursday in Pahrump at the Ruud Community Center. Both hearings will be from 5 to 9 p.m. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-01-Fri-2001/news/16225906.html ***************************************************************** 3 Town sued by new owners of power station TheDay.com: Local and National News By Paul Choiniere Published on 6/1/2001 Waterford –– Dominion Resources Inc., the new owner of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, filed a lawsuit against the town in Superior Court Thursday challenging its property tax assessment. If successful, the claim could cost the town an estimated $19 million in tax revenue. Despite the filing of the three-inch thick, 261-count lawsuit, both sides in the tax dispute said negotiations will continue in hopes of reaching a settlement. The $19 million represents the difference between the $33 million the town thinks the power-plant owners should pay and the $14 million that Dominion believes it owes. The town bases its tax bill on a property value assessment of just more than $2 billion. In its appeal, Dominion asserts the plants and equipment at Millstone station should be assessed at $907 million. Town knew it was coming Waterford First Selectman Paul B. Eccard said the filing of the lawsuit was expected. Connecticut law requires that a taxpayer wanting to adjust their assessment file a tax appeal in a timely fashion, Eccard noted. By filing the lawsuit Dominion maintains its legal options should talks fail. Dominion Resources of Virginia and its subsidiary that operates Millstone Station, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, are listed as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Eccard said negotiations with Dominion continue to move forward. “I still anticipate that this will be worked out short of having to fight this out in court,” Eccard said. The dispute centers on whether the recent sale of Millstone should alter the current tax assessment. Last August, Dominion bid $1.3 billion at auction to purchase the three power plants from Northeast Utilities. It closed the deal in April. The town argues that Northeast Utilities still was the Millstone owner of record when the Oct. 1 grand list of taxable property was issued, and as such was subject to assessment formulas that predate the sale. Conversely, Dominion believes the value of the Millstone plants was set at auction, when the company submitted the top bid of $1.3 billion. Pete Hyde, a Dominion spokesman, said the company expects a negotiated settlement of the tax dispute will be reached. “We're very confident that we are going to resolve the question,” he said. “We are pleased with the progress we made and optimistic that we will reach a mutually beneficial outcome.” Filing the lawsuit was the prudent thing to do, said Hyde. “This is something that, procedurally, we had to do,” he said. “It in no way limits our expectations about a positive outcome.” © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 4 AEP subsidiary to install pollution control system in Piketon - 2001-05-30 - Business First of Columbus American Electric Power Co.'s AEP Pro Serv Inc. subsidiary is set to begin installing pollution-control systems at two electric-generating plants that supply power to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, the company said Wednesday. AEP Pro Serv will be the general contractor for the addition of selective catalytic reduction systems that reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired plants. The project is expected to cost $300 million and be finished by May 2003. The systems will be added to the Kyger Creek plant in Cheshire, Ohio and the Clifty Creek plant in Madison, Ind. The plants are operated by the Ohio Valley Electric Corp. and its subsidiary, Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. The plants have been providing electric service to the Portsmouth uranium enrichment complex since 1955. The pollution-control systems are similar to those in operation at an AEP plant near the Kyger Creek plant in southern Ohio. The systems use ammonia to initiate a chemical reaction that breaks down nitrogen oxide released during coal combustion into elemental nitrogen and water. Business First email: columbus@bizjournals.com ***************************************************************** 5 Statement of Robert R. Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects on The Supplement to The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for The Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada STATEMENT OF ROBERT R. LOUX EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEVADA AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA AMARGOSA VALLEY NYE COUNTY, NEVADA MAY 31, 2001 The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects is the State agency, within the Governor's Office, designated by the Nevada Legislature to carry out the State's oversight duties associated with the federal high-level nuclear waste program. These comments are being presented on behalf of the State of Nevada, and are in addition to Nevada's comments already submitted on the Draft EIS in February, 2000. We will be submitting written comments on the Supplement prior to the end of the comment period. We and affected units of local government have requested an additional 45 days be included in the comment period for this Supplement, and we urge the DOE's timely consideration of these requests. The State's primary comment regarding this Supplement is that it fails to meet the requirement that the Secretary of Energy's site recommendation include a description of the proposed repository and preliminary engineering specifications for the facility. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is part of the comprehensive basis required for the Secretary's recommendation, just as is the repository design description. And, the Final EIS must reflect the proposed repository design. A set of evolving design scenarios, with variable design features and operational parameters, is neither sufficient for a Final EIS nor for a Site Recommendation, if one is to be made. The DEIS, including any supplements, is the basis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. It must include an evaluation of the impacts associated with specific design alternatives in order to support informed public review and comment, and ultimately an informed decision by the Secretary. The Supplement describes two general design options, one which would result in drift wall temperatures rising to above the boiling temperature, and one which would keep the waste container surface temperature below 85 degrees C. Variable operational modes and design features are discussed that, in combination could be arranged to meet either of the design options. The Supplement asserts that the range of operational modes and design features described serves to bound the potential impacts of the repository. The DEIS made the same claim for the three general design options evaluated. However, the design features and operational modes described in this supplement result in an increase, beyond the bounds evaluated in the DEIS, in nearly all impacts originally analyzed. Two new significant features have been added to the conceptual repository surface facility by this supplement, and neither has been adequately analyzed. The proposed blending pool, in the waste handling building, designed to hold 5,000 MTHM, or 12,000 spent fuel assemblies, is not properly included in the accident analysis. The accident analysis in the Supplement has the same scenario conditions as that in the DEIS: a seismic collapse of the waste handling building with damage to all waste casks in the building. The Supplement fails to consider that if the Waste Handling Building collapses, the large fuel blending pool, built to the same design basis accident standards, will also fail. It also does not recognize that with collapse of the building, electric power will be terminated, ending the ability to cool the spent fuel in the damaged or collapsed pool. In any case, there will be a rapid, and possibly catastrophic heating of the damaged spent fuel in the pool. This accident scenario must be fully analyzed, and its consequences described in the Supplement. The Supplement also describes a 200 acre spent fuel storage area, in the vicinity of the North Portal Operations Area, that would hold 40,000 MTHM of spent fuel in 4,500 dry casks for a 50-year cooling period. This facility is the equivalent of the spent fuel storage facility proposed for Skull Valley, Utah, with the exception that the storage pad area at Skull Valley is proposed to be 100 acres. The Supplement does not include a seismic hazard analysis for this facility, that were it required to be licensed under the same NRC rules being applied to the Skull Valley proposed facility, would likely not be licensable because of the earthquake potential in the area. The Supplement must include a seismic risk and consequence analysis for this proposed spent fuel storage area. Furthermore, if 50 years of storage for purposes of cooling the spent fuel is being considered, why is it necessary to bring the spent fuel to Yucca Mountain. Evaluation of a decades-long cooling period at the reactors would have provided a realistic No Action Alternative to replace the DEIS's analysis of the unrealistic scenario of essentially abandoning the spent fuel at the reactors for 10,000 years. ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs (washingtonpost.com) Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A30 At least two issues associated with the economics of nuclear power generation were left out of May 15 news stories on energy development. The first is the issue of liability. In the infancy of nuclear power, the electricity-generating industry refused to build nuclear plants without assurances that it would never have to bear the full cost of any catastrophic accident. It got -- and still has -- the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry. In effect, the taxpayer is the insurer of last resort of the nuclear power industry. The second is the issue of decommissioning costs. The question of how best to dispose of nuclear fuel wastes is trivial compared with the question of how to dispose of outmoded nuclear plants. Studies estimate that it will cost more to decommission a nuclear plant than it cost to build it. Any comparison of the costs of producing electricity in nuclear power plants and fossil-fuel plants needs to take into consideration these issues. MARCIA RUCKER Bethesda © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear reactor restarted four months after fire shut it down Inland Empire Online The Associated Press SAN CLEMENTE The Unit 3 reactor at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which provides electricity to 1 million households, came back on line Thursday, four months after a fire forced it to shut down. Plant operators fired Unit 3 to about 18 percent capacity Thursday, not enough to send electricity to the grid. The reactor could be at full power by Sunday if there are no delays, said plant spokesman Ray Golden. Southern California Edison owns 75 percent of the plant and Southern California Gas and Electric owns the remaining 25 percent. Each of San Onofre's reactors produces 1,120 megawatts of