***************************************************************** 05/02/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.106 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 DOE's chief pushes Yucca 2 Consider Nuclear Power 3 Cheney promises big US nuclear power expansion 4 US returns to nuclear energy 5 Bush 'shield' could fuel new nuclear race 6 NRC: Strong Safety Performance Girds Industrys Resurgence 7 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.18 | 25 April - 1 May 2001 8 Radioactive scrap seized at terminal 9 ILLEGAL RADIOACTIVE SCRAP IMPOUNDED IN COATBRIDGE 10 Scottish Power starts nuclear pricing action 11 BNFL plans for recycling plant boosted 12 Yucca Mountain: Fear vs. science in debate over nuclear storage 13 Nuclear Power Not the Answer 14 Tribal leader seeks support for nuclear protest 15 Editorial: Destructive strategy on energy use NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Restarting the Nuclear Race 2 Mr. Bush's Nuclear Blueprint 3 Plutonium Disposal the 3rd way 4 Nuclear Inspection Site To Close 5 Skeptical audience hears report about safety of DOE site 6 Y-12 modernization fund reduced for 2002 7 Oak Ridge residents earn $145M from DOE in 2000 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 DOE's chief pushes Yucca May 02, 2001 By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- As Vice President Dick Cheney continues to hint that his much-awaited national energy strategy would include increasing nuclear power output, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham stressed that developing a high-level nuclear waste dump in Nevada is among his department's highest priorities. Energy companies will have a difficult time constructing new nuclear power plants and relicensing old ones without a single, permanent burial ground for high-level waste, Abraham said today. "First and foremost, we have to deal with the issue of nuclear waste," Abraham told reporters during a break in testimony before the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. It was Abraham's first appearance before Congress to justify his proposed $19.2 billion budget for next year. Abraham is proposing an overall budget that is actually a slight decrease from last year, but high-priority projects such as the proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain received budget increases, Abraham said. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site the federal government is considering for burial of the nuclear waste that is piling up at the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors. The DOE this year is expected to recommend to President Bush that the desert mountain is a safe place to bury the waste, despite loud objections by many in Nevada. Abraham proposes a $54 million increase in DOE projects at Yucca over last year for a total $445 million budget for the waste dump study. He shared some of the details of the Yucca budget in written testimony to the congressional panel: about $280.5 million will be used to develop the license application, which the DOE needs to complete and submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "The commision will use the sound scientific analysis in the license application ... to make an independent assessment of how the repository will protect public safety and health and the environment," Abraham said. About $75 million will be used for projects associated with officials recommending the site, Abraham said. The question of what to do with thousands of tons of nuclear waste scattered around the nation is a key question lately because the Bush administration has hinted that it would like to see more nuclear power plants in America, despite public fears about nuclear accidents and waste. The issue of Yucca Mountain will be specifically addressed in Bush's comprehensive national energy strategy, now being developed by a task force led by Cheney. That report is expected within a week or two. Abraham said much has changed in the more than 20 years since a nuclear power plant was commissioned in the United States. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Consider Nuclear Power May 2, 2001* I am very concerned about the power crisis in California, which may well spread across the rest of the United States. With our fast-growing population needing more and more power to meet increasing daily demands, I am surprised that both the federal and state governments have allowed us to fall so far behind. From what I have read, atomic power plants are the logical answer. They are safer to run, and do not emit pollutants into the air like fossil fuel (oil, gas and coal) fired plants do. Running costs would be less, and the production of electricity would be less expensive, thus making us less dependent upon foreign oil. Currently about 20 percent of our electrical power is nuclear, whereas 80 percent is generated in some European countries. I do remember some time ago the fear-mongering of Ralph Nader and "Hanoi Jane" and others who jumped on the bandwagon after the accident at the poorly constructed plant at Chernobyl in Ukraine, and whose claims were proven to be totally unfounded by no less a person than Dr. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb. Now 20 years later our accumulated knowledge on the subject is such that the threat from nuclear waste, plutonium build-up and radiation is almost completely eliminated. Incidently, let us not forget that the technology was invented and developed here in the United States. The above information, which I have encapsulated, has come from Dr. Douglas S. McGregor, director of the Semiconductor Materials and Radiological Technologies Laboratory at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. I think that it would be advantageous for Gov. Mike Leavitt to invite this gentleman to come and discuss in depth with our political leaders this very important matter, which will be of concern to all of us for years to come. PHILIP R. DAVID Bountiful © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 3 Cheney promises big US nuclear power expansion Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Martin Kettle in Washington Wednesday May 2, 2001 The Guardian The Bush administration is ready to increase America's energy supply by drilling for oil in some of the country's most protected natural wildernesses and expanding the nuclear power industry for the first time in 22 years. The vice-president, Dick Cheney, who heads a taskforce set up by President George Bush to look into the US energy crisis, dismissed on Monday night the idea of "conserving or rationing" as 1970s-era solutions to the US's energy shortages. In a speech in Toronto, Mr Cheney said that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy". His taskforce's report, asked to find solutions to the energy crisis which has caused power blackouts in California and a rise in petrol prices across America, is expected to be published later this month. Ignoring international outrage at Washington's decision to pull out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, Mr Cheney said he would call for oil and natural gas drilling in protected areas in Alaska and the Rocky Mountains, the revival of the US coal industry and the first nuclear power plant-building programme in North America since the Three Mile Island reactor disaster in 1979. He rejected energy conservation and renewable energy sources as major alternatives, promoting nuclear power as good for the environment since it emitted few greenhouse gases, ignoring the problems of nuclear waste disposal. This new tact will be greeted with delight by British Nuclear Fuels, the largest designer of nuclear stations in the world. "America's reliance on energy, and fossil fuels in particular, has lately taken on an urgency not felt since the late 1970s," Mr Cheney said. "Without a clear, coherent energy strategy, all Americans could one day go through what Californians are experiencing now, or worse." Oil, coal and natural gas would remain the US's primary energy resources for "years down the road", he said. Drilling for oil was needed in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska, Mr Cheney said. The US needed to build between 1,300 and 1,900 new power plants during the next 20 years just to satisfy existing levels of demand. These and other projects would be a windfall for energy construction companies such as the Halliburton Corporation, from which he received an income of $36.1m (£25m) in 2000, according to tax returns he filed last month. A report later this week by the American Council for the Energy Efficient Economy is expected to say that compulsory fuel efficiency measures for cars would save almost three times as much energy a day as could be obtained from drilling for oil in Alaska. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 4 US returns to nuclear energy Guardian | String of power stations could enrich British Nuclear Fuels Martin Kettle in Washington, Paul Brown and Mark Milner Wednesday May 2, 2001 The Guardian Vice-President Dick Cheney threw away 20 years of environmental caution yesterday when he announced that the US would build a new generation of nuclear power plants in the government's effort to overcome a national energy shortage. The US rejected nuclear power after the major accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. It has not built a single new nuclear plant since then, although the industry still produces a fifth of its electricity. Apart from the fear of an accident, reinforced by Chernobyl in 1986, the industry has been dogged by the problem of dealing with spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Attempts to create a long-term depository for thousands of spent fuel rods and the accumulated waste of 50 years have failed, in both the US and Britain. In Russian and Ukraine, which have toyed with the idea of taking the west's nuclear rubbish, the problem is even more acute, and there are doubts about the safety of their reactors and storage sites. Mr Cheney has shrugged aside these difficulties, and given the government-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which two years ago bought the biggest US nuclear reactor designer, Westinghouse Electric, a huge boost. Westinghouse has designed half the world's nuclear stations and 60% of those in the US. Eighteen months ago, after 14 years of work, its newest design, the AP600, was licensed by the US department of energy, but none has been built. At 600MW, it is much smaller than previous Westinghouse station: half the size of Britain's newest nuclear station, Sizewell B in Suffolk, also a Westinghouse design. The idea would be to build a series of them across the US. Mr Cheney said between 1,300 and 1,900 new generating plants would be needed. If Westinghouse built only a few of them it would make BNFL a very rich company. The US has not revealed the scale of its proposed reinvestment in nuclear power, but Mr Cheney has not concealed in recent weeks that he is determined to give it a prominent role in the report of his energy policy taskforce, which he is due to hand to George Bush later this month. "If we are serious about environmental protection, then we must seriously question the wisdom of backing away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source," he said in a speech in Toronto. His report is expected to call on the US to build at least 5 new power plants a year for the foreseeable future to create enough energy to avert the power cuts which have plagued California this year and are expected in parts of north-eastern US, including New York City, this summer. Neither Mr Bush nor Mr Cheney made any prominent mention of their readiness to embrace nuclear power in last year's election campaign. The Republican party policy platform for the elections did not mention the nuclear option in its nine-point energy plan. But the nuclear industry has an open line to Mr Cheney through his long-standing friend Tom Loeffler, a former Republican congressman and Washington lobbyist whose clients include the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry pressure group. Mr Loeffler's former aide Nancy Dorn is now in charge of congressional liaison for Mr Cheney. Power generators have begun talking to the energy department and the nuclear regulatory commission about speeding up the licensing process adopted after Three Mile Island. The nuclear industry has no shortage of supporters in Congress. Ten senators, led by the Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico, are sponsoring a bill to require the US to build new nuclear plants. The senior Republican in the lower house, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, said this week that he "absolutely and firmly" supported new nuclear plants. The US has 103 nuclear power plants, which produce 571.2bn kilowatt-hours a year, about 20% of the total. The incident at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in which a reactor overheated and its core partially melted, was the worst nuclear accident in US history. No one was killed and the radiation was contained, but it dealt a devastating blow to the industry's credibility. Recent opinion polls suggest that about two-thirds of Americans favour new nuclear plants, compared with under half two years ago. In recent months there have been leaks that BNFL wants to build new nuclear stations to replace its ageing Magnox reactors, which are due to close over the next seven years. It is expected to propose in its five-year corporate plan, due soon, that they are replaced with AP 600s. It is being encouraged by Department of the Trade and Industry officials, who have long been known to favour the expansion of nuclear power, despite the current government policy of letting the industry fade away as the plants reach the end of their design life. British Energy, the privatised company which operates Sizewell B and the seven British-designed advanced gas-cooled reactors built in the 70s and 80s, is also engaged in the US through a joint venture, but is not thought to be considering new stations. France relies heavily on nuclear power but the government has decided to diversify. Germany is committed to a phasing out its plants, and no new stations are planned in western Europe. There are about 70 reactors in Russia and eastern Europe, only a handful built to western standards. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 5 Bush 'shield' could fuel new nuclear race ISSUE 2168 Wednesday 2 May 2001 By Anton La Guardia DESPITE a frenetic round of telephone calls to world leaders, President Bush's missile defence plan has met, at best, muted support in Europe, ill-disguised irritation in Moscow and outright hostility in Beijing. With its implicit threat to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, many European countries fear that the missile shield will upset the nuclear balance and undermine decades of painstaking arms reduction negotiations between Washington and Moscow. For Russia it may mean losing what is left of its status as the rival superpower; hence Moscow's campaign to mobilise European opposition. But in military terms, it is in Beijing that the announcement will be seen with most alarm. Tensions between China and America have risen sharply over Washington's labelling of Beijing as a "strategic competitor", the crisis over the collision of a US spy planewith a Chinese fighter last month and the sale of arms to Taiwan. Now Chinese Communist leaders could see their nuclear deterrent rendered useless. The missile defence system is, ostensibly, designed to neutralise missiles fired by "rogue" states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. But critics say it may provoke a new nuclear arms race with China. This could have a destabilising impact on India and Pakistan, whose rivalry analysts regard as the most likely cause of a nuclear conflict today. In contrast with the thousands of long-range nuclear weapons deployed by Russia and America on land, sea and air, China has just 20 warheads mounted on its CSS-4 intercontinental missiles. The Russians should be able to penetrate any missile defence system by sheer weight of numbers, but even a moderately successful defence could all but neutralise China's present forces. China has already served notice that it will not stand idly by while Washington constructs a missile shield. Beijing could respond by accelerating the modernisation of its nuclear forces and sharply expanding the number of missiles and warheads. One Chinese official told an American newspaper last month that China was working on cheaper options to a nuclear build-up, such as targeting the vulnerable US radar systems and developing decoys or multiple-warhead missiles to reduce the effectiveness of missile defence. Moreover, China may respond by abandoning any restraint in the export of nuclear and missile technology to rogue states. Russia has long objected to US missile defence, seeing it as a threat to the ABM treaty. Russian officials have said that abrogation of the treaty would lead them to abandon a host of arms control agreements, including mutual verification provisions, and to deploy multiple warheads on their missiles. In recent months, President Putin has floated vague proposals for an alternative to the American systemthat would be shared with European countries. Western European governments have toned down their criticism of missile defence or grudgingly endorsed it. A spokesman for Tony Blair said last night: "We understand and sympathise with the concerns that the US administration has. Obviously, it's for the US to decide its defence policy in consultation with allies." The Conservatives demanded unequivocal support for America. In private, ministers have been hoping the programme will, like the original Star Wars, wither away due to technical difficulties and cost. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC: Strong Safety Performance Girds Industrys Resurgence Nuclear Energy Institute May 1, 2001Strong safety performance is providing the foundation for the nuclear energy industrys resurgence, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Meserve told reporters at his annual news conference. The NRC is the federal oversight agency charged by Congress with the responsibility to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety in the use of nuclear materials in the United States. An important contributor to the changing attitude toward nuclear is that the performance of nuclear plants continues to improve, Meserve said April 26. Improved capacity factors are linked to improved economic performance, which has made nuclear plants very desirable assets. Fortunately, safety performance, as measured by various indicators, has improved in parallel with economic performance. In anticipation of possible licensing applications for new nuclear power plants or completion of reactor projects suspended in the 1980s, the NRC staff recently was directed to assess its technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities to respond to the recent developments, Meserve said. As reported by the Associated Press, Meserve rejected claims by some nuclear critics that the agencys attempt to streamline regulations and industry oversight amounts to less scrutiny and protection. The aim is that our regulations do not impose needless barriers while assuring that public health and safety are protected. Meanwhile, James Lake, president of the American Nuclear Society, touted the industrys safety performance in testimony before the U.S. House Science Committees Subcommittee on Energy. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. nuclear plants routinely experience no unplanned automatic shutdowns, and the industrial safety record in the U.S. nuclear industry is nearly 10 times better than that of the total U.S. industrial sector, Lake said at last Thursdays subcommittee hearing. Copyright © 2001 Nuclear Energy Institute. ***************************************************************** 7 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.18 | 25 April - 1 May 2001 A weekly summary of international news relevant to uranium and the nuclear energy industry. [NB01.18-1] UK: British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has struck a preliminary supply agreement with Eon of Germany to convert all plutonium separated from Eon's spent fuel at Sellafield to mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for re-use in Germany. The deal would be the largest single MOX contract for BNFL to date, raising the total amount of contracted or reserved business from 22% of capacity to 36%. BNFL's Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP), completed in 1996, is still awaiting government authorisation to start operations. *(Financial Times Online, 1 May)* Meanwhile, the UK government has appointed consultants Arthur D little to assess whether there is an economic case for opening BNFL's SMP. *(Reuters, 24 April; see also News Briefing 01.13-14)* [NB01.18-2] US: A new public opinion poll suggests increased support for nuclear power. The poll, conducted for Associated Press, shows that 50% of people support nuclear power, and 56% of those supporters would not oppose a nuclear plant close to their homes. Concerns over energy shortages and air pollution had affected the views of some respondents, although concerns about dealing with nuclear waste remain high. *(NucNet News, 148/01, 26 April; see also News Briefing 01.14-10)* [NB01.18-3] India: Cancer rates among workers at the Narora nuclear power plant are lower than the national average, a new epidemiological study conducted by JN Medical College, AMU, concludes. The study covered 1598 employees at the plant, all of whom work in the radiation field, as well as 1433 spouses and 3746 children of employees, who are not exposed to radiation of nuclear power origin. *(NucNet News, 155/01, 1 May; see also News Briefing 98.33-17)* [NB01.18-4] Rio Tinto will retain its 68.4% stake in Energy Resources Australia (ERA), owner and operator of the Ranger uranium mine, having failed to find a buyer prepared to pay an 'adequate' price for its share. ERA will now be managed under the Energy Product Group of Rio Tinto. *(FreshFUEL, 30 April, p4; see also News Briefing 01.07-2)* Meanwhile, Rio Tinto reported that uranium output at Rossing, Namibia, totalled 724 tonnes U3O8 (614 tU) in the first quarter of 2001 - a drop of more than 13% from the 836 tonnes U3O8 (709 tU) produced in the fourth quarter of 2000. *(FreshFUEL, 30 April, p5; see also News Briefing 01.05-7)* [NB01.18-5] US: A further delay, until 5 July 2001, in the issuance of a preliminary determination on low-enriched uranium from France (Eurodif), Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (Urenco) has been announced by the US Department of Commerce and the International Trade Administration. Commerce stated in the Federal Register (26 April) that additional time was warranted and available under US regulations to accommodate the 'extraordinarily complicated' nature of the case. *(FreshFUEL, 30 April, p5; see also News Briefing 01.04-2)* [NB01.18-6] Endesa, the Spanish power utility, has approved plans to sell a portion of its power assets worth about 5 billion euros (US$4.5 billion), which will be sold to a European company by the end of 2001. The 2610 MWe of generating capacity to be sold will include a mix of coal, fuel oil, and hydroelectric, as well as 244 MWe of nuclear generation. The capacity represents about 5.5% of the Spanish market. *(Nuclear Market Review, 30 April, p3)* German utilities RWE and Eon are reportedly interested in acquiring the electricity assets put up for sale by Endesa. *(Financial Times, 1 May, p26)* [NB01.18-7] Pakistan and China have reportedly started formal negotiations for the construction of a second unit at the Chasma Nuclear Power Plant (Chasnupp), according to reports from the BBC. Sources said the production capacity of the second unit would be 600 MWe. *(Nuclear Market Review, 30 April, p3; see also News Briefing 01.14-7)* [NB01.18-8] Switzerland's five nuclear power plants set a new generating record of 24.9 TWh in 2000, representing 38.2% of the country's total electricity generation, according to the Swiss federal environment, traffic, energy and communications ministry. The average load factor in 2000 was 89.1%. *(NucNet News, 144/01, 25 April; see also News Briefing 01.07-7)* [NB01.18-9] France: An unprecedented number of failed fuel assemblies at Cattenom-3, discovered in mid-March, is causing concern for Electricite de France (EDF) and Framatome ANP, which produced the affected fuel assemblies. Investigations revealed that at least 38 of the unit's 193 fuel assemblies had at least one leaking rod, and the rods were broken or cracked. It has yet to be determined why so many fuel assemblies have been affected at once. The French nuclear safety authority (DSIN) said the reactor would not be permitted to refuel until the problem is resolved. *(Nuclear Fuel, 2 April, p1)* [NB01.18-10] Work on Kalinin-3 (a VVER-1000 reactor) is a 'priority' for Russia's atomic energy ministry (Minatom), according to Vladimir Vinogradov, Minatom's first deputy minister. Commissioning of Kursk-5 (an RBMK-1000) and Rostov-2 (a new generation VVER-1000) were second and third priority respectively, he reported. Kursk-5 is currently scheduled for commissioning in 2003 and Kalinin-3 in 2004. *(NucNet News, 142/01, 25 April; see also News Briefing 00.34-3)* [NB01.18-11] US: A capacity expansion at the 2200 MWe Susquehanna nuclear power plant was announced by PPL Corp, in addition to the construction of a new natural gas-fired electricity generating facility near Chicago. The announcement is in line with the company's strategy to add generating capability in key US markets. Capacity at Susquehanna will be increased by 100 MWe with the installation of more efficient steam turbines on each of the two units. The new turbines will be installed in the spring of 2003 and 2004 during refuelling outages. *(Ux Weekly, 30 April, p4)* [NB01.18-12] Ukraine: The Chernobyl nuclear power plant will now be able to operate as an independent business enterprise, free from control of state-owned utility EnergoAtom, deputy prime minister Oleh Dubina announced. *(NucNet News, 153/01, 30 April)* The Ukraine government gave details about the role and activities of 'Chernobyl NPP', as