***************************************************************** 7/02/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.164 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Nuclear chief throws down gauntlet 2 Letters: Nuclear black hole 3 NRC weighs oversight policy as corporations buy nuclear plants 4 Germans plan depot takeover 5 MP's warning on nuclear plans 6 Israel Warns of Iranian Nuclear Program 7 Letter: Senator is out of touch on nuke waste 8 DOE to rule on Yucca in fall 9 NRC to Meet with American Electric Power to Discuss Safety 10 Nuclear Reprocessing Sets Off Alarms Again 11 Go-ahead needed on N-power 12 Shandong to Launch Nuclear Desalination Project 13 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Monday, July 02, 2001 14 Reactor director files lawsuit alleging defamation 15 NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Company Officials to Discuss 16 Gov't to Build Spent Fuel Repository 17 Yggdrasil Institute: Uranium Enrichment Project Newsletter 18 NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Applications for 19 Uranium plant closing hurts struggling region 20 Blair warned of need for early go-ahead on nuclear stations 21 Analysis: Nuclear, no thanks NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 City to fund ROK A-victim treatment 2 Cold War-museum exhibit jogs memories of nuclear holocaust 3 Researchers assessing fallout of pre-'56 X-rays at K-25 4 Scientists looking at readiness of nuclear-test sites 5 First Workers' Compensation Resource Center Opens 6 Norway fears raising Russian sub will increase radiation risk 7 House votes to restore SRS funds that Bush cut 8 Rocky trial for Rockwell - 9 Sowing nuclear seeds of division 10 House Approves Funds to Clean Rocketdyne Site 11 Beryllium dangerous, versatile **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Nuclear chief throws down gauntlet Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Special report: Britain's nuclear industry David Gow Monday July 2, 2001 The Guardian The new head of British Energy, the country's biggest atomic power producer, yesterday gave the government a year at most to decide whether to approve new nuclear stations to fill a looming energy gap and combat global warming. Robin Jeffrey, BE's executive chairman, said ministers must finally make up their minds how and where to dispose of high-grade radioactive waste before his group applied for permission to build new atomic power stations. This was one of four pre-conditions Mr Jeffrey and his new board have set for convincing shareholders that they should financially back a programme to replace BE's eight nuclear stations which are to be phased out between 2011 and 2035. The others are: improving the company's current performance, including implementing a £150m cuts programme; reducing the cost of new plant and the time taken to commission it; and, not least, gaining public acceptability. Environmental pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have already urged ministers leading the government's new review of energy policy to discard the nuclear option. Today the Fabian Society, the left-of-centre think tank, joins the fray, arguing that the priority for cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be renewables, combined heat and power and energy efficiency rather than new atomic power stations. Mr Jeffrey, who is considering changing BE's name to reflect its growing international presence, said that Britain's hopes of meeting its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gases would "fly out of the stack" if its nuclear plants were progressively shut down. "If all our plants closed down and were replaced with the current mix (of coal, gas, oil and renewables), the UK's transport emissions of carbon would rise 50%," he said. Mr Jeffrey calculates that it would take three to five years to get planning consent to build new plant on existing sites such as Hunterston, Ayrshire, which closes down in 2011 and a further four to six years to build the new stations. The planning process could be curtailed because BE, if it went ahead, would use old permits to connect to the national grid and build on land it already owns on its sites. The timescale would nevertheless signify clear decisions within a year to allow new build to take place. That would also mean swift decisions on a repository for spent fuel rods, including its location, to win public acceptance for nuclear power. Mr Jeffrey, who has brought in three directors in their early 40s to spearhead BE's drive for improved profits, believes new nuclear power stations could qualify as public private partnerships (PPPs) because they would be infrastructure projects. He is also urging ministers to reform the regulatory process to make it attractive again for companies to invest in new generating capacity - and avoid Californian-style blackouts. He also wants the review to balance any subsidy for nuclear rebuild against the environmental cost of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. The Fabians, meanwhile, said Britain would need to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050. "Nuclear power is one low carbon option but the problems of waste storage and its high cost make it highly dubious." They call, in a new pamphlet, for a £1bn government package of support for alternative energy technologies, including £150m for solar power generation and £800m for offshore wind power and energy crops. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 2 Letters: Nuclear black hole Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Monday July 2, 2001 The nuclear industry in the 1990s was defeated by its intrinsic weaknesses and high costs (Plan for six nuclear stations, June 29). As it seeks to exploit the tragedy of climate change and the finite nature of our fossil fuel inheritance, it is worth asking if anything fundamental has changed. Nuclear power has an unsolvable waste problem. It is impossibly expensive. No one ever worked out how to insure a nuclear power station against the international pollution a single reactor failure can cause. Ironically, exposure to market forces under the prospect of privatisation all but killed the industry. If the same amount of money that was poured into the nuclear black hole had gone to building up renewables, Britain would have both a more secure and sustainable energy supply, and lead the world in a technology in which it was an early innovator. It would be bizarre to repeat the mistake, not to mention technologically impossible given the size of the gap between demand and supply and the number of reactors that would be required. Nuclear power has not changed. Like a dying vampire it is begging for our tax blood to revive itself. We should leave it in the grave. Andrew Simms New Economics Foundation • Nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe. The Electricity Act of 1989 allowed the government to raise more than £1bn a year in a fossil fuel levy - and 99% of that levy went to the nuclear power industry. In 1998, the act was revised, but BNFL still gets the money. Of course it wants to build new nuclear cash cows now their old ones are finally being decommissioned: but why should the rest of us subsidise it? Jane Carnall Edinburgh • Those mysterious "senior ministers" should have faith in their own belief in nuclear power and identify themselves. I propose their constituencies are chosen for new nuclear plants or to bury the waste they would produce. That will test their mettle. Dr David Lowry Stoneleigh, Surrey • So Robin Jeffrey of BNFL thinks Hunterston nuclear power plant is ripe for a rebuild and your reporters think it is significant that Brian Wilson, who is chairing Blair's energy review, is MP for the area (Cunninghame North). It's a pity that they missed the fact that this is Scotland, where neither the writ of Tony Blair nor the opinion of a Westminster MP will matter a jot. Richard Page Alloway, Scotland Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 3 NRC weighs oversight policy as corporations buy nuclear plants July 03, 2001 01:35:55 AM By ROGER WITHERSPOON THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: July 02, 2001) The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing every aspect of its oversight process to determine if rules designed for utilities like Consolidated Edison are sufficient to govern for-profit power corporations like the one seeking to buy Indian Point 2. Agency officials say existing procedures are good enough — for now — to protect the public safety as the nuclear power industry undergoes radical and rapid changes. But those sweeping changes are happening so quickly that the NRC is not certain its procedures will be effective in the long term. Since 1998, the NRC said, there have been 80 requests for license transfers from utilities to for-profit corporations among the nation's 103 nuclear reactors. The NRC's decision to evaluate its own procedures stems mainly from issues raised during the past year surrounding the sale of Indian Point's three nuclear plants to the Louisiana-based Entergy Corp. The company now owns Indian Point 3 and is pursuing ownership of Indian Point 2, rated by the NRC as the nation's most troubled nuclear power plant, and the defunct Indian Point 1. The Citizens Awareness Network and other anti-nuclear civic groups have challenged Entergy's ability to effectively run Buchanan-based Indian Point, primarily because of questions surrounding the company's financial capabilities. The groups' criticisms have prompted the NRC to determine if utilities selling their plants to corporations "may no longer have the incentive to invest in safety or maintenance improvements, or take necessary corrective action to address identified problems," according to a recent NRC analysis of its own procedures. "Consolidation of the industry means the corporations have a greater ability to reduce costs on maintenance and staff across-the-board," said Tim Judson of the Central New York Citizens Awareness Network. "Cutting costs makes them more competitive under deregulation, but has enormous impacts on safety. The companies that own the nuclear reactors are bigger than the United States agency that is supposed to regulate them." Herb Berkow, the NRC project director who is overseeing the internal regulatory review, said that in most cases, the agency had "insufficient experience" to judge if its existing oversight policies would effectively regulate corporations in the future. "Is the process adequate to detect problems with a company that might be in financial distress?" he asked. Among the issues the NRC plans to review: • The effect of cost controls and profit pressures on safety margins within power plants; billion-dollar decommissioning funds that are considered assets by companies like Entergy, which critics say will seek the cheapest, least effective cleanup and distribute the rest of the funds to shareholders; and the financial ability of limited liability companies set up by corporations to operate the power plants to survive prolonged shutdowns. • Refueling shutdowns, which for firms like Entergy last about a month — half the time taken by utilities, meaning fuel will be used longer and there will be a shorter period for major maintenance. • Proprietary rules by private companies that may make employees less willing to come forward and reveal problems with equipment and practices. David Lochbaum, nuclear analyst with the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said his group's primary concern was the potential loss of access to data. The NRC should require for-profit firms to submit data essential to plant performance evaluations, he said, rather than rely on voluntary compliance. An Entergy spokesman said plant condition reports, which Indian Point 2 workers compose when they find mechanical or procedural problems, will be considered proprietary information when the corporation takes over. "That is a real cause for concern," said Marilyn Elie of the Westchester Citizens Action Network. "If problems are not recorded in a public way, it makes it difficult to be watchdogs for the public interest at these nuclear reactors." Berkow said the hope was that companies like Entergy would improve the plants they buy and operate. "This may or may not turn out to be the fact, but it certainly is a reasonable assumption," he said. "They are in the business for the long term, and if a plant is not well run, they are not going to turn a profit for their owners. There is a likelihood that the plant would be run at least as good and, hopefully, better than it was under the utility." Copyright 2001 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper. ***************************************************************** 4 Germans plan depot takeover BBC News | WALES | Sunday, 1 July, 2001, 14:53 GMT 15:53 UK A BBC Wales investigation has revealed that plans for a German munitions company to take over a former armaments depot in west Wales are still on course. The change of ownership at the former Royal Ordnance Depot at Trecwn in Pembrokeshire coud bring 100 new jobs to the county. Around 500 workers lost their jobs when the Royal Navy left Trecwn. [The depot at Trecwn, Pembrokeshire] Many uses for the depot have been discussed It was bought by Anglo-Irish company Omega Pacific in l998, but the firm sparked much controversy when it suggested that the tunnels on site could be used to store low-level nuclear waste. The company later said it had never intended to make an application for nuclear storage. Nevertheless, a 30,000 name petition was handed to Parliament in protest at any possible future storage scheme. Since then, the site - which is still riddled with 58 underground wartime storage chambers, many cut into the steep sides of a valley - has remained empty. Major contract Now, however, officials from the Welsh Development Agency, Pembrokeshire County Council, and the Welsh Assembly have been approached by the German company EBV. The company has been discussing the possibility of setting up a weapons reclamation depot there. No final go-ahead can be given until the German company knows whether or not it has won a major contract from the British Ministry of Defence, but backers of the scheme remain optimistic. ***************************************************************** 5 MP's warning on nuclear plans BBC News | WALES | Sunday, 1 July, 2001, 15:39 GMT 16:39 UK Report claims children at higher risk of developing cancer Parts of rural Wales could be prime targets for new nuclear power station developments, a politician has warned. Plaid Cymru's environment spokesman Simon Thomas expressed his concern following the announcement that British Nuclear Fuels Limited is to put forward a plan for six new nuclear power stations in the UK. "Sparsely-populated areas of west Wales such as Ceredigion or Pembrokeshire could prove attractive," said Mr Thomas, MP for Ceredigion. [Simon Thomas, Plaid Cymru MP for Ceredigion] "Worrying news for Wales": Simon Thomas MP "The last nuclear power station, which was built at Sizewell in Suffolk 10 years ago cost £2.3bn," he added. "Had that money been invested in renewable energy, we would be well on our way to meeting our Kyoto obligations." Mr Thomas said it was particularly worrying that the news had come at a time when leukaemia clusters had been confirmed near a nuclear power station in the French port of Cherbourg. It also came soon after the discovery by Aberystwyth scientist Dr Chris Busby of childhood leukaemia along the Severn Estuary near the Oldbury Nuclear Power station. The long-term environmental cost of disposing of nuclear waste and of keeping decommissioned nuclear plants safe far outweighs any short term benefits Simon Thomas MP Mr Thomas also voiced concern that the government was talking of limiting public inquiries on large-scale developments. This, he argued, would lead to suppressing local views on developments such as nuclear power stations. "This situation demonstrates