***************************************************************** 05/03/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.107 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Letter from Bob Loux, Director, State of Nevada Agency for 2 18 Goshutes sue to stop N-plan 3 Company president relays info found in storage files to public 4 Statement: Nuclear Power is Not the Answer 5 Forbes.com: There Is No Energy Crisis 6 Duke Power Pleased With Graham's Support of Nuclear Energy 7 Nuclear Industry Argues New Reactors 8 New US business group says cheap energy crucial for economy 9 Berkley urges EPA official to study Yucca radiation 10 Legislation seeks to make nuclear power more attractive 11 Yggdrasil Institute - Uranium Enrichment Newsletter - May 2001 12 NCPA - Federal Spending And The Budget - Nuclear Revival -- With Changes 13 NRC: Radiological Emergency Response Plan 14 Feds eye plan to bury N-waste 15 Truck carrying radioactive material crashes in Dryden 16 NUCLEAR power stations would be "phased out" under the Liberal Democrats, 17 UK's BNFL says E.ON nuclear deal helps Mox plant 18 EBRD to help Bulgaria fund closure of old reactors 19 £millions Order Boost For Mox 20 Jack and The Japanese See Eye to Eye 21 Government challenged over secret nuclear plans 22 Reactor shut down at Balakovsakaya nuclear power plant 23 Senate approves Texas dump for low-level nuclear waste 24 Plan would move waste via El Paso, senator says 25 Keep Your Waste NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Special Metals says it was kept in dark 2 Incinerator could burn 1.6M pounds in FY 2001 3 Mercury stockpile focus of meeting 4 Stirring nuclear trouble 5 Conference To Tackle Nuclear Trafficking Threat 6 Public could thwart Yucca plan, ex-DOE official says 7 UK nuclear sub in Gibraltar to sail in 7-10 days 8 Israeli Nuclear Spy Case Imploding 9 Radioactivity Tests Now in Doubt at Rocketdyne Site 10 Suspicious stain on waste tank at Hanford 11 Hanford studies 2 possible holes in waste tank ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Letter from Bob Loux, Director, State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects to Kathleen Carlson, Manager, DOE-NV Re: Acceptance of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), for Disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) KENNY C. GUINN *Governor* STATE OF NEVADA [State Seal] OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Telephone: (775) 687-3744 • Fax: (775) 687-5277 E-mail: nwpo@govmail.state.nv.us ROBERT R. LOUX *Executive Director* April 25, 2001 Kathleen Carlson, Manager Nevada Operations Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 98518 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518 Re: Acceptance of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP), for Disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) Dear Ms. Carlson: On January 25th of this year the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) advised Mr. Carl Gertz of the Nevada Operations Office about the State of Nevada's objection to a proposal by the Department of Energy to ship Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) from the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) in New York State, to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal 1. The objection was based on the State's position that the waste in question is commercial in origin and thus inappropriate for disposal at a defense facility like the NTS. As you may know, with closure of the Beatty commercial LLW site in 1992, the State of Nevada concluded its obligation under the commercial LLW compact system for disposal of commercial LLW (per P.L. 99-240). And yet it now appears that the Department of Energy (DOE) is considering the disposal of commercial LLW at the NTS. As the Governor's designee for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Agreement State program, I must concur with NDEP officials that NTS is clearly not a legally appropriate site for the disposal of commercial LLW; and this position applies regardless of the ownership and/or control of such wastes, (i.e., owned or controlled by a federal, state, or local agency, and/or a non-government entity). We do recognize that the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPA) gave states responsibility for developing commercial LLW disposal sites through a system of state compacts. However, and without regard to the unfulfill realization of the LLW Policy Act, with the closure of Beatty, Nevada has concluded its responsibly under the compact system. Hence, its is not only inappropriate but an affront to the residents of Nevada that DOE would ever consider the NTS for use as a commercial LLW disposal site. It is also worth mentioning that additional commercial LLW streams could be acquired by DOE. We note the statutory authority is in place that gives DOE authorization to accept such waste per section 151(b) and (c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Likewise, there are other commercial LLW streams within DOE as well as within the Department of Defense (DoD) that are regulated by NRC and/or state licencing authorities. These commercial waste streams could well be "pawned-off" on DOE as defense LLW, (e.g., LLW from the Army Corps of Engineer's Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program; DoD LLW in the form of expended depleted uranium ordnance and associated contaminated targets on military ranges, etc.). In a related matter, Nevada officials are concerned about attempts by DOE to reclassify LLW from commercial to defense, for purposes of disposal at a defense site like the NTS. We believe such action would only reinforce the department's ill-fated practice of self regulation allowed under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). As you may be aware states are opposed to self regulation under AEA and have consistently supported external regulatory authority over DOE LLW management and disposal operations.