***************************************************************** 07/01/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.163 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Nuclear Power, Thanks 2 Uranium Processor to Pay $16.3M 3 Power woes hurt fish operations 4 Panel: N-power required 5 Less Than Half of Power Plants In Development Likely to be 6 Radioactive Waste Expected to Pass Through Missouri This Summer 7 Government embarks on review of energy policy, with a return to 8 Editorial: Spin isn't going to aid a lost cause 9 Energy plan should involve broad, attainable objectives 10 Nuclear power, thanks 11 BNFL asks minister to take back Magnox 12 Critics Want to Stop Plan to Ship Nuclear Waste Through Pennsylvania 13 Palisades faces $55,000 fine 14 Nuke reglators release Virginia plant renewal plans 15 Dounreay hot-spot 16 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Friday, June 29, 2001 17 POSITIVE VISION - Task force has sound strategy 18 Nuclear-energy foes say waste shipments could endanger area 19 PSEG Nuclear: Salem Station Water Discharge Permit Is Reasonable, 20 Citizen Groups Denounce Proposal for Nuclear Waste 21 True greens split atoms --not wood 22 Scottish nuclear power station plan threatens coalition rift 23 global warming: Global health alarmingly poor 24 Blair's new man backs N-plants NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Officials Say Kursk to Be Raised 2 House OKs funds for nuclear cleanup 3 Administration seeks to improve readiness of nuclear test site 4 A-Bomb Researcher James Otto Dies 5 'Indo-Pak meet should agree on nuclear freeze' 6 Cotter vows to appeal $16 million judgment 7 Bold $80M Plan Made to Lift Kursk 8 Further investigation into British atomic tests completed 9 Private sector to work on Indian submarine 10 UK: Nuclear weapons policy is going ??? 11 Raised Kursk May Leave Questions Unanswered 12 Govt to conduct atomic testing health studies 13 Tony Demaiori: Rocky Flats workers deserve better 14 Finger on the nuclear button 15 417,000 people exposed to atomic tests **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Nuclear Power, Thanks Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report This Week's Energy Review Could Herald a Return to Nuclear, Writes Sophie Barker ( June 30, 2001 ) IMAGINE a Labour Government handing a lifeline to the nuclear industry. Fifteen years ago, when Britain's state-owned nuclear generators were still building new power stations, half the current cabinet might have considered marching in protest at the very idea. This week, the Prime Minister announced an energy review, and after 14 years of unofficial moratorium, it may recommend we start building nuclear power stations again. Brian Wilson, the new energy minister, is in the chair. His constituency contains British Energy's Hunterston plant, and he's a nuclear supporter. Wilson's team (part of the Government's Soviet-sounding Performance &Innovation Unit) has already found some figures to back the nuclear case. As we continue to drive our cars and fill our homes with wide-screen TVs, our energy use will continue to climb, despite higher taxation, better insulation and constant exhortations to switch off. By 2020, official projections expect half the energy to come from gas, over a third from oil and just 3pc from nuclear, against 25pc today. Only three of our 16 stations will still be alive unless they are granted life extensions. But we are not talking reliable North Sea oil and gas here, but imports from Russia, Iran and Algeria - hardly the most reliable trade partners. This political threat is the most powerful card in the pro- nuclear pack. Uranium fuel can be stored for years, and the cost of generation is almost immune to fluctuations in fuel prices - spot UK gas has roughly doubled in the last 18 months. The industry argues that subsidising new nukes is a small price to pay to ensure that the lights stay on if Russia decides to turn off the taps. Then there is the Government's rash pledge at Kyoto to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5pc of 1990 levels by 2010. Nuclear electricity emits no greenhouse gases, a fact which pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth prefer to ignore. Thanks to their noise, we are all too aware of the potential for contaminated waste leaking into water supplies or, worse, another Chernobyl. The tree-huggers have been less quick to pick up on nuclear's true Achilles heel - its cost. Boffins at the OECD have worked out that a nuclear station is four times as expensive as a combined gas cycle station. At pounds 1,500 per kilowatt of electricity generated, the price is well over pounds 1 billion per station, and even that is probably optimistic, given the usual accuracy of builders' estimates. Britain's most modern installation, Sizewell B in Suffolk, cost pounds 3,000 per kilowatt, partly because its planned sister stations were all aborted, demolishing any economies of scale. For students of the financial disaster that has been the British nuclear industry, it's an all-too-familiar tale. American nuclear industry specialists say construction costs must be halved before companies can seriously think about building stations again. This is the problem that Britain's nuclear players would like Wilson and his team to solve. Nobody has a keener interest than Robin Jeffrey, the new chairman of British Energy, the business that balked at calling itself British Nuclear when it came to market. He spent seven years building Torness and admits he has been "banging on" about a nuclear renaissance since his company bought Three Mile Island for a song in 1997. "It's difficult to see, with the existing designs for nuclear plant, the business case for providing the funding at private sector financing rates," he admits. So what policy incentives would change the economics? Jeffrey suggests a carbon tax and a greenhouse gas emissions trading market (both exist, but not in a form he likes). His key argument is that waste handling is already factored into nuclear running costs. Those costs are already competitive - 2.17p a kilowatt-hour for British Energy's plants, including 0.27p towards waste disposal. "We meticulously look after our waste: it is all in a canister and we know where it is. The gas or coal stations just dump the stuff - what is the valuation of that to the atmosphere?" He thinks nuclear is highly suitable for the Government's favourite funding toy, the private finance initiative. British Energy has just paid pounds 279m for an 18-year lease on Canada's largest power station, leaving ownership with Ontario's state company. Jeffrey is encouraged by the fact that Wilson's brief includes moving electricity regulation away from an obsession with consumer bills. He should be: Government pressure to force prices down virtually wiped out British Energy's profits last year. Britain's other nuclear generator, BNFL, is hardly a shining example of financial performance either. The state-owned group admitted this week that its ancient Magnox stations lost pounds 199m, and argues that it might make sense to replace them with safer, modern plants. The sites are already wired to the grid, and local residents are used to having them on the doorstep. Building seven modern stations on the sites could be done for pounds 1,000 a kilowatt, according to BNFL, but it would not want to fund and operate them alone. The very idea has been enough to send the environmental lobby into a green funk. Greenpeace campaigner Matthew Spencer claims the Wilson review is "based on a fallacy that there is an energy gap". Greenpeace wants energy conservation measures to stabilise demand, which could then be met by wind, waves, willow-fired and methane- burning plants and the sun. The cost of this is incalculable, because there are too many unknown (and at this rate unlikely) future Government policies. Like many of his colleagues, he has a touching faith in wind farms, which he costs at pounds 700 a kilowatt. Whether on land or sea or both, this is sheer fantasy. If a single 80-metre windmill was built every day for the next nine years they would generate only 5pc of our likely energy needs - and that assumes the wind keeps blowing - though not so strongly as to blow them away. More realistically in the near term are life extensions for British Energy's stations. Beyond that, it is difficult to see how we can square the energy circle without new nukes. "I do occasionally place careful bets and I don't think [new build] is wishful thinking," Jeffrey says. The problem before the Wilson review is simple. It can recommend much higher taxes (certain to include an equivalent of the hated VAT on domestic fuel), grants for insulation and encouragement for renewable energy all it likes, but it will not make a dent in reality. That reality is that we can choose between dependence on Russian gas or British nuclear, and if we don't choose soon, we shan't have a choice. www.powermarketers.com ***************************************************************** 2 Uranium Processor to Pay $16.3M June 29, 2001 Uranium Processor to Pay $16.3M DENVER (AP) - A uranium processing company has been ordered to pay $16.3 million to 32 people who suffered radiation poisoning and other health problems while living near its mill. A jury reached the decision Thursday against the Cotter Corp. Three plaintiffs have died since the lawsuit was filed 10 years ago. "I'm elated. Finally, the Cotter Corporation is being held accountable," said Joe Dodge, 67, whose wife, Thelma, died of radiation-induced leukemia. Dodge, the original plaintiff in the lawsuit, owned a ranch next to the mill outside Canon City, 115 miles south of Denver. "This is justice for the death of our mother," his daughter Rhonda Butson said. "Cotter has been terrible. They still don't think they've done anything wrong." The lawyer for Denver-based Cotter said the company would appeal. "They will never see this money," John Watson said. "We feel completely confident that the 10th Circuit (Court of Appeals) will overturn this verdict." This is the fourth trial involving pollution claims against the Cotter Mill, which produced uranium fuel for nuclear power plants around the world for almost 30 years. It was declared a Superfund site in 1984 and closed three years later. Thirteen plaintiffs won a multi-million dollar lawsuit in 1998, but it was overturned on appeal and retried as part of this case. Another case in 1992 was settled and a case in 2000 is being appealed. The mill ground uranium into a powder and formed it into "yellowcake" biscuits for shipment. Testimony during the seven-week trial showed the fine radioactive dust drifted across Dodge's horse farm, clotheslines, houses and into the soil and water. The mill also handled heavy metals such as arsenic, cobalt, nickel and lead. "People lost everything," said attorney Suzelle Smith. "Joe Dodge lost his wife and his horses. He lost his farm. People lost vegetables. They had birth defects, disfigurements." Sonja and Don Luna's son Brett, 28, was born with a cleft palate, respiratory problems and mental retardation. "I thought my heart was going to burst when they announced the verdicts," said Don Luna. "This is for Brett. We won't be around forever to care for him. He will have to have help all his life. He doesn't deserve what he has." "I cried for two days," said juror Sandy Todd. "We just tried to do the right thing." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Power woes hurt fish operations This story was published Fri, Jun 29, 2001 By Mike Lee and Chris Mulick Herald staff writers Trouble restarting Energy Northwest's 1,150-megawatt nuclear plant north of Richland means high-profile summer operations of the Columbia-Snake river system to help fish are being canned. "We are going to need all of the water the system has to offer," said Ed Mosey, spokesman for the Bonneville Power Administration. "It just doesn't look very probable that there will be any spill." Federal power officials planned to release today a plan for operating the Columbia-Snake river system through the summer. It was expected to include provisions to help migrating fish runs with extra flows. But Northwest rivers are so low that summer fish flows -- and a news conference that could have won BPA leverage with tribes and environmentalists -- are expected to be canceled as BPA tries to keep the lights on. One false move, say analysts, and the region's power reliability forecast could slide lower, giving the Northwest a 1-in-5 chance of blackouts this winter. Despite improving confidence in the region's power supply, the Columbia River summer flow forecast has slipped in recent weeks to about 53 percent of normal. That puts it at record-low levels not seen since 1977. The delayed return of the Columbia Generating Station, which produces enough power to serve Seattle, has only exacerbated the problem. Maintenance crews at the Richland plant are on day 42 of what was scheduled to be a 30-day refueling outage that began May 19. The plant originally was supposed to restart June 17, but a series of worker errors and a lightning strike that damaged a transformer pushed the schedule back. Crews have spent this week repairing steam leaks. Energy Northwest spokeswoman Laura Dovey said the plant may restart early next week. Environmental groups and tribes have squeezed BPA hard for the last week to convince the power marketing agency to spill water over the dams to give fish an alternative to going through the turbines. Also, flushing cold mountain reservoir water down the Snake lowers what can be lethal river temperatures, another measure deemed critical to improving survival of endangered salmon. BPA slashed its spring spill program, citing the regional power crisis, but angered tribes and environmentalists. "BPA shouted 'emergency,' drew the curtain closed, then promptly replenished its bank account on the back of the spring migration," said Donald Sampson, executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. "If the summer migration goes the way of the spring, it begs the question, 'How much financial security is enough?' " he said. There's been no spill at federal dams since June 15, and millions of juvenile fish are preparing to make their annual summer migration to the ocean. Extra flows would speed those fish on that trip. On Wednesday, the Northwest Power Planning Council told BPA that power supplies for winter are so tenuous that fish spills should be provided only if the lost energy can be made up with "power purchases at costs that do not jeopardize Bonneville's financial stability." It is a relatively good time to buy power, with rates far below what they were a few months ago. Also, the power system is more reliable than it has been -- though the region still faces between a 12 and 17 percent chance of having a power shortage this winter. "There is power out there now, go secure it -- get it in your hand and then spill," said John Harrison, power council spokesman. "If you can't get power at decent prices ... then don't (spill)." That advice for Bonneville angered environmental groups, which accuse BPA and the power council of reaping profits by continuing to generate power despite fish kills. "Salmon can't swim in revenue streams," said Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited. "Unfortunately, the flow of cash, not water, seems to be governing the way dams and rivers are managed this year." The prolonged nuclear outage also comes as a severe blow to Energy Northwest, which planned meticulously for what was scheduled to be its shortest outage ever. And with the onset of drought and short power supplies, the region has never needed a quick return to the grid as badly as this year. Workers were repeatedly reminded of the importance of their work in meetings and in the company newsletter. Managers piled pressure onto their own backs for a timely finish to the work, which is required to ensure the plant runs reliably. "Certainly, we wanted to do it in a shorter period due to the energy situation," Dovey said. "It's more important to make sure the plant runs for two years." Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 4 Panel: N-power required Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun Japan needs to build an additional 10 to 13 nuclear power plants by fiscal 2010 to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, a research group at the Natural Resources and Energy Agency said Thursday. The proposition was put forth in the group's draft report to Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma, who governs the agency. The Kyoto Protocol calls for the reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide to pre-1990 levels. No nation has so far ratified the protocol. If the agency's 1998 long-term energy projections hold true, carbon dioxide emissions will reach 307 million tons in fiscal 2010, up 20 million tons from fiscal 1990, the agency said. Copyright The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 5 Less Than Half of Power Plants In Development Likely to be Completed, Williams Capital Group Analysis Shows Friday June 29, 9:05 am Eastern Time Press Release Tight Supplies Likely to Continue Unless Coal-Fired and Nuclear Generating Stations Take Pressure Off Demand for Natural Gas NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 29, 2001-- Fewer than half of the electric power plants now in development in the United States are likely to be completed, according to an analysis of electricity and natural gas supply and demand by Christopher R. Ellinghaus, energy analyst with The Williams Capital Group, LP, a New York-based investment bank. While those new facilities that actually do get built will ease tight power markets and alleviate political pressures to control prices in the near term, high gas prices and electricity price volatility are likely to continue. Only if new coal-fired or nuclear power plants come on line in significant numbers, something that cannot begin to happen until 2005, are shortages likely to be abated. Although independent power producers and other electricity suppliers hope to have 300,000 MW of new generating capacity on line by 2005, it is doubtful that much more than 100,000 MW will be possible over the next three years, Mr. Ellinghaus maintained. He attributed the difference to a ``multiple of infrastructure constraints,'' including U.S. energy policy, public attitudes toward new facilities and anemic growth of natural gas supplies, the fuel to be used in over 90 percent of the proposed plants. Noting that gas supplies have been growing by less than one percent annually despite record drilling activity, Mr. Ellinghaus warned that ``unless unprecedented amounts of new, net gas production emerges over the next three to five years, only a fraction - maybe 40-45 percent - of the natural gas-fired plants currently being developed will actually be constructed.'' Demand for electricity is likely to grow by three percent annually through 2010, Mr. Ellinghaus forecast. This rate reflects the fundamental shift in the U.S. economy that has made electricity-intensive technologies such as computers, telecommunications and the Internet the engines of U.S. economic growth, he noted. To meet this demand and build sufficient reserves to avoid price shocks, U.S. power generators would have to build 330,000 MW of new and replacement capacity by 2010, a 41.7 percent increase from the 822,000 MW of capacity in 2000. If all the new plants were gas fired, demand for natural gas would grow by between 11 and 15 trillion cubic feet, requiring the gas market to grow from 22.4 trillion cubic feet to between 33 and 38 trillion cubic feet. To meet that demand, natural gas supply would have to increase by nine percent annually. Based on production experience over the last decade, it is doubtful that such a level of increased production could be achieved, Mr. Ellinghaus noted. Most gas exploration and production analysts expect an annual growth rate in the one percent - three percent range, he added. There will be adequate gas supply to the fuel new plants being built this year and next, when 43,000 MW and 36,000 MW of new generating capacity are expected to come on line, Mr. Ellinghaus said. However, in subsequent years there only would be enough gas supply to support 20,000 MW of new plant construction, he pointed out. ``Natural gas remains the principal constraint to completing and operating plants currently in development.'' As a consequence of insufficient gas supplies, power generators would have to build 200,000 MW of generating capacity fueled by coal or uranium to meet long-term demand, Mr.Ellinghaus pointed out. However, because of the lengthy development cycle and public policy concerns, new plants relying on these energy sources will not begin to come on line in sufficient numbers until 2005 or 2006, he said. About The Williams Capital Group L.P. The Williams Capital Group, L.P., (WCG) is an investment bank and institutional broker/dealer with offices in New York and London. WCG provides debt and equity underwriting, secondary market trading, proprietary research, stock repurchase and corporate finance advisory services to institutional investors and corporations, and is a member of the New York Stock Exchange. Williams Capital International Ltd., its London-based subsidiary, is regulated by the Securities and Futures Authority in the United Kingdom. Note to Editors: The full report contains regional analyses for the 12 regions and eight sub-regions that comprise the North American Electric Reliability Council. To obtain a copy, send an email to simon@willcap.comwith the subject line ``SEND REPORT.'' Contact: The Williams Capital Group L.P. Ellis Simon, 212/373-4227 simon@willcap.com Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 6 Radioactive Waste Expected to Pass Through Missouri This Summer [The PMA OnLine Power Report] Chris Birk , Columbia Daily Tribune, Mo. ( June 30, 2001 ) Jun. 30--A decontamination project coordinated by the Department of Energy will bring a railway shipment of more than 200 tons of highly radioactive waste across Missouri as soon as next Friday. The waste, which is being shipped from the Western New York Nuclear Services Center in West Valley, N.Y., to a temporary storage facility in Idaho, will be transported along the Norfolk Southern rail line that stretches from Hannibal through Moberly and on to Kansas City. The shipment is part of a decontamination project coordinated by the Department of Energy. This shipment would follow a truck convoy that passed low-level waste through Columbia late Wednesday night or early yesterday morning via Interstate 70. In operation from 1966 to 1972, the West Valley site was the first commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the United States. The center removed uranium ions and plutonium from nuclear fuel rods and reprocessed the materials for a variety of uses. The energy department has sought to decontaminate the center since 1980. "This is all the fuel that we have here," West Valley Nuclear Services spokesman John Chamberlain said of the one-time shipment of 125 radioactive fuel assemblies. "We will be shipping a lot of low-level waste in the future, but once this is gone, the storage site can be cleaned up." Four railroads, including Norfolk, will participate in the move. A Union Pacific locomotive will actually haul the waste, contained in two federally inspected and approved transportation casks, along rail lines in more than 10 states. The shipment will commence once the railroads, the energy department and West Valley reach a contractual agreement. Once a date is picked, each state will be notified seven to 10 days before the shipments begin. "The cars and fuels are loaded, and the casks are all dried out and on the cars," Chamberlain said. "Technically we're almost there. We certainly hope it happens this summer." Fearing inclement and impassable winter weather, the department has until Oct. 30 to ship the materials. The more than 2,100-mile route, estimated to take four days by West Valley officials, was chosen from among 12 other possible railways by officials from the energy department, West Valley and the individual states. "The Department of Energy looked for the best route from West Valley to Idaho that meets the criteria -- the shortest route with quality tracks, minimum population along the routes, fewest railroads possible with the fewest changes, risk of train in terms of accidents," Chamberlain said. The steel casks, with walls more than 9 inches thick, are both approximately 20 feet long and 7 feet in diameter. Impact limiters made of a steel shell filled with balsa wood surround the containers and act as shock absorbers in the event of a transportation accident. The casks used specifically for this shipment did not undergo full scale testing but withstood scale-model testing and met criteria designated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chamberlain said. The casks will be inspected before they are allowed to cross Missouri state lines, said Steve Waters, director of the Missouri Division of Motor Carrier &Railroad Safety. "We're working on a co-op inspection with Illinois and Indiana," he said. "Basically they're looking for the load security on the flat cars, that the trains are mechanically in good shape and if it has any leakage." Some nuclear energy watchdog groups and environmental advocates remain concerned, not only for safety reasons, but also for a possible onslaught of shipments from nuclear facilities across the country. "This is blazing away a precedent for tens of thousands of shipments from commercial sites," said Donna D'Arrigo, the radioactive waste project director at Nuclear Information and Resource Services in Washington, D.C. "It shifts liability for waste from the private owner to the U.S. taxpayer." There are 76 commercial nuclear sites east of the Mississippi River. This week's truck shipment was met with heavy opposition from top state officials. The nuclear waste was allowed passage through Missouri after the federal government placed restrictions on waste transportation at the University of Missouri-Columbia's nuclear reactor. "We've got a real mess here in the middle of the country, and I think this will open the floodgates," said Kay Drey, a member of the St. Louis-based Missouri Coalition for the Environment. "This is, of course, not going to be the last shipment." To see more of the Columbia Daily Tribune, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.showmenews.com (c) 2001, Columbia Daily Tribune, Mo. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune ***************************************************************** 7 Government embarks on review of energy policy, with a return to nuclear power not ruled out The Government has announced a review of energy policy with the aim of setting out its energy objectives to 2050, meeting commitments on global warming and ensuring “secure, diverse and reliable energy supplies at a competitive price”. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the review to be conducted by the governmental Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) in Parliament on 25 June. “The aim of the review will be to set out the objectives of energy policy and to develop a strategy that ensures current policy commitments are consistent with longer-term goals,” Blair said. The review has been ordered because of the increased risk of climate change, questions about the security and diversity of energy supplies and potentially conflicting policy goals for energy prices. The PIU says that if current energy policy remained unchanged, including the currently-planned progressive decommissioning of nuclear power stations, CO2 emissions from UK energy consumption are likely to rise by between 0.01-0.3% per annum to 2050, yet the country needs to cut emissions by an estimated 60% by this date. The body also states that a review is necessary to address the fact that as nuclear power, currently providing 25% of UK electricity, is phased out under current policy, there will be no large-scale domestic substitute. Coal only plays a limited role and a decline of projected North Sea oil and gas production from 2004 will lead to oil and gas being increasingly imported. On current policies, it says, initiatives to promote domestic renewable energy sources and reduce demand will be insufficient to reduce dependence on imported oil and gas. The regulatory regime for the privatised energy utilities has, to date, focused on a price control regime that seeks to promote cost efficiency and to reduce or contain real energy prices, but such a regime has the potential to conflict with the government’s environmental objectives. The government is also concerned whether the UK regulatory regime provides utilities with appropriate incentives for investment in generating to minimise the risk of blackouts. On prices, the PIU says that the impact of ‘green’ taxes on fuel poverty and industrial competitiveness must be further considered, particularly where, as in the case of petrol used by motorists, the consumption of energy is relatively insensitive to price. Although the challenges explored by the project will be largely placed in a UK context, they are global challenges to which global solutions will be required with UK policy having to evolve in step with that of other countries. Furthermore, new policies to meet these challenges will have to be sufficiently flexible to cope with large economic, technological and scientific uncertainties in the transport, domestic, and industrial and commercial sectors, it says. The report, which is due by the end of the year, will also receive input from other government departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (see related story) and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. “This group has been set a vital task - identifying the longer term strategic objectives of energy policy for Great Britain,” commented new Minister for Energy, Brian Wilson, who will oversee the project’s advisory group. “We will examine all aspects of energy policy, including how we can meet the challenge of global warming. The review will consider the role of coal, gas, oil and renewables in our future energy balance as well as Combined Heat and Power and the enhancement of energy efficiency. The review will also need to consider what, if any, role the nuclear industry should play in meeting the environmental and security of supply objectives.” Any queries on this review should be directed to the PIU. © Faversham House Group Ltd 2001. This article may be copied or forwarded for ***************************************************************** 8 Editorial: Spin isn't going to aid a lost cause June 29, 2001 President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress are worried. Polls have shown a steady erosion in public support for the president. One area that has produced heartburn is the emerging view of the president's energy plan. The emphasis on drilling for oil and gas and the building of more nuclear power plants has created a backlash because of environmental concerns. A recent New York Times-CBS News poll found that just 33 percent of the public backed Bush's handling of the nation's energy problems. When a politician is in trouble nowadays, the spin doctors are called in to provide a political makeover. Bush, in his public appearances, now soft-pedals oil exploration and nuclear power, emphasizing conservation instead. This newfound love for conservation looks contrived since Bush initially mocked conservation's importance. Over on Capitol Hill, Republican leaders are giving fresh talking points to members of Congress in the hope that they can persuade the public of the need for the president's energy plan. It may help if the leaders first changed the hearts and minds of their own Republican colleagues. Don't forget that about a week ago 70 Republicans in the House joined with environmentally conscious Democrats in a rebuke to the president and GOP House leaders, passing legislation to ban drilling for oil and gas off the Florida coast. Closer to home, Bush's push for nuclear power -- and with it a nuclear waste repository -- isn't winning him friends in Nevada since this is the only state under consideration for a nuclear waste dump. Quite simply, the president's energy policy is a case where repackaging a bad product won't make it better. The public is too savvy and understands that the policy benefits big energy producers at the expense of the environment. All contents © 1996 - 2001 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 Energy plan should involve broad, attainable objectives asahi.com news No one would disagree with the view that Japan must act to save energy. The government needs a plan to address energy consumption in terms of people's daily lives and power plant construction, for instance, in persuasive terms. June 30, 2001 The Study Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, which advises the minister of economy, trade and industry, has assembled its long-range forecast of energy supply and demand. It is a blueprint for achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction by 6 percent in 2010, in keeping with the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. The current program, established three years ago, was characterized by a significant distinction between goals and present circumstances. The focus of the program was to build 20 additional nuclear power-generating plants by 2010. The forecast scales back the construction of nuclear power plants to 10 to 13 facilities by 2010. But some utility executives consider the advisory committee's plan still too optimistic. The committee's forecast anticipates a considerable reduction in energy consumption in such areas as private automobiles, appliances and services. Achieving the goals in such fields is even more difficult because energy consumption in those areas has actually continued to grow, despite the present economic slump. Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from the production or consumption of energy. The government intends to hold emissions in these sectors to the 1990 level in 2010. But emissions are already 9 percent above that level. It is easy to imagine how hard it will be to achieve the government's objectives. We must, of course, try to keep the pledges made in the Kyoto Protocol. We support the advisory panel's plan to provide budgetary incentives, tax breaks and help in technological development to triple reliance upon such alternative energy resources as solar power and wind-generated power. But we are tempted to be cynical about claims that Japan cannot achieve its objectives without at least 10 additional nuclear power plants being built over the next nine years. As the committee discussed the outlook, it considered what would happen if Japan did not build any new nuclear power plants. But the economic impact and impact on people's daily lives would have been so profound that the scenario was retained solely as a benchmark. Why would the committee explore two such extreme scenarios-too many nuclear power plants or no new nuclear power plants? In considering such facilities, a more realistic program is needed that would involve building several new power plants by the target year. There is also reason to wonder whether the advisory panel scrutinized an environmental tax clearly. Members say that such a tax is not very effective in quelling energy demand and that too much time must pass before the impact is felt. But several estimates suggest that such a tax would indeed be fairly effective in curbing energy demand and, in turn, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide if the tax revenues were to be used wisely for environmental protection. No one would disagree with the view that Japan must act more to save energy. The government needs a plan to address energy consumption in terms of people's daily lives and power plant construction, for instance, in persuasive terms. In perusing the latest forecast of energy supply and demand based on achieving emissions objectives by 2010, it cannot be denied that it lacks flexibility. The advisory committee should have presented an alternative plan that covers a longer period with more easily achieved objectives. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry should not be expected to address on its own a program that has such a sweeping impact on lifestyles and transportation systems. It would seem the government should address a long-term energy program that involves concerted effort of all the appropriate ministries. (The Asahi Shimbun, June 29) Copyright 2001 Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear power, thanks money.telegraph.co.uk - Tuesday 3 July 2001 This week's energy review could herald a return to nuclear power, writes Sophie Barker IMAGINE a Labour Government handing a lifeline to the nuclear industry. Fifteen years ago, when Britain's state-owned nuclear generators were still building new power stations, half the current cabinet might have considered marching in protest at the very idea. Three Mile Island power station, bought by British Energy for a song in 1997 This week, the Prime Minister announced an energy review, and after 14 years of unofficial moratorium it may recommend that we start building nuclear power stations again. Brian Wilson, the new energy minister, is in the chair. His constituency contains British Energy's Hunterston plant, and he's a nuclear supporter. Wilson's team (part of the Government's Soviet-sounding Performance & Innovation Unit) has already found some figures to back the nuclear case. As we continue to drive our cars and fill our homes with wide-screen TVs, our energy use will continue to climb, despite higher taxation, better insulation and constant exhortations to switch off. By 2020, official projections expect half the energy to come from gas, over a third from oil and just 3pc from nuclear, against 25pc today. Only three of our 16 stations will still be alive unless they are granted life extensions. But we are not talking dependable North Sea oil and gas here, but imports from Russia, Iran and Algeria - hardly the most reliable trade partners. This political threat is the most powerful card in the pro-nuclear pack. Uranium fuel can be stored for years, and the cost of generation is almost immune to fluctuations in fuel prices - spot UK gas has roughly doubled in the last 18 months. The industry argues that subsidising new nukes is a small price to pay to ensure that the lights stay on if Russia decides to turn off the taps. Then there is the Government's rash pledge at Kyoto to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5pc of 1990 levels by 2010. Nuclear electricity emits no greenhouse gases, a fact which pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth prefer to ignore. Thanks to their noise, we are all too aware of the potential for contaminated waste leaking into water supplies or, worse, another Chernobyl. The tree-huggers have been less quick to pick up on nuclear's true Achilles heel - its cost. Boffins at the OECD have worked out that a nuclear station is four times as expensive as a combined gas cycle station. At £1,500 per kilowatt of electricity generated, the price is well over £1 billion per station, and even that is probably optimistic, given the usual accuracy of builders' estimates. Britain's most modern installation, Sizewell B in Suffolk, cost £3,000 per kilowatt, partly because its planned sister stations were all aborted, demolishing any economies of scale. For students of the financial disaster that has been the British nuclear industry, it's an all-too-familiar tale. American nuclear industry specialists say construction costs must be halved before companies can seriously think about building stations again. This is the problem that Britain's nuclear players would like Wilson and his team to solve. Nobody has a keener interest than Robin Jeffrey, the new chairman of British Energy, the business that balked at calling itself British Nuclear when it came to market. He spent seven years building Torness and admits he has been "banging on" about a nuclear renaissance since his company bought Three Mile Island for a song in 1997. "It's difficult to see, with the existing designs for nuclear plants, the business case for providing the funding at private sector financing rates," he admits. So what policy incentives would change the economics? Jeffrey suggests a carbon tax and a greenhouse gas emissions trading market (both exist, but not in a form he likes). His key argument is that waste handling is already factored into nuclear running costs. Those costs are already competitive - 2.17p a kilowatt-hour for British Energy's plants, including 0.27p towards waste disposal. "We meticulously look after our waste: it is all in a canister and we know where it is. The gas or coal stations just dump the stuff - what is the valuation of that to the atmosphere?" He thinks nuclear is highly suitable for the Government's favourite funding toy, the private finance initiative. British Energy has just paid £279m for an 18-year lease on Canada's largest power station, leaving ownership with Ontario's state company. Jeffrey is encouraged by the fact that Wilson's brief includes moving electricity regulation away from an obsession with consumer bills. He should be: Government pressure to force prices down virtually wiped out British Energy's profits last year. Britain's other nuclear generator, BNFL, is hardly a shining example of financial performance either. The state-owned group admitted this week that its ancient Magnox stations lost £199m, and argues that it might make sense to replace them with safer, modern plants. The sites are already wired to the grid, and local residents are used to having them on the doorstep. Building seven modern stations on the sites could be done for £1,000 a kilowatt, according to BNFL, but it would not want to fund and operate them alone. The very idea has been enough to send the environmental lobby into a green funk. Greenpeace campaigner Matthew Spencer claims the Wilson review is "based on a fallacy that there is an energy gap". Greenpeace wants energy conservation measures to stabilise demand, which could then be met by wind, waves, willow-fired and methane-burning plants and the sun. The cost of this is incalculable, because there are too many unknown (and at this rate unlikely) future Government policies. Like many of his colleagues, he has a touching faith in wind farms, which he costs at £700 a kilowatt. Whether on land or sea or both, this is sheer fantasy. If a single 80-metre windmill was built every day for the next nine years they would generate only 5pc of our likely energy needs - and that assumes the wind keeps blowing, though not so strongly as to blow them away. More realistically in the near term are life extensions for British Energy's stations. Beyond that, it is difficult to see how we can square the energy circle without new nukes. "I do occasionally place careful bets and I don't think [new build] is wishful thinking," Jeffrey says. The problem before the Wilson review is simple. It can recommend much higher taxes (certain to include an equivalent of the hated VAT on domestic fuel), grants for insulation and encouragement for renewable energy all it likes, but it will not make a dent in reality. That reality is that we can choose between dependence on Russian gas or British nuclear, and if we don't choose soon, we shan't have a choice. ***************************************************************** 11 BNFL asks minister to take back Magnox money.telegraph.co.uk - Tuesday 3 July 2001 By Neil Bennett (Filed: 01/07/2001) BRITISH Nuclear Fuels, the troubled nuclear energy group, is to ask the Government to take Magnox, its ageing power station business, off its hands to enable it to press ahead with a partial privatisation. Hugh Collum and Norman Askew, the chairman and chief executive, are said to have concluded that the group cannot be viable as a commercial business if it continues to own Magnox, whose ageing nuclear reactors carry massive environmental clean up liabilities. The two are already thought to have held one meeting with Brian Wilson to discuss the restructuring and are due to hold further meetings during the summer. Under BNFL's plan, Magnox would be hived off into a separate state-owned company, and the Government would guarantee the clean-up costs when its reactors close. Last week the group announced a loss of £210m, largely because of the poor performance of Magnox. Wylfa, one of its largest power plants, has been closed since April last year because of faulty pipes. Following the losses BNFL has net assets of just £251m. This is intended to support gross liabilities of £35bn, of which £19bn are directly related to Magnox. The company feels that unless the Government is prepared to make a massive cash injection into the group, or to underwrite its liabilities, it will not be able to press ahead with a partial privatisation in the life of this Parliament. The Government had intended to sell off 49 per cent of the company last year, but the sale was shelved when it was discovered that workers in its Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant had been falsifying quality control data. ***************************************************************** 12 Critics Want to Stop Plan to Ship Nuclear Waste Through Pennsylvania Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report Akweli Parker , The Philadelphia Inquirer ( June 30, 2001 ) Jun. 30--Pennsylvania's distinction as the Keystone State is a dubious one when applied to the state's pivotal role in hauling deadly nuclear waste, according to some nuclear-energy opponents. Because of Pennsylvania's location, nearly one-fifth of the nation's highly radioactive, spent uranium from nuclear power plants could some day traverse rail lines and highways in the state, according to representatives of consumer and environmental groups who spoke at a news conference yesterday. Public Citizen -- the consumer group founded by Ralph Nader -- along with the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, the Pennsylvania Environmental Network and Citizen Alert of Nevada are trying to call attention to a plan that would ship tons of radioactive waste through New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the way to a proposed dump in Nevada. "If there are any accidents ... Pennsylvania is likely to be where they occur" because of its rugged terrain, said Mike Ewall of the Pennsylvania Environmental Network. The debate over nuclear waste is heating up because the federal Department of Energy is preparing to recommend a permanent tomb for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Right now, nearly 40,000 metric tons of waste is piling up in underwater pools and on concrete storage pads at nuclear power plants -- enough to fill a football field five yards deep, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy group in Washington. For years, the nuclear industry has been pressuring the government to find a home for the waste, as nuclear-plant operators such as Exelon Corp. are running out of room for it. The Department of Energy could recommend the Yucca Mountain site to President Bush later this year, but Nevada opposes the proposal and will likely use a veto granted by 1982's Nuclear Waste Policy Act. "I think you could take that to the bank," said Joe Strolin, administrator for the planning division of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office. If that happens, Congress will have the final say. Despite the President's bullish stance on nuclear energy, Strolin said it was "not a done deal" that Congress would approve the site. "Members of Congress are going to have to confront the fact they will be authorizing tens of thousands of shipments of this material through their states for several decades," he said. In Pennsylvania, likely rail and highway routes would carry the waste through highly populated areas, including the Philadelphia region. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tested the casks that would hold the waste, and found them safe. But "they do not require full-scale physical testing, and that's one of our concerns," Lisa Gue, a policy analyst with Public Citizen, said. For example, tests of the casks' resistance to fire were conducted in 1,475-degree flames, "whereas diesel fuel burns at 1,850," she said. Supporters of nuclear energy say the technology used to prevent breaches works. "This is not a technical issue; it's a political issue," said Jack Skolds, chief operating officer of Exelon's nuclear division. Chicago-based Exelon, the nation's largest operator of commercial nuclear reactors, was formed by the merger of Peco Energy Co. and Unicom Corp. last year. Exelon's nuclear plants include Limerick, northwest of Philadelphia, and Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg. Nuclear waste traverses U.S. highways regularly, "and we have never had a significant incident occur," Skolds said. Between 1979 and 1997, nuclear operators made about 70 shipments of spent fuel each year, according to federal statistics listed by Nevada officials. If Yucca becomes a depository, the number of shipments would increase to between 600 and 2,500 per year, the Energy Department estimates. Unshielded exposure to the spent fuel would result in lethal poisoning within minutes. But Skolds said failure of a cask was highly unlikely. "Even if there is an accident, people will not have to be evacuated," he said. "We need to make sure we know what we're doing and take adequate precautions ... [but] I would not want to, because it's nuclear waste, say we can't put it on the highways." Public Citizen is hosting a workshop at 10:30 a.m. today at the Philadelphia City Institute branch of the Free Library, 1905 Locust St. To see more of The Philadelphia Inquirer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.philly.com (c) 2001, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune ***************************************************************** 13 Palisades faces $55,000 fine SouthBendTribune.com: June 30, 2001 NRC claims Covert nuclear plant gave false info on steam line By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer Palisades Nuclear Plant officials were ordered to pay a $55,000 fine for failing to provide accurate information when requesting to shut down a Michigan steam line. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was satisfied that utility officials did not deliberately withhold the information. The proposed fine was announced on Friday. Palisades spokesman Mark Savage said Consumers Energy Co., which operated the plant when the false information was given to the NRC, will pay the fine. Nuclear Management took over operations in April. The false information was submitted in February 2000 when the plant in Covert, Mich., requested authorization to close one of two steam lines. The steam lines are connected to an auxiliary feed-water pump and would act as a backup to remove heat from the reactor if the normal feed-water system is lost. On Feb. 5, 2000, while the plant was shut down for planned maintenance, an underground steam pipe ruptured. The utility decided the steam line was not needed because the second steam pipe was available and requested that the NRC exempt the line from testing. In its request, the utility said the steam line would only be needed if there was a fire in one room containing electrical cables, but there were other ways of keeping the reactor safe without using the steam line. The NRC approved the closing of the steam line and eliminated the testing requirement. But in an inspection earlier this year, the NRC found a second scenario in which the steam line might be needed to maintain the reactor following a fire. The company and the NRC concluded the steam line would not be needed to maintain reactor safety even under the second scenario and the agency upheld its earlier decision on the elimination. Contact the southbendtribune.com Web staff. ***************************************************************** 14 Nuke reglators release Virginia plant renewal plans Friday June 29, 5:30 pm Eastern Time WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Friday said it is making available the 20-year license renewal extension applications filed on May 29 for four nuclear units in Virginia. Virginia Electric Power Company, a unit of Richmond, Va.-based energy holding company Dominion Resources (NYSE: - news), filed for the renewals for its North Anna Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Surry Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. North Anna reactors are each rated at 921 megawatts and located in Mineral, Va. The Surry plants are located in Gravel Neck, Va., and are 800 megawatts each. Current operating licenses for the North Anna facilities expire on April 1, 2018, for Unit 1 and August 21, 2020, for Unit 2. Surry Unit 1 expires on May 25, 2012, and the license for Unit 2 expires on January 29, 2013. Copies of the applications are located on the NRC Web site: . NRC staff are currently conducting an initial review of the applications to determine whether they contain enough information for the required formal review. If the applications have sufficient information, the NRC will formally file them and announce an opportunity for a hearing. Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of ***************************************************************** 15 Dounreay hot-spot [The Scotsman] Friday, June 29, 2001 A Particle found on the seabed off Dounreay during the latest monitoring is between five and 20 times more radioactive than those previously discovered offshore, writes John Ross. Last night the SNP said the find was "alarming" and claimed it is vital a comprehensive clean-up programme is put in place. The UK Atomic Energy Authority disclosed this week it had recovered 90 new particles on the seabed in the last two months during efforts to plot the number and distribution of the so-called hot-spots. According to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the particles found 300 metres offshore included a large fragment of irradiated nuclear fuel with a caesium-137 activity estimated to be 100 million Becquerels. Previous finds have measured a few hundred to 20 million Becquerels. A Dounreay spokesman said the discovery was 20 times the average radioactivity of seabed finds. ***************************************************************** 16 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Friday, June 29, 2001 State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects ADAMS - Items of Interest Recent Released Documents Added - Friday, June 29, 2001 These documents and others may be retrieved at the NRC PERR web site ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item ID: 011790128 Accession Number: ML011720131 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:11:20 AM Title: Letter to Claire McBride regarding the Department of Army NRC Form 244 for Use of Depleted Uranium Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011370178 Accession Number: ML011340152 Date Added: 5/17/01 1:07:55 PM Title: M010511 - Meeting with ACRS Author Affiliation: NRC/OCM Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011340612 Accession Number: ML011310419 Date Added: 5/14/01 1:02:34 PM Title: M010511-Commission Meeting Slides/Exhibits - Meeting with ACRS Author Affiliation: NRC/ACRS, NRC/OCM Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790026 Accession Number: ML011720046 Date Added: 6/28/01 10:16:41 AM Title: 06/20/2001 Letter to Marie Stoeckel re: Periodic Management Meeting on 07/24/2001 with State of Rhode Island. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-I/DNMS Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790027 Accession Number: ML011730030 Date Added: 6/28/01 10:16:45 AM Title: 07/17/2001 Public Meeting Announcement-Annual Assessment Presentation-Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-II/DRP/RBP2 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790171 Accession Number: ML011780109 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:15:56 AM Title: Final Technical Study on Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (WITS #199900132). Author Affiliation: NRC/OCM Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790256 Accession Number: ML011790206 Date Added: 6/28/01 4:11:15 PM Title: Meeting Notice: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Hosting of Unscheduled Meeting of ASME, QME Subgroup for Dynamic Qualification. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DE/EMEB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790179 Accession Number: ML003734257 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:16:45 AM Title: NASA, Dryden Flight Research Center, New License Application dated 7/6/00 Author Affiliation: US National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790168 Accession Number: ML011780100 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:15:40 AM Title: NRR Staff Presentation to the ACRS, Subject: Risk Analysis Results & Conclusions. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPSB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790308 Accession Number: ML011790484 Date Added: 6/28/01 5:17:07 PM Title: Revised Notice of 07/11/01 public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and other stakeholders on implementation of the Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) Program. Meeting start time changed. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DRIP Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790131 Accession Number: ML011770330 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:11:35 AM Title: SECY-01-0109 - "Weekly Information Report - Week Ending 06/15/01" Author Affiliation: NRC/EDO/AO Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790176 Accession Number: ML011780130 Date Added: 6/28/01 11:16:22 AM Title: Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Plants. Author Affiliation: NRC/EDO/DEDR, NRC/NRR Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011790123 Accession Number: ML011710192 Date Added: 6/28/01 10:43:47 AM Title: Submittal of the NAC Responses to the NRC Request for Additional Information on the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister System Amended for the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Fuel. Author Affiliation: NAC International Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ ***************************************************************** 17 POSITIVE VISION - Task force has sound strategy The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Sunday, July 01, 2001 Community leaders and officials with the state's research universities are pursuing a common-sense strategy for turning the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant into an engine of high-tech economic growth in western Kentucky. If they succeed — and there are solid reasons to believe they will — the plant's troubled recent history will be remembered as the prelude to a brighter future. A task force chaired by retired Paducah businessman Ken Wheeler traveled to Washington recently to press the case for converting the Information Age Park into a research and development center focused on energy issues and environmental cleanup. Virtually every party with a stake in the plant's future and the Department of Energy's cleanup operation was represented in meetings with the task force. Incoming University of Kentucky President Lee Todd and the dean of the UK College of Engineering endorsed the effort. They joined in talks that included members of the Kentucky congressional delegation, United States Enrichment Corp. chief Nick Timbers, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's staff and officials with the union that represents most workers at the gaseous diffusion plant. Todd's participation was especially significant, given that any plan for developing the Info Park into a research center must involve a major research university. University of Louisville officials also are interested in helping the area exploit the research opportunities inherent in the uranium enrichment process and the cleanup of contamination at the plant site. Paducah is a natural location for research and development projects related to the enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel and the disposal of wastes from that process. The USEC plant in Paducah and the Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Ill., are the nation's only facilities for enriching uranium for use as nuclear fuel. The future of these financially troubled plants is a matter of national concern. It should be noted that the timing of the local group's journey to Washington was excellent. President Bush is pushing a national energy plan that calls for renewed development of nuclear power. In addition, national security officials and DOE administrators are conducting a policy review on nuclear energy. The policy review could have tremendous implications for Paducah's role in the uranium fuel cycle. Fortunately for the region, the task force has a vision for strengthening and expanding that critical role. Basically, the task force is working on a two-pronged strategy emphasizing research into more efficient uranium enrichment methods and the development of new cleanup technology. If USEC is to improve its competitive position on the world market, the company must come up with a technology to replace the costly, outmoded gaseous diffusion process. As for environmental cleanup, DOE is dealing with problems at the Paducah plant that currently have no viable solution. These tasks could be tackled by UK and U of L researchers, working with the Paducah Community College engineering program. The idea makes sense. For at least the next decade the federal government is going to be pouring money into the cleanup of the plant site. Why not use this project to develop innovative cleanup and recycling techniques? This type of research would benefit the entire nation — not just western Kentucky. Wheeler made that point when he remarked, "I think we tried hard not to just sound like we were a bunch of 'poor-me's' looking for a handout. We expanded on ... turning this thing into a possible asset, instead of just being a sinkhole for funds." Wheeler is right: this is not a defensive, please-help-us proposal. It has a positive, self-confident quality that we think bodes well for Paducah's future role in the nuclear industry. ***************************************************************** 18 Nuclear-energy foes say waste shipments could endanger area June 30, 2001 Go to: S Nuclear-energy foes say waste shipments could endanger area If a Nev. dump is used, the material might travel through Pa. and N.J. Protesters at City Hall yesterday opposed a plan under which spent nuclear fuel could be shipped through Pennsylvania and New Jersey. (BONNIE WELLER / Inquirer Staff Photographer) Most likely routes for radioactive waste By Akweli Parker INQUIRER STAFF WRITER Pennsylvania's distinction as the Keystone State is a dubious one when applied to the state's pivotal role in hauling deadly nuclear waste, according to some nuclear-energy opponents. Because of Pennsylvania's location, nearly one-fifth of the nation's highly radioactive, spent uranium from nuclear power plants could some day traverse rail lines and highways in the state, according to representatives of consumer and environmental groups who spoke at a news conference yesterday. Public Citizen - the consumer group founded by Ralph Nader - along with the Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group, the Pennsylvania Environmental Network and Citizen Alert of Nevada are trying to call attention to a plan that would ship tons of radioactive waste through New Jersey and Pennsylvania on the way to a proposed dump in Nevada. "If there are any accidents . . . Pennsylvania is likely to be where they occur" because of its rugged terrain, said Mike Ewall of the Pennsylvania Environmental Network. The debate over nuclear waste is heating up because the federal Department of Energy is preparing to recommend a permanent tomb for spent fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Right now, nearly 40,000 metric tons of waste is piling up in underwater pools and on concrete storage pads at nuclear power plants - enough to fill a football field five yards deep, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy group in Washington. For years, the nuclear industry has been pressuring the government to find a home for the waste, as nuclear-plant operators such as Exelon Corp. are running out of room for it. The Department of Energy could recommend the Yucca Mountain site to President Bush later this year, but Nevada opposes the proposal and will likely use a veto granted by 1982's Nuclear Waste Policy Act. "I think you could take that to the bank," said Joe Strolin, administrator for the planning division of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office. If that happens, Congress will have the final say. Despite the President's bullish stance on nuclear energy, Strolin said it was "not a done deal" that Congress would approve the site. "Members of Congress are going to have to confront the fact they will be authorizing tens of thousands of shipments of this material through their states for several decades," he said. In Pennsylvania, likely rail and highway routes would carry the waste through highly populated areas, including the Philadelphia region. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tested the casks that would hold the waste, and found them safe. But "they do not require full-scale physical testing, and that's one of our concerns," Lisa Gue, a policy analyst with Public Citizen, said. For example, tests of the casks' resistance to fire were conducted in 1,475-degree flames, "whereas diesel fuel burns at 1,850," she said. Supporters of nuclear energy say the technology used to prevent breaches works. "This is not a technical issue, it's a political issue," said Jack Skolds, chief operating officer of Exelon's nuclear division. Chicago-based Exelon, the nation's largest operator of commercial nuclear reactors, was formed by the merger of Peco Energy Co. and Unicom Corp. last year. Exelon's nuclear plants include Limerick, northwest of Philadelphia, and Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg. Nuclear waste traverses U.S. highways regularly, "and we have never had a significant incident occur," Skolds said. Between 1979 and 1997, nuclear operators made about 70 shipments of spent fuel each year, according to federal statistics listed by Nevada officials. If Yucca becomes a depository, the number of shipments would increase to between 600 and 2,500 per year, the Energy Department estimates. Unshielded exposure to the spent fuel would result in lethal poisoning within minutes. But Skolds said failure of a cask was highly unlikely. "Even if there is an accident, people will not have to be evacuated," he said. "We need to make sure we know what we're doing and take adequate precautions . . . [but] I would not want to, because it's nuclear waste, say we can't put it on the highways." Public Citizen is hosting a workshop at 10:30 a.m. today at the Philadelphia City Institute branch of the Free Library, 1905 Locust St. Akweli Parker's e-mail address is aparker@phillynews.com. ***************************************************************** 19 PSEG Nuclear: Salem Station Water Discharge Permit Is Reasonable, Well-Balanced Decision Friday June 29, 3:30 pm Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: PSEG Power LLC NEWARK, N.J., June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- PSEG Nuclear, operator of Salem Generating Station (Lower Alloways Creek, NJ), said the station's renewed water discharge permit issued today by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) represents a well-reasoned and properly balanced decision that will protect the environment and serve the public interest. Frank Cassidy, president and chief operating officer of PSEG Power, said the permit continues the technological and conservation innovations implemented under terms and conditions of a 1994 water discharge permit, including wetlands restoration and other components of the Estuary Enhancement Program, and requires additional measures to study the feasibility of fish protection technology, conduct biological monitoring programs, construct additional fish ladders, and fund construction of artificial reefs. PSEG Power is the parent company of PSEG Nuclear and is a subsidiary of PSEG (NYSE: - news), a diversified energy holding company with headquarters in Newark, NJ. PSEG also is the parent company of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G). Cassidy said NJDEP's decision is based on an exhaustive body of evidence and supports the conclusion that Salem station's cooling water system -- with provisions of the renewed water discharge permit -- represents best technology available and will protect aquatic populations in the river and provide permanent improvements to the ecology of the region.`` Salem station has been operating under a water discharge permit issued by NJDEP in 1994. The renewed permit will take effect on Sept. 1, 2001 for a period of five years. PSEG Nuclear filed the permit renewal application in March, 1999. A major component of the Estuary Enhancement Program is restoration, enhancement, and preservation of more than 20,000 acres (32 square miles) of degraded wetlands and uplands along the Delaware estuary, the largest privately funded wetlands restoration project in the U.S. Other aspects of the program include construction of eight fish ladders that have opened up approximately 700 acres and more than 100 miles of aquatic habitat; upgrading of Salem station's cooling water intake system to state-of-the art standards; studies of under water sound technology with the potential to deter fish from entering the station's intake area; and the most comprehensive biological monitoring program of the Delaware Estuary ever under taken. PSEG Nuclear also has enhanced its wetlands restoration sites through construction of more than $1 million worth of new public use facilities and the funding of environmental education and research programs. The federal Clean Water Act requires that terms and conditions of water discharge permits assure the protection and propagation of balanced and indigenous fish populations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency delegates authority for enforcing these provisions to state agencies such as NJDEP. Salem station, Cassidy said, provides 2,200 megawatts (MW) of electric generating capacity -- enough to serve the needs of approximately 1.5 million households -- and plays a major role in the effort to supply 26 million residents of New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland with reliable and affordable electric energy. ``It's also important to note,'' he said, ``that Salem station makes important contributions to improving regional air quality. In a typical year, replacing Salem station's 2,200 MW of nuclear generating capacity with electricity generated by burning fossil fuels would result in putting into the environment an additional 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, 70,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 10 million tons of carbon dioxide.'' PSEG Power is an independent power producer with more than 17,000 MW of electric generating capacity in operation, construction, or advanced development. SOURCE: PSEG Power LLC Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 20 Citizen Groups Denounce Proposal for Nuclear Waste June 28, 2001 Transport Through Pennsylvania Radioactive Roads and Rails Campaign Arrives in Pittsburgh PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A proposal to open a repository for high-level radioactive waste in Nevada would not adequately address the nation’s continued generation of dangerous waste but instead would introduce new risks in the vicinity of the dump and along transportation routes in 43 states –including Pennsylvania, citizen groups said today. State and national environmental and public interest organizations joined at a news conference outside the William S. Moorhead Federal Building to call attention to the dangers associated with transporting the waste through Pennsylvania. The groups also outlined substantial flaws in the repository proposal. "The proposal for a radioactive dump at Yucca Mountain does not solve the nuclear waste problem. It transfers the risk to the state of Nevada and to communities like Pittsburgh along shipment routes," said Elissa Weiss, M.D., member of Physicians for Social Responsibility - Pittsburgh. "A crash or radiation leak during transportation could pose serious long-term and far-reaching threats to our health, environment and economy." The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing to recommend Yucca Mountain, located near Las Vegas, Nev., as a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste generated by atomic weapons facilities and commercial nuclear reactors across the country. An analysis prepared by the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Division in Nevada found that the waste would have to travel through 734 counties, which have a total population of 138 million people. "Congress is under immense pressure from the nuclear power industry to approve a dump at Yucca Mountain," said Molly Rush, staff member at the Thomas Merton Center. "But this proposal is clearly contrary to sustainable energy goals and would irresponsibly initiate the largest nuclear transportation scheme in history. " The DOE has refused to specify which routes would be used to ship high-level waste to Yucca Mountain. However, potential routes evaluated in a draft Environmental Impact Statement include I-70, I-76, I-80 and