clearly that we must take difficult decisions on renewable energy developments such as Cefn Croes or face having nuclear power forced upon us," he said. "The long-term environmental cost of disposing of nuclear waste and of keeping decommissioned nuclear plants safe far outweighs any short-term benefits. Cancer risks "Our energy needs are increasing daily so If we do not support all forms of renewable energy then nuclear power will become a credible option for the government." Back in April, politicians called for action following the publication of a study which claimed children living in an area of south Wales near a nuclear power station stood a higher risk of developing cancer. Newport East MP Alan Howarth and MEP Michael Holmes wanted the release of cancer incidence figures in light of suggestions that clusters around Chepstow were linked to the proximity the Oldbury nuclear power station. The report's author - radiation expert and Green Party spokesman Dr Chris Busby - claimed to have found that children there were 11 times more likely to develop myeloid leukaemia than others in the UK. Leukaemia found The town is five miles from Oldbury nuclear power station on the banks of the river Severn, which campaigners claim has been found to contain high levels of radioactive particles. Myeloid leukaemia is a very rare form of cancer which is strongly associated with radiation. The study - which used data from the Wales Cancer Registry - shows that three cases of the cancer were discovered in children up to the age of four between 1974 and 1990 in Chepstow, compared to the national average of 0.27. It also reveals that children in Chepstow ran a higher risk of developing all cancers - at 3.54 times the national average. ***************************************************************** 6 Israel Warns of Iranian Nuclear Program Israel Warns of Iranian Nuclear Program NewsMax Wires Monday, July, 2, 2001 JERUSALEM, UPI -- Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer Sunday expressed deep concern over Iran's nuclear development program that he maintained could drastically alter the balance of power in the region. The minister told the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem that Iran already has chemical and biological weapons and is close to obtaining a nuclear capability "with Russian assistance." Once that happens the importance of Palestinian issue will be dwarfed in comparison, he argued. The minister declined to comment on a report in the Arab al-Hayat newspaper that said that last Wednesday Israel tested a Jericho ballistic missile with a range of 900 miles. "I have nothing to say about that," he maintained when asked. Israel has never confirmed having such missiles. Ben-Eliezer said he planned to go to the United States next month to continue the strategic dialogue. "We have strategic matters to discuss," he said. "There are matters that bother Israel and stability in the Middle East." He said Prime Minister Ariel Sharon discussed with Secretary of State Colin Powell special aid totaling $800 million to cover last year's pullback from Lebanon and missile defense. Ben-Eliezer said he planned to raise the matter with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He maintained he was "not exactly worried" about Egyptian cooperation with North Korea in producing Nodong missiles, saying Egypt had other neighbors to worry about. -- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 7 Letter: Senator is out of touch on nuke waste Today: July 02, 2001 at 9:21:15 PDT I attended Clark County's Nuclear Waste Division public meeting on Wednesday. State Sen. Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, spoke and took the position that Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump is a done deal. Forget about opposing it. He noted that Nevada's congressional delegation only has four votes and that's not enough to prevent man's most deadly garbage from coming to our state. The senator would rather have the state negotiate, or go hat in hand and ask the Department of Energy for payments in exchange for Yucca Mountain that Nevada could use for needed schools, electrical-power generation or other items. The senator's positions are very troubling. He's clearly out of step with the people of Nevada who say no to nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Perhaps he lacks the desire to battle against the dump. Perhaps he hasn't heard about building coalitions. Perhaps he knows something the rest of us are missing. Perhaps he wants to be seen as a loyal Republican soldier supporting his president. Senator, I say no nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain or in Nevada. ANDY HERESZ All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 DOE to rule on Yucca in fall Today: July 02, 2001 at 11:16:56 PDT Feds determined to meet deadline, despite unanswered questions, lawsuits By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Scientific studies are incomplete and several lawsuits are pending, but the Energy Department is committed to making a recommendation this fall on whether Yucca Mountain is suitable as a high-level nuclear waste repository. Officials said they expect Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to deliver a recommendation to President Bush between October and December on whether Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is suitable as a repository site. Three pending lawsuits are not expected to delay a recommendation on Yucca, the only site under study as the nation's dump for commercial reactor fuel and military waste, DOE spokesman Joe Davis said. Nor will the lack of information for a final design of a repository to contain 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste, DOE senior policy analyst Abraham Van Luik said. The DOE will decide on how closely to pack waste into 12,000 containers inside the mountain after the site recommendation, but before DOE asks for a building permit, Van Luik said. The DOE is approaching the project with a flexible design, he said. "This fall the decision is whether it passes or fails," Van Luik said. The DOE originally planned to open a repository in 1998 at Yucca Mountain. The agency has spent almost $7 billion studying the site over the past 20 years. Scientists serving on the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and an international scientific review panel are pushing the DOE for more information concerning contaminated ground water movement, seismic activity and volcanic eruptions. The DOE's latest deadline may slip again, the scientists and analysts have said. "If they proceed without enough information to satisfy the NRC, they may be at risk for another delay," Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects Executive Director Bob Loux said, echoing comments of the others. "The DOE is being hit from all sides by everybody who is reviewing its Yucca Mountain work." This is not the first time progress has been delayed. The site recommendation was expected in December, but a DOE inspector general's investigation into possible bias by DOE officials put the project on hold. In April investigators said there was no evidence that the department was biased toward the site, but they warned department officials to avoid even an appearance of favoring the mountain. Congress also has trimmed up to $100 million from the department's budget each year since 1995. The cuts caused project managers to delay completing onsite studies and analyses that could be used in the licensing process, DOE officials said. Another potential delay came after the Environmental Protection Agency issued new radiation exposure limits last month. The nuclear industry sued the EPA on the same day the standards were released, and last week the state of Nevada and a coalition of environmental organizations also sued the agency. The DOE has to recalculate all of the computer models for its proposed environmental impacts based on the EPA standards, which limit total radiation exposure to 15 millirems a year for an average person 12 miles outside the repository boundary, with 4 millirems of that allowed in ground water. An average chest X-ray is about 5 millirems. The nuclear industry wanted a 25-millirem exposure limit with no ground water standard, and the NRC agreed with the industry. Those are the figures used in the DOE's current computer models. "With the types of changes in the final EPA standard versus the proposed one, we see no obstacle to doing the requisite recalculations in time for a later fall submittal to the secretary," Van Luik said. Earlier this year the DOE asked the NRC for review in June of its plan on how a repository would perform. DOE asked for a delay in the review until July, then postponed it until August. The NRC has to license the construction and operation of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Before the commission begins formal hearings, NRC staffers are meeting with DOE scientists to review research collected over the past 20 years. But that review is not expected to affect the site recommendation. The DOE does not have to answer any questions from the NRC at this point, because the agency has not requested a license to build a repository, David Brooks, NRC section chief, said. The early review gives the DOE an opportunity to fill gaps of missing scientific information the NRC might find, Brooks said. NRC scientists already have asked for the DOE to calculate the consequences of a volcanic eruption through the repository during the first 1,000 years, when radiation doses would be high. The NRC has ordered DOE to calculate radiation doses in air, water and people -- even residents sealed inside their homes -- in case of such a catastrophic event. Van Luik said the DOE expects NRC to request more information. So far, the DOE does not have answers to questions concerning the speed and direction of ground water running through the mountain. If contaminated ground water escapes Yucca Mountain sooner than 10,000 years, the DOE would have to prove that people and the environment will still be safe within that period. Geohydrologist Martin Mifflin, a former NRC scientist, said the DOE has no idea about how ground water flows from the repository to the nearby farming community of Amargosa Valley. Faults and fractures could allow water to flow quickly from the repository to the valley, 12 miles away, he said. State consultants believe that water flowing through Yucca's fractures could corrode waste packages in less than 200 years, allowing radiation into the environment. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 NRC to Meet with American Electric Power to Discuss Safety Performance at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station Region III -- 2001 - 28- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-01-028 July 2, 2001 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with American Electric Power Company officials July 6 to discuss the NRC's annual assessment of safety performance at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Station near Bridgman, Michigan. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. EDT and will be held in the plant's Training Building. The plant is located at 7700 Red Arrow Highway between Bridgman and Stevensville, Michigan. NRC Region III Administrator Jim Dyer will participate in the meeting, and the public is invited to observe the session. NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions. The annual assessment, referred to as the End-of-Cycle assessment, evaluates safety performance at D.C. Cook from April 2000 through March 2001, and informs plant officials of the NRC's plans for future inspections at the facility. D.C. Cook's assessment will be unique because its two reactors were restarted from extended shutdowns during the assessment period. Unit 2 at D.C. Cook was restarted last June and Unit 1was restarted six months later. The reactors were returned to service after being shut down in 1997 when a design inspection raised questions about key plant emergency systems. The D.C. Cook assessment letter and inspection report are available at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppror from the Region III Public Affairs Office. Current performance information for the plant is available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html. ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear Reprocessing Sets Off Alarms Again Comment in Bush Plan Re-Energizes Old Debate By Guy Gugliotta Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 2, 2001; Page A03 Deep in the Bush administration's energy plan is a reference to an alternative approach to disposing of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. "Reprocessing," the plan asserts, could help alleviate one of the major drawbacks to nuclear energy. This statement has set off alarm bells among those concerned about nuclear proliferation. That's because reprocessing reactor waste can create plutonium, the raw material for nuclear weapons. "We're not sure what mischief the new administration is up to here, and who's pushing it," said Paul Levanthal, president of the anti-reprocessing Nuclear Control Institute. "Whatever the U.S. does on something like this really resonates throughout the rest of the world." If the United States embraces the reprocessing of nuclear waste -- something it has refused to do for the last 24 years -- it could lead to the proliferation of technologies that produce plutonium, and boost the amount of plutonium available around the world. That, critics say, could make it much more likely that weapons-grade plutonium could fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. Administration officials argue that they are sensitive to concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, and have no immediate plans to change long-standing U.S. policies. Their intentions, they say, are merely to solve the problem of nuclear waste, which is accumulating across the country. The energy plan said that the administration "will continue to discourage the accumulation of separated plutonium worldwide," and administration sources said that meant the United States would maintain a national moratorium on traditional reprocessing, which extracts plutonium from spent fuel. But at the same time, the plan encouraged research into another kind of reprocessing, which makes fuel that must be burned in "fast reactors" potentially capable of creating, or "breeding," more plutonium than they use. That's what has critics most concerned. "It sets off a lot of alarm bells," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank specializing in strategies to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. "The very strange thing is that the question seems to have been opened very casually by the Cheney plan," added Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, another reprocessing opponent. "The true consequences of this have to be debated, even if you like nuclear power." An administration source, who asked not to be quoted by name, said, "Not too much should be drawn from this," because the Cheney report "in and of itself is not a change in policy. "We did not say we wanted to proceed with construction of this [fast] reactor," the source continued. "We want this research to go forward, but that's a far cry from saying it will reach fruition. It would be a long way away." No government agency or business has ever recycled nuclear waste for commercial use on U.S. soil, a policy begun when President Jimmy Carter renounced reprocessing and plutonium breeder research in a secret 1977 executive order. The order, Presidential Directive 8, was declassified in 1994 and survives today as President Bill Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 13. For reprocessing research to resume, the directive would have to be either rescinded or reinterpreted. The Bush administration has not yet decided how to proceed. Currently only France, the United Kingdom and Russia reprocess spent fuel, and only France, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany burn the resulting finished plutonium oxide in nuclear plants. The limited market is due in part to proliferation concerns. Germany, whose coalition government includes the Greens party, formally agreed early this month to phase out nuclear power altogether, and reprocessing has only limited public support in several other nations. But the main reason is expense. Makhijani estimated that France, the world leader in recycling, could produce a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of recycled fuel for about $6,000, while a kilo of enriched uranium fuel like that used in U.S. reactors costs about $1,200. The chief consequence of reprocessing's poor economics is that over the years the world has accumulated about 210 tons of commercial -- and weapons-usable -- plutonium that does not have a market. "You can't give it away," said Thomas Cochran, who heads the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a reprocessing opponent. "And if that's the case, how economic is it to reprocess?" In traditional reprocessing, spent fuel is dissolved in acid, separating the uranium, plutonium and other fission products. The uranium can be re-enriched and recycled. The fission products are encased in glass and stored. The plutonium is recombined with uranium 238, made into rods and put into reactors. The fuel is called "mixed oxide," or "mox," and essentially substitutes plutonium 239 for the fissile uranium 235 in first-generation fuel. Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 13 continues the 24-year moratorium on a domestic mox reprocessing cycle because of the proliferation risks associated with isolating plutonium 239. Administration sources said the Cheney plan endorses this view. Independently of the energy plan, however, the Bush administration intends to move forward on a Clinton initiative to enlist Russia in a joint program to each convert 34 tons of surplus plutonium from nuclear weapons into mox. If the deal is closed, the United States would make its mox at an Energy Department facility in South Carolina, and Duke Power, a commercial utility, would burn it in two reactors in the Charlotte, N.C., area. The Energy Department will reimburse Duke for plant modifications and sell them mox at a subsidized price below what Duke would have to pay for enriched uranium fuel. Although "this program is not intended to create a plutonium economy," an Energy Department official said, it remains somewhat controversial because it requires the United States and its allies to build Russia its first mox plant, and puts Russia in the plutonium recycling business. "The mox plant is the very first piece of infrastructure that both U.S. and Russia are missing for a plutonium economy," Makhijani said. "It is a pretty big camel's nose issue." Still, burning weapons-grade plutonium is a policy with many advocates: "What is the philosophical question here?" asked James Lake, immediate past president of the American Nuclear Society, which supports reprocessing research. "My feeling is that burning up weapons is a good thing to do for world peace." The search for a proliferation-resistant alternative to mox has led several nations to consider a recycling technique called "pyroprocessing," mentioned favorably in the Cheney plan as a way to "reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance." In pyroprocessing, spent fuel is recovered as a metal, dissolved in a metallic salt and passed through an electric current. Lightweight fission products remain in solution, while the uranium goes to one electrode and plutonium and heavy metal byproducts go to another, where they are formed subsequently into fuel rods. Because the plutonium is never isolated, it is always radioactive, dangerous and "less and less attractive" to thieves, Lake said. "In theory, you can recycle tens of times, so that the technology becomes almost renewable." But for pyroprocessing to work even once, utilities would have to abandon today's nuclear plants in favor of "fast" reactors that allow neutrons to move about freely in the core. Fast neutrons are the best way to maintain a chain reaction among impure plutonium fuel rods. The trouble with fast reactors, however, is that when the core is surrounded with a blanket of uranium 238, the neutrons will combine with it to create more plutonium 239 than the reactor is using. For a rogue state, a fast breeder of this type can become a virtual plutonium factory. Advocates point out, however, that even if the Bush administration embraces the technology, it will take decades to mature, allowing plenty of time to work out the kinks. "What we do is store [spent] fuel for 20 to 30 years while we develop an entirely different infrastructure to use the technology," Lake said. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 11 Go-ahead needed on N-power money.telegraph.co.uk By Sophie Barker (Filed: 02/07/2001) BRITISH Energy chairman Robin Jeffrey has warned that the Government will have to give the green light to new nuclear power stations as early as next year if the company is to have time to replace its current stations. Last week's government energy review, which is to consider whether to allow new nuclear plants after a 14-year moratorium, is due to report by the end of the year, making the timetable for any new stations tight. Mr Jeffrey said designing and getting regulatory approval for the new stations would take three to five years, with a further four to six years just for construction. British Energy's two oldest sites, Hunterston B on the Scottish west coast and Hinkley Point B near Taunton, expire in 10 years' time. He also warned that "until there is a resolution of the problem over a nuclear waste repository, we are going to be very vulnerable to tremendous environmental criticism". Four years ago, waste management agency Nirex lost a vital planning inquiry over its proposals to locate a deep repository in Cumbria. The issue has been an albatross around the nuclear industry's neck ever since. The Government has calculated that, at current policies, the share of electricity generated by nuclear will slump from 25pc to just 3pc in 2020 while gas will soar from a third to half at a time when North Sea supplies are dwindling. British Energy and BNFL, Britain's other nuclear electricity generator, both say the economics of new build do not work unless the Government subsidises them or provides financial incentives for new stations such as a private finance initiative. ***************************************************************** 12 Shandong to Launch Nuclear Desalination Project Monday, July 02, 2001, updated at 15:41(GMT+8) East China's Shandong Province is to launch a sea water desalination project using nuclear energy in its eastern coastal area, which is short of fresh water. A local official said that the project will utilize technology related to nuclear energy developed by Beijing's Qinghua University. The project will require over one billion yuan. Once it is in operation, the project will have a daily production capacity of 160,000 tons of fresh water. Experts point out that nuclear technology can reduce the cost of desalination, as well as improve the production capacity. East China's Shandong Province is to launch a sea water desalination project using nuclear energy in its eastern coastal area, which is short of fresh water. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved | ***************************************************************** 13 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Monday, July 02, 2001 ADAMS - Items of Interest Recent Released Documents Added - Monday, July 02, 2001 These documents and others may be retrieved at the NRC Item ID: 011800202 Accession Number: ML011720048 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:23:38 AM Title: 05/21/01 Meeting Summary With TXU Electric To Discuss The Transfer Of The Facility Operting Licenses For Comanche Peak Electric Station Units 1 and 2. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800186 Accession Number: ML011660143 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:22:09 AM Title: 06/13/01 Meeting Summary With General Electric To Discuss Constant Pressure Power Uprate. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800196 Accession Number: ML011790514 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:22:57 AM Title: 06/13/2001 management mtg. w/Entergy Operations,Inc. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-IV/DRP Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800177 Accession Number: ML011720619 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:20:49 AM Title: 06/14/2001 Meeting with North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. - Seabrook Station Re plant performance assessment resulting from the initial implementation of the reactor oversight process as described in the Annual Assessement letter dated May 30, 2001. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-I Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800209 Accession Number: ML011790265 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:24:09 AM Title: 06/18/2001 management meeting w/Cooper Nuclear Station/Nebraska Public Power District. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-IV/DRP Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800262 Accession Number: ML011790086 Date Added: 6/29/01 12:24:32 PM Title: 06/22/01 Energy Committee Staff Memo, "Areas of Common Ground Between Republican and Democratic Energy Policy Bills." Author Affiliation: NRC/OCA Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800197 Accession Number: ML011770414 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:23:11 AM Title: 06/22/2001 Letter to Congress provides the NRC's legislative proposals Author Affiliation: NRC Chairman Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800366 Accession Number: ML011800415 Date Added: 6/29/01 4:14:09 PM Title: 07/12/01 Meeting with DEC re proposed change to Oconee TSs related to Emergency Feedwater System -CANCELLED. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800264 Accession Number: ML011800037 Date Added: 6/29/01 12:25:56 PM Title: 07/12/01, Forthcoming Meeting with DUKE License Renewal Applications for McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR//DRIP/RLSB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800052 Accession Number: ML011730014 Date Added: 6/29/01 9:13:39 AM Title: Comments on Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Environmental Report. Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS/FCSS/FSPB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800379 Accession Number: ML011800418 Date Added: 6/29/01 4:15:46 PM Title: Federal Register Notice: 128th Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Author Affiliation: NRC/SECY Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800267 Accession Number: ML011800109 Date Added: 6/29/01 12:26:09 PM Title: PNO-II-01-018A re Update of Site Contamination event for Studsvik Processing Facility. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-II Document/Report Number: PNO-II-01-018A _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800260 Accession Number: ML011770429 Date Added: 6/29/01 12:24:22 PM Title: Press Release-III-01-020: NRC To Meet With Nuclear Management Company To Discuss Safety Performance At The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. Author Affiliation: NRC/OPA:RGN-III/FO Document/Report Number: Press Release-III-01-020 _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800218 Accession Number: ML011790036 Date Added: 6/29/01 11:25:14 AM Title: Safety and Compliance Inspection report conducted on 05/30/01 at Department of Army. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-II Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800353 Accession Number: ML011800041 Date Added: 6/29/01 4:13:15 PM Title: SECY-00-0117 - "Weekly Information Report - Week Ending 06/22/01" Author Affiliation: NRC/EDO/AO Document/Report Number: SECY-01-0117 _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 011800271 Accession Number: ML011800133 Date Added: 6/29/01 12:26:34 PM Title: Speech-01-013: The Evolution Of Safety Goals And Their Connection To Safety Culture by Chairman Richard A. Meserve. Author Affiliation: NRC/Chairman, NRC/OCM/RAM Document/Report Number: Speech-01-013 ***************************************************************** 14 Reactor director files lawsuit alleging defamation News Tribune - 07/01/01 070101 state 6 The Jefferson City News Tribune COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- The director of the University of Missouri Research Reactor has filed a defamation lawsuit against two retired scientists. --> Sunday, July 1, 2001 COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- The director of the University of Missouri Research Reactor has filed a defamation lawsuit against two retired scientists. But Ed Deutsch's lawyer said the lawsuit would not intimidate other reactor employees from making legitimate complaints. "This lawsuit will have no chilling effect upon any citizen coming forward in good faith whose honest concern is improvement of the reactor or the university," attorney John McFarland said Friday. The reactor has been under review since March, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission questioned whether efforts to alleviate a "chilling effect" that kept employees from reporting safety issues at the reactor had worked. NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said the review "is still pending." "Whether or not such a lawsuit would contribute to the chilling effect would require further evaluation on the part of the agency," Strasma said. Deutsch's lawsuit filed Monday in Boone County Circuit Court seeks unnamed damages from retired scientists Bill Yelon of Columbia and Robert Berliner of Dexter, Mich. Deutsch claims he was defamed in written or oral remarks to the Missouri Ethics Commission, the university Board of Curators, the Columbia Daily Tribune and state Rep. Tim Harlan, D-Columbia. Yelon has told the Tribune that the ethics commission is investigating conflict of interest allegations involving the reactor. Deutsch alleges that the two researchers defamed him by saying that he dismissed certain employees for personal gain; that he improperly influenced the awarding of a noncompetitive contract with a private company; and that he "arbitrarily and capriciously" interpreted and enforced the university's conflict of interest regulations for his personal benefit. Deutsch contends that the defamatory remarks were made "with reckless disregard" for the truth at a time when the defendants "had serious doubt" about their veracity. The remarks damaged Deutsch's reputation and standing in the professional and local communities, humiliated him and caused him mental distress and suffering, the lawsuit alleges. Yelon declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday. Berliner was not available. In March, the NRC told the university that an investigation completed in October 2000 found that reactor employees were afraid to report alleged violations. While not fining the university, the federal agency gave it two months to hire outside evaluators to help assess the problem. The deadline to report back to the NRC was later extended. The NRC required the review in light of earlier offenses. In 1994, the commission issued a notice of violation for discriminating against two employees. The October 2000 investigation stemmed from two low-level safety violations that also did not carry fines. All Contents ©Copyright 2001 News Tribune Co. All rights ***************************************************************** 15 NRC to Meet with Nuclear Management Company Officials to Discuss Safety Performance at the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Region III -- 2001 - 28- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-01-029 July 2, 2001 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Nuclear Management Company officials July 9 to discuss the NRC's annual assessment of safety performance at the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant near Two Rivers, Wisconsin. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. CDT and will be held at the plant's Energy Information Center, 6610 Nuclear Road, north of Two Rivers. The public is invited to observe the meeting. NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions. The annual assessment, referred to as the End-of-Cycle assessment, evaluates safety performance at the Point Beach plant from April 2000 through March 2001, and informs plant officials of the NRC's plans for future inspections at the facility. The Point Beach assessment letter and inspection report are available at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppror from the Region III Public Affairs Office. Current performance information for the plant is available at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html. ***************************************************************** 16 Gov't to Build Spent Fuel Repository KoreaTimes : By Nho Joon-hun Staff Reporter The government has decided to unilaterally designate a site for the construction of a nuclear waste repository and induce local autonomous bodies to pursue the project. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy and the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Corp. have encouraged provincial regions to apply for the right to house the repository over the past year but no one has come forward. ``Considering the urgency of the situation, we have no alternative but to unilaterally designate a site and induce an local autonomous body to push ahead with the project,'' one energy official said. The construction of the repository has run into numerous problems with most residents refusing to accept the possibility of their neighborhood becoming home to a radioactive dump. The government had at one time selected Kurop-do, an island off Inchon, but the plan was called off after finding fatal faults in the formation of the rock bed. ``We have spent years publicizing the safety of the repository but the time has come for the government to be more aggressive since we are running out of time,'' the official said. Korea currently has 16 nuclear power plants responsible for more than 40 percent of all electricity produced, each of which is equipped with temporary nuclear waste storage facilities. ``For the time being, we are leaving the option of allowing provincial cities and counties to apply for the license since at least five of them are still considering the possibility,'' the official said. The government had initially encouraged some 46 cities and counties to house the repository, promising them tens of billions of won in incentives. ``We had extended the deadline for filing the application by four months to allow more time for autonomous bodies to come through with applications but it will soon become necessary to act more aggressively since we can virtually guarantee its safety,'' the energy official said. ***************************************************************** 17 Yggdrasil Institute: Uranium Enrichment Project Newsletter Uranium Enrichment Newsletter The Uranium Enrichment Newsletter, an electronic monthly, summarizes events in the US uranium enrichment establishment during the preceding month. Topics covered include developments within the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), contamination and cleanup at the gaseous diffusion plants, compensation for harmed workers and residents, the US-Russian High Enriched Uranium Agreement, and disposal of depleted uranium and contaminated scrap metal. 1999 + DECEMBER 2000 + JANUARY + FEBRUARY + MARCH + APRIL + MAY + JUNE + JULY + AUGUST + SEPTEMBER + OCTOBER + NOVEMBER + DECEMBER/JANUARY 2001 2001 + FEBRUARY + MARCH + APRIL + MAY + JUNE + JULY ==================================== Uranium Enrichment Newsletter JULY 2001 The Uranium Enrichment Project publishes a monthly online newsletter summarizing events within the US uranium enrichment establishment. The newsletter is edited by Mary Byrd Davis, who can be contacted at francenuc@francenuc.org. A grant from The John Merck Fund makes the newsletter possible. 1. Oak Ridge 2. Paducah 3. Portsmouth 4. US Department of Energy 5. United States Enrichment Corporation 6. Russia VII Proliferation VIII Alternative technology IX Depleted uranium I. OAK RIDGE The Fate of K-25 and K-27? In early June the US Department of Energy (DOE) sent copies of a report on decontamination and decommissioning options for the K-25 and K-27 process buildings to the Information Resource Center and the Oak Ridger. The engineering evaluation/cost analysis had been prepared for DOE by Science Applications International Corp. The Oak Ridger published an article, June 8, on the four alternatives described in the report. They were (1) "no action"; (2) leaving the facilities in place and continuing surveillance and maintenance; (3) decontaminating the equipment, demolishing the buildings, and disposing of the waste at the on-site Environmental Management Waste Management Facility; or (4) removing equipment, demolishing the facilities, and disposing of the waste at the on-site facility or at the Nevada Test Site. On June 18, however, the Oak Ridger published another article on the report, saying that DOE had stopped release of the document. DOE officials said that release was halted, because discussions had not been concluded on schedule with regulators and that a new version of the report will be released later this summer. (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 6/8/01, 6/18/01) Criticality safety In June DOE’s Office of Independent Environment, Safety and Health Oversight (EH-2) issued a review of nuclear criticality self-assessments by the Oak Ridge Operations Office and its contractors. The report stems from the Nuclear Criticality Safety Improvement Initiative that DOE established in November 1999. The Initiative required each DOE site to assess its criticality safety program. A field review by EH-2 in August of 2000 found that BNFL, Inc. had performed an adequate assessment and was implementing an appropriate corrective action plan. The situation in regard to Bechtel Jacobs was less satisfactory. The criticality accident risk was low, only because, at that time, few activities were being conducted that involved "significant quantities of fissile materials." A follow-up site visit by EH-2 in April of 2001 found that Bechtel Jacobs had by then completed various corrective actions in the K-25 vault, commissioned two internal reviews, and was in the process of developing corrective action plans. Criticism of CROET The Citizens’ Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee has expressed concern as to the lack of public involvement in the strategic plan of the DOE-funded Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (Croet). The plan basically reorganizes the agency. Because of the Advisory Panel’s position, some members of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee (LOC), of which the Advisory Panel is a part, have expressed concern that the Panel is investigating issues with which it should not be involved. The expressions of concern by LOC members were a response to an e-mail that DOE had sent to eighteen members in regard to "the value of maintaining the oversight group." (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 6/13/01) II. PADUCAH Affidavit on radioactive contamination Michael Thorne, a British radiation specialist, has stated in an affidavit that "if a PGDP production worker subject to chronic exposure above the legal limit of 5 rem per year dies of cancer, the probability that such cancer was caused by excess radiation at PGDP is significant, and substantially exceeds 50%." Thorne, a former scientific secretary on the International Commission on Radiological Protection, is an expert witness being paid by the plaintiffs in a $10 billion lawsuit against the Paducah plant’s former operators. "On the basis of internationally accepted radiation biology models and probabilistic risk assessment methodologies, the workers at PGDP were exposed to illegally excessive levels of radiation at the plant, and, if still living, have a significant and unacceptable probability of dying as a result," Thorne concluded. He found "the lack of historical records at PGDP to be appalling," but from the available data could calculate probable doses that were close to those calculated by DOE’s Exposure Assessment Project, which released a report in December 2000. (James R. Carroll and James Malone, The Courier Journal, 6/26/01; Affidavit of Dr. Miachel C. Thorne, 6/13/01). Community development A task force, chaired by Ken Wheeler, traveled to Washington in June to lobby administration officials for development of the Paducah area’s Information Age Park. The community group wants the Park to become a national laboratory for research and development on uranium enrichment and cleanup technology. (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 6/08/01; Paducah Sun, 7/01/01) Agreement on security Security Police and Fire Professionals of America Local 111 has reached an agreement with USEC Inc. that clarifies when security officers are allowed to be armed and that provides for the security force to upgrade its firearms this summer. Union President John Driskill expressed satisfaction with the agreement. The union’s five year contract is up for renewal March 1, 2002. (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 6/19/01) Cleanup funding Don Seaborg, DOE’s site manager for the Paducah plant, has stated publicly that DOE needs at least $158 million during the 2002 fiscal year if it is to cover ordinary operating expenses and prepare to meet the 2010 deadline for cleaning up the plant. The Bush administration has recommended $75.4 million. Estimated costs of cleanup are increasing, because of revised estimates on certain projects and the cost of removing contaminated materials from 150 storage areas, as required by the state Environmental Protection Agency. Disputes with state and federal regulators on whether contaminated soil in the North-South Diversion Ditch can be deposited in an on-site landfill and whether material in the classified materials landfill can be left in place could lead to additional increases. Shipping the dirt off site would increase cleanup costs by more than $30 million; and removing the classified material would add $232 million. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 6/22/01) Extension of time for a decision The US Department of Justice has filed in US District Court a request for an extension until August 13 of the government’s time to decide whether to join a suit charging that Lockheed Martin and its predecessors made false reports to the government about the extent of contamination at the plant. The suit was filed in June 1999 by former workers at the Paducah plant and the Natural Resources Defense Council, under the federal False Claims Act. In its filing, the Justice Department said that the Departments of Energy and Justice are in the process of considering recommendations from the Justice Department’s staff as to whether to join the suit. Meanwhile, attorneys for Lockheed Martin, the plaintiffs, and the Department of Justice are discussing terms of a possible out-of-court settlement. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 6/7/01; James R. Carroll, The Courier Journal, 6/12/01) III. PORTSMOUTH Compensation to dismissed workers June 21 USEC and DOE signed a plan setting compensation for the workers that USEC is laying off as a result of the end to production at the Portsmouth plant. The plan covers only salaried workers at this time, as the union and USEC must reach an agreement on compensation for hourly workers. Each salaried worker who has been at the plant since before July 1, 1993, the date when USEC took over, can choose to receive $17,500 in a single payment. People who have worked a shorter time can receive $12,500. They also have the option of taking normal severance benefits based on the length of time that they have worked. They will be eligible for temporary health insurance coverage and for retraining and relocation expenses. These benefits are in addition to $8,400 that workers laid off between November 21, 2000 and October 1, 2003 may receive as a result of an agreement that the company entered into last summer--Rep. Ted Strickland dropped a suit to prevent USEC from selling electricity, in return for USEC’s entering into a binding agreement to fund the benefit. Ted Strickland had written to Energy Secretary Abraham June 5 harshly criticizing DOE for moving forward with an agreement with USEC that did not provide for public input nor include a workforce restructuring plan and that required employees accepting the $8,400 payment to waive their right to bring any claims against USEC. Dan Minter, president of the PACE union representing hourly workers, had written a letter of criticism to Abraham June 4 that made much the same points. Strickland characterized the final plan as better than what was first proposed but as falling short of what the workers deserve. Approximately one fourth of the 1700 workers at Portsmouth will lose their jobs. (Letters from Strickland and Minter; Associated Press, 6/21/01) IV. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) Review of legal agreements Rep. James Greenwood (R-PA) has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review DOE’s cleanup program with a specific focus on the legal agreements that govern the cleanup effort at the various sites. He wants the GAO to look into the agreements and their history, to find out whether they are actually addressing the risks to human health and the environment, and to learn what has happened when DOE has not complied with them and whether any have been renegotiated. (Les Blumenthal, Scripps-McClatchy western service, 6/13/01) Supplemental budget request President Bush submitted to Congress June 1 a $6.5 billion supplemental budget request for the current fiscal year. The request included $180 million for DOE’s environmental cleanup program. Congress had not completed action on the request by the end of June, and was also still working on the budget for the coming fiscal year. Compensation for sick workers Public meetings on the Congressionally mandated compensation program for nuclear weapons workers made ill by their work were held near the three gaseous diffusion plants in June. Some of the workers who attended sought changes in provisions of the program, in particular the lack of an appeals process independent of the Department of Labor (DOL) which will administer the program, rules about medical disagreements that allow DOL to select and appoint a "referee," and the refusal to give compensation to sons and daughters of deceased workers who were not under eighteen or in college when the parent died. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 6/20/01; Vina Colley, Personal Communication) V. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC) Chief operating officer USEC Inc. has announced that Dennis R. Spurgeon has joined the company as executive vice president and chief operating officer. He will be responsible for production activities, marketing, and sales. His career includes serving as chief operating officer at UNC Resources (formerly United Nuclear Corporation) where he was responsible for operation of a uranium recovery facility, the manufacturing of reactor cores for the Navy, and operation of the "N" reactor. During the Ford administration he was assistant director for fuel cycle in the US Energy Research and Development Administration and a member of the White House task force that developed President Ford’s nuclear policy. He holds an MS in nuclear engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a BS from the US Naval Academy. (USEC Press Release, 6/5/01) Bid to build power plant Kentucky’s Governor Paul Patton issued an executive order June 19 instructing state agencies to suspend acceptance of power plant applications while the new Kentucky State Energy Policy Advisory Board assesses environmental and energy issues related to power plants. A consortium that includes USEC has submitted a bid to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for construction of a 600 MW plant near Paducah (See UEN, 6/01), but did not file its permit application for the plant with the Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet before Patton imposed the moratorium. TVA is expected to announce finalists July 16 and the winning bidder October 15. Neither TVA nor USEC has said whether the moratorium will have any effect on the USEC bid. (Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 6/22/01) VI. RUSSIA Protection from creditors President Bush has extended for a year President Clinton’s executive order of June 21, 2000, ensuring that money that Russia receives for down-blended uranium cannot be seized by Russia’s creditors. In his announcement of the extension, Bush said that ensuring that "fissile material removed from Russian nuclear weapons pursuant to various arms control and disarmament agreements is downblended" is "a major national security goal of the United States." (White House Press Release, 6/13/01) US-Russian HEU agreement According to an unnamed senior White House official, the Bush administration is looking into possible new approaches to implementation of the US-Russian High-Enriched Uranium (HEU) Agreement, which would provide Russia with more money and would more completely meet US security objectives. In a report accompanying the House Appropriations Committee’s Fiscal Year 20002 energy and water development appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee "strongly urged" DOE to work with USEC Inc. to find new ways to increase Russian deliveries of down-blended weapons uranium. The Committee urged the administration to "explore options such as securing a second U.S. executive agent for the purchase; down-blending the [additional] material but leaving it in Russia until it can be sold onto international markets without adverse impacts; and working with the international community to purchase" more down-blended weapons uranium. (Nuclear News Flashes, 6/22/01 and 6/26/01 from www.platts.com) Russian uranium supplies The Interfax News Agency, Mining & Metals Report, circulated May 17, a lengthy portion of a speech by a Russian on the uranium market. The speaker, who is not named but who appears to be knowledgeable about the worldwide uranium industry, states that in the short term Russia is likely to turn into an "importer instead of an exporter of natural uranium." Russia will drawn down its present uranium inventory to supply "its internal fuel deficit," while it develops new capacities for production. 7. PROLIFERATION Iraq Dr. Khidir Hamza, former head of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program, has told the American Enterprise Institute, that Iraq has "the full technology" to make nuclear bombs. The question is whether it has sufficient fissile material. Hamza said that according to German intelligence estimates Iraq has 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium and 12 tons of natural uranium, which, if enriched, would provide material for about six bombs. He speculated that Iraq may be putting into place a uranium enrichment program based on "diffusion" technology. Hamza defected from Iraq in 1994. (Janine Zacharia, The Jerusalem Post, 6/21/01) 8. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY Silex Silex Systems Ltd. announced June 20 that its laser-based Silex uranium enrichment technology has been officially classified by the US and the Australian governments. The decision reflects the governments’ determination that the Silex technology (Separation of Isotopes by Laser EXcitation) has the potential to separate practical quantities of uranium isotopes. The current phase of the Silex development program focuses on the separation of uranium in sufficient quantities to allow the direct measurement of enrichment performance. Silex expects to have results by the end of the year. USEC will then decide whether to proceed to the next phase of development, a plant-scale test loop. (Silex Systems Ltd. Press Release 6/20/01) 9. DEPLETED URANIUM Wide use of recycled uranium Peter Eisler revealed in USA Today June 25 that a review of federal documents shows that government agencies produced 250,000 tons of contaminated uranium as the result of reprocessing irradiated fuel and that between 1952 and 1999 it shipped this uranium to more than one hundred federal plants, private companies, and universities. The level of impurities in the shipments varied, and DOE does not know which shipments were the most contaminated. At some facilities, processing of the contaminated uranium concentrated dangerous isotopes, thus increasing the risk to workers handling the material. Although the recycled uranium posed a risk of soil and groundwater contamination, there has been little attempt to check for environmental contamination from recycled uranium, except at the enrichment plants. Three examples of hot spots are the Mallinckrodt Chemical fuel production plant in Hematite, Missouri, the Harshaw Chemical plant in Cleveland, and the Sylvania-Corning plant in Hicksville on Long Island. State of Missouri investigators have wondered for years why wells near the Mallinckrodt plant were contaminated with technetium. Now they think they know. The Bush administration has no plans to assess health risks or to investigate possible environmental contamination at newly identified facilities where contaminants were concentrated. Ellen Livingston, senior environmental policy adviser at DOE, simply says that "We will make our records available, and we’ll provide people to help interpret them." Yggrasil Institute is a project of P.O. Box 131, Georgetown, KY 40324 E-mail: · Tel.: (502) 868-9074 ***************************************************************** 18 NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Applications for North Anna, Surry Press Release 2001 - 077 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA No. 01-077 June 29, 2001 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the availability of applications for 20-year renewals of the operating licenses for the North Anna Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Surry Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2. Virginia Electric Power Company, operator of the four units, submitted the applications on May 29. The North Anna nuclear facility is located 40 miles northwest of Richmond, Virginia, in Luisa County. The current operating licenses expire on April 1, 2018, for Unit 1 and August 21, 2020, for Unit 2. The Surry nuclear facility is located 17 miles northwest of Newport News, Virginia, in Surry County. The operating license for Unit 1 expires on May 25, 2012, and the license for Unit 2 on January 29, 2013. Copies of the applications are being made available electronically to allow time for the public to become familiar with them. They are located on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/index.html , and are also available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRC Public Document Room staff at 301/415-4737 or 1/800/397-4209, or by sending a message to pdr@nrc.govvia e-mail. In addition, a copy of the license renewal application for the North Anna plant is available at the Alderman Library of the University of Virginia, and a copy of the Surry application at the Swem Library of the College of William and Mary. The NRC staff is 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 "docket," or file, the applications and will announce an opportunity to request a hearing. ***************************************************************** 19 Uranium plant closing hurts struggling region Chicago Tribune | Print Edition -- July 2, 2001 Ohio facility built to supply military By John Nolan Associated Press July 1, 2001 PIKETON, Ohio -- In the coming months, Marybeth Hamel and hundreds of her co-workers at one of the nation's last two uranium enrichment plants will lose some of the best-paying jobs in a region long plagued by high unemployment. U.S. Enrichment Corp. says it can no longer afford to operate the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a massive facility the government built in the 1950s to produce enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and military reactors, because of low prices caused by a market glut for nuclear plant fuel. Production stopped in May, and last month layoffs of nearly a quarter of the plant's 1,700 workers began. The rest will remain to handle contract work and maintain equipment. The plant employed more than 3,000 people in the 1980s. The company will keep a sister plant in Paducah, Ky., open, and it will buy highly enriched Russian uranium from that country's decommissioned nuclear warheads. Some members of Congress, which voted to make the company private in 1998 to give it more flexibility to respond to market conditions, are now angry that it is laying off former federal workers who helped get the country through the Cold War. The company agreed to keep the southern Ohio plant in a "cold standby status" so that it can be restarted if needed. For Hamel, it will be her second layoff from the plant in a decade. But unlike last time, she isn't going to wait around for another job--she already has been accepted into a nurse training program in Nashville. U.S. Enrichment has earmarked $20 million for community development, severance pay and extended benefits for laid-off workers, who on average earned $40,000 a year with another $20,000 in benefits. But that does little to cushion the shock for workers who have spent decades at the plant, union officials say. "We have people who have never worked anywhere else," said Garry Sexton, a safety representative for the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy International Union Local 5-689. "They came out of high school here." "We've been on a roller-coaster ride for a long time, ever since privatization," said Sexton, a 17-year employee. "It's been a ride, with people not knowing what their destiny is going to be." Union President Dan Minter said meeting with plant veterans who are losing jobs is an emotional drain. He has traveled to Washington repeatedly to lobby for government attention for the workers. The region, with rolling green hills and sweeping views of the Ohio River, historically has the state's highest unemployment. Pike County, home to the plant, had a 6.9 percent unemployment rate in April, nearly double the statewide rate. Hamel, 35, of Lucasville, said she doesn't know when exactly her layoff date will be. She just knows it is coming. Her father worked at the plant and has retired. Her brother, sister-in-law and brother-in-law also work there. Her current job is working as a safety representative for plant subcontractor Bechtel Jacobs. She is hoping to parlay her experience into a new career as an occupational nurse. Her daughter, Bethany, an 8th-grader, cries at the prospect of leaving her 300-student school for a 1,700-student building full of strangers in Nashville. "She's been a cheerleader since 3rd grade," Hamel said. "She didn't go out for cheerleading this year because she didn't want to take another girl's spot. It broke her heart." ***************************************************************** 20 Blair warned of need for early go-ahead on nuclear stations © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd 03 July 2001 06:40 GMT+1 Home > News > Business > News By Michael Harrison Business Editor 02 July 2001 British Energy is to tell Tony Blair that he must give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations as early as next year to prevent Britain being held to ransom by oil and gas producers in some of the world's most volatile regions. The nuclear electricity generator will also use its submission to the Prime Minister's energy review to warn that a major building programme is the only way for Britain to meet its Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Robin Jeffrey, British Energy's chairman, said yesterday that it would take up to 12 years to bring a new nuclear station into service given the length of time involved in getting licensing and planning approval and then building it. British Energy's seven AGR (advanced gas-cooled reactor) stations start to close in 10 years time beginning with Hunterston B in Scotland in 2011 and ending with Heysham 2 and Torness in 2018. This means that if the Government wants to have a new breed of stations ready to fill the gap, it will have to push the button on a new-build programme next year, said Mr Jeffrey. The energy review, being conducted by the pro-nuclear Energy minister Brian Wilson, is due to report by Christmas. British Energy is expected to advocate building at least six new stations on its existing sites, where there is already local support for nuclear power and infrastructure which could help reduce costs. The company is also considering changing its name to incorporate "nuclear" into the title. But even with cheaper and more cost-effective designs, new nuclear stations would still remain uncompetitive with gas and coal-fired stations, Mr Jeffrey admitted. For this reason, the company is likely to propose either a carbon tax on fossil-fuel power stations or government support for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the shape of cheap finance or a Public-Private Partnership deal. British Energy is also exploring the idea of forging joint ventures with other nuclear operators such as British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to provide the financing and expertise needed. If none of Britain's nuclear reactors, including the six Magnox stations owned by BNFL, are replaced, then the proportion of Britain's energy needs met by nuclear provision will fall from 25 per cent today to 3 per cent by 2020. According to some estimates, this would mean having to take half all the cars in Britain off the roads in order to meet the targets set out by the Kyoto Treaty. Mr Jeffrey criticised the current regulatory approach to the electricity industry, saying this had encouraged generators to take a short-term attitude to the country's requirements at the expense of its long-term interests and the need to ensure diversity and security of supply. His views were echoed by the chief executive of BNFL, Norman Askew, who intends to put forward plans for five or six new nuclear stations on existing Magnox sites based on the Westinghouse AP600 design which has already been licensed in the US. "Is relying on gas from Russia and oil from the Middle East a good energy policy for the future?" he asked. Mr Jeffrey said that before a new nuclear programme went ahead, government and industry would have to agree on the ever-contentious issue of how and where to store spent nuclear fuel. "Until we resolve this issue we are going to be vulnerable to tremendous environmental criticism," he said. "To obtain public acceptability. There should at least be a decision on the location of the site." FirstDown.co.uk ***************************************************************** 21 Analysis: Nuclear, no thanks Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | The government's review of Britain's energy needs will have to make some tough choices. But a revival of atomic power is not the solution Special report: Britain's nuclear industry David Walker Monday July 2, 2001 The Guardian Reaction to Brian Wilson's grand review of the United Kingdom's energy needs over the next 50 years has focused on nuclear revival. Like a zombie from the cooling ponds, atomic power is about to return to favour in Washington DC and, judging by Mr Wilson's enthusiasm, in high places