(a) For your information I have attached a letter and accompanying position paper prepared by DOE.2 The attachment is DOE's response to the January 25th letter by NDEP. Please be aware that Nevada officials are unconvinced by this position paper. As such, we are once again requesting formal legal clarification as to origin of the WVDP LLW waste streams being considered for disposal at the NTS.3 It is our position that the waste streams in question are commercial in origin and thus should be disposed of at a licensed (non-defense) LLW disposal site. We are taking this position notwithstanding prior and/or pending analysis per DOE implementing procedures (10CFR 1021) under the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. DOE's Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impacts Record of Decision [6450-01-P] dated 02/18/2000). Given these considerations, I am requesting a formal legal interpretation on the points referenced above and I am respectfully requesting that DOE implement a moratorium on any shipments of LLW from the West Valley site to the NTS, pending resolution of these matters. Sincerely --/s/-- Robert R. Loux Executive Director Attachments 1 January 25, 2001 letter from Paul Liebendorfer - Nevada NDEP to Carl Gertz, DOE/NV - see on the web at: http://ndep.state.nv.us/boff/ndep26.htm 2 April 3, 2001 letter from Carl P. Gertz, DOE/NV to Paul Liebendorfer NDEP. The letter includes an attache paper entitled "Disposal of West Valley Demonstration Project Low-Level Waste at a Department of Energy Disposal Site. 3 See DOE letter dated January 19, 2001 to Ahmand M. Al-Daouk, DOE West Valley Demonstration Project, West Valley, NV References (a) National Governor Association -- 08/24/2000, America's Nuclear Weapons Complex: on the web at: http://www.nga.org/cda/files/NUCLEARCLEANUPGUIDE.pdf State of Nevada Office of the Governor Agency for Nuclear Projects 1802 North Carson Suite 252 Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-3744 voice (775) 687-5277 fax nwpo@govmail.state.nv.use-mail * ***************************************************************** 2 18 Goshutes sue to stop N-plan [deseretnews.com] May 03, 2001 By Donna Kemp Spangler Deseret News staff writer Eighteen members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians have sued the federal government for allowing a high-level nuclear storage facility on the reservation to move forward. Sammy Blackbear, Margene Bullcreek and other tribal members opposed to a plan for a nuclear waste repository are alleging a variety of misdeeds. But primarily, they say the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have discriminated against them by ignoring their complaints about the legality of a lease agreement that Tribal Chairman Leon Bear signed in 1997 with Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of out-of-state utility companies looking for a repository for highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods. Melodie Rydalch, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, couldn't comment on the lawsuit because it hasn't been served yet. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court names as defendants Interior Secretary Gale Norton and two top officials of the BIA, Wayne Nordwall, the Phoenix-area director and David Allison, superintendent of Uintah and Ouray agency. It doesn't name PFS. But Blackbear says that's a strategic move. "It's a chess match," said Blackbear. "It all fits in. We're not going to let these people get away with what they have done." The lawsuit was filed in response to a federal judge's dismissal of Blackbear's original lawsuit against BIA and PFS. The judge ruled that Blackbear and other opposition leaders did not exhaust their administrative appeal process with BIA. But Blackbear said neither BIA nor the U.S. Department of Interior had looked into their complaints. So he and others filed a lawsuit against them. "We feel confident in going back to court with what we have done. We have done everything the judge asked us to do," Blackbear said. The complaints in this lawsuit are similar to the previously dismissed lawsuit. Blackbear and other opposition leaders say the Goshute-PFS lease was approved illegally. They allege tribal members were bribed into approving the lease. And the federal government ignored their appeal of "BIA's wrongful and improper approval of a purported lease agreement placing high level nuclear waste on an Indian reservation." At issue is a highly controversial plan to store 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on the reservation, 80 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Blackbear and his supporters have fought the project. Gov. Mike Leavitt and other state leaders also have tried to block the proposal with a number of laws that make it illegal to ship nuclear waste into Utah. Bear and PFS recently filed a lawsuit against Leavitt and other state officials, claiming the laws are unconstitutional. The lawsuit against the state is another delay tactic, Blackbear said. "PFS and BIA's strategy all along is to stall us because they didn't think we would be there to sustain our lawsuit. Now up comes our lawsuit," he added. "They thought we were gone and we're ready to fight." © 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 3 Company president relays info found in storage files to public Thursday, May 3, 2001 Tri-State News 7 Day Archive - Monday - Following is the text of a letter from Special Metals president T. Grant John to The Herald-Dispatch. *The* *Herald-Dispatch* has recently published several articles concerning the former Huntington Pilot Plant -- also known as the Reduction Pilot Plant ("RPP") -- which has been listed as an "atomic weapons employer" by the Department of Energy. As these articles have pointed out, there is very little public information about what took place at the RPP. In fact, until quite recently, Special Metals itself was unaware of the RPP’s existence (we purchased the facility in October of 1998 and this issue was not disclosed at the time). Special Metals understands that the lack of information is troubling to area residents, so we would like to let you know what we know. After the articles started appearing, a retired employee called and directed us to some files that were in storage. These records are limited to the original construction of the facility (on or about 1951) and the dismantling of the facility (in the late 1970’s) and do not include any information regarding the period of operation of the RPP; however, we thought that the public would be interested to know what we found. According to the records, in 1951, the United States of America, through its representative, the Atomic Energy Commission ("AEC"), purchased a tract of land from the International Nickel Company, Inc. ("INCO") and entered into a contract with INCO to provide certain services, labor and materials in the construction and operation of the RPP. During its period of operation, believed to be from 1951 to 1963, the U.S. Government owned all property, buildings, and equipment associated with the RPP. The records reflect that during the mid- to late-1970’s, the AEC determined that the