power, enough to supply 1.1 million homes and businesses. Only one of the northern San Diego County plant's reactors, Unit 2, has been in operation since the Feb. 3 fire. "We've been working hard to get the plant back on line to meet the summer demand," said Golden. Unit 3 was shut down when a fire ignited in a switching room. Flames did not cause a radiation release, but cut electricity to an oil pump that lubricates steam turbines. Repair work cost Edison's insurance carrier nearly $50 million. San Onofre and Diablo Canyon on the Central California coast are the only two nuclear power plants in the state. Together, they produce about 18 percent of the electricity generated in California. No new nuclear plants are proposed. San Onofre's Unit 1 reactor was taken out of service in 1992 and is in the process of being decommissioned. Published: Friday, June 1, 2001 05:32 PDT ***************************************************************** 8 Residents Back Power Plant Plan Newsday.com | News June 1, 2001 ENERGY PROPOSAL Kathy Kmonicek Site of the old LILCO nuclear power plant in Shoreham. LIPA proposal gets warm reception by Katie Thomas Staff Writer Residents call the idea "exciting” and "smart.” Would you believe they're talking about a power plant? While communities from Far Rockaway to Yaphank have fought a recent flurry of applications to build plants in their backyards, many Shoreham and Wading River residents are warmly greeting a proposal by the Long Island Power Authority to build a plant on the site of the shuttered nuclear plant. "That's very exciting news,” said Scott Ericson, a newly elected Shoreham-Wading River School Board member. "I think it's a good place for a power plant as long as it's clean and well run.” Their motivation: money, mostly. For years, Shoreham and Wading River residents enjoyed some of the lowest school taxes on Long Island, benefiting from annual payments in lieu of taxes, or PILOT payments, from the Long Island Lighting Co. during the construction of the ill-fated Shoreham nuclear power plant. But since the plant was decommissioned in the late 1980s, those payments have gradually dwindled. LIPA, LILCO's successor, will cut its final check to the district next year. And residents are feeling the crunch; in the past three years, homeowners have seen their school tax rate more than double, from $55.12 per $100 of assessed valuation for Brookhaven residents in 1998 to $111.40 this year. "The question of needing to expand our tax base and get something other than residential taxes in there is definitely critical,” said Mary Daum, president of the Shoreham Civic Association. "That's on everybody's radar screen.” On Wednesday, LIPA sent out a request for proposals for companies interested in building, owning and operating small-scale power plants that will generate, in total, less than 80 megawatts of electricity. The authority has said it will seek out proposals that can be powered by both natural gas and oil. The community's receptiveness to the idea has played a role in the utility's interest in developing the site, said LIPA chairman Richard Kessel. "This is probably one of the few sites where a significant number of people would probably welcome a power plant,” he said. While the epic battle over the never-opened nuclear plant may have receded in the minds of many Long Islanders, the teal-blue cement hulk still looms over the shoreline, marring an otherwise picturesque view. Residents reason that the eyesore might as well be put to use. "They took a beautiful area and they destroyed it by putting that building there,” said Phil Sarcone, an insurance agent who moved with his family to Shoreham just over a year ago. His taxes are about $4,000 higher than what his real estate agent initially quoted him. "It's just sitting there... .Basically anything that would help the schools and that would relieve the taxes I think is going be very well received.” Not everyone is ready to welcome such a plant. Kay Mauder has lived in the community for four years and is president of the Parent-Teachers Association at Wading River Elementary School. "I would like safer things to come in, personally,” she said, suggesting a more passive use of the area's open space, such as a United Parcel Service depot. And while residents may be receptive to a small, natural-gas-fired plant, they are more wary of proposals that would make the site a magnet for such projects. That might be precisely what LIPA has in mind. Kessel said the proposed generator is only an initial step in developing the property. "LIPA is taking an intensive look at the entire site to develop potentially an energy park out there,” he said, adding that he envisions building a "major” power plant on the site as well as alternative energy sources such as windmills or solar and fuel cells. Daum said she thought the alternative energy proposals would be welcomed by many in the community, which includes a large contingent of scientists from nearby Brookhaven National Laboratory. While Daum said she would be opposed to an oil-fired plant, she believes many residents would entertain the idea of a larger natural gas-powered plant. Sid Bail, president of the Wading River Civic Association, said while he likes the idea of a small plant, "I'd hate to see us become a fossil fuel energy park.” Developing such a facility may be the silver lining in the cloud that is the nuclear plant, said Kessel, who was an opponent of the nuclear plant. "Shoreham will be forever in people's minds the great white elephant of Long Island,” he said. If LIPA can use the site to alleviate the area's energy woes through creative means, "I think we can get back some of what we lost.” newsday.com ***************************************************************** 9 Nuclear Power: Worth the Risk? June 1, 2001 Hard Questions on Nuclear Power (May 29, 2001) [T] o the Editor: "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29) concludes that the case has not yet been made for large-scale expansion of this power source, citing the "risks" associated with it. But there are risks associated with every human endeavor and with every fuel source for generating electricity: coal mines collapse, valleys flood, oil spills and gas pipelines rupture. Fifty years of safe power production from commercial plants proves that nuclear energy is no riskier than the alternatives. And waste disposal is primarily a political, not a scientific, issue. Nuclear power can help diversify our energy sources and reduce our dependence on imported oil and increasingly expensive natural gas. BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN Denton, Tex., May 29, 2001 *The writer is director of the Center for Economic Development and Research, University of North Texas*. •  To the Editor: A May 29 editorial about nuclear power moves too quickly through the problem of storing waste for thousands of years. We marvel at the sketchy knowledge developed by archaeologists of the Egyptian civilization of 5,000 years ago. Our knowledge of human existence 10,000 years ago is artful conjecture. In what language must the "Danger — Keep Out" signs be written to be understood 10,000 years from now? SIDNEY L. DELSON East Hampton, N.Y., May 30, 2001 •  To the Editor: Imagine how different the electricity situation in California would be if the state had not forced the closing of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant ("Hard Questions on Nuclear Power," editorial, May 29). Nuclear power has already proved its worth to this country through the 20 percent share of electricity it supplies. The question of whether to build new plants is not if, but when. A role for nuclear power is inevitable given the inherent problems of fossil fuels and the inability of alternatives to come close to being economical. We need a diversity of power sources, including nuclear power, which is domestically produced and nonpolluting.   WILLIAM H. MILLER Columbia, Mo., May 29, 2001 *The writer is a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri at Columbia*. •  To the Editor: Re "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29): The least polluting, most efficient energy policy would vigorously pursue wind power, solar energy and hydrogen fuel cells. Our current energy policies, however, are being shaped by those beholden to dirty energy. Their ideological and economic blinders even lead them to promote a revival of Frankenstein-like nuclear power. They ignore or deny the dangers of nuclear energy, the highly polluting uranium mining industry and the radioactive waste that must be isolated for thousands of years.   TOM FERGUSON Atlanta, May 30, 2001 To the Editor: According to a May 29 editorial, "nuclear power is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, thus it cannot reduce the nation's reliance on imported oil to power transportation systems." In France, where most electricity is nuclear-generated, the train systems run on nuclear power, reducing oil imports. We can do the same.   ROBERT W. ALBRECHT Seattle, May 29, 2001 *The writer is a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Washington*. •  To the Editor: "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29) speaks of reactor safety. While accidents in conventional power plants can be serious, we can live with the risks. But an accident in a nuclear plant can have consequences so severe that it may be nearly impossible to recover. As long as power plants are operated as private investments dedicated to making profits, there is an incentive for cutting corners on safety. If we expand our reliance on nuclear power, we will need management that is loyal to safety rather than profit.   