I-84 through Pennsylvania, as well as rail lines. The issue is particularly timely given the concern generated recently over a similar proposal. That plan calls for a shipment of irradiated fuel rods from West Valley, N.Y., to pass through Butler, 30 miles north of Pittsburgh, within the next month en route to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory for temporary storage. Against the backdrop of a full-sized model of a nuclear waste transport cask, participants at today’s news conference raised concerns about the safety of transporting radioactive waste. These include accidents resulting in the exposure of thousands to radioactivity, as well as contamination of food and drinking water sources. DOE risk analysis data indicate that between 70 and 310 accidents could be expected involving waste shipments to Nevada. "There is no practical way to ensure that hospitals, police and rescue personnel would have the capacity to effectively respond to emergencies involving radioactive release in communities along shipment routes," Weiss said. Lisa Gue, policy analyst for Public Citizen, noted that the transport casks have never been subjected to full-scale physical testing. Rather, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies on computer modeling to predict how the casks would perform in the event of an accident. Even without an accident, the high-level nuclear waste shipments would routinely emit radiation equivalent to one chest X-ray per hour. "Transportation hazards are not the only risk associated with the proposal to build a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain," said John Hadder, northern Nevada coordinator with Citizen Alert. "The site itself is unsuitable for a repository; by the DOE’s own analysis the mountain only provides about five percent containment of the waste over 10,000 years." The DOE’s repository designs hinge on the ability of a specific alloy to resist corrosion for thousands of years from water that will infiltrate the site. But this is based on scant experimentation on the alloy collected over a period of months, with this limited data used to estimate how the metal will behave over thousands of years, Hadder said. Scientists in Nevada have pointed to the danger of groundwater contamination if these canisters leak, because the proposed repository sits atop an aquifer. In fact, by the DOE’s own calculations, the canisters will leak and contaminate the site and surrounding environment – the question is how much will leak and when. Further, Nevada ranks third in the country for seismic activity. As recently as 1992 an earthquake that ranked 5.2 on the Richter scale struck just eight miles southeast of Yucca Mountain, causing more than $1 million damage to DOE buildings. Thursday’s press conference was part of the Radioactive Roads and Rails Campaign, a national project of Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). A public workshop will be held this evening from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at St. Hyacinth Church, 2nd Floor Church Hall (the corner of Kraft Place and Boulevard of Allies, Pittsburgh). Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 21 True greens split atoms --not wood July 1, 2001 1:40 am RICHMOND--The California electrical-power mess provides the flashing neon arrow pointing to President Bush's energy policy. Now that California has reminded us of the simple truth that electrical power is made by someone somewhere, the president's approach provides a reasonable and pragmatic framework to plan power generation and use for the future. The fact that two oil men are presenting a plan recognizing that nuclear power should be part of the mix surprises and delights those of us who favor nuclear. Perhaps they will hire Jane Fonda to sell the plan to the populace. Quibbling about the small place that conservation has in the plan is ridiculous. Vice President Cheney is absolutely correct in his assertion that conservation alone will not properly provide for the electrical needs of the nation. Electricity is ubiquitous in the First and Second worlds. The economy requires it at all levels. When you hear anyone claiming that our needs can be met primarily by conservation, ask him if he owns an air conditioner. Conservation does have a place in the energy future, and it will operate by the only conservation tool that has ever consistently worked: higher prices. There are good reasons why nuclear generation should be a part of the energy plan; as well, there are obstacles that need to be faced realistically. Our only available sources for baseload electric generation now and for the next 20 years or so are nuclear and fossil. Hydroelectric and wind generation will remain supplemental sources by their nature: We want to run our air conditioners even when it is dry and still. Hydroelectric and wind may be significant power sources in some areas, but not for the nation as a whole. Other technologies may emerge in time, but to make these cost-effective will take even more time. Two major factors favoring nuclear are environmental and economic. It makes sense for the environment to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned to generate electricity. Nuclear power does this. Carbon-dioxide emissions from the fossil electric-generating stations of the United States now exceed the total emissions from 146 other nations containing 75 percent of the world's population. Since January, eight new coal-fired plants have begun construction. No nuclear new capacity has been announced. We cannot even look at the Kyoto protocol without considering nuclear. Nuclear generation is a part of any environmentally reasonable plan. Split atoms, not wood! Then, too, the manatee love Crystal River Nuclear station down in Florida: They like the warm water in the cooling-water discharge and really like the security fences that keep the power boats off their backs. Nothing is more environmentally fashionable than sea cows. Help the manatee: Build nukes! It makes economic sense to spread our dependence on energy sources. Nuclear increases the diversity of fuel sources and can help moderate intermediate-term price fluctuations. Because of the long fuel cycle of a nuclear plant--our Virginia reactors use their fuel for at least three years after initial loading--the fuel costs of nuclear lag behind those of the fossil plants. When prices rise, nuclear rises more slowly. When prices fall, nuclear falls more slowly. Since electricity is a part of the infrastructure of our nation, the dampening effect of nuclear-fuel prices contributes to a stable economy. The obstacles to expanding nuclear-generating capability are real but surmountable. The major obstacles are superstition, regulation, and the electric-utility corporations. Safety is not, in my opinion, a significant obstacle. The American-designed pressurized water reactor is a proven and mature technology. The safety record is impressive and the Three Mile Island incident, while a public-relations disaster, was in fact a safety triumph: No significant amount of radioactive material was released to the environment. The French and the Japanese also use the American pressurized water reactor designs and add to the operating experience and safety record. Superstition lies behind the tendency of a portion of the public (and a large portion of the media) to treat the nuclear force as demonic. Instead of seeing it as a natural phenomenon to be respected and used properly, nuclear is seen as a malign, almost spiritual force to be feared and avoided. Given the disarray of the American religious mind today--I say this as an Anglican Catholic priest--some superstition is probably unavoidable. I would prefer to suggest education as a remedy for nuclear superstition, but, frankly, it is easier to simply manipulate the superstitious and the paranoid than it is to educate them. Perhaps a pro-nuclear television ad using a teary-eyed American Indian would work. Safety regulation is important and will become more so as economic deregulation progresses. We need regulation to keep profit pressures in a deregulated environment from degrading equipment, training, and procedures. However, the uncertainties in the licensing process are frightening. After the owner has built a nuclear plant he applies for a license to operate it. Who is going to make that kind of investment without some degree of certainty that it will be usable? What we must have is a one-design reactor plant that is approved as a standard. Generating stations built to the standard design would be approved in advance. Changes to the design would need further approval. This is the way the French approach it, and it works. The utilities themselves are another obstacle. Years of regulation have created a risk-avoidance mentality. Deregulation is frightening to many of them, and they are very averse to make the kind of long-term capital commitment that nuclear requires. Nuclear plants are cheap to run, but expensive to build. You can't make quick money with nuclear. That's why the utilities themselves are the most difficult obstacle. How do we structure the electric-generating game so that utility corporations look past the next quarterly report and provide for the long-term power needs of the nation? Mergers in the industry would probably help, because the capital risk as a percentage of income would be less. A more dependable regulatory environment would also help. Some government incentives might be of use, but such inducements usually come with unintended consequences. Getting through the deregulating period quickly would help--but here California has messed up all of us. Unless something changes, I see nuclear as producing a smaller and smaller percentage of our power for at least the next 10 years. Now is the time to plan. I wish the president well as he fleshes out his energy plan. I have not mentioned high-level nuclear-waste disposal. The bulk of this material is spent fuel from power reactors that is still highly radioactive. It is a problem, and one that does not seem to have an acceptable solution in the United States right now. There are technologies being used and perfected for the intermediate storage of this material ("intermediate" here being 100 years or so). The mass-concentrated burial such as Yucca Mountain is not a good solution, but its critics all worry about what happens after thousands of years, not hundreds. We seem to have a lot more time to deal with the problem of nuclear-fuel waste disposal than the problem of fossil-fuel waste disposal. The greenhouse effect does not have a thousand-year horizon. Let's not ignore the crisis we are in to worry about one a millennium down the road. Nuclear-power generation makes sense for America now. The American design pressurized water reactor is safe, available, and well-tested. The environment and the economy benefit from expanded nuclear generation. We should have a thought-out plan to meet the electric needs of the country, and the president's plan does that. Above all, we should not let things get to a crisis point. This is Virginia, not California. We should begin to take deliberate steps. Copyright 2001 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company. ***************************************************************** 22 Scottish nuclear power station plan threatens coalition rift The Sunday Times: Scotland: July 1 2001 SCOTLAND Joanne Robertson, Scottish Political Correspondent LABOUR and its Liberal Democrat partners in the Scottish executive coalition are set to clash over government plans to build more nuclear power stations north of the border. Labour ministers at Westminster have already made it clear that they will back proposals to build at least one new Scottish reactor. However, the policy is at odds with the Lib Dems who want to phase out nuclear power stations as these reach the end of their operating lives. The issue will be decided at Westminster but it is certain to create difficulties for the coalition government in Edinburgh, which will have to contribute to a review of energy policy. This will be led by Brian Wilson, the British energy minister, who has called for a new reactor to be built at the Hunterston plant near Largs in Ayrshire. There is potential for conflict between Wilson and Henry McLeish who recently described Wilson as a "liability". At first minister's questions last week, McLeish refused to be drawn on the executive's position despite being repeatedly pressed by John Swinney, the Scottish Nationalist leader. The decision by Tony Blair, the prime minister, to appoint Wilson, the Labour MP for Cunninghame North and a long-standing supporter of nuclear power, as the chairman of the wide-ranging review into Britain's future energy needs has already proved controversial. Environmentalists are concerned that Wilson's role will further underline speculation that Blair is prepared to drop Labour's traditional opposition to nuclear power in order to prevent Britain becoming dependent on gas imports, primarily from Russia. Brian Donohoe, the Labour MP for Cunninghame South who also has a number of constituents working at the Hunterston plant, emphasised that Labour's recent manifesto did not contain any commitment to oppose the building of any new plants. Before the general election Wilson wrote to Robin Jeffrey, the chairman of British Energy, arguing that a new reactor - Hunterston C - would safeguard hundreds of jobs in the area. The present station, Hunterston B, is due to be decommissioned in 2015; however, the company owns adjacent land and is planning to build seven new reactors across Britain. In his letter, Wilson stated: "If the timetable for Hunterston C is to be achieved, planning has to start soon. I am writing to the local authority and community councils to see if a consensus can be established in favour of a replacement strategy." Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided ***************************************************************** 23 global warming: Global health alarmingly poor Denver Post.com By Timothy E. Wirth --> Sunday, July 01, 2001 - The world is shrinking. For more than 25 years, as a Colorado congressman and senator, as an undersecretary at the State Department and now as president of the United Nations Foundation, I have seen the continents figuratively grow closer together and nations more interdependent. What takes place in one community can and often does produce ripple effects half a world away. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of economic globalization seriously threaten our environment and - by extension - all of us. We are not separate from our global environment. We are part of it, we require it for life and now we stand at a critical juncture in our stewardship of this planet upon which we so depend. A number of disturbing trends show what's at stake, which I fear is all too easily lost for most of us in the hectic pace of our lives: + The most recent scientific studies confirm that global warming is happening at an even faster pace than previously thought. + Recent data on the Amazon Forest suggests that it is being destroyed at twice the rate as previously estimated and the world's rain forests may all be gone by 2050. + Soils are being depleted at rate 400 times greater than the ability to renew themselves. + Population growth increasingly threatens to outstrip supplies of food. + Massive and rapid destruction of biodiversity is destroying species at an unprecedented rate. Put plainly, the vital signs of our planet are weakening, but at least we have begun facing the problems. Before the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire as a result of poor environmental stewardship and became the poster event for the first Earth Day in 1970, Americans cared far less. That seems like a long time ago. Yet even as we learned more about humanity's impact on the environment, the decade just past marked the greatest burst of materialism in our history. But our accumulation of wealth and unprecedented political, military and economic power have inspired repulsion as much as fascination. We are in danger of being viewed as a rogue nation, ignoring our international commitments, refusing to ratify treaties we have negotiated, and exporting a popular culture of consumption that is not sustainable. Indeed, the criticism by European leaders now directed at President Bush for rejecting the Kyoto global warming treaty reflects their understanding that our actions have impact on their environment as well as ours. Yet instead of reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade - as both President Clinton and the previous President Bush pledged to do - Americans will instead produce about 13 percent more carbon dioxide. We blindly export our mentality of consumption, urging the world to follow us, but not telling it that our lifestyle, if emulated, would require the resources of at least four more planets. The solutions are clear, but they will not be easy. We must become the stewards of our own destiny by living within our means financially and environmentally, as individuals and as nations. America needs to lead the world not only politically and economically, we also must lead in environmental stewardship. We must accept that global warming is no longer a question for scientific disagreement - the unknowns are now only questions of degree and time. President Bush can confound his critics and lead America and the world by supporting the clear vision of his treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, who recognizes both the problem and the enormous political and technological challenge - and opportunity - facing the United States. Concurrently, we can break the all-too-frequent link between economic growth and environmental degradation by a simple change in our tax structure. As Dale Jorgenson, the conservative chairman of the Harvard Department of Economics has advocated, shifting taxation from "good" things, like labor and capital, to "bad" things, like pollution and consumption, will result in a cleaner yet more vibrant economy. We can remove harmful subsidies, like those for the timber industry that effectively give away vast tracts of the Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska - the last great rain forest in North America - or the $30 billion that subsidizes the fossil fuel and nuclear industries while beggaring research into efficiency, solar power and renewables by spending only $1 billion. To combat climate change, we must exploit our technological advantage by becoming the world leader in sustainable development. To put it in other terms, living off our ecological capital, as we are, is a bankrupt economic strategy. The bulk of our economy is rooted in five biological systems: croplands, forests, grasslands, oceans and fresh waterways. These are the foundation for most economic activity. In the jargon of our colleagues in this world of economic globalization, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If the environment is finally forced to file for bankruptcy - because its resource base has been polluted, degraded, dissipated, irretrievably compromised - then the economy goes down to bankruptcy with it and so, my friends, do we. Timothy E. Wirth serves as the president of the United Nations Foundation. As a member of the U.S. Senate from Colorado, he introduced the first comprehensive climate change legislation in 1988. As undersecretary of state for global affairs, he led the U.S. climate negotiations from 1993 to 1997. All contents Copyright 2001 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 24 Blair's new man backs N-plants Special report: Britain's nuclear industry Oliver Morgan, industrial correspondent Sunday July 1, 2001 The Observer The new Energy Minister, Brian Wilson, has given the strongest signal yet that the Government will support building more UK nuclear power stations. Wilson, whose appointment last week to head Tony Blair's energy policy review provoked controversy because of his pro-nuclear stance, said proposals to put new plants on current nuclear sites would make 'a lot of sense'. The lives of some existing plants could be extended beyond their scheduled closing dates, subject to agreement by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, he added. The state operator, British Nuclear Fuels, is now due to close its obsolete magnox stations by 2010, and privatised generator British Energy (BE) is set to close its advanced gas cooled (AGR) and pressurised water reactors by 2025. The Government is concerned that nuclear power's decline will threaten its environmental objectives and make the country too dependent on gas imports. Wilson's remarks were welcomed by Hugh Collum, chairman of BNFL, but condemned by environment campaigners. BNFL has lobbied hard for a new generation of nuclear reactors and so has BE. Both have sites available, and BNFL has acquired fresh reactor designs through its US subsidiary, Westinghouse. Wilson has said before that he would support a new nuclear reactor at Hunterston in his Cunninghame South constituency and, without pre-empting his review, has made it clear that logic would extend nationally. He said: 'The Government is open to proposals for new stations for any form of generation. 