in Whitehall too. The review will be a sharp test of how quickly trade and industry's new secretary of state, Patricia Hewitt, and new permanent secretary, Robin Young, get sucked into a departmental culture that has traditionally been pro-nuclear and, critics charge, unwelcoming to wind and other renewable energy. Nuclear electricity fell from grace because it costs more. That fundamental objection remains - let alone environmental and health worries. A new German study says electricity from new atomic plant would not be cheaper than that generated from natural gas during the next two decades, even if gas prices rose 50%. Talk about new low-cost reactors is hot air. When future disposal and reprocessing costs are added in - and not palmed off on the taxpayer - the nuclear option is simply too dear. If the argument is centred on carbon emissions, investment in wind and renewable power sources looks competitive as well as cleaner. It does in Germany and Denmark, where 40% of electricity is to be generated from wind power by 2020. Kremlinologists will note the wording in the review's rubric. Carbon dioxide emissions from UK energy consumption will increase by 0.01-0.3% a year to 2050 "on unchanged policies . . . including the expected progressive decommissioning of nuclear power stations". Will that "expected" change? Much depends on the review's transparency and on how much interest the Treasury shows in the fiscal politics of energy. Andrew Smith, chief secretary, is on the review's advisory group, along with Michael Meacher from environment and rural affairs. Strangely, certain areas of public policy - police, prisons and nuclear power - have in the past been exempted from the fierce scrutiny that is allegedly the Treasury's calling card. The intellectual drive behind the review is supposed to come from the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office, which is due to report by the end of the year. (To cover its back, the government has yet to decide whether the PIU's work will be a report "of" rather than "to" the government.) Will it have the clout to resist the DTI? The official billing says it will be entirely joined-up and inter-departmental. At best it might be like the defence review that Labour instigated on taking office in 1997. This won plaudits for linking its assessment of the need for armed forces with foreign policy. The energy review, by analogy, would need to marry analysis of where the energy comes from - the chart shows official projections, broken down by fuel - with consumption. It is based on present-day policies continuing, which is why renewables would fall as a proportion of energy use. On the demand side there are car use, lifestyle, our profligacy with energy in leisure and at work. The signs are that the review will narrow its gaze, as if production and demand are separa ble. Mr Wilson is a Scot and might feel a need to consider the politics of energy. Exhaustion of the UK's North Sea oil and gas reserves will kill one of the nationalists' great themes. The UK's passage from being a net exporter of energy, or at least in a position of national self-sufficiency, to becoming dependent on imports has political as well as balance- of-trade consequences. By 2006, the UK is expected to be importing up to 15% of its gas, compared with 2% now. Meeting Kyoto targets, let alone more ambitious cuts in carbon emissions, "will require fundamental changes in energy and fuel markets" and what the review coyly calls the management of energy demand - dearer petrol in common parlance. Enhanced competition in energy markets may conflict with diminishing consumption. So energy becomes a profound test of the way we govern ourselves because policy goals collide - cheaper supply versus conservation, for example. Can conservation be aligned with social justice? Later this week the Joseph Rowntree Foundation publishes a study of the distributional consequences of dearer energy*. Motorists among the poorest fifth of the population commit up to 24% of their spending to running a car. The richest fifth spend 16%. Public transport will not easily replace cars. Fares are high relative to their incomes and routes do not pass by hospitals, colleges and shops. The climate change levy on industrial users of energy just introduced by Labour - which has been criticised for failing to distinguish the sources of the energy that it taxes - contradicts the government's earlier decision to cut tax on domestic fuel. Recently, both domestic and industrial energy use have been steady or falling, despite falling real prices. The 20-year projection is that their share of total consumption will continue to drop. The growth sector is transport, set to rise from 34% to 37% of the total, increasing its use of energy from the energy equivalent of 55m tonnes of carbon to 72m by 2020. That suggests a better chair for the review might have been Stephen Byers, though since he has just arrived at transport, local government and regions from the pro-nuclear pastures of trade, perhaps that is not such a good idea. *Transport, the environment and social exclusion by Karen Lucas, Tim Grosvenor and Roona Simpson, www.jrf.org.uk d.walker@guardian.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 City to fund ROK A-victim treatment Daily Yomiuri On-Line Yomiuri Shimbun Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba announced last Tuesday his intention to provide for the cost of travel and accommodation for South Korean atomic bomb survivors who visit Japan for medical treatment. The new program may be part of the city government's budget for the next fiscal year at the earliest. If realized, this will be the first time a local government has provided for the cost of medical treatment for South Korean atomic bomb survivors. Previously, volunteer organizations have provided for 20-30 South Korean victims to travel to Japan each year to receive treatment. It is believed that about 2,000 atomic bomb survivors live in South Korea, most of whom were exposed to the Hiroshima bombing and have suffered from various diseases as a consequence. The Japanese and South Korean governments previously provided for the cost of transporting South Korean victims for medical treatment in Japan and other expenses, but only during the period from 1980 to 1986. It is estimated that traveling and accommodation expenses total about 150,000 yen per person. The Hiroshima municipal government plans to decide details such as the number of victims to be funded and the amount of money to be provided at a later date. The Hiroshima local government also plans to invite officials from a South Korean nursing home for atomic bomb victims to a special seminar on the care of such persons. The South Korean nursing home was built with a 4 billion yen grant from the Japanese government. Akiba said, "In consideration of the recent Osaka District Court's decision (that ordered the central government to provide a medical allowance to a South Korean atomic bomb victim), it is necessary for the Hiroshima municipal government to expand its support program for atomic bomb victims living abroad." Kang Mun Hui, 82, a Korean nuclear bomb victim living in Japan and a member of a group that provides for medical treatment in Japan for victims living in South Korea said: "Travel and accommodation expenses to receive medical treatment in Japan will be quite a financial burden for the victims. If Hiroshima's program materializes, it will open the door for many victims in South Korea to receive medical treatment." Copyright The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 2 Cold War-museum exhibit jogs memories of nuclear holocaust [The Ottawa Citizen Online National Page] Monday 2 July 2001 Diefenbunker displays some stark images of the atomic bomb, Melanie Brooks reports. Melanie Brooks The Ottawa Citizen At 0.006 seconds, a nuclear explosion looks like a cold white sun coming up over the horizon. At 0.034 seconds, it starts to look like the typical mushroom cloud we all know from the movies: the top a perfect half circle, a cloud of radioactive dust starting to billow out at the bottom. At 0.1 seconds, the cloud is half a kilometre wide. At eight seconds, it's all over, except for the radioactive ash and debris that will plague survivors for generations. At the Diefenbunker, Canada's Cold War Museum, the gruesome history of the atomic bomb is displayed in a series of stark black and white photos, colour images of its aftermath and a series of pictures detailing the construction and sale of the weapons of mass destruction. Visibility and Invisibility in the Nuclear Era is a display by the Atomic Photographers Guild, an international organization of documentary photographers established in 1986 by Montreal photographer Robert Del Tredici. "The atomic power seemed very important, but no one was keeping track of the materials end of it or the documentation of the aftermath. We started to," he said. "It was the height of the Cold War. Everyone was terrified of a holocaust." The first atomic explosion in New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, is detailed in second-by-second images. After the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, photographer Yoshito Matsushige was the only photographer to get pictures of the horrific aftermath. His five pictures, in grainy black and white, show buildings collapsed like decks of cards, bandaged Japanese huddled together in an artificial twilight and demolished homes. In another display, photographer David McMillan illustrates the deserted and deadly land left behind after the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident in 1986 that left the area saturated with radiation. Taking pictures of these sites can be dangerous for the photographers because of the lingering radiation. "You try not to think about it," said Blake Fitzpatrick, an atomic photographer from Peterborough. "You monitor the radiation, but you have to go in it to get the pictures." The exhibit, featuring work from 13 photographers, will be at the Diefenbunker until Sept. 15. "The Cold War isn't over," said Mr. Del Tredici, looking at the image of a mushroom cloud. "The weapons are still there. This display is to jog people's memories of that." [UP] Copyright © 2001 CanWest Interactive, a CanWest company. All ***************************************************************** 3 Researchers assessing fallout of pre-'56 X-rays at K-25 July 2, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer Researchers assessing fallout of pre-'56 X-rays at K-25 While conducting a study of deaths from multiple myeloma among workers at the K-25 plant in Oak Ridge, researchers identified a source of radiation not considered in earlier projects that looked at occupational illness -- medical X-rays. In particular, the research team from NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) became interested in K-25's use of photofluorography for chest X-rays of workers until 1956, when an equipment switch was made to the conventional technique still in use. The photofluorographic technique, which produced an image of the chest on a fluorescent screen, reportedly delivered a radiation dose to the bone marrow that was about 100 times greater than today's X-ray method (800 millirads vs. 8 millirads). Dr. John Cardarelli, the principal investigator for NIOSH, said researchers raised questions when they came across X-ray films at Oak Ridge that were a different size (4-by-10 inches) than the conventional film size (14-by-17). The smaller images are associated with photofluorography. The health implications of the discovery are not clear, but the NIOSH team felt the information was potentially significant enough to alter risk estimates for K-25 employees whose work records showed relatively low-dose radiation histories. Indeed, based on a limited study of 45 workers, the exposures from the work-related chest X-rays dwarfed the amount of radiation received from occupational activities at the uranium-enrichment plant. "This is a very small study," Cardarelli cautioned. Nonetheless, NIOSH determined that if this information were excluded from an epidemiological study, many of those nuclear workers at K-25 would have been placed in "inappropriate" dose categories. That's why the team went ahead and reported this issue in a separate paper, even though the major study of mortality rates from multiple myeloma at K-25 won't be completed for at least another year. Cardarelli said NIOSH researchers planned to use the medical X-ray information in current epidemiological studies and address questions about the historical use of photofluorography in upcoming projects. All the government's World War II-era nuclear facilities, including Y-12 and X-10 in Oak Ridge, used the photofluorographic technique because it was an economical way to get chest images in large quantity, Cardarelli said. He said he didn't know when the other facilities abandoned the use of photofluorography. "It all depends on when they purchased new X-ray equipment, which is not something that is purchased very often," he said. The NIOSH researcher said the photofluorographic technique was widely used in the general population for tuberculosis screening. Cardarelli said the dose information from medical X-ray records would probably have more impact on studies of workers at relatively low-level radiation facilities, such as K-25, than at facilities in Hanford, Wash., where workers historically received higher radiation exposures. Of course, this new information also raises questions about previous studies done at K-25 and the other Oak Ridge facilities. How much would this have changed the radiation-dose profiles of Oak Ridge workers? Would it alter risk estimates? According to the NIOSH report, previous studies of nuclear workers have not included radiation exposures from work-related X-rays for several reasons. For instance, there was a "perception" that the contribution from chest X-rays would be low compared to other sources of radiation at the plant, and "epidemiologists have traditionally assumed that exposures from work-related X-rays would be randomly distributed throughout the working population, so that effects associated with this exposure would not influence the analysis." The research team discounted both of those assumptions. The chest X-rays actually turned out to be the biggest radiation source for some workers, and documents indicated that radiation workers typically received more chest X-rays than other, nonexposed workers, NIOSH said. Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. ***************************************************************** 4 Scientists looking at readiness of nuclear-test sites Philly.com July 2, 2001 Go to: S M The White House says it has no plans to end a moratorium on weapons testing. Still, the move is prompting concerns. By Jonathan S. Landay INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has asked U.S. nuclear-weapons scientists to examine ways that nuclear-test explosions beneath the Nevada desert could resume more quickly if the government decides to end a nine-year moratorium on nuclear testing. It would now take one to three years to prepare a test, and a recent study concluded that such long lead times could allow political opponents to block any resumption of nuclear testing. Nuclear-weapons scientists are looking at "what it would take to do various kinds of tests on various time scales," C. Bruce Tarter, the director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. Tarter and others said the administration had not decided to resume testing. Nevertheless, the review is likely to add to fears that President Bush might end the testing moratorium and push for developing "low yield" nuclear warheads that some weapons scientists and conservative lawmakers advocate. Bush has said he has no plans to end the moratorium. But Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have argued that the safety and potency of the U.S. arsenal can be assured only by periodically detonating randomly selected warheads underground. "This is all part of a well-coordinated effort inside and outside the government to basically resume production of nuclear weapons," charged Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Chicago-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an arms-control journal. "If you are going to do that, you are going to need to test, and this is what this exercise is all about." Schwartz said the readiness review of the Nevada Test Site could provide "cover to China and Russia, and maybe even India and Pakistan," to begin preparing to resume their own nuclear tests if the United States abandons its self-imposed moratorium on testing. Tarter dismissed such concerns. "Understanding the state of readiness, I think, is a nonprovocative activity," he said. The study of test-site readiness comes as the Pentagon conducts a separate review of U.S. nuclear strategy and forces ordered by Bush. The issues being examined include radical cuts in America's nuclear arsenal and the future of the moratorium. Bush supported the Senate's 1999 rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, saying a permanent global ban on nuclear testing would be unverifiable. His refusal to call for a new Senate vote on the treaty provoked a diplomatic protest by the European Union. Britain, France and Russia are among 76 nations that have ratified the 1996 treaty. Like the United States, China has signed but not ratified the pact, and is observing a test moratorium. Many experts say that returning to underground tests is unnecessary and could undermine the international nuclear arms-control system and provoke a new nuclear-arms race. These experts contend that the United States can continue to rely on the so-called Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that its estimated 10,500 warheads remain defect-free. The program uses experiments, computer simulations, warhead inspections, and tests of non-nuclear components. The Nevada Test Site is spread across 1,350 square miles of desert northwest of Las Vegas. The main U.S. nuclear proving ground, it conducted 100 atmospheric and 828 underground tests between 1951 and 1992. It still conducts "subcritical" tests of nuclear components. Tarter said the examination of the site's readiness to resume full-scale tests involves experts from the site, the Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories, and a commission Congress appointed in 1999 to examine the nation's ability to maintain safe and reliable nuclear warheads without test explosions. In a Feb. 1 report, the commission expressed concern about insufficient funding, crumbling infrastructure, low morale and other problems at the nuclear laboratories, nuclear weapons-production plants, and the Nevada Test Site. The panel, headed by John S. Foster Jr., a former weapons designer, found it would take the test site 12 to 36 months to prepare a test. "It is the panel's view that such lead times are unacceptable," the report said. "It seems prudent to take cost-effective steps to reduce lead times for testing to give future presidents a practical set of options for sustaining confidence in the stockpile." Jonathan Landay's e-mail address is jlanday@krwashington.com. ***************************************************************** 5 First Workers' Compensation Resource Center Opens energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release July 2, 2001 WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Labor have opened the first Resource Center to provide compensation to individuals who developed illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons production-related activities. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao visited Paducah, Ky. to open the Resource Center at a dedication ceremony today. "I join Secretary Chao in supporting the workers who played a very important role in this country's defense mission," said Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. "The Resource Centers are a visible sign of our commitment to put words into action, and help our workers get the medical benefits they need." Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act passed last year, the Labor Department has responsibility to administer compensation and medical benefits to current and former contractor employees with specific types of illnesses caused by their work. The Energy Department, which jointly funds the Resource Center, will help workers file state workers' compensation claims at or near Energy Department sites. The Paducah Resource Center is the first of 10 such centers opening around the country. Other Resource Centers will be opening in Las Vegas, Nev.; Richland, Wash.; Rocky Flats, Colo.; Espanola, N.M.; Idaho Falls, Idaho; North Augusta, S.C.; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Anchorage, Alaska; and Portsmouth, Ohio. Personal assistance to help file workers' claim forms can also be received at the following Labor Department District Offices: Seattle, Wash.; Denver, Colo.; Cleveland, Ohio; and Jacksonville, Fla. Media Contact: Dolline Hatchett 202/ 586-5806 Release No. R-01-108 ***************************************************************** 6 Norway fears raising Russian sub will increase radiation risk Ananova - Russia has been warned the risk of a radiation accident in the Arctic will increase if it rushes its attempt to raise the Kursk. The submarine sank last year, killing all 118 crewmen aboard. Russia plans to raise it in an operation to begin this month and last until September. Norway's Nuclear Protection Board has expressed concern about the short time schedule. The submarine, which has nuclear reactors and unexploded torpedoes aboard, is laying under 356 feet of water. The wreck is near rich fishing grounds of the Barents Sea, north of Norway and Russia. The Norwegian board asked Russia for more information about the planned operation, saying it sees the risk of an accident as small but present. Board spokesman Per Strand said: "There is a risk of the raising operation itself going wrong, that they, for example, lose the submarine. That could result in the reactor being more damaged. "The Barents Sea is one of the world's cleanest oceans, and it is not desirable to have any kind of uncertainty about the important fisheries resources in that area." Russian navy officials have insisted that the operation, to be led by the Dutch salvage company Smit International, is safe. Russia and international divers plan to drill 26 holes in the 14,000 ton wreck to attach lifting cables from a giant barge on the surface. The Kursk would then be brought to the port of Murmansk, in northwestern Russia. Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd Terms and ***************************************************************** 7 House votes to restore SRS funds that Bush cut .cutline { font-size : 8pt; font-family : Verdana; font-weight : normal; font-style : normal; color : #fffeec; text-indent : 1pt; } Weather Local News HELP | FAQ | FORUMS Search CURRENT - RADAR FORECAST [ height=5 src=] · Business · Classifieds · Columnists · Education · Front Page · Impact · Live Wire · Local News · Nation &World · Neighbors · Obituaries · Opinion · Politics · Weather · Gamecocks · Local Sports · Preps · Tigers · Books · Crossword · Food · Health · Home &Garden · Life &Arts · Travel · TV Listings · Weekend [ border=] · About The State · Advertising · Archives · Circulation · Editorial · Engagements · Job Openings · Newsroom · NIE · Online · Weddings [ border=] · By E-mail · By Fax · By Phone · By Mail [ height=5 src=] [ height=5 src=] E-mail this page| Printer-friendly version| Speak out in our forums ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- House votes to restore SRS funds that Bush cut Senate action is still needed to ensure the funding and prevent layoffs By MICHELLE R. DAVIS Washington Bureau Some of the money slashed from the Savannah River Site's proposed budget earlier this year is on its way to being replaced by federal lawmakers, to help aid cleanup efforts and prevent lay-offs at the state's nuclear facility. Earlier in the year, the president's budget proposal for 2002 cut $159 million from overall federal spending for environmental management at the Savannah River Site. While President Bush proposed $970 million, budgeters in the U.S. House this week raised that to $1.1 billion. The full House approved the measure Thursday. However, the Senate still must vote on the issue. House budgeters also addressed concerns by state officials that the South Carolina nuclear facility near Aiken would become the home of unwanted toxic materials from around the country. The House Appropriations Committee issued a statement making it clear that South Carolina was not to become the "de facto dumping ground for stockpiles of surplus U.S. weapons plutonium." The proposed Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility planned at SRS would draw spent nuclear material to be processed into fuel. But if money for the project doesn't materialize, state officials including Gov. Jim Hodges worry SRS will be stuck with untreated, toxic substances. Hodges has written letters protesting the cuts to U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Spence Abraham, and the governor's office remains concerned. Spokesman Morton Brilliant said while the House has added money for clean-up efforts, it's not enough. "If this goes forward, they're going to ship waste from all over the country to us where it will sit and sit and sit," said Morton Brilliant, the governor's spokesman. "We will not stand for it." But U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham said he was encouraged. "Earlier this year, local officials feared we would have massive layoffs," Graham said. "I think we're going to avoid any significant loss of jobs at the site." Department of Energy spokesman Jim Giusti said the budget process is not finished. "We're a long way from resolving the budget for Savannah River Site," he said. "This is just the beginning of the process." Michelle R. Davis covers Washington issues from a South Carolina perspective. She can be reached by phone at (202) 383-6023 or by e-mail at mdavis@krwashington.com. TODAY'S STORIES KEYWORD · See list of today's stories LAST WEEK ·S ·M ·T ·W ·T ·F ·S ARCHIVES · The State (Newslibrary) · Other papers CLASSIFIEDS Find a job · CareerBuilder · Cars · Homes · New Homes · Apartments · Personals · More categories ***************************************************************** 8 Rocky trial for Rockwell - 2001-07-02 - The Business Journal of Milwaukee Exclusive Reports Rich Rovito Rockwell International Inc. was responsible for allowing workers at a nuclear weapons plant to breathe dangerous beryllium dust, but the Milwaukee-based manufacturer has avoided liability in the Colorado Circuit Court jury trial that ended June 26. Rockwell was not a defendant in the landmark case brought by former workers of the Rocky Flats plant near Denver because it was protected by an employer-employee provision in workers' compensation law. Rockwell already paid workers' compensation claims to the former plant employees. Rockwell managed the Rocky Flats plant near Denver from 1975 to 1989, serving as the main contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. At the time, the company had a government defense division. Today, Rockwell operates as an automation and avionics company, although it will soon complete the spinoff of its avionics business. With Rockwell immune from lawsuits, former plant employees sued a Cleveland, Ohio-based company that supplied Rocky Flats with the beryllium used in the manufacturing process. Brush Wellman Inc. was sued for allegedly failing to notify workers of potential health risks at the plant and ultimately causing them to develop lung disease. During the course of the trial, Brush Wellman repeatedly blamed Rockwell International, among others, for the employees' physical woes. Brush Wellman's attempt to place the blame on Rockwell, and the jury verdict, came as a surprise to Rockwell executives. "We don't have any involvement in the current case," said Rockwell spokesman Steve Smith. "We were surprised to see us being called out." Rockwell didn't have a representative present at the proceedings in suburban Denver and the company's executives and attorneys weren't even aware that the company's name had repeatedly come up during the trial, Smith said. During the time Rockwell served as main contractor at Rocky Flats, all workers' compensation claims involving beryllium were handled by the Department of Energy, Rockwell's Smith said. Rockwell executives apparently had no reason for concern because of the "exclusive remedy" provision in workers' compensation law prevents workers from suing employers, said J.D. Thorne, a Milwaukee attorney specializing in employment issues. The provision "caps the risk" of employers, Thorne said. The "exclusive remedy" provision also provides employers with immunity from civil liability in excess of workers' compensation payments, even if a company is negligent, said Robert Ward, a Milwaukee attorney specializing in unemployment compensation issues. "That's the limit of their liability," Ward said. The provision was created as a "trade-off system" since employees can file workers' compensation claims without assigning fault to the employer, Ward said. The provision is part of Wisconsin unemployment law, and there is probably a similar provision in Colorado, Ward said. The jury verdict found Brush Wellman not liable for the workers' chronic beryllium disease. The verdict was handed down after three days of deliberation and nearly two weeks of testimony. The jury's verdict was somewhat confusing, since jurors found Brush Wellman not guilty of failing to warn workers of the dangers of beryllium and innocent of conspiracy. At the same time, the jury found Brush Wellman 9 percent responsible for the workers' disability and its defunct competitor, Berylco, 1 percent responsible. Jurors said they thought their verdict meant Brush Wellman would be required to pay 10 percent of damages. However, since the jury found Brush Wellman innocent of the charges brought against it, the finding amounted to a "not liable" verdict. Based on that technicality, the judge ended the trial. The jury verdict placed 70 to 80 percent of the blame on Rockwell and Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Mich., although neither was a defendant in the suit. Brush Wellman argued that it wasn't the responsible party, and placed the blame on contractors hired by the U.S. Department of Energy to manage the plant, including Rockwell and Dow Chemical, for running a shoddy safety program at the facility. Rockwell's name could come up again in the suits of 47 other workers and their spouses that are pending in Jefferson County, Colo. In all, Brush Wellman faces more than 70 lawsuits involving nearly 200 plaintiffs. The next suit is set for trial Aug. 6 in Knoxville, Tenn. The first group of plaintiffs, which consisted of four Rocky Flats workers and their spouses, said they didn't name the Energy Department in the Colorado case because it planned to separately pursue a federal claim. Former Rocky Flats workers claimed Brush Wellman covered up information about how beryllium dust was toxic and never informed the plant's managers that the federal safety standard for beryllium exposure failed to protect workers. The suit claimed Brush Wellman is responsible for employees at the former nuclear weapons factory contracting chronic beryllium disease, a potentially fatal lung ailment with no cure. Beryllium is a hard, lightweight, gray metallic element that is used in nuclear weapons, missiles and jet fighters and also is found in consumer products such as car ignitions and household appliances. Brush Wellman attorney Sydney McDole argued that Rockwell, which was based in California at the time, and Dow Chemical were responsible for the workers' illnesses because