facility was no longer necessary for national security and defense purposes and elected to decommission the RPP. A third-party completed the clean-up operation which included the demolition and dismantling of the RPP in the late 1970’s. Except for one cinderblock outbuilding, the RPP was dismantled in its entirety by 1979 while under AEC ownership. In the latter part of 1981, INCO repurchased the property. Special Metals would like to provide the following additional information to assist former workers at the RPP in obtaining benefits to which they may be entitled under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program: Congress established the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program last year to compensate and provide medical benefits to certain workers who developed cancer after they began employment at certain "atomic weapons employers." To be eligible, the employee must have worked at the facility at the time it was processing or producing materials that emitted radiation and were used to make atomic weapons. To receive the benefits, the individuals must have worked at one of several hundred facilities appearing on a list of "atomic weapons employers" published by the Department of Energy. While the RPP is among the facilities included on the Department of Energy’s list, that alone does not establish that radioactive materials were handled at the site. The Energy Department’s decision to list many of these facilities was based on former employees’ recollections that a particular facility was used to manufacture materials for the Cold War effort. Unfortunately, the Energy Department does not have meticulous records about many of these sites. Former employees at any of the listed sites who believe they developed cancer as a result of their work with radioactive materials will be required to file claims with the Department of Labor to receive compensation. Eligible covered employees receive compensation in the form of a lump sum payment in the amount of $150,000. Covered employees also can receive medical benefits for treating their illnesses. If the covered employee is deceased, the survivor is eligible to receive the $150,000 lump sum payment. There are no procedures in place yet for filing claims. (Note: the Labor Department is required to ensure the availability, in paper and electronic format, of forms necessary for making claims, by July 31, 2001. The Secretary of Labor recently announced that the Department may not meet that deadline, however.) The Labor Department must coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Energy Department to develop and disseminate informational materials to help potential claimants understand the program. Compensation and medical expenses are to be paid out of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund ("the Fund") established by Congress. Congress appropriated $250 million to the Fund. The program will not cover everyone with cancer who worked at these facilities. Congress directed Health and Human Services to develop guidelines for determining which claimants qualify. The cancer must be at least as likely as not related to employment at the "atomic weapons employer." The Health and Human Services guidelines must take into account the type of cancer, past health-related activities (such as smoking), information about the risk of developing radiation-related cancer from workplace exposure, and other relevant factors. Congress requires the Energy Department to identify and notify potentially eligible individuals that compensation is available to them. Given that many of the listed facilities ceased operations 20, 30, and even 40 years ago, the Energy Department’s records are far from complete. Accordingly, former workers at the RPP, or their survivors, who have questions about the compensation program are urged to contact the Energy Department’s toll free number at 1-877-447-9756 and to check the Web site set up by the Energy Department’s Office of Worker Advocacyregularly. Sincerely, T. Grant John President Special Metals says it was kept in dark Copyright © 2001 The Herald-Dispatch Use of this site signifies ***************************************************************** 4 Statement: Nuclear Power is Not the Answer Citizens Protecting Ohio Global Resource Action Center for the Environment Greenpeace USA Nuclear Information Resource Service Pace Energy Project Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program Safe Energy Communication Council U.S. Public Interest Research Group May 2, 2001 The Bush/Cheney administration is recklessly promoting the building of new nuclear plants to address an energy crisis that in large part is being manufactured by the energy corporations that will benefit from building new power plants, drilling for more oil, building more pipelines and mining for more coal. The United States is the largest consumer of electricity in the world, representing more than 25% of the world's net electricity consumption in 1999. We use more electricity than China, Russia, France, Germany, England, and all of Central & South America COMBINED. We rely on nuclear power to generate 20% of our electricity - more than twice as much as our reliance on renewables such as hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, and certain types of biomass. This despite the fact that nuclear power is the most expensive, most dangerous method of electricity generation, and that no facilities exist for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste. In spite of these realities, the Bush Administration is using California's deregulation failure to use taxpayer dollars to promote nuclear as a 'clean' energy at the same time that it slashes funding for energy efficiency and renewable technology programs. But the reality is that there is no energy crisis to justify the massive power plant construction proposed by the Administration. Rather, commitments to energy efficiency and renewable technologies would result in a reduction in demand, reducing our susceptibility to environmental and economic damage. According to the 2000 Interlaboratory Working Group on Energy-Efficient and Clean-Energy Technologies - a working group reporting to the Department of Energy - implementing comprehensive energy efficiency strategies would result in a demand reduction of 24% from the "business-as-usual" consumption rates that would otherwise be reached by 2020. Fully utilizing existing renewable energy technologies - hydrogen fuel cell technology, wind turbines, photovoltaic modules, solar thermal, and biomass - could