'If you look at the wider context, if there is going to be a programme of new nuclear stations, there are undoubtedly parts of the country where that is more familiar and achievable than others. 'If there was going to be a programme of new stations, I would see a lot of sense in using existing sites. There is nobody saying that an AGR must close by a set date,' he added. BNFL's Collum said the lives of its most modern magnox stations - at Oldbury, Gloucestershire, and Wylfa in Anglesey - could be extended. 'The existing sites represent the most likely locations.' But Helen Wallace of Greenpeace said: 'It is shocking to consider this when they don't know how to deal with existing nuclear waste.' Both BNFL and British Energy have spent the past year lobbying civil servants for an early commitment to an expansion of the nuclear energy industry. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Officials Say Kursk to Be Raised June 29, 2001 MOSCOW (AP) - The nuclear reactors aboard the sunken submarine Kursk are safe and won't jeopardize a Dutch company's effort to raise the stricken hulk from the seabed in September, the deputy head of the Russian navy said Friday. "Regular radiation monitoring has shown that the reactors are safe," said Vice Adm. Mikhail Barskov, the navy's top official in the recovery effort. He said naval ships would keep track of radiation levels constantly during the salvage effort run by the Dutch company Mammoet. The operation is to start around July 9, when 16 Russian and foreign divers are expected to arrive at Barents Sea site. They are to inspect the submarine and install equipment needed to haul it to the surface, which is supposed to occur about Sept. 15. The Kursk sank last Aug. 12 after two explosions in its forward weapons bay, killing all 118 crewmen. Unexploded torpedoes remain inside, and Barskov said a careful inspection is needed to ensure they pose no hazard to the salvage effort. "Cutting of the bow will be done by robots, and no one will be working under water at that moment," Barskov said. Mammoet formed a joint venture with Smit International, a Rotterdam-based company that specializes in maritime salvage operations. The companies plan to lift the Kursk using hydraulic devices mounted on a giant barge. Mammoet's president, Frans van Seumeren, claimed the project is far better than an earlier proposal by an international consortium, which Moscow rejected. "We have solved all the technical problems," he said. Barskov called the Mammoet project the "best existing today." Divers plan to cut 26 holes in the submarine's hull to anchor lifting cables connected to hydraulic jacks on the barge. After the Kursk is raised to the surface and clamped to the barge, it will be brought to the port of Murmansk and put in dry dock, where the navy will remove its 22 Granit cruise missiles. Barskov said the missiles, which are separate from the torpedoes and are located in midsection of the ship in containers as strong as the hull, will pose no threat during the recovery. The Kursk's broken bow will be left on the seabed, and the navy is planning to raise at least some parts of it next year. Raising the entire craft at once would be dangerous because the bow could break off, Barskov said. Barskov said officials hope to learn more about the cause of the explosions after raising the Kursk. They also hope to raise the remains of more of the crewmen - only 12 were recovered during a salvage operation last fall. Officials said the disaster was triggered by a practice torpedo, but that they remain unsure whether it had been caused by a malfunction - the theory favored by most outside experts - or a collision. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 House OKs funds for nuclear cleanup This story was published Fri, Jun 29, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer The full U.S. House on Thursday approved a $6.613 billion spending package to clean up the nation's nuclear mess, including money to cover most of Hanford's budget needs next year. The House bill, if it survives the Senate and a possible presidential veto, would provide $700 million more than the $5.913 billion that the Bush administration had requested from Congress. The House approved the bill 405-15. After its Fourth of July holiday recess, the U.S. Senate will start looking at the Department of Energy's cleanup. In the past several years, the Senate has pushed for larger DOE cleanup budgets than the House. "This is a complete turnaround in Hanford's budget situation," said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. "Three months ago, I was very concerned when the president proposed severe cuts in Hanford funding." Hastings has been part of a bipartisan House caucus of representatives from states with DOE cleanup projects. Washington's two Democratic senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, are in a similar bipartisan caucus in the Senate. Hastings added: "A lot of hard work since February led to (Thursday's) House vote to provide Hanford the funds needed to keep on schedule and uphold the government's legal commitments." Under the administration's proposed budget, Hanford would get $1.4 billion for fiscal 2002, which begins Oct. 1. That's up to $500 million short of what's needed to meet all of Hanford's legal obligations, according to DOE estimates. The Bush administration's budget proposal would likely delay completion of Hanford's top-priority radioactive tank waste glassification project by as much as four years beyond its revised deadline of 2011. Also, the administration's proposed budget would gut most cleanup projects along the Columbia River, including plans to accelerate those efforts. The House's appropriations bill, plus a small supplemental 2001 budget bill passed last week, would bump next year's Hanford budget to $1.814 billion. That would fully fund $690 million worth of scheduled glassification work and $380.5 million worth of scheduled tank farm work at Hanford next year. And the bills would provide $743.5 million for DOE's Richland office for cleanup outside the tank farms. In early spring, DOE's Richland office calculated that in addition to any tank farm money, Hanford would need $762 million to accelerate cleanup along the Columbia River and satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency and state officials. But accelerating river shore cleanup is not a legal obligation and appears to be a leading candidate to be cut, if necessary. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 3 Administration seeks to improve readiness of nuclear test site June 29, 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department is studying ways to improve the Nevada Test Site's readiness to resume nuclear weapons trials in case the Bush administration decides testing is needed, officials said Friday. Joe Davis, a department spokesman, said there has been no change to the requirement, set in 1994, to be capable of resuming testing within 24 to 36 months of a presidential decision to test. He said the department is reviewing whether the readiness level can be improved, for the sake of efficiency. Some have concluded from reports on the review that the administration is contemplating resuming nuclear testing. "It would be wrong to interpret it that way," he said. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, on Friday said the administration does not plan to order a resumption of testing, which was halted in 1992. He could not rule out that it might one day be necessary. "I'm not aware of a need to resume testing at this time," Wolfowitz said in an interview with radio reporters. If questions arose about the reliability or safety of nuclear warheads and underground blasts were required to resolve those questions, the administration would contemplate testing, he said. That also was the policy of the Clinton administration, and it is the reason why the Energy Department is required by Congress to maintain the scientific and other capabilities to resume testing. Prior to the U.S. decision in 1992 to place a moratorium on nuclear testing, it was the Pentagon's view that periodic testing was an indispensable tool in ensuring that nuclear weapons were reliable. But rapid advances in computer simulation and other technologies have made it possible to collect vast amounts of safety and reliability data without testing. Asked about the matter on Thursday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said it the review of the Nevada Test Site's readiness was strictly a technical matter. "It does not have anything to do with resumption of nuclear tests," Fleischer said. "The president is going to continue the moratorium." The secretaries of defense and energy are required by law to certify to the president each year whether there are nuclear weapons safety or reliability concerns that would require a return to nuclear testing. John Gordon, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, said in testimony to a House Armed Services subcommittee on Wednesday that the most recent assessment confirmed that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe and reliable and that no nuclear testing is needed. Gordon said confirmation was possible because of technological advances, which can also help maintain the readiness of the Nevada Test Site, a protected federal range of 1,350 square miles situated 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "During this next year, we will look hard again at improving test readiness and will review whether an appropriate level of resources is being applied to this vital element of stockpile stewardship," he told the panel. Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the Nevada Test Site, said Friday the readiness of the site is under constant review to ensure that the lead time for nuclear testing does not exceed the 24-36 month standard. "If we can reduce the lead time, great," but it would be done for the sake of improving efficiency, not in anticipation of a presidential decision to resume testing, Morgan said. On the Net: Energy Department's Nevada operations office at http://www.nv.doe.gov/ All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 A-Bomb Researcher James Otto Dies July 01, 2001 LYNN HAVEN, Fla. (AP) - Atomic bomb researcher James Stewart "Stew" Otto, who advised President Harry Truman before the United States attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has died. He was 84. Otto, a radiation biologist for the U.S. Navy who later worked for the space program, died Friday at a local hospital, said Lillian Schlentz, his sister. During World War II, Otto studied the effect atomic tests had on animals. In the war's final weeks, Truman called Otto to Washington for advice before he decided to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "He was so quiet about it all the time," Schlentz said. "A lot of it was secret work and they weren't supposed to talk about it. He took an oath and he stuck to it." After the war, Otto continued his research and, from 1959 to 1973, headed the Navy's animal research center in Bethesda, Md. While studying the effect of space travel on humans and animals, Otto worked with Sam, a rhesus monkey who rocketed into space and was recovered safely in the Atlantic Ocean in 1959. After retiring in 1973, Otto was president of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, Panama City Chapter, and received the Florida Sheriff's Association Distinguished Service Award. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 5 'Indo-Pak meet should agree on nuclear freeze' rediff.com: Members of civil groups from both India and Pakistan on Satruday demanded that Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf should agree on a nuclear freeze besides discussing the issue of Kashmir in the forthcoming summit. "Beyond confidence building, the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit should agree on a nuclear freeze in the region in the wake of a grave potential for a nuclear conflagration between the two countries," said a joint statement of Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and Pakistan Peace Coalition. Concerned that a "conventional conflict" between India and Pakistan could escalate to the nuclear plane, the groups, which are meeting on July 12th, will submit their charter of demands on the global nuclear disarmament agenda to both the leaders. The meeting, expected to be attended by more than 50 delegates from Pakistan and 120 from India, will also discuss specific issues such as Kashmir as also Indo-Pak relations in general, the release said. PTI ***************************************************************** 6 Cotter vows to appeal $16 million judgment The Pueblo Chieftain Online - Monday July 02, 2001 Saturday June 30, 2001 By TOM McAVOY Chieftain Denver Bureau DENVER - A federal court jury this week awarded more than $16 million in damages to 25 people exposed to radiation poisoning and other contamination from the Cotter Corp. uranium mill near Canon City. Rebecca Lorenz, a lawyer for the 34 plaintiffs in this, the latest in a series of suits against Cotter, said the total will exceed $30 million when interest and future medical monitoring costs are added. The lawsuit accused Cotter of releasing uranium, arsenic, molybdenum, lead, cobalt, nickel, selenium, zinc, copper and cadmium into the environment around the plant and nearby Lincoln Park. John Watson, a lawyer who has defended Cotter from the filing of the lawsuit in 1991, said the company will appeal. "They will never see this money," Watson said. "We feel completely confident that the 10th Circuit (Court of Appeals) will overturn this verdict." Cotter lawyers got the 10th Circuit to overturn a similar $2.9 million award in 1998, later calculated at $5 million with the addition of interest. Some of those plaintiffs were remanded into this, the fourth trial against the company in U.S. District Judge Zita Weinshienk's court. A $220,000 judgment was settled after a 1992 trial, while another $300,000 verdict from last year is still on appeal. The fourth verdict was by far the largest involving the most people against Cotter. "I'm elated. Finally, the Cotter Corporation is being held accountable," said Joe Dodge, the lead plaintiff when the case first was filed in 1991. Dodge, who owned a horse ranch next to the Cotter mill in Lincoln Park, lost his wife Thelma to radiation-induced leukemia, he said. The Dodge family was awarded more than $6.1 million in damages, including $1.48 million for Joe, $1.22 million for Patrick Shane Dodge and varying amounts for eight other members of the family. "This is justice for the death of our mother," said daughter Rhonda Buston, who was awarded $869,000. Her sister, Yvonne Pegararo, was awarded $850,000. The largest single award was $3.1 million for Brett Luna, whose parents Donald and Sonja Luna also were awarded $1.28 million between them. Brett Luna was born with a cleft palate, respiratory problems and mental retardation, according to the court complaint. "I thought my heart was going to burst when they announced the verdicts," the father said. "This is for Brett. We won't be around forever to care for him. He will have to have help all his life. He doesn't deserve what he has." The Hadley family was awarded a total of $1.53 million, including $820,000 for Jack Hadley. Three members of the Chrysler family were awarded a total of $1.31 million. Gus and Daniel Slanovich were awarded $625,000 each for a total of $1.25 million. Norman Platt was awarded $981,400, including damages for the loss of his late wife, Dorothy. Kim and Sidney Myers were awarded $397,000 between them. Other awards included $140,400 to James Treat, $25,000 to Dolene Blue and $60,000 to the Aspen Trust, which claimed Cotter contamination trespassed