the plant will be known. These will include decommissioning units one to three and nuclear units at other sites; transforming the shelter of the destroyed unit four into an ecologically safe system; managing Chernobyl's spent nuclear fuel; and, participating in international decommissioning and shelter transformation projects. *(NucNet News, 158/01, 1 May; see also News Briefing 01.12-14)* [NB01.18-13] UK: A shipment of German spent fuel arrived at British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL) Sellafield complex for reprocessing on 29 April 2001. The transport - the first such shipment from Germany in three years - included five casks of spent fuel from the Neckarwestheim and Biblis reactors. *(SpentFUEL, 30 April, p3; see also News Briefing 01.17-14)* Meanwhile, Germany's federal radiation protection agency, the BfS, has approved the transport of spent fuel from the Brunsbuttel nuclear power plant for reprocessing at Cogema's reprocessing facility in France. NCS will transport 34 spent fuel elements in two casks. *(NucNet News, 143/01, 25 April)* Switzerland has revoked a temporary ban on transports of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing at British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL) plant at Sellafield, UK. *(NucNet News, 154/01, 30 April; see also News Briefing 00.13-2)* [NB01.18-14] Russia is looking to Japan as a potential business partner in its plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for other countries, Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev announced. He denied reports that Russia plans to construct a nuclear waste disposal site near the islands off Hokkaido, which Japan wants returned. His remarks suggest that the Russian government may present formal proposals to Japan on the reprocessing plan once the Russian parliament provides final approval of the legislation. *(Nuclear Market Review, 30 April, p4; see also News Briefing 01.17-5)* [NB01.18-15] Canada: The government has tabled a motion for legislation in parliament dealing with the long-term management of the country's spent nuclear fuel. If approved, the legislation would require Canada's nuclear utilities to establish a nuclear waste management organisation that would regularly report to the government. Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which operates 20 of the country's 22 nuclear power units, will take the lead in developing the new organisation. *(NucNet News, 156/01, 1 May; see also News Briefing 01.15-2)* [NB01.18-16] US Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham, has postponed for 90 days an end-of-term decision from the Clinton administration to permanently shut down the Department of Energy's experimental Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). The 400 MWe reactor has been in standby since 1992. *(Associated Press, 25 April; see also News Briefing 99.36-20*) [NB01.18-17] Statkraft of Norway has rejected an offer by Germany utility Eon for its 35.7% stake in Swedish power group Sydkraft. Despite Statkraft's decision, Eon is expected to have received enough acceptances from other shareholders to give it a clear majority in Sydkraft. *(Financial Times, 1 May, p26; see also News Briefing 01.03-14)* [NB01.18-18] The US must continue to rely on coal and oil for energy and should consider building new nuclear power plants, according to Vice-President Dick Cheney, who chairs a White House committee that aims to formulate a new energy policy. *(BBC News Online, 1 May; see also News Briefing 01.15-1)* European Union leaders expressed 'great concern' about US opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and called for other countries to press ahead with implementation this summer. *(NucNet News, 149/01, 26 April; see also News Briefing 01.17-19)* Previous News Briefing NB01.17 *Prepared by the Uranium Institute Information Service. All news and views are those of the publications cited.* ***************************************************************** 8 Radioactive scrap seized at terminal The Scotsman Online - Scotland's best selling quality national newspaper John Woodcock A SHIPMENT of radioactive scrap metal was impounded last night after it triggered alarms at a Lanarkshire freight terminal. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) isolated the shipment, which was detected as it travelled through Coatbridge’s international freight terminal. SEPA last night said it was satisfied the sealed shipment, which was discovered yesterday afternoon, posed no immediate danger. A SEPA spokeswoman said: “The container was intact with no sign of physical damage. “A radiological survey has been carried out on the container and the surrounding area. “The container has been isolated, it is secure, and we are certain it poses no threat to public safety.” She added: “It is thought that the container came from overseas and was bound for a Scottish-based metals recovery operation.” But environmental campaigners claimed the hazardous load could easily have slipped through the net and been recycled into new consumer goods. The discovery led to fresh calls for tighter surveillance procedures to combat what is thought to be a lucrative criminal trade in radioactive scrap. It is thought that the metal, which was being carried in a sealed container, had been imported from overseas and was bound for a Scottish metal-processing unit. Stewart Kemp, secretary of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities campaign group, who published a report on the radioactive scrap metal trade earlier this year, said: “The dangers posed by this activity is frightening. The metal can get into household items or cars and pose a massive health risk. “The break-up of the former Soviet Union has increased the risk of radioactive waste metal from power plants being available. “Organised crime gangs can get access to the metal for free, and they sell it off as clean to unsuspecting buyers. “It is lucrative and it is very hard to trace.” Dr Richard Dixon, head of research for Friends of the Earth, warned that the buyer of the radioactive metal would now face a massive bill to make it safe, which could run into millions of pounds. Dr Dixon said: “This hazardous load highlights the growing problem of illegal radioactive waste shipments. As waste regulations become tighter and nuclear facilities decommissioned there is an ever increasing likelihood that radioactive materials will turn up in unexpected and potentially lethal locations. This presents a health threat and a potential business disaster for legitimate scrap metal processors.” He added: “All credit to those who spotted this potential hazardous load. However, it should never have been allowed to leave mainland Europe before reaching the UK. “There needs to be an urgent international investigation to trace the source of this material and prosecute those who have needlessly put people’s health at risk. We must give a clear message that Scotland is no soft option for illegal wastes.” While no decision will be made until the substance is identified, it is likely the shipment will eventually be dumped at the Drigg low-level radioactive waste disposal, near Sellafield, in Cumbria. ***************************************************************** 9 ILLEGAL RADIOACTIVE SCRAP IMPOUNDED IN COATBRIDGE Aberdeen Friends of the Earth PRESS RELEASE *********FOR IMMEDIATE USE: Tuesday 1 May 2001********* 10 Radioactive scrap metal a growing problem, says FoE Commenting on news that an illegal shipment of radioactive scrap metal has been impounded at the international freight terminal at Coatbridge Dr Richard Dixon, Head of Research for Friends of the Earth said: "This hazardous load highlights the growing problem of illegal radioactive waste shipments. As waste regulations become tighter and nuclear facilities decommissioned there is an ever increasing likelihood that radioactive materials will turn up in unexpected and potentially lethal locations. This represents a health threat and a potential business disaster for legitimate scrap metal reprocessors. "All credit to those who spotted this potential hazardous load. However, it should never have been allowed to leave mainland Europe before reaching the UK. There needs to be an urgent international investigation to trace the source of this material and to prosecute those who have needlessly put people's health at risk. We must give a clear message that Scotland is no soft option for illegal wastes." NOTES TO EDITORS: [1] It is understood that an illegal shipment of radioactive scrap metal has been impounded at the international freight terminal at Coatbridge by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The shipment triggered radiation alarms at the terminal's weigh bridge. The load has now been isolated and an investigation