increase generation by these renewable sources by 75% by 2030. This combination of demand reduction and increased usage of renewables would be enough to replace nuclear power by 2030. We believe that instead of promoting dangerous and dirty forms of energy, the United States should be a world leader in promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency. Let us not sell our children's future. ***************************************************************** 5 Forbes.com: There Is No Energy Crisis May 3, 2001 Dan Ackman, Forbes.com, 05.02.01, 6:10 PM ET NEW YORK - Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech yesterday in Toronto, said energy is a "storm cloud over the horizon...that has lately taken on an urgency not seen since the 1970s." He suggested the rolling blackouts in California could "[foretell] a national trend." Cheney's solution to the "potential crisis," which he blamed largely on the Clinton Administration, is to drill more, mine more, generate more and build more nuclear plants. He nodded to "conservation," but essentially mocked it as "a sign of personal virtue"-- Jimmy Carter in his cardigan. Gas lines are a relic of the '70s and will stay that way. In fact, there is no energy crisis and there is little reason to expect there will be. Conservation is a big part of the reason why. While California's blackouts are in the headlines, the Golden State's problems are local and, indeed, do not even cover all of California. Los Angeles, for example, is unaffected because it has its own municipal power service. "As a country, we have demanded more and more energy. But we have not brought online the supplies needed to meet that demand," Cheney said. But the facts are something different. Between 1980 and 2000, despite a 90% increase in real gross domestic product (GDP), energy consumption increased by just 25.6%. The massive decline in energy use relative to economic output was not a function of price increases. Indeed, during that time energy prices rose by 44.8%, and most of that price rise was in the last two years. The energy price increase was tiny compared to nonenergy prices, which rose by 119%. Even with the price increase of the past two years, the price of a gallon of gas in real terms has fallen 41% since 1980. "There is no energy shortage," says R. Martin Chavez, chief executive of Kiodex, which supplies software to companies for managing their exposure to energy costs. "There is so much oil and natural gas in the ground. There are more known reserves now than there ever has been." Conservation has played the critical role in managing demand, says John Byrne, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware. "The vice president says conservation is a sign of personal virtue and says we can't rely on that. But that's not what conservation is about," Byrne says. Conservation, Byrne says, "is not about turning off the lights or unplugging the refrigerator. It is a story about better technology." Industry and economics, not virtue or government control, are the driving forces. The reason Americans have become so much more energy efficient is because of appliances, buildings and factories. Refrigerators, lamps, air conditioners and pulp and paper plants have all become far more energy efficient. The most important exception to this trend is in transportation. While fuel mileage in cars continues to improve, the fuel efficiency of U.S. automobiles has actually declined since the mid-1990s. That's because many drivers have switched from ordinary cars to light trucks or so-called sport utility vehicles. Between 1980 and 1998, U.S. petroleum consumption hardly increased at all, from 34.2 quadrillion Btus to 37.39 quadrillion Btus. The reason here is Americans used to get 44% of their energy from oil, including foreign oil. Now the figure is 39%, though more than half is imported. Coal supplies a greater share of U.S. power. Nuclear energy accounted for 3.6% of power in 1980. By 2000, it was supplying 8.1%. One of the hot-button issues in energy policy is whether to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Whatever the merits of this plan environmentally, the case remains that just slight increases in automobile fuel efficiency would conserve far more oil than the U.S. could ever hope to extract from the Alaskan preserve. No amount of drilling in Alaska or anywhere else is likely to have any impact on the crisis in California, a product not of fuel shortages but of a half-baked attempt at deregulation. Almost none of the electricity in California is produced by oil, Byrne notes. Mostly it's from natural gas, more than 80% of which is produced domestically. Also, most of the oil drilled in Alaska is now exported to Japan, which is far more exposed to world energy markets than the U.S. "No one is likely to make the same mistakes to the extent California did," says Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute. The idea that there is a crisis or a "situation [that] will take years for us to overcome" was a "stunner," Byrne says. "The objective evidence is just against it." U.S. Energy Prices, Consumption And Output Year Nonenergy Price Index (1982-84=100) Energy Price Index (1982-84=100) Price Of A Gallon Of Gas (1982-84=100) Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btus) GDP (In Billions Of 1996 dollars) 1980 81.9 86.0 $1.48 78.435 4,901 2000 178.6 124.6 0.91 98.520 9,319 Sources: Department of Energy Weekly Energy Review; Bureau of Labor Statistics; Bureau of Economic Analysis ***************************************************************** 6 Duke Power Pleased With Graham's Support of Nuclear Energy Wednesday May 2, 1:49 pm Eastern Time Press Release *SOURCE: Duke Energy Corporation* CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Duke Power's top nuclear executive today said he was pleased to see U.S. policymakers' renewed interest in nuclear energy. Mike Tuckman, Duke Power's executive vice president of nuclear generation, expressed his support of the objectives outlined in Congressman Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) bill entitled the ``Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001.'' Introduced today, the bill is aimed at ensuring nuclear energy continues contributing to the supply of electricity in the United States. ``While we have not yet studied all the bill's provisions in detail, we applaud its goal of ensuring nuclear energy's continued contribution to our electricity supply,'' said Tuckman. ``Duke Power generates about half of our customers' electricity using nuclear power. It is a