JOHN R. BLIZARD Yarmouth Port, Mass., May 29, 2001 New York Times Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear plant passes annual test by agency [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ] A government agency gives Crystal River a good evaluation, despite a two-week shutdown after a fire protection system malfunctioned. By ALEX LEARY © St. Petersburg Times, published June 1, 2001 CRYSTAL RIVER -- Florida Power's nuclear plant "operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives," according to an annual review published Thursday by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The favorable evaluation, which covered the period between April 2, 2000, and March 31, 2001, was in line with a majority of plants in the southeast, said Len Wert, an NRC official in Atlanta. No plants in Florida warranted additional scrutiny, he said. Dale Young, the facility's vice president, said: "By assigning the plant only baseline inspections, the NRC has concluded that we identify and correct issues at the plant and that we conduct our day-to-day activities in a safe manner." The solid review came amid a two-week shutdown. The facility has not produced power since May 18, after a fire protection system malfunctioned. As the plant was returning to full power, another problem surfaced: water containing radioactive particles was leaking from a faulty valve at a rate of 6 gallons per minute. The water cools the nuclear reactor and helps prevent serious problems. No employees came in contact with the water, which was collected through a drain and treated, said spokesman Mac Harris. The valve was repaired in September, but the recent shutdown apparently caused "thermal stress" and it got worse, Wert said. "They are addressing the leak this time with a much more substantial repair effort," Wert said. "They are performing a modification to the valve; they are not just stopping the leak with a temporary fix." Harris said the plant is expected to be back in operation today. The NRC Web site contains an updated quarterly report of the Crystal River plant. Again, the overall performance was deemed satisfactory. But the plant was faulted for failing to request proper identification from two NRC regulators making an inspection. "The finding was of very low safety significance because, although the identification information was not verified as required prior to access, the individuals granted access met all requirements for authorization for unescorted access," the report said. ***************************************************************** 11 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UTAH CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION June 1, 2001 To: Senators Hatch and Bennett Representatives Hansen, Cannon and Matheson Is the Bush Administration preparing to break out of the nuclear weapons testing moratorium? Recent statements and actions by top players within the Administration and its shadow cabinet of unreconstructed Cold Warriors may just be trial balloons to test the waters to see if anyone will object to a resumption of testing and abrogation of treaties subscribed to by the U.S. Those balloons must be pierced now, before they take flight, and the Utah congressional delegation has a moral responsibility to wield the pins. Frank Gaffney, a former defense official and prominent conservative analyst and advisor, stated last week that "we're going to have to resume on a limited basis underground testing of our nuclear arms". In a March 12 letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms called on the Administration to repudiate the signed but unratified Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The New York Times reported May 9th that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems more inclined to deploy missile defenses and develop nuclear forces than negotiating with Russia or China. "Before taking office Mr. Rumsfeld argued that the U.S. should not ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty because it might need to develop new nuclear weapons," the Times reported. "'This is a paradigm shift,' said a senior Pentagon official. 'We are probably not going to be hampered by arms control agreements.'" (NYT 5/9/01) In April and again earlier this month, the U.S. accused the Chinese of preparing for a nuclear weapons test (Washington Times 4/9/01, 5/11/01), and similar accusations have been leveled at the Russians (NYT 3/4/01). In the meantime, the Bush Administration is putting on the diplomatic pressure to dismantle the ABM Treaty to pave the way for ballistic missile defense. Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that there may be a dozen different components to BMD, including the stationing of weapons in space. Not only would this constitute a unilateral abrogation of the Outer Space Treaty, it would likely involve a resumption of nuclear testing to complete development of Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW) projects the national weapons labs have experimented with for two decades. Another darling of the weapons labs, the earth penetrating "bunker busting" nuclear warhead, is in favor with the hawks in ascendance within this Administration. It too will require nuclear tests to perfect. Taken together, these developments lead to an inescapable suspicion - that the U.S. is preparing to unilaterally jettison a less than perfect arms control regime fostered by every President since Eisenhower that has kept Armageddon at bay. These policy maneuverings threaten a costly and dangerous new arms race and are alarming to our allies and our adversaries. Most alarming to your constituents is the prospect of more nuclear tests upwind. Perhaps our government is the "rogue nation" we should fear most. Much of the rest of the world does and has for far too long. So, unfortunately, do our own people who have suffered painful loss and grievous wrongs from being unwitting "active participants in the nation's nuclear weapons program". Despite your commendable efforts to achieve a greater measure of justice for the downwinders, uranium miners, atomic veterans, and defense workers exposed to radiation in the name of national security, allowing testing to begin again promises new generations of victims even as the those sick and dying from the last round hold their government-issued IOU's. We know now that 58% of the more than 900 underground nuclear tests conducted over 33 years leaked radiation, many of those exposing citizens far from the Nevada Test Site borders to harmful doses. More nuclear tests means more leaks, more victims, and less security. The people will not tolerate being bombed again! No political spin, no tortured logic, no fear mongering that the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans will be here in the morning, no assurance that "THERE IS NO DANGER" will suffice this time. The assurances we need are that you and your elected colleagues will do everything in your power to prevent a resumption of nuclear testing. The people await your response. Steve Erickson Director Citizens Education Project 961 East 600 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 (801) 359-4929 ***************************************************************** 12 WNA News Briefing 01.22 | 23 - 30 May 2001 A weekly summary of international news relevant to uranium and the nuclear energy industry. [NB01.22-1] US: Exelon announced on 23 May that it hopes to announce the construction of a new nuclear power plant within the next 12 months. The company has been in discussions with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) over a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), which it claims is 'faster, safer and cheaper' than the current generation of plants. Exelon is working in South Africa with Eskom and BNFL to develop the PBMR. Representatives from the NRC and Department of Energy (DOE) have reportedly made 'numerous visits' to South Africa to view the work. *(Financial Times, 24 May, p11; Ux Weekly, 28 May, p3; FreshFUEL, 28 May, p4; see also News Briefings 01.20-7 and 00.36-5)* [NB01.22-2] Peru: Strathmore Minerals Corp of Canada has bought the mineral rights to a further six square kilometres of land in the Macusani-Chapi uranium district of south-eastern Peru. The property is adjacent to Strathmore's existing project and closely resembles its characterisation with argillic and lapillic tuffs of similar origin and age and by outcrops of pure autonite (a common uranium ore). The current project has an average ore grade of 0.1% uranium with proven ore reserves of 1670 tU, additional probable ore reserves of 1720 tU, and additional prospective reserves of 6600 tU. The total reserve potential is 26 million pounds U3O8 (10 000 tU) to a depth of 10 metres. *(Ux Weekly, 28 May, p4; Nuclear Market Review, 25 May, p2; see also News Briefing 98.44-5)* [NB01.22-3] France: Almost 70% of French people have a 'good opinion' of nuclear activities in their country, and 63% want France to continue efforts to remain one of the world's nuclear industry leaders, according to a new opinion poll conducted by IPSOS. 67% of the 1015 people questioned thought that nuclear was important for France's energy independence, while 76% expressed confidence in scientists to inform them about nuclear power. *(NucNet News, 181/01, 29 May; see also News Briefing 97.09-10)* [NB01.22-4] US: 59% of Californians support the construction of new nuclear power plants, according to the results of a recent poll by the Field Institute. The poll of 1015 Californian adults - taken between 11 and 20 May - showed that 61% of people supported nuclear power, while 33% opposed it. *(Ux Weekly, 28 May, p2; Nuclear Market Review, 25 May, p2; see also News Briefing 01.18-2)* [NB01.22-5] The Japanese government issued a message to regional administrations in which it pledged to continue promoting the use of MOX fuel. It also called for the support of regions with nuclear power plants. It also said it is reviewing the safety of MOX fuel power generation, which it said is indispensable to ensuring a stable energy supply. *(SpentFUEL, 28 May, p3; Nikkei/Asia Pulse, 23 May; see also News Briefing 01.14-13)* However, residents of Kariwa village voted against the use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at Tokyo Electric Power Co's (Tepco's) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-3 reactor. In the referendum, 1925 (53.4%) voted against the use of MOX, with 1533 (42.7%) in favour. The remaining 3.7% voted to suspend the use of MOX. The result of the referendum, although not legally binding, means that it will be nearly impossible for Tepco to proceed with plans to load MOX fuel currently sitting on site into the reactor. *(Ux Weekly, 28 May, p4; NucNet News, 180/01, 28 May; see also News Briefing 01.21-15)* [NB01.22-6] A further 24 shipments in 2001 of spent fuel from German reactors to reprocessing facilities in UK and France have been authorised by Germany's nuclear safety regulators. *(SpentFUEL, 28 May, p3; see also News Briefing 01.18-13)* [NB01.22-7] US: President Bush's ability to enact his national energy policy could be hindered by the decision of Senator James Jeffords to abandon the Republican party and become an independent. The move will give the Democrats the slimmest majority in the US Senate. Republican senators in support of nuclear power will no longer be in a position to usher legislative proposals. *(FreshFUEL, 28 May, p3; see also News Briefing 00.23-1)* Meanwhile, US: Vice-president Dick Cheney stressed the role of nuclear power in President Bush's new US national energy policy. Speaking in a keynote address to the Nuclear Energy Assembly 2001, Mr Cheney told delegates that 'part of our energy policy obviously has to involve nuclear energy'. He said that continued advancements in the nuclear energy industry are vital to the country's economic and environmental future. *(Ux Weekly, 28 May, p2; NucNet News, 178/01, 23 May; Nuclear Energy Overview, 28 May, p1; see also News Briefing 01.21-3) * [NB01.22-8] Taiwan: A decision on whether the government will hold a public referendum on the country's fourth nuclear power plant has reportedly been deferred until July by Prime Minister Chang Chun-hsiung. *(AFX News, 30 May; see also News Briefing 01.06-2)* [NB01.22-9] Argentina: New moves aimed at privatising the country's Embalse and Atucha-1 nuclear power units are being planned by the government, which plans to push ahead with the sale before the end of 2001. A decision on whether to sell the long-delayed Atucha-2 reactor as part of the package has yet to be made. *(NucNet Business News, 47/01, 28 May; see also News Briefing 00.03-8*) [NB01.22-10] France: The construction of a dike around the Belleville nuclear power plant has been proposed by Electricite de France (EDF) following recalculations of flood risk at the site on the upper Loire River that showed the site platform is lower than the 'safe' flood level. Regulators said the dike would