launched. Contact SEPA on 01786 457723/4 or pager 07644 071918 [2] On 29th March 2001 the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) published a report 'Radioactive Scrap Metals' identifying the growing risk to the UK metals recycling industry from radioactively contaminated scrap and other nuclear sources. The NFLA research called for a national monitoring and detection scheme, more help to the industry to improve surveillance and Government compensation for businesses which suffer loss from radioactive incidents. If radioactive metals are recycled into new consumer goods (e.g. cars, domestic white goods and other household items) then this will add to the exposures already received by the public from natural and manmade radioactive sources. [FULL PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS] Contact NFLA: Stewart Kemp (o) 0161 234 3244 (h) 0114 266 7656 (m) 07771 930196 http://www.gn.apc.org/nfznsc/ For more info: Lang Banks on 0131 554 9977 or pager 07654 200937 New Report Highlights Growing Radioactive Scrap Metal Hazard 29th March 2001 New research undertaken by Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), and published today (1), identifies a growing risk to the UK metals recycling industry from radioactively contaminated scrap and other nuclear sources. The research calls for a national monitoring and detection scheme, more help to the industry to improve surveillance and Government compensation for businesses which suffer loss from radioactive incidents. The NFLA research is sponsored by Steel Action, the local authority lobby for steel producing areas, and the Iron & Steel Trades Confederation, the biggest industry union. The industry trade body, the British Metals Federation, has also given its support to efforts to highlight this growing hazard. Since February 1999 the Environment Agency for England and Wales has been notified of 16 radioactive incidents in the metals recycling industry. Last August the Health and Safety Executive reported the first publicly identified incident in Scotland. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that world-wide there are "...increasing amounts of scrap originating from decommissioning of nuclear reactors, weapons and submarines." The European Commission estimates the volume of slightly radioactive metals within the EU which could be released onto the open market will quadruple in the next decade to about 40,000 tonnes per year. The NFLA research identifies the potential for more highly radioactive materials to enter scrap metal supply, either accidentally or through unscrupulous dealings. If radioactive metals are recycled into new consumer goods (e.g. cars, domestic white goods and other household items) then this will add to the exposures already received by the public from natural and manmade radioactive sources. Rotherham Councillor Ken Wyatt, Chair of NFLAs, said: "The metals recycling industry wants to keep contaminated scrap and radioactive sources out of its products to maintain consumer confidence. To do this tighter monitoring of the industry's scrap metal supply is needed, particularly over imports. The industry also needs a scheme of compensation to help dealers and operators affected by costly radioactive incidents." More information: Stewart Kemp (o) 0161 234 3244 (h) 0114 266 7656 (m) 07771 930196 1. Radioactive Scrap Metals, NFLA report, 28pp is available free of charge for single copies and £2 per copy (inc. p&p) for multiple orders. http://www.gn.apc.org/nfznsc/ =========================== Lang Banks Press & Information Officer Friends of the Earth Scotland 72 Newhaven Road Edinburgh EH6 5QG Tel: 0131 554 9977 Fax: 0131 554 8656 email: lbanks@foe-scotland.org.uk web: www.foe-scotland.org.uk =========================== ***************************************************************** 11 Scottish Power starts nuclear pricing action Money.Telegraph - Friday 4 May 2001 Telegraph Network Telegraph.co.uk Front page news UK news International news Sport Travel Money Feedback Features Review Gallery Technology Books Property Motoring Horoscopes Education Students Teenagers Opinion Obituaries Classifieds Appointments 55k+ Jobs Weather Crosswords Matt cartoon Alex cartoon Daily Index By Alex Jackson-Proes * (Filed: 02/05/2001) * SCOTTISH Power kicked off proceedings against British Energy and Scottish & Southern Energy yesterday after 18 months of negotiations over the wholesale price of nuclear power in Scotland broke down. Both Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern Energy claim that British Energy, which supplies 55pc of Scotland's energy from two power stations, is charging too much for nuclear power since the New Electricity Trading Arrangement (Neta) was introduced in England and Wales this year. The costs of Scottish energy are set according to English and Welsh "electricity pool" prices. However, the pool was scrapped when Neta came in, and Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern want the Nuclear Energy Agreement between the three companies changed to take Neta into account. Bob Fenton, a spokesman for British Energy, said: "It is disappointing that Scottish Power decided to leave negotiations. However, we believe we have an excellent case and a perfectly fair arrangement with both companies." The tri-party agreement was originally drawn up in 1990 and is not due to expire until 2005. Until then, Scottish Power, which takes 75pc of the energy produced by the two nuclear power stations, is expected to buy around a £1 billion of energy from British Energy which accounts for 45pc of its total energy output. A spokesman for Scottish Power, said: "Key to any solution must be the setting of a fair market price. We have sought a negotiated solution for 18 months but have been left with no option but to take legal action. "Legal reasons have forced us to launch proceedings against Scottish & Southern Energy as well as British Energy." Scottish & Southern, which only takes 25pc of British Energy's nuclear power, said it had no plans to start legal proceedings of its own. One City analyst said: "Both Scottish Power and British Energy have been trotting out the same lines for some time, but we will have to wait until Scottish Power puts out its results on Thursday." Scottish Power edged down 2.5 to 442.5p, Scottish and Southern Energy fell 15 to 585p and British Energy lost 17 to close at 290p. ***************************************************************** 12 BNFL plans for recycling plant boosted By Matthew Jones Published: May 1 2001 15:58GMT | Last Updated: May 1 2001 16:44GMT British Nuclear Fuels, the atomic services group, has received a fillip to plans to open a controversial plutonium recycling plant at its Sellafield site after striking a preliminary sup ply agreement with Eon, the German utility giant. BNFL said it had signed heads of agreement to convert all plutonium separated from Eon's spent fuel at Sellafield into mixed plutonium-uranium oxide fuel for re-use in Germany. The deal would be the largest single Mox contract for BNFL to date, lifting the total amount of contracted or reserved business from 22 per cent of capacity to 36 per cent. BNFL's £460m ($658m) Sellafield Mox Plant was completed in 1996 but is still awaiting government authorisation to start operations. Michael Meacher, the UK environment minister, last month launched a fourth public consultation into the plant following protests from environmentalists that it was uneconomic. Contracts for the plant were hit by a quality control scandal in 1999 in which BNFL admitted its workers had falsified records for Mox fuel sent to Japan, its leading customer. The plant is understood to require at least 40 per cent of its capacity to be contracted in order to break even. Potential Japanese customers have continually expressed doubt about the use of Mox fuel due to increasing public pressure against the re-use of plutonium. However, Norman Askew, BNFL chief executive, said the agreement with Eon demonstrated that nuclear operators wanted the fuel. "We must continue this work and push to meet our customers' requirements. "The message that our customers support bringing SMP into operation is now crystal clear," he added. Eon's spent nuclear fuel is first transported to Sellafield's Thorp plant, where plutonium is separated out from other waste. Transports from Germany resumed earlier this month for the first time in three years following concerns that radioactive material was "sweating" from nuclear containers. Anti-nuclear campaigners said that they would continue to campaign against the SMP. They argue that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel presents an unacceptable risk to society because it perpetuates the manufacture of plutonium, which is used in nuclear warheads. UK: Financial