vital part of our energy supply, and must remain so well into the future. We are delighted to see that Rep. Graham and other policymakers recognize the important role nuclear energy must play in ensuring the Carolinas, and our nation, have an adequate supply of electricity.'' Duke Power, a business unit of Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK- news), is one of the nation's largest electric utilities and provides safe, reliable, competitively priced electricity to approximately two million customers in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Power operates three nuclear generating stations, eight coal-fired stations, 31 hydroelectric stations and numerous combustion turbine units. Total system capability is 19,375 megawatts. More information about Duke Power is available on the Internet at: www.dukepower.com. Duke Energy, a diversified multinational energy company, creates value for customers and shareholders through an integrated network of energy assets and expertise. Duke Energy manages a dynamic portfolio of natural gas and electric supply, delivery and trading businesses -- generating revenues of more than $49 billion in 2000. Duke Energy, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., is a Fortune 100 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK. Additional information about the company is available on the Internet at: www.duke-energy.com Contact: Becky McSwain of Duke Energy Corporation, 704-373-4503, or 24-Hour, 803-382-8333. *SOURCE: Duke Energy Corporation* ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear Industry Argues New Reactors May 2, 2001 Will Be Safer, but Will Public Buy That? By Rebecca Smith Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal After years in the wilderness, the nuclear-power industry is back on the march. Emboldened by Bush administration statements that nuclear power is an essential part of the national energy mix, proponents of the technology are examining new designs they believe could form the basis of a full-fledged revival. They are also pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to staff up a licensing division that received its last new plant application in 1973. If a younger generation of nuclear plants does make an appearance, it will probably be as additions to existing nuclear sites. That's because the sites have already weathered the NRC's rigorous site review, and the hardware -- substations and high-voltage transmission lines -- needed to get the power away from the plant and to users is already in place. Three new nuclear designs that represent evolutionary improvements over existing reactors have been approved by the commission in recent years. But a completely different design is attracting the most attention is the pebble-bed modular reactor -- PBMR -- whose chief proponent in this country is Exelon Corp., formed through the merger of PECO Energy and Unicom, the old Chicago-based utility Commonwealth Edison. As recently as Monday, staffers from the NRC met with Exelon engineers to discuss how they might handle a site application from the energy company, which already controls nine nuclear power plants. The company has invested $7.5 million in a pebble-bed test project in South Africa in partnership with Eskom Enterprises, the unregulated affiliate of South Africa's state-owned utility. If it decides to help fund a working model in South Africa, it will probably propose construction of one in this country as well. But while Exelon executives and other nuclear-energy backers maintain that they can build reactors that cost less and are far safer than the 1960s and 1970s era plants still peppering the country, it isn't clear that the public is ready to embrace their argument. "We're not looking at this as a nuclear revival but as a relapse," says Paul Gunter, head of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Washington, D.C. He believes the nuclear industry, which suffered from gargantuan cost overruns as well as a handful of highly publicized safety problems like the 1979 Three Mile Island near-meltdown, represents the "biggest managerial disaster" in U.S. history. "I don't think the U.S. public will be fooled again," he says. "No matter what you say, it's dangerous technology." Reactor safety isn't the only issue standing in the way of a nuclear comeback. Despite 40 years of commercial nuclear operations in the U.S., there's still no approved plan governing the disposal of radioactive waste. Currently, waste is stored at each nuclear plant site -- to the chagrin of nearby communities. Efforts to come up with a safe, large-scale disposal depot in the arid deserts of the West have met with stiff resistance from environmental groups and some politicians. Other regulatory issues remain unresolved as well. The Price Anderson Act, which protects the nuclear industry against unlimited liability in the event of a nuclear accident, expires in August 2002. Unless it is renewed, say industry executives, it is unlikely any company would build a new plant. Even the small print of other regulations would require revision if the pebble-bed-reactor technology took off. For instance, the way the rules are currently written, a site that contained five small pebble-bed plants with a total output of 550 megawatts would pay five times the fees to the NRC of a single 550-megawatt plant. Exelon's chairman, Corbin McNeill Jr., believes all of these obstacles are minor compared with the benefits of widespread deployment of new-technology nukes that would make the nation more energy self-sufficient and reduce air-pollution emissions. He also argues that the pebble-bed design will win public acceptance because it operates at lower temperatures and thus is less susceptible to catastrophic failure if its cooling system is crippled. The pebble-bed reactors would be built in 110-megawatt units, only one-tenth the size of the most recently constructed conventional nuclear plants in other countries. At $150 million apiece, investment costs for PBMR units are relatively modest, construction times could be much faster and plants could begin selling power much more quickly. That would reduce carrying costs that crippled utility balance sheets a generation ago. Another plus, for proponents, is the fact that the NRC has been "streamlining" its approval processes since the mid 1980s. In addition to precertifying reactor designs, the NRC has limited the amount of public intervention that's possible. "It's maybe 1% to 10% what it used to be," says Mr. McNeill. "Interminable delays are a thing of the past." If Exelon