take at least two years to complete and that more urgent, if temporary, measures are needed to protect site equipment in the meantime. *(Nucleonics Week, 24 May, p1; see also News Briefing 00.06-6)* Meanwhile, EDF expects to shortly complete an urgent backfit to valves on emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) at 12 of its 1300 MWe PWR nuclear reactors, following approval from regulators on a longer-term plan that involves postponing definitive backfits for as long as five years. *(Nucleonics Week, 24 May, p2; see also News Briefing 01.20-9)* [NB01.22-11] France: Topco is reportedly seeking a major US takeover target or partner. Topco was formed in September 2000 through the merger of Cogema, Framatome ANP and CEA-Industrie. Anne Lauvergeon, designated to head Topco, announced the move in an interview with French daily newspaper 'La Tribune', but declined to give details. Industry observers speculated that Topco might take a majority shareholding in USEC Inc. *(Ux Weekly, 28 May, p3; FreshFUEL, 28 May, p4; see also News Briefing 01.06-1)* [NB01.22-12] Spain: Endesa has given details of its plans to 'disinvest' its nuclear and other generating capacity, which would lead to the creation of Spain's fifth largest power group. The plans will see the formation of a joint generation and distribution company in the form of Endesa affiliate Viesgo. The new company's generating assets will include Electra de Viesgo's former hydroelectric plants (now 100% owned by Endesa), Endesa's stakes in the Garona and Trillo nuclear power plants (50% and 1%, respectively) and several gas- and coal-fired plants. *(NucNet Business News, 47/01, 28 May; see also News Briefing 01.18-6)* [NB01.22-13] UK: Following almost a year's safety analysis preparation, work is now under way to mechanically brace the steam pipes at British Nuclear Fuels plc's (BNFL's) Wylfa Magnox nuclear power plant. All the physical work should be completed by the end of June 2001 and the twin reactors returned to service by the end of July or shortly afterwards. The cost of the project is expected to total at least 150 million UK pounds (US$215 million), including lost electricity sales. *(Nucleonics Week, 24 May, p4; see also News Briefing 00.31-7)* [NB01.22-14] US: Draft radiation protection standards for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain will be reviewed by Robert Martin, ombudsman of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in response to a request from Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D). As part of the investigation, Martin will hold hearings in Nevada, solicit public comment, and meet with state officials before deciding whether a full investigation is warranted. While the ombudsman lacks the legal authority to reverse or modify EPA decisions, his recommendations do carry weight. *(SpentFUEL, 28 May, p1; see also News Briefing 99.34-14)* [NB01.22-15] A radiological accident has occurred at Panama's National Oncology Institute. The government of Panama told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 22 May that 28 patients have been affected. There have reportedly been some fatalities, although the number and exact details concerning those deaths is yet to be established. The IAEA is sending a team of experts to assist in the aftermath of the accident. *(IAEA, 25 May; NucNet News, 179/01, 25 May)* Meanwhile, four men have reportedly been exposed to dangerous doses of radiation after dismantling generators at a nuclear powered lighthouse in northern Russia. The unemployed men were apparently hoping to earn US$103 each from the sale of the lead covers from the generators. *(Associated Press, 24 May)* [NB01.22-16] The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is investigating the disappearance of spent fuel rods at Millstone-1. The investigation came to light as a result of a proceeding to increase the licensed capacity of the Millstone-3 spent fuel pool from its current 756-assembly limit. The fuel rods could not be accounted for when an inventory of the plant's spent fuel storage pool was conducted in November 2000. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, which took control of Millstone in April 2001 after paying US$1.3 billion, is conducting an internal investigation to determine what happened to the fuel. *(SpentFUEL, 28 May, p3; see also News Briefing 00.40-13)* *Prepared by the WNA Information Service. All news and views are those of the publications cited.* ***************************************************************** 13 Comments on Supplement to Draft EIS for Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository--Jennifer O. Viereck, Southeast Area Citizens Advisory Committee to the Inyo County CA Board of Supervisors, Longstreet Casino, Amargosa, NV Thursday, May 31, 2001 Comments on Supplement to Draft EIS for Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Jennifer O. Viereck, Southeast Area Citizens Advisory Committee to the Inyo County CA Board of Supervisors, Longstreet Casino, Amargosa, NV First of all, we are extremely appreciative of the enormous volume of research and work that has gone into the further evolution of the repository design since the release of the first Draft EIS in 1999. It seems clear that the DOE has attempted to be responsive to some of the criticisms of that original document. However, in a first reading of the document, several things come immediately to mind: 1. If the design is still so totally in a state of fluctuation, or "evolution", why are we being asked to respond to it, and why is the EIS process moving forward? There are not clear definitions of the design put forward for the Proposed Action, nor are their clear alternatives for comparison. There are a number of variables and parameters that can be combined in different ways kind of like a soup recipe, all still in a very exploratory stage, but no clear conclusions for us to evaluate. This report and this process is completely premature. We don't believe that this premature and incomplete approach to the EIS process is even legal, let alone ethical or responsible to the taxpayers or residents of this region. 2. The time period allowed for hearings and responses to this Supplement, with its enormous but rather sketchily outlined new scheme, 45 days, is completely inadequate. We are not radiation professionals-we are juggling jobs and families, in addition to trying to review this technical material that has tremendous implications to our lives in the future. Since the Radiation Regulations for the Proposed Repository have not been decided, therefore delaying indefinitely the final EIS report and the Site Recommendation process, there seems to be no logical reason for this rushed process. In addition, many people should have the right to review and comment on these broad changes to a huge national policy. 3. This Supplement does not take into account a number of serious discrepancies in the original document that have been pointed out about this region, such as population and employment figures in Nye county. Therefore, how can the dose calculations be accurate? 4. This supplement spells out, in extremely outline form, a number of entirely new facilities and waste handling processes that have enormous implications: a cooling pool, an above ground storage facility that would operate for up to 50 years, mixing and repackaging waste, etc. 5. If storing waste for the next 50 years is now part of the Yucca Mountain plan, why is it not being stored on site, thus eliminating transportation dangers to the public and to residents of this area, while the DOE figures out a truly safe solution? Is exposing our region to this incomplete plan merely being done to avoid litigation from nuclear utility companies? 6. The margin for human error, in record keeping alone, seems enormous. Potentially deadly problems that have happened at nuclear reactor sites already, such as cranes getting jammed while lifting rods out of pools, lids being dropped or gases threatening explosion, would be greatly magnified. The analysis of the potential impacts of these new facilities is very incomplete. The accident scenario for the Waste Handling Facility doesn't appear to include the storage pool or the rods that would be in it. It seems highly unlikely that this above ground facility could even be licensed by the NRC independently, if it were held to the same criteria as other sites under consideration. 7. The only thing that does seem completely clear to us from this document is that it is completely impossible for this project to meet its original mission, "to isolate high-level nuclear waste from the biosphere". On page S-7, it states that the mean annual dose will continue to rise after the arbitrary 10,000 year licensing period, that the peak dosage could range from 120 millirems to 260 millirems, right up the road at the freeway junction, some 550,000 years from now. Has any other federal project, let alone one that is currently estimated to cost $56 billion dollars, ever guaranteed its own failure, right from the start? 8. Lastly, I would ask the DOE to take into account a recent study by the US Geological Survey about storm drainage in our area. Apparently the already radioactive effluent from the Nevada Test Site, and potentially contaminated effluent from the Yucca Mountain area, runs directly into our Amargosa River, impacting Death Valley Junction, Shoshone, Tecopa, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, and the 1.4 million visitors each year to Death Valley National Park. These above ground nuclear storage and handling facilities would directly impact surface water, unlike the original deep repository design. We are extremely concerned about much speedier contamination of our watershed than previously thought. Thank you for considering our comments at this time. --Jennifer Olaranna Viereck ***************************************************************** 14 Tepco puts MOX debut on hold [The Japan Times Online] Saturday, June 2, 2001 CITIZEN OPPOSITION Tokyo Electric Power Co. will postpone the debut of a contentious plutonium-based fuel at a Niigata Prefecture nuclear plant due to local opposition, Tepco President Nobuya Minami told reporters Friday. Tepco had planned to use plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel in the No. 3 reactor of its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, which straddles the towns of Kariwa and Kashiwazaki in Niigata Prefecture, hoping to start the project as early as possible. However, Kariwa residents voted against the plan to use MOX fuel in the reactor in a May 27 plebiscite, the country's first such vote on the so-called pluthermal project. "We must halt (the project) for the time being," Minami said, acknowledging that the utility will not fuel the reactor with MOX during a regular inspection scheduled through July 13. Minami went on to say, however, that there was room to gain public acceptance of the project, especially regarding its safety, if Tepco were to make further efforts. Minami's comments came after he met with Takeo Hiranuma, minister of economy, trade and industry, Hiroshi Ishikawa, president of Kansai Electric Power, and Hiroji Ota, chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies. In the meeting, Hiranuma asked the top executives to make more efforts to gain