onto its property. Cotter's property is a federal Superfund cleanup site and was subject to a $15 million consent decree with state health regulators for several years. Rich Ziegler, executive vice president and general manager of Cotter, issued a statement condemning Judge Weinshienk's handling of the Lincoln Park litigation. "This case should never have reached a jury," Ziegler said. "Under controlling Supreme Court and 10th Circuit precedent, it is the duty of any trial judge to act as a gatekeeper to prevent junk science and non-mainstream medicine from being presented to a lay jury." Ziegler said Weinshienk "improperly allowed a cancer doctor from Los Angeles to testify about everything from allergies and arthritis to heart disease and cataracts. That simply cannot withstand appellate review." The Star-Journal Publishing Corp. Pueblo, Colorado U.S.A. ***************************************************************** 7 Bold $80M Plan Made to Lift Kursk New York Daily News Online Sunday, July 01, 2001 WASHINGTON Russia is pushing ahead this summer with the the biggest and riskiest salvage operation ever tried: raising the nuclear submarine Kursk from the bottom of the Barents Sea. Despite the fear of exploding torpedoes and cruise missiles, and the risk of cracking open the sub's two nuclear reactors, Russian officials plan to begin work in mid-July on lifting the 15,000-ton, 505-foot-long Kursk. The Kursk sank Aug. 12 after two explosions in the bow section. All 118 people aboard died. A computer-generated image shows the Kursk being lifted by steel cables. Under the $80 million salvage plan, divers working in water temperatures lower than 40 degrees and at a depth of 360 feet will survey the Kursk, and then a robot submersible will cut away about 60 feet of the bow containing the torpedo room. Divers then will attach 20 10-inch thick cables to the aft section of the Kursk, and in September the sub will be raised to just below the surface by the huge Dutch floating crane ship Thialf. Richard Sisk ***************************************************************** 8 Further investigation into British atomic tests completed ABC News - 30/06/01 : The Federal Government says it has completed an important step in investigations into British atomic tests conducted in Australia during the 1950's and 1960's. The list of 17,000 names includes personnel from the Royal Australian Navy, the Army, the RAAF and civilians. Two health studies will be conducted to examine causes of death and the incidence of cancer among people on the lists. The Minister for Veterans Affairs Bruce Scott says the roll is the first step in giving nuclear veterans the help they need. "We will then continue to monitor the health of those participants and this will be able to firmly establish whether there are incidences of cancer or other diseases that are manifest in those participants, so that we can take further action should that be the case," he said. © 2000 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 9 Private sector to work on Indian submarine JDW 28/06/2001 - RAHUL BEDI JDW Correspondent New Delhi The Indian military has brought in private companies to work on parts of a highly-classified nuclear submarine and test launcher for a nuclear-tipped sub-launched cruise missile (SLCM), showing it is not merely paying lip service to involving private companies in defence manufacturing, long dominated by state-owned firms. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is releasing work to the private sector to make parts of the submarine, known as the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV), and the test launcher for the Sagarika (Oceanic) nuclear-armed SLCM that forms an integral part of the country's nuclear deterrent. Official sources said interminable production delays by the DRDO led to established defence contractor Larsen & Toubro (L&T), based in Bombay, winning the contract to build the ATV's hull. L&T has an annual turnover of Rs80 billion ($1.7 billion). Selected for efficiency and better 'manpower management' than the state-owned facilities, the engineering company has also successfully developed a missile launcher to test the Sagarika, which L&T handed over to the Indian Navy for the first round of trials later this year. With a projected range of 300km, the Sagarika has been designed at the Aeronautical Development Establishment under a classified naval weapons programme at Bangalore, southern India, along with "substantial" Russian input. Both L&T projects are based at the Hazira dockyard in Gujarat state, some 350km north of Bombay. Official sources said L&T had already built sections of the ATV's hull (codename P4102) and floated them on a barge to Visakhapatnam on the east coast, the only Indian naval dockyard to refit submarines. The ATV will eventually be built at Bombay's Mazagon Dockyard. The ATV programme received a boost last year after Vice Adm R N Ganesh was put in charge of the programme that had been delayed over a decade (Jane's Defence Weekly 22 November 2000). Based on the Russian Type 670 (NATO reporting name: 'Charlie I')-class cruise missile submarine design, the ATV programme is divided between the DRDO constructing the hull and the Department of Atomic Energy miniaturising the pressurised water reactor. Over Rs25 billion ($532 million) has already been spent on the project, the existence of which Defence and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh recently denied. The ATV still faces technical hurdles. India is expected to receive help from Russia, which recently provided 58 tonnes of low-enriched uranium for the Tarapur atomic power station near Bombay. L&T has also developed P 78, an underwater missile launcher that simulates conditions to vertically launch both cruise and ballistic missiles from an SSN. Official sources said P78 is a large submersible barge with a control room large enough for 8-10 operators to monitor the launch facility. Design work on the Sagarika began around 1991 when India stepped up its Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme. Official sources said it was configured on SSM Prithvi I, which has been inducted into the army. The Sagarika was due for testing in 1996 and 1997 but suffered a setback after the scientist heading the project died in Moscow. Official sources said the nuclear-tipped Sagarika is designed as a hull-mounted, "low-flying, air-breathing" missile with a low trajectory capable of achieving high subsonic speeds and cruising at an altitude of 15-100m. It will be guided by a terrain contour-matching system and directed by unmanned air vehicles or satellites for enhanced accuracy. ©Jane's Information Group 2001 ***************************************************************** 10 UK: Nuclear weapons policy is going ??? The Taipei Times Online: 2001-07-01 July 1st, 2001 West's allies now building up their own nuclear strike force potential The threat of nuclear proliferation does not now come from nations hostile to the West but from some of the West's own allies. It is necessary to maintain a system of checks and ballances By Jonathan Power In any body politic there will be a group of powerful people who -- if not in the inner circle of the president or prime minister -- can win access to it at regular intervals. Security is their profession and they can be met at academic conferences where they tend to stand out as rather earnest, if sombre, figures. It is they who bend the ear of those in authority, consistent in their solicitations even as governments change, arguing that their country will only have true security if they possess a nuclear deterrent and that if their advice is not heeded one day there will be an enemy who will take advantage of their country's naivety. One of these I knew reasonably well, the erudite and charming nuclear physicist, the late Munir Khan, one the fathers of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who, it was said -- although no proof was ever forthcoming -- had used his previous position as a high official in the International Atomic Energy Agency to build clandestine contacts for Pakistan's bomb makers. The late Olaf Palme, prime minister of Sweden for many years, told me of how he had to "de-fang" the nuclear bomb establishment that was well under way with its plans when he came to power. It is not easy to roll back the nuclear lobby even when one is prime minister. There is always the danger, if you don't take the scientists along with you, that they, believing they love the country more than the prime minister does, will conduct their future researches clandestinely or, if not in secret, under the guise of using it for "peaceful purposes" and await for the political currents to turn in their favor. This is in essence what happened in India. A new authoritative study, The Politics of Nuclear Weapons in India and Pakistan written by Haider Nizamani makes clear that their nuclear programs did not originate in response to specific security problems. They were born in visions of national identity. Adversaries were not the cause. Rather, they had to be found. This explains India's decision to put its bomb development on ice after its successful "peaceful" nuclear test in 1974. The "threat" from China had gone quiet and Pakistan, for all the acrimony, was not a real threat. Only in the 1990s, by arguing China with its nuclear weapons was becoming an enemy, were the bomb advocates able to win the ear of the politicians and alternative voices were gradually marginalized as "unpatriotic." One of the pivotal figures was the strategic thinker K. Subrahmanyam who -- by sheer doggedness -- transformed a minority opinion into a mainstream assumption. His calculation, correct as it turned out, is once a certain threshold has been crossed popular opinion, invariably nationalistic, will succumb to the call of patriotism. With the rise of the Hindu-nationalist party, the BJP, the bomb became inevitable. The move by the US, Russia, Britain and France to win support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty probably backfired because it compelled India to choose between its old rhetoric of world-wide nuclear disarmament and its growing taste for nationalistic bravado. The same process is now afoot in Saudi Arabia. A dozen years ago I tried to draw attention to Saudi Arabia's purchase of Chinese CSS-2 rockets. I wrote then that there could be no question these had not been purchased for conventional military activity, as they were unnecessarily powerful and inaccurate with a normal explosive warhead. Their sole purpose was to carry a nuclear weapon. For years, western nuclear powers have connived to keep this, if not secret, quiet. Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally, most important and long-standing, in the oil business but relatively recently in the containment of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As successive administrations in Washington have viewed it, discretion has been the better part of valor, even though one of the targets would be the Middle East's other nuclear power, Israel. An article by Richard Russell in the current issue of Survival, the quarterly of the influential International Institute for Strategic Studies, argues that while Saudi Arabia has not yet put nuclear warheads on these rockets it is probably only a matter of time before it does. Self-serving security issues are more important in such decision-making that "an innate friendship" with the US Although the US more than responded to Iraq's invasion of neighboring Kuwait, would they do so a second or third time? For the desert kingdom with its small population and army but huge territory, nuclear weapons appear a sensible option. At the same time they would make the country less dependent on the stationing of US forces on its soil, which enrages the powerful fundamentalist lobby. After Washington belatedly discovered the purchase of the CSS-2 from China, 31 Senators called on the Reagan administration to suspend US arms sales to Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis were not intimidated. Requests by Washington to inspect the missiles have been refused. As Israel long has, Saudi Arabia will always deny the intention to build a nuclear armory, not least so as not to publicly embarrass Washington. But common sense and much circumstantial evidence suggest that this is the way it will go. It is not the so-called "rogues" who pose the threat of uncontrolled nuclear proliferation; it is some of the Western powers' "nearest and dearest." What is Washington going to do about that? Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London. This story has been viewed 216 times. Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Raised Kursk May Leave Questions Unanswered ABCNEWS.com : June 29, 2001 The Russian nuclear submarine Kursk is shown in this 1999 file photo in the Barents Sea near Severomorsk, Russia. (AP Photo) Kursk Questions Could Linger Quick Answers Unlikely, as International Team Prepares to Raise Sunken Russian Sub By David Ruppe [ABCNEWS.com] June 29 — On the Russian nuclear submarine Oryol, docked at Russia's Northern Fleet's home base, Russian and Norwegian deep-sea divers recently finished rehearsing their complex and dangerous mission to salvage the sunken Kursk from the floor of the Barents Sea. In an Amsterdam shipyard, meanwhile, a massive pontoon is being modified for use in transporting the sub to a dock once it's lifted. And in Rotterdam, a special chain saw is being tested prior to being used to cut into the Kursk's hull. The operation to raise the Kursk is scheduled to begin in about two weeks. Russian officials say it could help put to rest some of the rumors surrounding the mysterious explosion that sank the submarine last year, killing all 118 people on board. At least 200 journalists have applied to be on the scene when the submarine is expected to be pulled from its watery Arctic grave in September. But don't expect many of the persisting questions surrounding the Oscar II-class sub's sinking to be answered when that happens. Secrecy Will Be Order of the Day The Kursk's estimated 20,000-ton hull will be missing the key nose section, which includes the torpedo room where its fatal damage occurred nearly a year ago, according to Russian officials. The heavily damaged bow, containing the surviving nine or so of the boat's 18 torpedoes, will have been sheared off and left for retrieval later by Russia, without foreign assistance. The bulk of the sub, which will be raised by a foreign crane ship, along with its two nuclear reactors and presumably its 24 Granit cruise missiles, will never even break the sea surface. According to the salvage plan, it will be secured beneath a number of specially designed pontoons to be ferried to a dry dock in Murmansk, the base of Russia's Northern Fleet, for examination. Secrecy will be the order of the day. Russia plans to charter a ship to ferry journalists "as close to the scene as possible," according to presidential aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky. But access will be restricted, he said. So, for many, lingering questions about the cause of the Kursk's tragic sinking and allegations denied by Russia that two of its Granit cruise missiles were carrying nuclear warheads, may never be answered satisfactorily. Key Section to Be Lifted One of the largest and most advanced submarines ever built, the nuclear-powered, guided-missile Kursk has been lying under some 350 feet of near-freezing Arctic water off the coast of northern Russia since it struck the bottom Aug. 12, 2000. An 18-day Russian rescue effort was launched days after the Kursk sank. The bodies of only 12 of the 118 sailors were recovered. Russia now is planning to recover most of the hull with the aid of a Dutch heavy-lifting company, Mammoet; the Dutch company Smit International, which is upgrading a giant pontoon for its transport; and other European contractors. Work is under way to construct the heavy-duty grappling devices for raising the sub and to modify the giant pontoon. Deep-sea drilling and cutting on the submarine is scheduled to begin sometime mid-July. Holes will be drilled into the hull, so heavy-duty steel cables can be attached to haul it to the surface. As for the bow: "We'll cut it off and leave it there," says Mammoet spokeswoman Larissa Van Seumeren. "What the Russians further do with it, we don't know." The Russian state news agency RIA Novisti reports the much lighter nose section will be lifted — without foreign assistance — sometime after the main hull is raised. Cause of Accident Remains in Question The still unexplained cause of the sinking, along with the secrecy surrounding its recovery, and the choice of Mammoet — which has no experience raising vessels — to lift the submarine have spurred rumors and conspiracy theories in Russia, including speculation the vessel was sabotaged. Russian officials say recovering the Kursk could help them learn the cause of the accident. Senior officials in May said they believe the initial damage to the submarine probably came when one of its torpedoes activated without leaving the sub. But investigators have not settled on a reason for why the torpedo went off in the first place. Some favor a theory that a collision with an unidentified foreign submarine set off the powerful blasts. But a Russian government commission tasked with investigating the incident has not ruled out the possibility of a malfunction, or some human action on board the Kursk. Another explanation under consideration is a collision with a stray, uncollected World War II sea mine. The Kursk was believed to be only at a depth of about 60 feet when the first explosion occurred, sending it to the bottom. Raising the sub could also help the Russian navy draw lessons for improving submarine safety, and allow the burial of the bodies remaining in the submarine, officials say. Preserving Secrecy Russian authorities also appear concerned other governments may attempt to access the Kursk's technological and other secrets if it remains on the ocean floor. Since the moment the sub went down, a group of Russian Northern Fleet ships — including an anti-submarine warfare ship and a nuclear powered missile cruiser — has patrolled the waters above the Kursk. Security will continue to be tight during and after the salvage operation, officials say. "The secrecy regime will be observed in full. It is an inalienable part of the activities of the navy of any country," Igor Dyagalo, assistant to the Russian navy commander, recently