goes forward with its South African venture this fall, it would be in a position to submit an application to add a plant at one of its U.S. sites in the second half of 2002 and would hope to have an operating unit by 2006. Jerry Wilson, senior policy analyst at the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, says the agency has been in discussion with four companies -- Exelon, Entergy Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and Southern Co. -- about possible submission of site permits. Since the process has never been used before, both sides are trying to figure out exactly how it will work and how long it will take. "This is the first serious discussion we've had about new plants in decades," says Mr. Wilson, who joined the commission in 1975. "We are actively preparing ourselves" for a wave of applications. Entergy plans to seek permission to site "a plant or two," alongside existing nuclear plants, says Entergy President Donald Hintz. But it's leaning toward General Electric and Westinghouse advance designs -- not the pebble-bed reactor, which isn't yet in commercial use. All of this is taking place against the backdrop of electric-industry deregulation, which has encouraged a handful of companies like Exelon and Entergy to buy nuclear plants from old-line utilities and to operate them at much higher efficiency levels. Instead of plants being mothballed at the end of what was once thought to be their useful life -- around 30 years -- five reactors have been licensed by the NRC for another 20 years of operation. Within the next 15 years, 40% of the 103 licensed U.S. reactors are likely to request similar life extensions. The push by the nuclear-power industry has also been aided by falling nuclear-fuel costs as the costs of oil, coal and natural gas have soared. Add to that the growth of deregulated wholesale electricity markets in which all producers are paid the cost demanded by the highest-cost generator and the nuclear industry sees an opportunity for bigger profits than ever before. The activist community, which mobilized to turn the public against nuclear power in the post-Three Mile Island era even as their primary targets -- like the Diablo Canyon plant in California and the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire -- got built, is also hoping for a revival. Mr. Gunter says his group is organizing an "action camp" near Exelon's Dresden reactor in Illinois to "revitalize and refocus opposition." Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com More WSJ.com Highlights Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 8 New US business group says cheap energy crucial for economy USA: May 3, 2001 WASHINGTON - Oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear industry groups banded together with some 200 state and local business organizations in a new coalition yesterday that urged the Bush administration to adopt a "market-based" energy policy emphasizing cheap prices. The new group, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, said a national energy policy should also protect the environment. A White House task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney is preparing recommendations for a national energy policy, which is widely expected to emphasize more oil and gas drilling, coal production and nuclear power. Green groups said they fear the White House recommendations may roll back some environmental protections and will overlook oil savings that could be had through stricter vehicle fuel efficiency standards. The new coalition said it represented the views of small U.S. businesses, which depend on cheap and reliable energy to make a profit. "Restaurants, print shops, card stores, dry cleaners and other small businesses want more energy supplies to help drive down the price," said Karen Kerrigan, head of the group Small Business Survival Committee. "They want reliable delivery of that energy, whether through wires or pipelines, and they want continued energy efficiency improvements in appliances and equipment," she added. Businesses in California and neighboring states have been hard hit by brief blackouts and soaring electricity prices since last summer. U.S. gasoline prices have also marched higher in recent months, although prices remain far below what the rest of the industrialized world pays to fuel cars. The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth's membership includes such major Washington groups as the American Petroleum Institute, the the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the American Gas Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The group said cheap energy was essential to have a market-based energy policy to keep the U.S. economy growing, especially the high-tech industry. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 9 Berkley urges EPA official to study Yucca radiation Today: May 03, 2001 at 10:51:34 PDT By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN As two federal agencies battle over the amount of radiation that would be allowed to escape from a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, a Nevada representative has asked for an independent review. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., requested on Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency Ombudsman Robert Martin investigate the issue. Last year the EPA offered a 15 millirem limit with a separate 4 millirem ground water standard for an individual exposed to radiation escaping from a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. An average chest X-ray emits 10 millirems. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed a limit of 25 millirems without a separate ground water standard for the mountain under study by the Department of Energy. The Bush administration has delayed any decisions on the rules. Berkley said she learned that DOE and NRC officials have met with the EPA, asking for a change in the environmental agency's proposed radiation rule. The DOE and the NRC do not want a specific limit to radiation in ground water and have requested the EPA set a total radiation exposure standard of 25 millirems. "Your independent investigative authority allows you to be an honest broker in this process and offers the participating agencies your objective, science-based recommendations," Berkley wrote to Martin. NRC Deputy Director Carl Paperiello said this week at a nuclear waste conference in Las Vegas that the commission will adopt any radiation standard for Yucca Mountain that the EPA sets. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 Legislation seeks to make nuclear power more attractive USA: May 3, 2001 WASHINGTON - A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress yesterday seeks to ensure a prominent role for nuclear power in providing electricity in the U.S. by ending a 25-year drought in the construction of commercial reactors. No new permits for nuclear power plants have been issued since the mid-1970s. Currently, the 103 operating nuclear plants provide 20 percent of the U.S. power generation. South Carolina Rep. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Texas Rep. Charles Stenholm, a Democrat, used the California energy crisis as an example of what could happen across the country if the nation does not have a diverse electric generation base. "We should learn from the problems California is experiencing and adopt a national energy policy which recognizes and promotes additional sources of energy production," Graham said. "If we don't, we may all one day follow California's lead," he said. Graham noted that his own state produces more than 65 percent of its power from nuclear energy. California power officials expect the supply of generation to fall well short of demand this summer, possibly creating the need for 200-odd hours of rolling blackouts to temper consumer electricity needs. Graham said the bill, which is a companion to one introduced earlier this year in the Senate by New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, allows nuclear power the same federal incentives and other benefits as other emission free "clean" fuels. "It's our goal with the introduction of this bill to bring nuclear energy back to the forefront of the growing national debate over the best way to meet our countries growing energy needs," Graham said. This month, Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to release a report on the nation's energy needs, and experts in the power industry think promotion of nuclear power will be a prominent feature of his findings. The nuclear power industry applauded the bill, pointing out the need to "level the playing field" by barring discrimination against nuclear generation in federal purchasing programs and federally supported emission-free electricity facilities. "This bill provides a comprehensive framework that will help maintain nuclear energy as a strong component of the portfolio needed to meet America's future electricity demands," said Joe Colvin, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Other provisions of the bill support nuclear engineering education, authorize more funding for nuclear technology and new plant designs and renews the Price-Anderson law providing liability coverage for nuclear plant operators. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 11 Yggdrasil Institute - Uranium Enrichment Newsletter - May 2001 Uranium Enrichment Newsletter April 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 I. OAK RIDGE II. PADUCAH III. PORTSMOUTH IV. US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY V. US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION VI. UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION VI. RUSSIA VII. HIGHLY-ENRICHED URANIUM VII. DEPLETED URANIUM IX. SCRAP METAL I. OAK RIDGE Assessment of floodplain land February 6, the US Department of Energy (DOE) sold to the Oak Ridge Land Co. 182 acres of floodplain along the Clinch River for $54 an acre. The company had already purchased from the Boeing Co. for development the adjacent 1200 acres of land, which DOE had sold to Boeing for a missile project that was later cancelled. The floodplain strip was part of the National Environmental Research Park. It includes 69 acres of wetlands and supports several state-listed threatened and endangered plant species. The Tennessee Valley Authority had formally asked DOE to convey the flood plain tract back to TVA in order to protect it. When conservation groups, who had tried to prevent the sale, protested the price, they were told that the price represented “fair-market value” as determined by an appraisal. Journalist Frank Munger has tried to obtain a copy of the appraisal. DOE’s Oak Ridge office told him that it did not have a copy, and nobody in the office remembered who did the appraisal. DOE wrote to The Oak Ridge Land for a copy but received no reply. The chief manager of Oak Ridge Land, Michael Ross, told Munger that the company did not have the appraisal. Oak Ridge Land had asked the appraiser for a copy, but the appraiser had not kept one. He said that he could get it “through some kind of printing process,” Ross told Munger; but the company hadn’t asked him to do it. “’If it becomes a major issue, we will’” (www.kornett.org/aforr ; Frank Munger, [Knoxville] News-Sentinel, 4/25/01) Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) Construction began April 19 on the EMWFM disposal cell in East Bear Creek Valley at the Oak Ridge complex. The cell, which is being constructed with natural and man-made materials, “is being excavated into the site of a ridge.” When the first phase is completed, the downhill side will rise about 100 feet above the current grade and will have the footprint of fifty-eight football fields. The cell will hold low-level radioactive waste, mixed waste, and wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Toxic Substances Control Act. Examples include soil, sediments, and building debris. (John Schlatter, Bechtel Jacobs 5/1/01) Incinerator restart DOE’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) incinerator went back into operation in April after a four-month shutdown during which workers conducted maintenance and replaced the brick lining of the main kiln. The incinerator is now scheduled to burn about 1.4 million pounds of waste in the current fiscal year. DOE and its subcontractors are seeking new operating permits for the incinerator, and a test burn will be held in mid-May. IT Corp. operates the incinerator under a subcontract to Bechtel Jacobs. (Oak Ridger, 4/3/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 4/26/01) Preservation of K-25? The Citizens’ Advisory Panel of Oak Ridge Reservation’s Local Oversight Committee is looking into ways to ensure the preservation of a portion of the K-25 process building for historical purposes. The building is not scheduled for demolition until 2008, but Bechtel Jacobs, DOE’s environmental manager, is expected to award a contract for asbestos removal and other activities in June. Proposals for the asbestos removal were due April 16. The subcontract will include preliminary work on the smaller K-27 process