public support for the controversial nuclear fuel recycling project, a ministry official said. Hiranuma said the government would also make efforts to gain public support for nuclear fuel recycling since the program lies at the core of the country's energy policy. Earlier in the day, Niigata Gov. Ikuo Hirayama, Kashiwazaki Mayor Masazumi Saikawa and Kariwa Mayor Hiroo Shinada agreed to keep pushing Tepco to respect the outcome of Sunday's plebiscite in Kariwa and scrap the pluthermal project. Under the project, which combines the words plutonium and thermal, the government and power firms plan to use MOX fuel in light-water reactors. The fuel is made by mixing uranium with plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel. The government considers the pluthermal project an integral part of its policy of nuclear fuel recycling, especially as its fast-breeder reactor program has remained in limbo since the 1995 shutdown of the Monju reactor in Fukui Prefecture. Plans by power firms to introduce MOX fuel at their plants have also been delayed due to opposition by local residents around the plant sites. Following the plebiscite, in which more than half of voters rejected the project, both Saikawa and Shinada voiced opposition to it. The government and power industry plan a public relations blitz to change the public's view of MOX. The Japan Times: June 2, 2001 ***************************************************************** 15 Fukushima Energy Review Committee Set Up CNIC cnic.jca.apc.org Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 1 June, 2001 The Fukushima Energy Policy Review Committee was officially set up on 21 May, 2001. The committee consists of 15 members including the Fukushima Governor and Deputy Governor. After the governor announced in February that he would not allow the loading of mixed plutonium- uranium oxide (MOX) fuel intoone of the prefecture's nuclear plants, he revealed his plans to set up this review committee within May to comprehensively examine nuclear energy -- particularly, the nuclear fuel cycle. According to the Prefecture press release, the committee was set up to review the Prefecture's energy policy from the view pointof an electricity supplier region. The committee will review the following issues: 1) Energy policy at large. 2) Local development at an electricity supplier region. 3) Other related matters. The members are: Governor Deputy governor Chief of Revenue and Expenditure Division Director of General Affairs Division Director of Planning and Coordination Division Director of Life and Environment Division Director of Health and Welfare Division Director of Business and Labor Division Director of Agriculture, Forestry and Marine Division Director of Civil Engineering Division Director of Beautiful Fukushima Future Expo Promotion Division Director of Revenue and Expenditure Division Director of Planning Agency Director of Education Division Chief Director of Police Department The committee will be headed by the Governor, and meetings will be held when the governor assembles the members. http://www.cnic.or.jp/* 3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Japan Tel: 81-3-5330-9520; Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://www.cnic.or.jp/
cnic-jp@po.iijnet.or.jp (C) Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) ***************************************************************** 16 Legislation ignored The Scotsman Online - Scotland's best selling quality national newspaper Whereas Steuart Campbell (Letters, 29 May) takes exception to your use of the term "dumping" for the storage of nuclear waste, I find the negative connotations entirely appropriate. In some cases, nuclear waste will emit harmful radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. It is incoherent to argue that any underground site in Scotland is guaranteed to stay secure for that length of time. The nuclear industry has proved time and time again that it is far too adept at ignoring or paying lip-service to safety legislation. JAMES BOYLE Eastwoodmains Road Clarkston, Glasgow ***************************************************************** 17 Leak at Czech nuclear plant - CNN.com - May 31, 2001 The Temelin plant has caused friction between the Czech Republic and Austria PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Radioactive water has leaked during reactor tests at a controversial Czech nuclear plant, a spokesman has told Reuters. Spokesman for the plant, Milan Nebesar, said all the water, which leaked at the Temelin plant during the incident on Wednesday, remained within the reactor's safety shell. Radiation levels were very low and there was no danger either to staff or to the environment, he said. The plant -- around 60 kilometres (38 miles) north of the Austrian border -- has been a source of friction with Austria. Austrian protesters have staged border blockades demanding its closure, and a series of minor failures have forced repeated shutdowns since it was first launched last October. Austria says the station, which combines a Russian VVER-1,000 reactor with a U.S.-made control system by Westinghouse, may be unsafe. Its operator, the government-controlled power company CEZ, insists it is a state-of-the-art project. A recent Czech-led independent commission -- which included observers from the EU, Austria and Germany -- gave Temelin high marks in an environmental impact study. Nebesar said: "The water was slightly radioactive. The levels of radiation did not reach even the lowest classification of a radiation event. "It was rather a mistake of operating staff (than a system fault)." An International Atomic Energy Agency, the world's nuclear watchdog based in Vienna, official said: "It shouldn't have happened but we don't consider it a serious incident." Temelin's 981-megawatt reactor has been off line since early May due to turbine problems, and is not expected back on line before late July. Another reactor is due for completion next year. Nebesar said CEZ -- who now expects to start commercial operation three months later than originally planned -- would investigate the water leakage. He said water used for cooling the reactor in the first block of the plant went to the sewage system and will be returned back to the cooling circuit. The $2.6 million plant -- opened by the Communist government in the 1980s -- is currently out of operation for technical reasons. Western European nuclear watchdogs have said the station could match the safety of western reactors if a few outstanding issues were resolved. © 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights ***************************************************************** 18 Studsvik is Launching a Sweeping Programme of Change Friday June 1, 6:26 am Eastern Time Press Release STOCKHOLM, Sweden--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 1, 2001--Studsvik, which is a high-tech company in the forefront of nuclear competence and technology, has decided to implement a programme of change. The aim is to achieve drastic improvements in profitability through better focusing and reduced costs. The work of change has already been started in the business unit Studsvik Nuclear AB. A review was made of structure, organization and manning during the spring. This resulted in a programme of change to be implemented over a two-year period, as soon as negotiations under the Act on Co-determination at Work have been completed. Most of the changes will be made in the next six to twelve months. A new organization and modified working methods, combined with staffing cuts, when fully effective, are expected, to bring permanent savings of about 15 million kronor per year within Studsvik Nuclear AB. ``The programme determined for Studsvik Nuclear AB is part of our efforts to meet increased efficiency requirements as a result of the deregulated electricity market. We are now taking the next step and focusing on how to further optimize Studsvik's internal structure. This may result in changes to the group structure, increased co-ordination between units and changes in the dimensioning of operations, by means of both outsourcing and insourcing etc'' says Carsten Olsson, Studsvik AB's Chief Executive Officer. For further information please contact: Carsten Olsson, President and CEO of Studsvik AB, tel 0155-22 10 20 or mobile 0709-67 70 20 Jerrry Ericsson, Chief Financial Officer Studsvik AB, tel 0155-22 10 32 or mobile 0709-67 70 32 Sten-Olof Andersson, President of Studsvik Nuclear AB, tel 0155-22 15 20 or mobile 0709-67 71 20 Facts about Studsvik Studsvik is a high-tech company, focusing on the nuclear power industry and nuclear medicine. Business is conducted through four Strategic Business Units (SBUs): Nuclear Technology, Waste & Decommissioning, Industrial Services and Nuclear Medicine. Nuclear Technology offers products and services related to nuclear power plant operation. These include the testing and analysis of nuclear fuel and materials, computer codes for reactor operation, consulting and instrumentation for the measurement of radiation. Activities are dependent on Studsvik's nuclear reactors and specilist laboratories, located outside Nykoping. Waste & Decommissioning Waste & Decommissioning treats low and intermediate level waste from nuclear reactors and provides services for the dismantling of nuclear facilities. European operations focus on the treatment of low level waste in Studsvik's incineration and melting facilities located outside Nykoping. US operations, conducted at Studsvik's facilities in Erwin, Tennessee, include volume and weight reduction of ion-exchange resins from commercial nuclear power plants in the USA. Industrial Services Industrial Services mainly provides services to the nuclear power industry and also offers services to other industries. Operations include decontamination, health physics, dosimetry services for hospitals, dentists and veterineries, chemical cleaning and dismantling of nuclear facilities as well as process cleaning. Activities have historically been concentrated to Sweden. However, since the German company, SINA, was aquired in 1998, the German business accounts for more than a half of the SBU's income. Nuclear Medicine Nuclear Medicine provides a number of nuclear-related products and methods for medical use. The range includes a method for the treatment of brain tumors and a number of radioisotopes. *Contact:* Studsvik AB Carsten Olsson, President and CEO tel 0155-22 10 20 mobile 0709-67 70 20 or Jerrry Ericsson, Chief Financial Officer tel 0155-22 10 32 mobile 0709-67 70 32 or Sten-Olof Andersson, President of Studsvik Nuclear AB tel 0155-22 15 20 mobile 0709-67 71 20 Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 19 Editorial: Mothballing dump would be grand idea June 01, 2001 Nevadans repeatedly have said how irresponsible -- and dangerous -- it has been to consider only Yucca Mountain as a permanent home for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Well, as the Sun's Mary Manning reported Wednesday, the principal author of the policy that identified Yucca Mountain as a possible site for a repository is now saying that the project "should be put in mothballs." Why the turnaround by W. Kenneth Davis, who was a Department of Energy undersecretary from 1981 to 1983? Davis not only says that he doesn't think a repository can get the needed license to operate, but he also mentions Nevada's strong opposition as to why a repository here should be abandoned. It also bears mentioning that Davis' original proposal was much different. There were supposed to be at least two dumps in the nation, and the repository at Yucca Mountain would only be temporary. The concerns of Nevadans often are unfairly dismissed as self-serving. Policymakers in Washington pay scant attention to the facts uncovered so far as to how dangerous storing waste in Nevada would be. Maybe now that a former high-ranking DOE official has come forward, and even shared his worries about Yucca Mountain in a memo to the White House, individuals like President Bush and members of Congress finally will start to give us a fair shake. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 Trade union conference votes on nuclear power HS Home 31.5.2001 - [HELSINGIN SANOMAT international] + [Link to a larger image] Both opponents and supporters of nuclear energy were losers on the final day of the conference of the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) on Wednesday. + Opponents of nuclear power were successful in that the issue was not mentioned in the resolution approved at the end of the conference. However, they failed in their efforts to remove a statement endorsing the construction of more nuclear power from an earlier document setting out the organisation's goals. + As the nuclear issue was known to be a contentious one, the resolution committee did not include it in its proposal. Matti Ahokas of the Finnish Electrical Workers' Union nevertheless demanded that the final resolution should include a condemnation of the positive stand taken by the SAK executive in March. + A member of the same union, Taisto Kehusmaa, was in favour of making no mention of the nuclear issue, saying that attitudes toward nuclear power are based "more on emotion than reason". + The SAK first endorsed nuclear energy in the early 1990s and most recently in March when the Ministry of Trade and Industry asked the organisation for a statement on the issue. The SAK executive had to vote on it because Ritva Savteschenko (the chairwoman of the Finnish Foodstuffs Workers' Union) and Auli Korhonen of the Textile and Garment Workers' Union both came out against the further construction of nuclear energy. + The vote at that time was 18 - 2 in favour of a fifth commercial nuclear reactor. + SAK President Lauri Ihalainen has come out in favour of more nuclear power. He feels that nuclear energy is one of the tools needed to secure the economic growth that the SAK wants as a means of promoting employment. + There were some farcical elements to the whole nuclear debate. Opponents of nuclear energy remained silent during the discussion concerning the "Well-being comes from work" document which contained an endorsement of nuclear energy. However, many of them took to the podium during the discussion on the final resolution to call for an anti-nuclear statement in that document. + The document on well-being passed earlier on Wednesday notes that Finland needs a broad-based decision on energy policy to respond to increased demand for electricity and to guarantee the future versatility of energy production in Finland and the utilisation of different energy sources. + On the nuclear issue the document reads: "The additional construction of nuclear energy is to be accepted for climatic and environmental reasons, taking into account considerations of price, self-sufficiency, and employment. However, further construction requires that due precautions be taken for the safety of the power plants and that the final storage of the nuclear waste be dealt with properly, exercising the strictest safety requirements." + In the debate over a final resolution Pauli Paavola of the Foodstuff Workers’ Union called for a statement opposing nuclear energy, and condemning the SAK executive for the view it took in March. Paavola was supported in his move by Matti Ahokas. + The gathering first held a test vote on whether or not to denounce the March decision of the executive. Then there was another test vote on whether or not to take a stand on the nuclear issue. Opponents of nuclear power lost both votes overwhelmingly. + In other respects the SAK conference was mostly harmonious. The final document called for a more even and just distribution of income and greater solidarity, especially for those who are unemployed and those in low-paying jobs. + The aim of this is to reverse the trend in which the share of earned income has declined in proportion to capital gains income in recent years. The issue is being discussed by a working group on incomes policy which is to submit its findings before the next round of incomes talks in the autumn of 2002. Previously in HS International Edition: + [ ] Trade Union leader Ihalainen calls for lower unemployment 29.5.2001 Helsingin Sanomat ***************************************************************** 21 Russia MP Sees Soviet-Style Muzzling of Scientists Thursday May 31 12:16 PM ET By Daniel Mclaughlin MOSCOW (Reuters) - A top parliamentarian said on Thursday Russia's main scientific body had told its members to report all dealings with foreigners in a return of Soviet-style control, but a government official denied such an order existed. Sergei Kovalyov, a veteran human rights activist and a Duma member, said the existence of an order from the Russian Academy of Sciences to its members corresponded with a new suspicion of the West fostered by the FSB domestic security service. ``Such directives are in line with current Kremlin policy, and this creates great worry,'' Kovalyov told Ekho Moskvy radio, which earlier published a copy of what it said was the document. Millionaire philanthropist George Soros said during a visit to Moscow that if the directive existed it was ``shocking.'' Kovalyov said the order, which he insisted the Academy of Science did not want published, also contained a clause which could be used to limit scientists' access to the Internet. ``Trials linked to the so-called excessive freedom of scientific research are not so rare for us now,'' Kovalyov said. The FSB has also already launched several high-profile spying cases: two against naval officers who worked with foreign environmental agencies and one against a researcher for the respected USA and Canada Institute. Ekho Moskvy published what it said were key parts of the document, which told scientists to detail foreign grants, results of trips abroad, copies of articles for publication outside Russia and details of visits by foreign scientists. Full details of international contracts or agreements must be supplied by June 1, Ekho Moskvy said. Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matviyenko was quoted by RIA news agency as denying the existence of such an edict. ``I respect the human rights work of Sergei Kovalyov but sometimes he uses unverified information,'' she said. ENVIRONMENTALISTS, SCIENTISTS TARGETED BY FSB However, fears of the rise of the FSB have grown under President Vladimir Putin ( - ), a former head of the organization and a one-time KGB spy in former East Germany. Putin has also named several ex-security service men to high-profile positions. The FSB has said its case against researcher Igor Sutyagin from the USA and Canada Institute was a warning to other scientists not to leak confidential information. Arms expert Sutyagin has been in jail since October 1999, accused of passing nuclear submarine secrets to the U.S. and Britain. He denies the charges and his lawyers say he only compiled his reports from open sources. Human rights groups have said Sutyagin's fate mirrors that of environmental whistle-blowers Alexander Nikitin and Grigory Pasko, naval officers who were taken to court after exposing Russia's dumping of nuclear waste. Last year, the FSB arrested U.S. businessman Edmond Pope for trying to buy Russian secrets. He was convicted to 20 years in a penal colony in December, but Putin pardoned him soon after. ***************************************************************** 22 Daschle: Switch may stall bills that would affect Nevada [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, June 01, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Yucca, betting ban legislation likely won't be heard By JAN MOLLER REVIEW-JOURNAL The upcoming power shift in the U.S. Senate could retard legislative efforts to bring nuclear waste to Nevada and ban legal wagering on college sports, incoming Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Thursday. "I think the Yucca Mountain issue is dead," said Daschle, D-S.D., who will become Senate majority leader when that body reconvenes after the Memorial Day recess. "As long as we're in the majority, it's dead." Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site under consideration for the permanent storage of 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Nevada politicians have been united in their opposition to what they commonly call "the dump" since a bill passed in 1987 authorizing its development. Daschle was in Las Vegas briefly Thursday to attend a $1,000-per-plate fund-raiser for Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat who will become majority whip, the second most powerful post in the Senate. The two lawmakers were elevated to their new posts when Vermont Sen. James Jeffords announced last week that he was leaving the Republican Party to become an independent, giving the Democrats a slim 50-49 majority in the Senate. Speaking of the congressional drive to ban legal bets on NCAA games, Daschle said, "It's very likely that it's in for a rough road." At the moment, there are no bills pending in the Senate that would speed development of the Yucca Mountain site, said Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor. Rather, the fate of the controversial project is in the hands of the Bush administration. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is scheduled to make a recommendation next year to President Bush regarding the safety of the site, which then would have to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Energy Department scientists are studying the site, which could open by 2010. Before dashing off to the Bali Hai Golf Club for a dinner that was expected to raise $500,000 for Reid's 2004 re-election campaign, Daschle said the Democrats' takeover of the Senate gives Nevada more power in that body than it has ever enjoyed. "It will allow us to put Nevada's agenda on the national agenda," Daschle said, adding that Reid would have "more responsibility than any assistant majority leader has had in our history." ***************************************************************** 23 ENERGY / A Failed Technology / No, no, nuclear ENERGY A Failed Technology No, no, nuclear Huey D. Johnson Sunday, May 27, 2001 ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle URL: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm Proponents of new nuclear power plants in California want us to believe nuclear energy is "environmentally friendly" because it doesn't emit greenhouse gases, that nuclear plants are safer and that the deadly radioactive waste problem is about to be solved. If you believe all that, you might as well believe in Peter Pan and the tooth fairy. It's a failed technology. Remember the promises last time around? Nuclear energy was supposed to be safe and clean? It wasn't possible to have an accident? Then came Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1989. The industry's apologists now argue that new technology will prevent similar accidents. Oh yeah? Remember the saying that nothing is so foolproof that some fool can't muck it up? The nuclear promoters take heart from a new Field Poll that shows 59 percent of energy-starved Californians now favor building new nuclear plants. With lots of money (most of it coming from us taxpayers), the industry has launched a sophisticated public relations campaign. Nonetheless, the "new" nuclear technology hasn't been proven. The much- touted pebble-bed reactors haven't had a real test during actual use. And in testimony before Congress, an industry spokesperson couldn't give assurance that there would be no repeat of Three Mile Island. Owners of nuclear plants still can't buy insurance against reactor accidents. And the largest problem facing the nuclear industry is still radioactive waste, one of the deadliest poisons known to humankind. It lasts thousands of years. It has to be guarded. The eventual cost is astronomical. I remember they said the basalt rock formations of the upper Columbia River basin were perfect for storage of nuclear waste. Guess what? After the stuff was buried, it leaked. Portland is downstream. The cleanup cost is in the billions. So far. But the advocates now claim that waste can be buried safely in a Nevada mountain. Maybe they picked Nevada because of its legalized gambling. I prefer an idea from the late David Brower. Let volunteers store nuclear waste. Keep it where people will be aware of it. Put it in a mailbox in each community in America so people can watch it and be aware of the deadly waste for as long as it takes for it to become harmless. In the meantime, people can track their increasing cancer rates and decide if they want to continue with nuclear energy. The industry is also saying nuclear power works in Europe, so why not here? The answer: cost. The French government owns and subsidizes its plants, so no one knows the actual costs. The French nuclear industry, estimated to be $30 billion in debt, has been accused of fiscal irresponsibility. The president of PG once said in a speech that the company was blessed by having had effective opposition to its nuclear program. Had its proceeded to build more nuclear plants, he said, PG would have gone bankrupt. (He couldn't have suspected it would go bankrupt anyway, but for different reasons. ) In any case, California can't build any more nuclear plants just now. Proposition 15, enacted by the voters in 1975, requires that a safe waste- storage process be instituted before more plants are built. There is no effective waste storage yet in this country or elsewhere in the world. The best efforts still are prone to produce leaks or create problems that will haunt us in the future. The best the nuclear proponents can come up with is a carrot to dangle on a stick. They promise financial rewards will follow solution of the nuclear waste problem. They assume that the public is a poor old horse plodding along, trying to reach the carrot, forever out of reach. *Huey D. Johnson, who was secretary of the state Resources Agency under Gov. Jerry Brown, is president of Resource Renewal Institute in San Francisco.* ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle   Page D - 5 ***************************************************************** 24 Daschle: Nuclear Waste Plan 'Dead' June 01, 2001 LAS VEGAS (AP) - Nevada got a boost in its fight to keep nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain when the incoming Senate majority leader put up a formidable partisan roadblock. "I think the Yucca Mountain issue is dead," Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Thursday after arriving in Las Vegas. "As long as we're in the majority, it's dead." Since 1987, Yucca Mountain has been the only site studied to become the graveyard for 77,000 tons of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste. The Energy Department is scheduled to forward its recommendation next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who will make a recommendation to President Bush. The earliest it could open is 2010. The state's bipartisan congressional delegation, Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, state and city leaders and the gambling industry are opposed to the dump site, 90 miles from Las Vegas. The state Senate on Wednesday passed a bill to put up $4 million for a legal and public relations fight against the proposed dump. Daschle, in town for a fund-raiser for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke with reporters when he arrived at the Las Vegas Executive Air Terminal. Daschle's trip to Las Vegas was his first outside of South Dakota since Vermont Sen. James Jeffords left the Republican Party last week to become an independent, giving Democrats control of the Senate with a 50-49 majority. Daschle will become the Senate's new majority leader next week and Reid the majority whip, the No. 2 man in the Senate. Daschle said the new positions he and Reid will have "will allow us to put Nevada's agenda on the national agenda." He then spoke briefly about Yucca Mountain and predicted a proposed ban on college sports betting won't pass the Senate either. "Because it passed on a committee 10-10, it's very likely it's in for a rough road," he said. "I think we can convince the majority of senators to be opposed to it as well." Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee split 10-10 over whether to gut a bill outlawing betting on college sports, which is legal only in Nevada. The tie vote meant the bill survived and now goes to the full Senate. The $1,000-a-head fund-raiser at the Bali Hai Golf Club was expected to bring in $500,000 for Reid's 2004 re-election campaign. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 25 Daschle high on Nevada's future June 01, 2001 By Jeff German LAS VEGAS SUN Nevada's fight against Yucca Mountain and a betting ban on college sports will gain support on Capitol Hill when the Democrats take control of the Senate next week, incoming Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said Thursday. The South Dakota Democrat told reporters the main reason for the stepped-up interest in Nevada is the rise in power of Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who will be Daschle's assistant majority leader when Congress goes back to work Tuesday after the Memorial Day recess. "He has probably more responsibility than any other assistant majority leader in our nation's history," Daschle said. "What this means is it will allow us to put Nevada's agenda on the national agenda. This will give us an opportunity to work on issues import to Nevada, and I think that's the way it should be. I think we need to be cognizant of the issues of the West." Daschle, in Las Vegas for a fund-raiser for Reid's 2004 re-election bid, said any legislative push to make Yucca Mountain the site of the nation's high-level nuclear waste repository will be stalled with the Democrats in control of the Senate. "I think the Yucca Mountain issue is dead," Daschle said. "As long as we're in the majority, it's dead. "I think that for the foreseeable future, until we can resolve all of the outstanding concerns about safety, we really don't believe there is a reason why it should go any further than it is right now." Congress currently is not taking up any matters relating to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is preparing to recommend to President Bush next year whether the site is safe to store 77,000 tons of the nation's radioactive waste. Nevada leaders are overwhelmingly opposed to storing the waste there. Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn said this morning he was "ecstatic" over Daschle's comments. "It give us all new hope," Guinn said. "With Daschle as the majority leader and Harry Reid as the No. 2 man, it gives us a great one-two punch for Nevada. It's very exciting." Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, the state's Yucca Mountain watchdog, said he also was encouraged by Daschle's words. "Having someone of the stature of the Senate majority leader saying Yucca Mountain is dead is incredibly helpful," Loux said. Daschle didn't sound the same death knell for the NCAA-backed bill to ban betting on college sports. But he told reporters the measure, which recently came out of the Senate Commerce Committee with a 10-10 vote, is in trouble. "I think that because it passed out of committee 10-10, that it's very likely that it's in for a rough road," Daschle said. "I'm opposed to it myself. I think we can convince the majority of senators to be opposed to it, as well." American Gaming Association President Frank Fahrenkopf, the industry's chief Washington lobbyist, called Daschle's support "great news" in the industry's bitter fight with the NCAA. "We are heartened by Sen Daschle's remarks," Fahrenkopf said. "But we're going to continue to work hard to educate members of the Senate and the House about the merits of the bill. "I think the 10-10 vote did in fact convince a lot of senators that they really have to take a hard look at this on the merits, and if they do, I'm convinced that we will win." Following his talk with reporters, Daschle attended the Reid fund-raiser at the Bali Hai Golf Club, where he made similar remarks supportive of Nevada's interests in Washington before jetting off to Los Angeles for another political fund-raising event. Reid aides said the $1,000-a-head Las Vegas fund-raiser took in more than $500,000 for the senator's 2004 reelection campaign. Prominent members of the gaming and business community attended. Daschle and Reid, longtime friends, were thrust into the limelight last week after they engineered a deal with Sen. James Jeffords, R-Vt. to bolt from the Republican Party and give the Democrats a 50-49 majority. Jeffords is becoming an independent. Before the fundraiser, Daschle told reporters that he hoped the power shift in the Senate will lead to a more bipartisan approach in Washington to the nation's problems. "We need to create true bipartisanship," he said. "We need to find a way to ensure that both parties feel invested in the legislative agenda, and I believe we can do that." Daschle said high on the Democratic agenda will be education, a patients bill of rights and prescription drug reform. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 Alternate cooling process proposed for nuke waste June 01, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN AMARGOSA VALLEY -- An alternate design of Yucca Mountain believed to do a better job of cooling the nuclear waste that would be buried there received a cool reception at a public hearing Thursday night. The design was proposed earlier this month by the Department of Energy and reviewed publicly Thursday at the Longstreet Inn and Casino in this rural town 12 miles southwest of Yucca Mountain. Officials with the DOE explained that the alternate was simply a plan to give them flexibility once construction begins if Congress, the president and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approve Yucca as a burial site for the deadly waste. The mountain is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The alternate design would place the waste on top of the mountain in pools of water for its first 50 years, instead of immediately burying it underneath the mountain. Immediate burial has been the plan since Yucca was chosen in 1987 as the sole site to be studied as a repository for the high-level nuclear waste produced by commercial reactors and defense activities. Protesting the loudest Thursday night was Steve Frishman, a state consultant with the Agency for Nuclear Projects. Nevada has vehemently opposed Yucca Mountain since the idea was broached and the agency is its arm for expressing opposition. The alternative plan would place roughly 5,500 tons of radioactive wastes in a pool of water built inside a robot controlled building on top of the mountain. No analysis has yet been done to determine whether this building could stand up to a major disaster such as an earthquake or flood. Frishman, speaking before a DOE panel and about 50 people attending the first of three hearings on the alternative design, read a quote from Bob Loux, the executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects. "There will be a rapid and possibly catastrophic heating of the damaged spent fuel in the pool," Loux wrote, referring to what would happen in the event of an earthquake or flood. The DOE officials proposed the immediate cooling plan as a way to prevent interior heating of the mountain. Nuclear waste, which needs to be buried for a minimum of 10,000 years before it is no longer lethal, maintains temperature above the boiling point. The mountain is being built to contain 77,000 tons of waste. Scientists fear the combined heat could change the chemistry of the rock and the naturally occurring water, which could lead to corrosion of the canisters containing the waste. No one attending the hearing spoke in favor of the Yucca Mountain repository, which the DOE plans to open in 2010 at the earliest. The DOE's supplement to its draft environmental impact study also describes a another cooling plan. This would be a dry, surface-level 200-acre spent-fuel storage area at the north end of the mountain that would contain about 45,000 tons of waste for up to 50 years. Jennifer Viereck, a resident of Tecopa, Calif., just 12 miles from the mountain's border, said the DOE's latest repository design is too vague. "We are not sure if this (the design) is premature or if the process here (Thursday's public hearing) may be illegal." She thought the meeting might be illegal because she said people attending were not given enough information to comprehend the new plan's consequences. Kalynda Tilges of Las Vegas, who is nuclear issues coordinator for Citizen Alert, said that she worries about how fast water contaminated with radiation will flow out of the repository and expose people. Urging the DOE to rewrite the 1,600 pages of its draft environmental impact statement, Tilges said the public has not had enough time to digest the volumes of studies under way at the mountain. And those studies are not complete. "This country has selected a site and now we are making the rules to fit," Tilges said. "I find that wrong." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Energy firms eye Nevada 'green' power June 01, 2001 By Timothy Pratt LAS VEGAS SUN A bill that has passed the Legislature and is awaiting Gov. Kenny Guinn's signature has energy companies from Florida to California considering investments in Nevada that could total $500 million to $3 billion over the next decade. Senate Bill 372, also known as the Renewable Energy Portfolio Requirement, would require utilities to buy an increasing amount of energy from so-called "green" sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal -- or underground heat and biomass -- burning organic matter, such as wood. The goal is to supply 15 percent of Nevada's electricity through renewables by 2013. Currently, 17 states have similar energy portfolios, ranging from Maine, which supplies 30 percent of its energy from these sources, to Texas -- 3 percent. With this law, Nevada would be second in the nation in the percentage of renewable energy supplied. These sources are termed renewable because they don't run out, unlike gas or coal. They're also called "green" because most don't produce emissions, which pollute the air. "Five hundred million is about what the New York-New York hotel-casino cost to build," Keith Schwer, director of UNLV's Center for Business and Economic Research, said. "This would be a significant economic boost for the state.' "Plus, it would be new money coming into the area, from outside the state, without driving other companies out of business," he said. "Nevada has always had huge renewable energy potential," George Douglas of the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado said. Economic conditions have not allowed this potential to be exploited, however. "Renewables have never been developed due to a lack of market. With this law in place, the market is created and we can get financing to build," Scott Craigie, who represents Stirling Energy of Arizona, said. Craigie's company is poised to build solar plants with mirrors that focus sunlight onto furnaces that create steam to power turbines, which are connected to generators. "These mirrors are the size of a car hood and need to be manufactured in large quantities to be cost-effective," he said. Stirling hopes to build plants that could generate up to 100 megawatts, or enough energy to power 100,000 homes in the cooler months. The investment required would range from $250 million to $500 million, depending on how long construction takes, he said. Gary Bailey is the West Coast representative for Duke Solar, a company formed from a joint venture with North Carolina's Duke Power. "We're anxiously awaiting the outcome of this," he said. Duke has a solar thermal system that Bailey compares to the 354-megawatt plant built in the Mojave Desert in California in the 1980s. It uses a trough to heat a kind of oil that can withstand temperatures up to 1,000 degrees. The heated oil also drives a turbine. Bailey says his company could initially supply 50 megawatts, but he sees the potential for supplying from 200 to 500 megawatts. He projects an initial investment of $200 million. "We should have seen the need for renewable energy in Nevada years ago," he said. "They have no fluctuating costs tied to oil prices and mitigate emissions." "Now people need to see that these sources work and aren't some radical alternative," he said. Steve Munson has devoted five years to acquiring property in northern Nevada for developing geothermal energy, or underground heat -- a total of 44,000 acres. He is the president of Vulcan Power in Bend, Ore. "Without market share, utilities have signed no long-term contracts with independent providers like us for a decade," Munson said. "So we have the properties, but we haven't been able to develop on them." Munson said the Bureau of Land Management is currently reviewing applications for geothermal development on its land. If the bill is not signed by Guinn, he said, the energy would be sold to other states, such as California. "We've been receiving applications for geothermal development every week, with more than 118,000 acres total at this point," Steve Wells of the Nevada office of the Bureau of Land Management said. Daniel Schochet, vice president of Ormat Nevada, has observed geothermal energy's development in the state since its beginning, having built Nevada's first geothermal plant in 1984. Schochet said geothermal energy could be developed at a wholesale price of 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, which would allow utilities to sell it at a price comparable to gas and coal, now sold to consumers at 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects - Meeting Agenda, June 8, 2001 KENNY C. GUINN *Governor* STATE OF NEVADA [State Seal] OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Telephone: (775) 687-3744 • Fax: (775) 687-5277 E-mail: nwpo@govmail.state.nv.us ROBERT R. LOUX *Executive Director* Meeting Agenda Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects Friday, June 8, 2001 1:00 p.m. Las Vegas City Council Chambers 400 East Stewart Street Las Vegas Nevada 1:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Chairman McKay Approval of 4/3/01 Draft Minutes Commissioners State of Nevada Oversight Program Update Robert R. Loux Executive Director Comments on Governor Guinn's Proposed Protection Fund Implementation Plan Nat'l Public Interest & Environmental Organization Representatives Local Government &Tribes Updates Local Government &Tribal Leaders Public Comment Public Schedule Next Meeting and Adjourn Commissioners State of Nevada Office of the Governor Agency for Nuclear Projects 1802 North Carson Suite 252 Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-3744 voice (775) 687-5277 fax nwpo@govmail.state.nv.use-mail ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Tracy urged to fight against cleanup cuts Meeting Thursday about test site *May 30, 2001* Brooke Bryant SAN JOAQUIN BUREAU TRACY -- A non-profit group is encouraging Tracy residents to protest budget cuts that would impact the cleanup efforts at an explosives testing site in the Altamont Hills. Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs) will host a meeting in conjunction with the Tracy Regional Alliance for a Quality Environment on Thursday. Speakers will discuss details about Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Site 300, an 11-square-mile swath between Livermore and Tracy that has been used as a testing ground for explosives. "There are a lot of new people moving to Tracy, and they're not even aware that Site 300 exists," said Inga Olson, a nuclear and waste program associate for Tri-Valley CAREs. In addition to updating new residents on the site's existence, the group also wants to mobilize people against proposed cuts to next year's environmental cleanup budget that could hamper the lab's cleanup efforts. Tracy residents specifically asked the group, which usually meets in Livermore, to hold an informational meeting in Tracy, said Olson. One of the options being discussed is an organized tour of Site 300, "so that people can actually see what's there." "The principal thing we're trying to do is get the lab's cleanup budget restored," said Olson. Site 300 has a number of contaminants in the soil and in on-site water sources, including uranium, plutonium and tritium. In 1990, it was put on the Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund list of cleanup priorities. Lab spokesman Bert Heffner confirmed that the proposed budget cuts would impact the speed and efficiency of the cleanup. But, he said, "in terms of health, no, there is no threat to public health now and there wouldn't be under the proposed budget." The lab spends an average of $20 million a year on environmental cleanup and monitoring at Site 300 and the main lab in Livermore. Site 300 received $11.8 million in the year 2000. Organizers are expecting between 20 and 40 people will attend the meeting, which will be held from 7-8 p.m. Thursday, May 31 at the Tracy Community Center, 300 E. 10th St. For more information, call (925) 443-7148. *****************************************************************