told reporters. Coverage of the operation "will be a balance between openness and secrecy," according to Yastrzhembskiy, who was called in to run press relations for the operation. But he assured, "We will try to tilt the information element of the operation in the direction of openness." Nukes on Board? A Norwegian TV news station reported in April that two of the Kursk's missiles carried nuclear warheads. Russian officials have denied the allegation. The Russian commissioner quoted in the television report subsequently denied the statements attributed to him, calling the story a provocation "possibly aimed at disrupting the international project to lift the submarine." Phillip Bleek of the Arms Control Association in Washington said the presence of tactical nuclear weapons — such as nuclear-armed cruise missiles — onboard the Kursk would have violated a 1991 pledge between Moscow and Washington. "That said, the pledge carries no legal weight, and it is in fact unclear to what extent the Russians have implemented it," Bleek said. Igor Kudrik of the Bellona Foundation in Norway says his group doubts the sub's Granits would have been nuclear armed. "We don't think there are any nuclear weapons on board." "Everything is leaking out these days and that would be such an embarrassment. We don't see why they would have done that," Kudrik said. Safety Concerns Critics have charged the Russian government, in its eagerness to raise the submarine, is ignoring some safety concerns. At the last minute, in late May, negotiations were canceled with a consortium of Dutch and Norwegian companies over the cost and payment plan of the operation and Russia's unwillingness to compromise on an aggressive summer salvage schedule. "Heerema, Smit and Halliburton would not make concessions [on international safety standards]," said a statement, released by Heerema. "The companies would not compromise the safety of its crews and equipment nor of the wreckage, its victims or the environment in order to rush for this year's completion." A contract with Mammoet and Smit instead was signed, because of "the time problem," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov reportedly said, citing the consortium's proposed timeframe. Environmentalists are concerned the submarine's missiles may go off or its nuclear reactors may leak when they are lifted to the surface. "They don't know enough about the condition of the reactors, or the torpedoes, or the missiles," says Kudrik. Some Russian officials have expressed similar concerns. "You know — considering what a sub with cruise missiles is, anything can happen," Russia's navy commander-in-chief, Vladimir Kuroyedov, told reporters last month. Leaving the reactors in the water could also pose a hazard of eventual radioactive leakage, Russian officials have noted. Weather Could Be a Factor Leonid Yashenkin, deputy head of Russia's Institute of Emergency, Rescue, Diving and Deep-Water Operations, told the Russian daily Izvestiya last month officials believe the Kursk's reactors will pose a danger as they are lifted. But he said they have felt pressure to do so because of a growing impression Russia had something to hide. "The submarine represents a nuclear danger. In order to stop the impression spreading in the West that Russia has something to hide, we are obliged to lift it," he said. Russian authorities have assured they are taking all possible precautions, including constant monitoring of the reactors. The success of the salvage could also depend on the weather. The Heerema statement questioned whether the two major sections of the submarine could be lifted this year, before the usual rough weather sets in this fall. Mammoet's Van Seumeren is confident they can, barring bad weather: "If the weather is really going bad, then we can't do our job. If the weather is good, then we suspect we'll have it done within the time schedule." ABCNEWS' Sergiusz Morenc in Moscow contributed to this report. Copyright © 2001 ABC News Internet Ventures. Click here for ***************************************************************** 12 Govt to conduct atomic testing health studies [ninemsn home] 30 Jun 2001 The federal government is to conduct mortality and cancer-incidence studies of nuclear veterans. The studies include the establishment of a nominal roll of Australians who participated in British atomic tests during the 1950s and 1960s. It is part of a plan by the federal government to address the health concerns of Australians who took part in the testing program at Monte Bello, Maralinga and Emu. Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott has announced a government list of 17,000 people who had participated in the tests, more than half of whom were civilians. "The preliminary nominal roll lists 3,235 Royal Australian Navy, 1,658 Australian Army and 3,223 RAAF personnel, as well as the names of 8,907 civilians who took part in the testing program," Mr Scott said in a statement. He said the preliminary roll would form the basis of two scientific studies, one to examine the causes of death and the other to investigate the incidence of cancer among this group of Australians. "These studies will involve comparing the information for the 17,000 people on the roll against national death and cancer registries, to compare mortality and cancer rates to those found in the wider community," he said. "This is a major task and when complete will provide valuable information about the nature and extent of any health problems suffered by veterans of the atomic tests." Mr Scott said participants in the atomic testing program did not have to wait for the outcome of the mortality and cancer studies to get help from the government. He said any Australian believing they suffered an illness related to the Monte Bello, Maralinga or Emu testing could apply for compensation through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Veterans or their families can check their details on the Atomic Test Participants Nominal Roll through the department's website at www.dva.gov.au. ©AAP 2001 ninemsn Pty Ltd - All rights reserved Terms of use - Privacy ***************************************************************** 13 Tony Demaiori: Rocky Flats workers deserve better Denver Post.com guest commentary Sunday, July 01, 2001 - For decades the workers at Rocky Flats have served our country - first by protecting the nation from Cold War threats and today through the massive environmental cleanup effort. Historically, workers were exposed to levels of dangerous materials, such as beryllium. At the time the levels were thought to be safe, but time and scientific knowledge and discovery have taught us otherwise. And today, some of our fellow workers are sick. For years the companies at Rocky Flats paid workers compensation insurance premiums. Big premiums. Lots of money. And the reason they paid these premiums was to protect themselves and to protect the workers. The premiums were paid so that workers would be compensated if they became ill or injured as the result of their work at Rocky Flats. But, the Colorado state workers compensation system has failed the Rocky Flats work force - in particular those who are ill with chronic beryllium disease. Forced to fight with lawyers through cases that drag on for years with no relief, the workers have turned to third-party lawsuits, like the Brush Wellman suit. (Tuesday, a Jefferson County jury found that Brush Wellman, which supplied beryllium to the Rocky Flats plant, was not liable for the workers' illnesses.) The workers are desperately seeking financial relief, but they deserve better, much better than third-party lawsuits. These suits are enticing with the promise of millions in payoffs by lawyers who are trying to make a career out of worker illnesses. But in reality, third-party suits - if they deliver at all - typically give payouts in the thousands of dollars. These suits place a tremendous burden on everyone, draining important resources from the ill workers and from the cleanup effort at Rocky Flats. Soon, workers will have a better place to turn for help. The federal government has stepped up where the state program has failed. Last fall, the Clinton administration, led by the Department of Energy, pushed through federal legislation, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. This is largest entitlement program enacted since 1960. And it is funded through the Defense Authorization Bill, so changes in Congress cannot result in changes in the program's funding. This is good news to Rocky Flats workers, in particular those with beryllium disease. More than 75 percent of all CBD cases nationwide are Rocky Flats workers. Passage of this important worker compensation legislation was the result of efforts on the part of local Rocky Flats steelworkers, with the support of their union and the international union. And it gives our workers a place to turn for help so they do not have to go through the painful and largely fruitless process of third-party litigation. On July 31, the doors will open on the Denver Worker Advocacy Office, administered by the Department of Labor. This office will provide a direct avenue for Rocky Flats workers to receive federal compensation for work-related conditions such as CBD. While we cannot change the exposures that happened in the past, we can learn from them. And today, Rocky Flats is implementing a new beryllium program to protect its workers. The workers at Rocky Flats, together with Kaiser-Hill and the Department of Energy, have played a major role in the development of this program to ensure the highest level of protection. We have adopted a zero tolerance policy for beryllium exposure. It is our hope that from here on out no workers will receive overexposure to beryllium and our goal is that not a single additional person will become sensitized to beryllium at Rocky Flats as a result of current site operations. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. It can be done through proper education, engineering controls, personal protective equipment and other protective measures. The workers at Rocky Flats are leading the nation in the implementation of the best beryllium protection program anywhere. Tony Demaiori is president of the United Steelworkers Union at Rocky Flats, Local 8031. Guest commentary submissions of 650 words may be sent to The Post editorial page. All contents Copyright 2001 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 14 Finger on the nuclear button Observer | Oliver Morgan investigates the pressures on the new Minister of Energy to keep atomic power Special report: Britain's nuclear industry Sunday July 1, 2001 The Observer The appointment of nuclear power supporter Brian Wilson as Energy Minister after the election caused serious concern among opponents of atomic generation. Last week their concerns deepened when it was confirmed that Wilson will head a fundamental review of energy policy ordered by Tony Blair. Environmentalists have been nervous about the Government's attitude because the two UK generators - the state-owned British Nuclear Fuels, which owns the UK's first generation Magnox reactors, and private sector British Energy, which owns advanced gas-cooled reactor stations - have spent a year lobbying hard in Whitehall. Under such circumstances, many Ministers would keep their heads down until the review's completion, scheduled for the end of the year. But Wilson is true to his reputation for plain speaking, and is prepared to give his views on key issues - although he prefaces much of what he says with the caveat 'without wishing to pre-empt the review'. Wilson said the Government would welcome proposals for any kind of power station, including nuclear He acknowledged that there was a strong case for building new stations on the sites where plants already exist. 'If you look at the wider context of this debate, if there is going to be a programme of new nuclear stations, there are undoubtedly parts of the country where that is more familiar and achievable than others. If there was going to be a programme of new stations, I would see a lot of sense in using existing sites.' The starting point is that the current mix of electricity generation - 25 per cent from gas, 30 per cent from coal, 25 per cent nuclear, 2.5 per cent from renewable sources and the rest imports. The documents accompanying the review's launch, predict a fall in nuclear power from around 8.7 per cent of UK energy needs to 2.7 per cent by 2020. This decline is crucial to two of the key problems the review is addressing - the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to honour obligations under Kyoto and meet the Government's own, more exacting targets; and the maintenance of a secure energy supply to avoid California-style blackouts in the future and over-reliance on imports, particularly gas from Russia and the Middle East. On the environment it states that 'on unchanged policies (including the expected progressive decommissioning of nuclear power stations), CO2 emissions from UK energy consumption are likely to rise by between 0.01-0.3 per cent per annum to 2050'. The UK is actually aiming to cut levels to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010. On supply it notes that 'on unchanged policies' with the decline of nuclear and coal, gas will become the dominant source of energy - accounting for 48.9 per cent of energy supply by 2020, and that much of this will be imported. The UK now imports 2 per cent of its gas. By 2006, the figure is estimated to be 15 per cent and by 2020, Wilson estimates, this will reach 90 per cent. In the case of nuclear power, 'on unchanged policies' this means the Magnox stations (which generate about 5 per cent of electricity) will shut by 2010, and the second generation ones (20 per cent) by 2025. Wilson acknowledges that destabilisation in security and environmental objectives is caused by nuclear's decline. 'By 2020 it goes down to about 3 per cent. A shorthand summary of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [published last year] is that in order to maintain the current levels of output without incurring emissions you would need 50 new nuclear power stations. 'The question which has to be asked is how you [take out] the nuclear component and, at the same time, reduce emission levels and that is... a very stiff challenge.' Wilson supports the alternatives to nuclear - particularly renewables. But it is unlikely they will fill the gap. But this brings us to the tricky part. If there is to be a future for nuclear power, how is it to be secured? Blair ducked this last week, saying 'we've absolutely no plans to expand nuclear power'. Maybe not, but that's not the argument. The crucial question is will current capacity be maintained? If so, by extending the lives of the current stations, or by building a new generation? 'There is not much evidence to say there is a lot of extra life left in Magnox stations. There is nobody saying that an AGR must close by a set date,' says Wilson. He says it makes sense to use pre-existing nuclear sites - an argument made by BNFL, which says they are already connected to the grid, and are surrounded by populations used to living with nuclear power. While Wilson says he would support new stations if the debate changed, the companies say it is unlikely they would be financeable. Would there be subsidies for their construction? 'That kind of question can only be considered by the review,' he says. And with that he retreats to the bunker and pulls down the hatches. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 15 417,000 people exposed to atomic tests news.com.au - Display Story Page By COLIN JAMES 30jun01 THE Federal Government has released a preliminary list of more than 17,000 military and civilian personnel who served at the British atomic tests in the 1950s. The register – first recommended by a royal commission in 1985 – will be used to conduct national studies into how many of the men have died since the tests, especially how many suffered from cancer. The mortality and cancer studies are expected to confirm long-standing claims by veterans that thousands of army, navy, air force personnel and civilians died as a result of being exposed to radiation. The veterans plan to use the register in their campaign to win compensation for mental and physical illnesses they believe were caused by their involvement with the nuclear explosions. Their claims have been strengthened in recent months by the release of secret documents detailing how hundreds of servicemen were deliberately exposed to radiation as human guinea pigs. The Advertiser has obtained new evidence that, in addition to servicemen, civilians were ordered to watch four explosions at Maralinga during the 1956 test series codenamed Operation Buffalo. The Advertiser has also obtained documents which confirm earlier reports that inadequate attempts were made by the British and Australian governments to remove desert Aborigines from the vicinity of the tests. The Veterans Affairs Department said it had been unable to compile a list of Aborigines who may have been involved with the 12 explosions at Emu Field, Maralinga and the Montebello Islands, off Western Australia, between 1952 and 1957. Instead, the 257-page list posted on to its website yesterday contained the names of 1658 army, 3235 navy, 3223 air force and 8907 civilian personnel who were part of the five-year program. The list was compiled from extensive searches of Defence Department records, personnel files of private contractors, the 1985 royal commission report, security cards issued for Maralinga and lists previously prepared by veterans groups or government departments. However, the Veterans Affairs Department warned the roll was likely to contain errors because "of the length of time that has elapsed and the difficulty in locating and verifying authentic records". Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott last night said a consultative forum would meet next month to determine how the health studies would be conducted, with a senior researcher expected to be announced in August. "This is a major task and when complete will provide information about the nature and extent of any health problems suffered by veterans of the atomic tests," he told the SA RSL state congress in Adelaide. The Atomic Participants Nominal Roll can be inspected on www.dva.gov.au while veterans or civilians with corrections or additions can call 1800 445 006. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************