Times ***************************************************************** 13 Yucca Mountain: Fear vs. science in debate over nuclear storage Elko Daily Free Press: Content Apr 30 2001 12:00AM By By GARY BÉGIN the proposal to ship nuclear waste to Nevada for permanent storage). YUCCA MOUNTAIN - Mention nuclear anything to almost anyone and a look of fear comes across their eyes. Images of mushroom clouds from long ago or perhaps Chernobyl or Three Mile Island flood their minds and they instinctively recoil or make jokes about mutant insect "B" movies and "glowing in the dark." Are these fears without merit? According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) they are. According to Gov. Kenny Guinn's office, they aren't. What is the man-in-the-street to believe? The DOE freely distributes reams of its scientific findings which include reports dating back to the early 1980s. On a recent tour to Yucca Mountain, located on the Nevada Test Site about 80 miles north of Las Vegas, the DOE even played a Frontline video for members of the Elko Chapter of the Navy League while the group was being driven to the site on a DOE-chartered bus. The PBS video brings up the same concerns as are voiced on the streets of Elko and makes strange political bedfellows of people like environmentalists and conservative Republicans in their joint opposition to the site. However, most of the Navy Leaguers questioned approved of the DOE plan. How can such radioactive waste be transported safely? Won't the waste eventually escape its container and pollute groundwater and surrounding land, possible posing a threat to the safety and health of the population? The video even features corporate nemesis Ralph Nader explaining to the viewer his idea that the entire nuclear industry is corrupt and unnecessary because of the availability of alternate energy such as wind and solar power. Critics of Nader say coal burning plants and mining are far more radioactive and dangerous and point to the Bhopal, India, Union Carbide chemical plant disaster in the 1980s that killed more than 2,000 people as another industry with a safety record far worse than the nuclear industry. On the flip side of the equation, argues the DOE, the waste has already been produced and can, according to them, be transported safely and stored safely. The agency showed films of tests performed where casks, which will be used to contain nuclear waste, were rammed into by trains, dropped on spikes and burned for 90 minutes without any appreciable damage and with no breach of the cask itself. The term storage or repository seems to be preferred over the lay term "buried" because, in fact, the spent nuclear fuel, in the form of plutonium, is not going to be buried in the traditional sense, but placed into a sealed, thick radioactive barrier inside a tunnel 1,500 feet below the crest of Yucca Mountain and 1,000 feet above the water table in a closed aquifer system. The DOE scientists further argue that the waste may eventually be recovered from the Yucca site and "recycled," an environmentally friendly term and strategy favored by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., among others, and many Democrats traditionally allied with the environmental movement. However the recycling technology has not been perfected to the point of being able to provide on-site recycling and it may take 50 years to bring any nationwide recycling efforts on-line. Thousands of residents of Las Vegas and many other area cities are being bused into the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository by the DOE in an effort to give them the science on the issue from that agency's perspective. Besides already being on federal land, far from any population centers and being stored deep in a mountain, the DOE argues the minute amount of rainfall in the desert site can't even permeate the rocks that make Yucca Mountain what it is, the result of ancient volcanic activity. DOE scientists say even if a drop of water finally made its way through the mountain, after 150 years of leaching, it would still take an eternity to corrode the containers and another eternity to leach its plutonium into the water table far below. "We are required to monitor this site for 10,000 years," one of the DOE tour guide scientists told the Navy League. Of course, no one today will be around then to tell if the site lived up to its billing as being the safest one on earth. The DOE did investigate salt domes in Texas and Louisiana and ocean burial, as well as consider other options like shooting the waste into space, but Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush, in that order, accepted the DOE science that repeatedly pointed to Yucca Mountain as the only viable site in the nation to receive the waste from commercial reactors in 31 states and numerous military sites, mostly spent fuel rods from nuclear-powered ships. In a rare show of praising any action by President Bill Clinton, Nevada's Republican delegation of Rep. Jim Gibbons and then future senator John Ensign, as well as Guinn, lauded Clinton's veto of a bill a year ago which would have approved the Yucca site. The House vote at that time was 252-167 and the Senate 64-34 in favor of the using the Yucca site, but that was then and this is now. The Bush administration, considered a friend of the energy industry and welcomed into office by many who expect him to roll back many Clinton environmental policies, was heartily backed by the nuclear power industry. Electric companies with nuclear power plants were "pouring money into the Bush campaign" utilizing "20 political actions committees," according to an Associated Press review in June 2000. Retired Nevada Sen. Richard Bryan, a Democrat, voiced what many out of the state believe will happen when the bill reaches the pen of George Bush. "The nuclear industry would support Bush any day of the week," he said. According to a study by the Elko County Public Land Use Advisory Committee (PLUAC) last year, "A 3 percent shift in congressional voting records will allow the implementation of this facility over the cries of our congressmen." That was before Bush assumed office. Clinton's veto had little chance of being overturned, but Bush can sign a bill passed by a simple majority without fear of that bill being overturned by a two-thirds vote, regardless of the Nevada legislature's already issued public "notice of disapproval." The Nevada body politic will simply be outvoted and overwhelmed by the political clout of the rest of the country in Congress, according to those such as Elko's PLUAC members who believe the site "will be forced on us." Although the Yucca site is strongly opposed by the gaming industry for fear of scaring tourists away, the main science being used against Yucca Mountain as the waste site is seismic activity. An earthquake measuring more than 5 on the Richter Scale shook a nearby mountain range in the 1990s, but as every DOE engineer and scientist took great pains to point out to the Navy League tour, "not one rock was disturbed" inside Yucca Mountain. The DOE also claims their science shows the Yucca site to be just one of 10 closed aquifer systems in the area, meaning the ground water will not leach potential pollution to other areas such as the drinking water supply for Las Vegas or Pahrump. Last summer, Elko's PLUAC reported to the County Commission it was in favor of the Yucca Mountain site, arguing to "just say yes" for the benefit of the United States and the State of Nevada." However, in a move many people feel was a bit unrealistic, in exchange for just saying "yes," PLUAC wanted the federal government to cede control of federal lands within the state to the state. Proponents of the site say the Nevada Test Site has already been used as a nuclear waste dump and experimentation area for 50 years so it is logical to place a repository there, rather than pollute an entirely new area. Those against the site say the only safe way to transport nuclear waste is to not transport it at all and leave it where it was produced, mostly near power plants and military bases. The owners of those power plants and the so-called "military industrial complex" have lobbied Congress hard in favor of the Yucca project, claiming they are quickly running out of room to store any more waste. *©Elko Daily Free Press 2001* ***************************************************************** 14 Nuclear Power Not the Answer May 2, 2001 Letter: A Band-Aid should not solve the electrical crisis. Nuclear power generation is not the answer. The waste generated by nuclear power plants is a problem today and will continue to be a problem for many generations in the future. If no new plants were to be built, the waste generated to date is over 44,000 tons. This waste is dangerous for over a million years. The danger to future generations is no different than what are predicted from global warming EXCEPT the present waste is real and a danger now. The backers of nuclear power all claim that it is safe and cheap. They forget to tell the public that the cost of decommissioning a plant after its useful life is not included, and they hide behind the Price Anderson Act that limits the nuclear industry liability thus lowering their insurance costs. Constructing new nuclear power plants does not solve the other problem with electrical energy. The power from the generators has to be deliver over transmission lines or as many call it, the power grid. The grid cannot carry the power loads that are required. Even today the power being sent over the grid has to be limited so the lines do not overheat. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the grid to accommodate the projected power requirements. There is a solution that will eliminate the waste problem, not require upgrading of the electrical grid and will not add to the global warming problem. Power can be generated with fuel cells and instead of putting the generation in one location, cells can be located next to the facility that requires additional power. They can be made small enough so that each home could have a fuel cell. These cells are here today. NASA uses them in all the shuttle flights and was used on the moon program. Hydrogen is a clean gas that is readily available. It can be obtained by electrolysis from water using solar cells. Xerox has a facility near the Los Angeles airport that generated the hydrogen for all their vehicles. This clean gas when burned has as the waste product, water and nitrogen. Nitrogen composes 78 percent of the air we breathe. There is no impact on global warming and in fact the impact is decreased. Fuel cells allow this country to wean itself from foreign oil, decrease the choke hold the power generator cartel has on the American citizens and will be the entry into a hydrogen economy for the 21 first century. There is no need to use nuclear power with all its shortcomings. LOU DEBOTTARI Carson City *Copyright tahoe.com. Materials contained within this site may ***************************************************************** 15 Tribal leader seeks support for nuclear protest RGJ.com - *Rhina Guidos* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL Wednesday May 2nd, 2001 Urging Nevadans to oppose nuclear energy, Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney asked a University of Nevada audience Tuesday to join him in a Mother’s Day demonstration at a Nevada nuclear test site later this month. “This cheap power we talk about, how cheap is it?” Harney asked a crowd of about 30 at the Jot Travis Student Union. “We, the native people, have had to watch and see the bird, the animal life disappear.” Harney, who has spoken worldwide for nuclear disarmament and against nuclear waste storage, urged the crowd to join a May 12 walk from Warm Springs, 80 miles north of Las Vegas, to a nearby test site. “We are one people, we all walk this mother Earth, we drink the same water and breathe the same air,” Harney said. “I hope we will unite together and ask for cleaner air, not nuclear power.” Harney, a medicine man, talked about the disappearance of animal and plant life that has affected some of the tribe’s practices and customs. Brenda Tobey, of Hungry Valley, took the American Indian youth group she advises to the lecture. “We want to oppose nuclear power, especially in Nevada because it is something affecting and going through Indian Country,” she said. “Our group came to support and learn more about what we can do as a group.” The group of teen-agers from northern Nevada tribal lands plans to send some representatives to the demonstration. “I didn’t know much about this,” said 15-year-old Alex Bonta. “I didn’t know they had (nuclear waste) coming to Nevada. I want to tell them to stop.” The lecture helped 12-year-old Doug Williams think about an issue that involves tribal communities in Nevada. “I learned how bad it really was, and how (nuclear waste) can hurt us and animals,” he said. Harney and the Shundahai Network, a Las-Vegas-based group, will sponsor a May 12-14 gathering to support environmental justice on Western Shoshone Lands in Warm Springs. ©2001 Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 16 Editorial: Destructive strategy on energy use May 02, 2001 When President Bush appointed Vice President Dick Cheney to head a White House task force to develop a national energy policy, many skeptics wondered whether a former energy company executive was the right man to develop a balanced approach. For instance, would Cheney acknowledge conservation's essential role as part of a comprehensive energy strategy? Cheney's final report still hasn't been released, but a speech he gave Monday in Toronto offers plenty of evidence that this administration is devising a policy that will reward polluting industries at the expense of conservation and the environment. In an attempt to answer his critics, who have said that the administration has given short shrift to conservation, Cheney responded: "To speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Cheney is missing the point, though. Any time there is a shortage, whether it's money or any commodity, people first explore ways to reasonably cut back on consumption in order to dig themselves out of the hole they're in. Conservation, just like the development of more energy efficient products -- such as light bulbs and air conditioners -- is an integral component of a national energy policy. Conservation isn't the only answer, but it is an important part of the solution. It also was dismaying that the vice president said the most environmentally friendly option to increase the supply of energy was to build new nuclear power plants. Referring to nuclear power, Cheney said that "if we are serious about environmental protection, then we must seriously question the wisdom of backing away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source." Cheney didn't mention that the waste produced by nuclear power not only is dirty, but it also is deadly, posing a threat to the environment and the public's health and safety. Cheney's unwavering insistence that nuclear power's role be dramatically heightened is an incredibly troubling prospect for residents of this state, especially since the federal government has targeted Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a possible repository to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste . Whether it's a failure to acknowledge the benefits of conservation, a belief that environmentally sensitive public lands should be opened to oil drilling, or an advocacy of a dangerous energy source such as nuclear power, Cheney is pushing a policy that will please big energy producers -- but will fail the needs of this nation. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Restarting the Nuclear Race May 2, 2001 By RICHARD BUTLER [P] resident Bush said yesterday that "we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year- old ABM treaty" and establish defenses against nuclear missiles. His proposals deserve close analysis, especially with respect to their likely effectiveness and costs. They should also be subject to public debate, of which there has been stunningly little to date. The defensive technologies that will now be more intensively researched would be deployed in all environments — land, sea and space. It is not clear that any, all or even parts of them will be effective. Estimates of what would be invested in this system have been wildly imprecise, varying between $60 billion and $100 billion or more. The financial costs are, however, possibly the least of those that will be incurred. The heavier costs come in international political terms and in giving a new life to precisely the weapons the defensive shield is supposed to defeat — nuclear weapons. If the United States is to proceed with the development of a national missile defense system, it will need to amend or abandon the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. That treaty was meant to preserve stability, based on deterrence, between the United States and the Soviet Union in the face of new nuclear weapons development. Today's proponents of national missile defense argue that, because of the possible acquisition of long-range missiles by rogue states, it is necessary to develop new defensive measures even at the cost of scrapping the ABM treaty. But this is virtually certain to ensure new weapons development by the major nuclear weapons states, particularly Russia and China. The treatment for a small problem seems bound to make a larger problem grow by removing one of its most significant restraints. The threat