they failed to provide proper ventilation, training and respirators. "We believe Dow should be here, we believe Rockwell should be here -- not us," McDole was quoted as saying in a Rocky Mountain News account of closing arguments at the trial. Witnesses testified that Rockwell and Dow exposed workers to beryllium dust for many years because of poor housekeeping, improper ventilation and lack of training. Rockwell moved its corporate headquarters from California to Milwaukee in 1999. That same year, the Toledo (Ohio) Blade documented a 50-year pattern of misconduct by the federal government and the beryllium industry. Among the findings of the 22-month investigation was that the government and beryllium industry officials knowingly allowed workers to be exposed to unsafe levels of beryllium dust. Beryllium disease is the No. 1 illness directly linked to America's Cold War buildup of weapons, The Blade investigation concluded. Brush Wellman accused Rockwell and Dow of removing warning labels from beryllium before it reached workers and failed to fully implement a safety plan at the Rocky Flats plant. "Dow and Rockwell didn't adequately protect these employees," Brush Wellman attorney McDole said. [Get Copyright Clearance] Copyright 2001 American City ***************************************************************** 9 Sowing nuclear seeds of division [The Roanoke Times] Monday, July 02, 2001 Resist the temptations of new technology By IRA CHERNUS GEORGE W. Bush is talking about the most radical change in U.S. military strategy since Dwight D. Eisenhower took office as president in 1953. Like Eisenhower, Bush faces an uphill struggle selling the new strategy to Congress, the American people and U.S. allies. Eisenhower's innovation brought more risks than benefits. Bush's plans are even more full of dangers. Eisenhower wanted to limit military spending by reducing conventional forces and basing U.S. security on nuclear weapons. But the military budget rose steadily throughout his eight years in office. The problem, Ike said, was that scientists kept inventing new "nukes" and new ways to deliver them. He felt compelled to build almost all of them, lest the Russians get ahead of us. Today, the Bush administration wants to harness U.S. security to space technology and the computer revolution. This will lead to another costly trap. The name of the enemy changes, but the technological imperative remains the same. The temptations of new computer and space developments today are at least as strong as those of the nuclear revolution in the 1950s. Imagine a network of satellites that can tell the Pentagon where every single person and object in the world is at every moment and how best to destroy it. Won't the generals demand whatever the high-tech wizards can create? What president or Congress will dare refuse them? Yes, many generals are resisting now, as they did early in Ike's presidency. But now, as then, once the program is in place they will stop carping and start buying. Generals around the world will want those new weapons, too. Eisenhower's policies sparked a wave of nuclear proliferation whose end is still nowhere in sight. Missile defense and space-based technologies will surely create a new wave of their own. In addition to cost and proliferation, there is incalculable diplomatic risk, as Eisenhower learned. Once the Europeans grasped his vision of nuclearized war, they realized that their homes would be the next battlefield. This was a point of constant strain between the United States and its fearful allies throughout the '50s. Eisenhower was convinced that the NATO alliance had to be kept firm or the United States would lose the Cold War. His warnings about nuclear danger, his "Atoms for Peace" plan and his summit meetings with Khrushchev all had one goal in mind: to convince the allies that the bomb-building Americans were not (in his words) "skunks, saber-rattlers and warmongers." NATO did agree to nuclearize. But ultimately the U.S. national-security establishment paid a very high cost, at home as well as abroad. The anti-nuclear movement here was tiny until Ike began describing the nuclear threat in lurid terms. A generation grew up in the '50s amid widespread protests of nuclear testing. By the end of the '60s, many in that generation were questioning the whole Cold War enterprise. The president of their youth had been forced to say, over and over, that the United States wanted nothing more than peace. Much to his surprise, in the last years of his life, Ike saw huge numbers of Americans taking his words at face value, damning a war that the U.S. government called righteous. And the Europeans, ever more skeptical about the Vietnam debacle, grew even more alienated from U.S. policies. Bush is trying to repeat his predecessor's delicate balancing act: posing as a champion of peace while insisting on a new way to make war. So far, the new war-making technologies seem higher on Bush's agenda than new moves toward global harmony. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Bush's peaceable talk, like Ike's, is a means to a far-from-peaceable end. But words, once uttered, take on a life of their own, as Ike learned. This kind of talk creates even greater problems for the Bush administration, because it is dealing with Europeans who are much closer to equals than to vassals. Perhaps the Bushites don't care. They do not seem to have Ike's intense concern about strong alliances. They seem much more willing to let the United States and the European allies continue splitting apart into separate power blocs. When they insist on missile defense, space-based weapons and other policies that Europeans oppose, it seems as if they may even want to encourage that diplomatic split. Bush has already acknowledged that he wants to help the United States compete economically against the Europeans. Will our laser-ray satellites one day be competing against the Europeans, too? An Ike-like revolution in technology, without an Ike-like concern for strong alliances, poses far-reaching dangers. And Bush, like Eisenhower, may be sowing seeds of domestic dissension that will not sprout until he is gone from office. The costs of the Bush program in money, proliferation and domestic and international harmony are already evident. Surely it makes sense to oppose this dangerous strategic revolution now, before any of its costs have to be paid. IRA CHERNUS is professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a writer for the History News Service. KNIGHT RIDDER/TRIBUNE INFORMATION SERVICES GARY VISKUPIC/ LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE ***************************************************************** 10 House Approves Funds to Clean Rocketdyne Site Sunday, July 1, 2001 fully restore money for the $17-million project. By MARGARET TALEV, Times Staff Writer Activists pushing for a timely cleanup of Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory near Simi Valley have moved one step closer to victory after the U.S. House voted to restore full funding for the project this past week. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) led the push to return $3.7 million to the cleanup budget, bringing the total back to the $17 million that cleanup advocates expected. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Woodland Hills) also supported the effort. "It was not an easy task," Gallegly said. "The best tool you can have is to have the justification and the right arguments. And certainly in this case we did." Cleanup of the Department of Energy's portion of the lab site, now owned by Boeing Co., is meant to rid soil, buildings and water of contamination from decades of rocket-engine testing and Cold War-era nuclear research. The budget cuts threatened to slow cleanup by at least two years. Full funding for the project must still be approved by the Senate and President Bush. Gallegly says he is not worried about those approvals. Dan Hirsch, a nuclear policy activist and longtime Rocketdyne critic, praised the congressmen for their work, but said his camp is hardly celebrating. "None of us were very happy with the cleanup that was occurring before," he said. "This action, if confirmed by the Senate, will merely return the situation to the status quo." Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham earlier this year proposed cleanup cuts at dozens of nuclear testing and production sites around the country, including Rocketdyne. The list included two other sites in California--the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center, both near Oakland. If Congress were to restore across-the-board funding at those sites, it would cost an additional $467 million. Also last week, the House approved funding for several other Ventura County projects Gallegly has lobbied for. These include $4.1 million in repairs to Ventura Harbor; $1.7 million for a fish ladder that would complete a flood control project at Santa Paula Creek; and $523,000 for a feasibility study to remove Matilija Dam. It was the Rocketdyne cleanup budget, however, that has drawn the most attention from county officials and residents. The $17 million for the coming fiscal year is only part of a $250-million effort that began a decade ago and is currently scheduled for completion in 2007. Even if the cleanup proceeds as scheduled, another Rocketdyne issue remains unresolved: Will the Environmental Protection Agency take the lead on a long-awaited radiation survey of the site? The Energy Department has the responsibility to pay for the survey. But critics said they don't trust the agency. So the EPA promised to provide one of its scientists--who exposed questionable cleanup practices at the site years ago--to lead the effort. The EPA then backed away from its promise earlier this year, saying it couldn't free up the manpower to lead the effort. Local critics lashed out. Gallegly made an appeal to EPA administrator Christie Whitman. Whitman promised the EPA would honor its original agreement, contingent on the Energy Department providing sufficient funds. But Hirsch said Whitman's assurances are no guarantee. Gallegly, however, is taking the administrator at her word. He believes the EPA will conduct the survey to residents' satisfaction. of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. Copyright © 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 11 Beryllium dangerous, versatile Rocky Mountain News: Local Firm fought beryllium effort Flats hygienists say Brush Wellman objected to controls By Ann Imse, News Staff Writer Two former Rocky Flats industrial hygienists claim beryllium producer Brush Wellman objected when they put stringent controls on the dangerous metal in the 1980s, worrying that other customers would hear and stop using it. "They told us we were going to destroy the beryllium industry," recalls Dennis Murphy, the industrial hygienist who cleaned up the beryllium problem at the nuclear weapons plant in the 1980s. Murphy and his former boss, Steve Sadler, were reacting to Brush Wellman's landmark victory last week in Jefferson County District Court, where the company was found not liable for causing four Rocky Flats workers to suffer beryllium disease. The dispute is far from finished. The plaintiffs say they will seek a new trial or appeal, and 200 more victims of the wasting lung ailment have similar suits pending against Brush Wellman. A key issue in the trial was the plaintiffs' claim that Brush Wellman conspired to hide the extreme danger of its product for 50 years. Instead, the jury blamed Rocky Flats for being sloppy in handling beryllium. That meant no damages for the plaintiffs, because the Rocky Flats operators only had to pay worker's compensation. But Murphy and Sadler say they moved to protect workers as soon as the danger was known in 1984. And two Brush Wellman executives came to Rocky Flats to oppose the stringent new controls, they said. "They said they were very much against what we were doing, that beryllium didn't need to be controlled like that," Murphy said. "We said, 'The meeting is over.' I don't know that I've ever been so upset." One of the Brush Wellman officials was the company's medical director, Dr. Otto Preuss, Murphy said. The other was a Brush Wellman vice president, he said. Brush Wellman spokesman Patrick Carpenter declined to respond, except to say, "The responsibility for industrial hygiene at Rocky Flats resided with Rocky Flats. We were not involved in those decisions." Sadler recalled a similar but apparently different meeting about the same time, during the 1985-86 period when Rocky Flats was tackling its beryllium contamination. Sadler said the late Don Santini, then head of Rocky Flats, called him in after meeting with two Brush Wellman executives. Sadler recalls Santini telling him that Brush Wellman was objecting to Rocky Flats' plans to do more accurate sampling of beryllium dust. Instead of sampling from fixed points around the room, Sadler and Murphy were switching to samples in the individual worker's breathing zones. These would show higher exposures. "It sounded like they were objecting to us changing our sampling methods, and then publishing our data," Sadler recalled. Both Sadler and Murphy remember personally insisting on the stringent measures. Their boss, Santini, immediately agreed, and the plan went ahead. Just what Rocky Flats did to protect its workers was a key issue in the trial -- but neither Sadler nor Murphy testified. Sadler was subpoenaed by Brush Wellman but never called. Murphy said he never spoke to a lawyer. Instead, jurors were shown hundreds of air sample documents. They accepted the defense argument that Rocky Flats allowed workers to breathe more than the legal limit of 2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air -- and therefore Brush Wellman bore little or no responsibility. Jurors did not hear Murphy's explanation of the apparently conflicting data. Until 1984, Rocky Flats had never had a case of chronic beryllium disease. So the prevailing attitude was: "We've been handling this stuff for 20 years, and nobody got sick," Murphy said. "I thought we had been following the guidelines," said Sadler. Then the first illness surfaced in 1984. Instead of assuming 2 micrograms was safe, they moved toward a system that allowed just 0.2 micrograms, Murphy said. Even 2 micrograms is minuscule -- equivalent to a pencil tip crushed and scattered about an area the size of a football field, six feet deep. Rocky Flats immediately put workers on respirators, Murphy said, though a few resisted wearing them. "One guy just wouldn't. And now this guy is dead" of beryllium disease, Murphy remembered. Until then, years of air samples from fixed points scattered about the beryllium shop had come back clean, Murphy said. But he said that was because they were too far away from the beryllium. When they switched to samples in the workers' breathing zones, the numbers shot up. Installing vacuum hoses one inch from the beryllium parts being machined made a tremendous difference, Murphy recalled. But he still kept getting some excessive readings. Finally, he concluded that some perfectionist machinists were the cause. "They were using Scotch-Brite to polish the parts when they were done. They just wanted the parts to look pretty. They'd slap the Scotch-Brite against the table a few times," Murphy said. That was enough to release the deadly dust. At the trial, Brush Wellman attorneys presented a study that found beryllium exposures continuing in 1985, a full year after the first illness. They argued this was proof that Rocky Flats was not protecting its workers. But Sadler explained, "You have to find the source before you can design a control system," and Murphy worked from 1984 to 1987 before he found all the sources of contamination. So in 1985, there was progress, but the job was not finished, they said. Contact Ann Imse at (303) 892-5438 or imse@RockyMountainNews.com. July 2, 2001 2001 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************