presently posed to the United States by rogue states is recognized as being remote, if it exists at all, in the field of ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. Such states are much more likely to use chemical or biological weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons, delivered on their behalf by terrorists, in a briefcase or a truck, to an American city. Iraq, for example, possesses such weapons, and now that its programs go uninspected Iraq is developing more of them. Mr. Bush specifically raised the specter of nuclear "blackmail" by Iraq. It is unclear, to say the least, how that indirect action could be deterred by missile defense. China has certainly made clear that it does not accept the rogue state rationale and instead sees itself as the focus of a missile defense system. Russia has spoken in similar terms, although Mr. Bush held out — in his words, "perhaps one day" — the possibility of a joint American-Russian missile shield. China, at least, can be expected to respond by developing new quantities and qualities of missiles and warheads capable of compensating for the reduction in their deterrent capability that would be brought about by a defensive shield. In other words, the most likely outcome of missile defense will be a nuclear arms race. The Bush administration's decision brings with it another cost, indeed, possibly the heaviest one. It will shake, to the foundations, the key international agreement which has supported an almost 40-year effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons — the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Thirty-eight years ago, four months after the Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy expressed grave concern about the possible emergence of some 20 or 30 countries possessing nuclear weapons. This problem was then addressed through the construction of the nonproliferation treaty, which rests on an elemental bargain: nuclear weapons states, including the United States, undertook to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons; states without such weapons undertook never to acquire them. In the decades that followed, this bargain has essentially held together. Mr. Bush recognized that, in the cold war world, "few other nations had nuclear weapons," though he failed to indicate why that was. He did not mention the nonproliferation treaty. The only countries that have acquired nuclear weapons have been three of the four that never signed on to the treaty: Israel, India and Pakistan. All others have kept their promise never to acquire nuclear weapons, even though roughly 30 have the ability to do so. Three parties to the treaty have cheated on it to varying degrees — Iran, Iraq and North Korea, the rogue states named in current American policy statements on national missile defense. This cheating represents a failure of the treaty and needs to be addressed. Another important failure of the treaty has been that of the nuclear- weapon states to keep their part of the bargain by working toward eliminating nuclear weapons. This failure was highlighted in May 2000 at the Non- Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, where the five nuclear weapons states in the treaty jointly recommitted themselves to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. That declaration staved off a breakdown of the treaty that, had it occurred, would have led several countries to consider developing nuclear weapons — the realization of President Kennedy's fear. The proposed cuts in American nuclear weapons announced by President Bush must be welcomed in the context of the United States' undertakings under the nonproliferation treaty. But if they are made contingent on Russia agreeing to amendment or abandonment of the ABM treaty — and to American deployment of a national missile defense system — Mr. Bush's proposal would contradict the commitment made in May 2000 by the United States and the fundamental legal commitment made in the nonproliferation treaty. The president has authorized a major diplomatic effort to consult allies and, to some extent, potential adversaries. This should be welcomed, especially by Russia. But these consultations must address the fundamental challenge of strengthening the nonproliferation regime. The administration's inclination toward unilateral action has the ring of single-minded dedication to national self-interest, muscularity and determination. That may play well in some reaches of the popular imagination, but it gravely misleads the public by implying that the United States can impose its preferences. The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress have claimed repeatedly that international agreements and treaties like the nonproliferation treaty are unverifiable. Clearly they can be cheated on and have been, most particularly by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The obvious cure for such cheating is to deal with it directly and to remedy infractions of the nonproliferation norm when they occur, and at their root. The United States could start by giving full financial support to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. It should also consider military action, in concert with other major countries, to destroy facilities where weapons of mass destruction are being developed clandestinely. A more constructive plan of action by the United States would have included specific proposals for deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons, followed by the engagement of other nuclear weapons states in further reductions; the standing down of strategic nuclear weapons from their cold war state of hair-trigger alert; the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the early negotiation of a treaty banning the manufacture of fissile material for weapons purposes. An overwhelming majority of countries support these steps. If they were taken, the obvious right of the United States to continue to conduct research into defensive technologies would be seen in an entirely different light. As long as any country has nuclear weapons, others will seek to acquire them. Reduction of the nuclear threat can best be accomplished directly through arms control and disarmament. This would cost a fraction of what the administration will need for missile defense. Building a wall, rather than tackling the problem head-on, is both to retreat and, in this case, to condemn all of us to failure. *Richard Butler, diplomat in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations and former chairman of the United Nations special commission to disarm Iraq, is writing a book on nuclear arms control.* 2001 The New York Times Company| Story last updated at 12:12 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff More than $719 million was paid to federal and contractor employees at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge facilities in calendar year 2000. Of that amount, DOE figures indicate that the 2,297 Oak Ridge residents who work at the federal facilities were paid $145,669,215. The Oak Ridge figures include residents in both the Anderson County and Roane County portions of the city. DOE released the payroll figures Tuesday afternoon. According to Ed Cumesty, acting manager of DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, the 2000 payroll ($719,580,037) is an increase of more than $24 million over 1999. Federal and contractor employment at the Oak Ridge facilities totaled 12,842 as of Dec. 31, 2000, DOE figures indicate. Based on the number of people employed, the top five counties with the largest annual salaries for 2000 are as follows: + Knox -- 4,987 employees earning $301,652,320. + Anderson -- 3,525 employees earning $201,935,814. + Roane -- 2,228 employees earning $114,272,034. + Loudon -- 721 employees earning $38,413,633. + Blount -- 348 employees earning $18,295,371. The payroll totals include employees at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 National Security Complex, the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, DOE's Oak Ridge Operations office, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information and the local National Nuclear Security Administration office. Primary DOE contractors during 2000 included Bechtel Jacobs Co., BNFL Inc., BWXT Y-12, Lockheed Martin Energy Research, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Science Applications International Corp. and UT-Battelle. In its payroll announcement, DOE also noted that contracts and procurement associated with the Oak Ridge Operations office totaled $560,521,749 for calendar year 2000. Breaking that amount down by counties, DOE officials indicated that Anderson County received $411,228,690, while Roane County got $46,391,448. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************