building. (Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 4/11/01; Weapons Complex Monitor, 3/26/01) Investigation of water A public meeting on Phase II of the investigation into water quality at Oak Ridge was held April 9. Phase I of the investigation looked into the quality of the current water supply at Oak Ridge; Phase II will look into past problems. At the meeting several workers deplored the fact that project leaders are still trying to determine whether cross connections allowed non-sanitary water to mix with drinking water. The workers believe that sufficient evidence to prove the cross connection has been presented. Some workers fear that a study financed by DOE will necessarily be biased. Parallax Inc. a small company based in Maryland with experience working for DOE and expertise in nuclear safety is managing Phase II. Others on the team include the JSI Center for Environmental Health Studies, headed by Dr. Richard Bird; Malcolm Pirnie Inc., an engineering firm, and TerraGraphics Environmental Engineering, Inc., which has investigated other water systems. The project team is asking workers, former workers, and community members with information to contact them. A hot line has been set up at 865-481-8290. (Frank Munger, News-Sentinel, 4/16/01; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger, 3/13/01) Annual environmental report Copies of the 1999 Oak Ridge Annual Site Environmental Report, released earlier this year, can be obtained by calling the Oak Ridge Information Resource Center, 865-241-4582. II PADUCAH An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Scrap Metal Disposition at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, released in March, evaluates alternatives for the removal and disposition of 54,000 t of scrap metal and miscellaneous materials. The materials are now stored in ten scrap yards, all except one in the northwestern corner of the site. The scrap includes processing equipment, piping, valves, and nickel ingots. In the preferred alternative, materials would be sorted and disposed of as appropriate. (Few details of what would go where are not supplied.) Some materials might be contaminated and recycled. Volumetrically contaminated nickel ingots would be put into interim storage on site. (DOE/OR/07-1880&D2/R1) Report on health A new report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, states that people in the vicinity of the Paducah plant may have been exposed to hazardous substances but that “’those substances are not at levels which would cause illness.’” Exposure to vinyl chloride, which may be produced when trichloroethylene (TCE) breaks down in groundwater, and to uranium and hydrogen fluoride released to the air are “indeterminate public health hazards” because data to assess the risk are not available. ATSDR conducted the study because Paducah is a Superfund site. A public meeting to discuss the assessment is to be held May 1. The assessment is on the agency Web site at www.atsdr.cdc.gov. Comments will be received until May 14. They should be sent to the Chief, Program Evaluation, Records and Information Services Branch, ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mailstop E-56, Atlanta, GA 30333. (Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 4/7/01; Paducah Sun, 4/25/01) Court cases The US Justice Department has filed a motion to dismiss a suit brought by several Kentucky landowners against the Atomic Energy Commission. The residents, represented by James W. Owens, seek compensation for damages to their land and for the cost of monitoring their health to identify problems caused by the Paducah plant. The Justice Department based the case for dismissal in part on the fact that the AEC no longer exists. (Michael Ravnitzky, National Journal, 4/16/01) US District Judge Joseph McKinley has ruled that the Kentucky workers’ compensation law prevents uranium plant workers from suing their own employers in a $10 billion lawsuit against former plant operators. He did not, however, dismiss the case on the grounds of a one-year statute of limitations. Workers can pursue the case as long as they were not employed by the companies that they are suing. The companies against which claims have been brought are Union Carbide and Martin Marietta (later Lockheed Martin), the plant’s two former contractors, and outside contractors including General Electric and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. Judge McKinley’s ruling does not apply to the whistle-blower lawsuit that led to the *Washington Post* exposé of contamination at the plant, because that suit was brought on different grounds-- that plant operators conspired to defraud the government by obtaining performance fees they did not earn. (James Malone, Courier Journal, 4/17/01; Joe Walker, Paducah Sun, 4/17/01) Technetium in Paducah UF6 “Sampling conducted a few days before and after the implementation of higher assay operations at Paducah has shown excess amounts of Technetium” in the enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Technetium 99 was deposited in the enrichment cascade when the cascade handled recycled uranium. Steps designed to put an end to the increase are being implemented and assessed. Meanwhile, UF6 from Paducah that is found to be contaminated with excess technetium goes through a trapping process at Portsmouth. In other respects the “assay ascension [is] proceeding as expected and on schedule.” (Inside P: Paducah Plant News & Info Source, published by USEC, 04/18/01) III PORTSMOUTH Annual environmental report DOE has issued the Portsmouth Annual Environmental Report for 1999, prepared by the agency’s environmental management and integration contractor Bechtel Jacobs Company. The report does not cover USEC’s activities at the site. It indicates that DOE did not exceed any of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits; did not violate air permits or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and did not make any unplanned releases of hazardous substances that required reporting under environmental regulations. The report is published in two volumes: a summary and a detailed data report. Both can be obtained from the DOE’s Environmental Information Center (740-289-3317). Job cuts and funding April 2, in compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), USEC notified employees that it anticipated laying off approximately 526 workers at the Portsmouth facility, because of the cessation of enrichment operations there. Of the 526, approximately 230 would be salaried employees and approximately 296, employees who are represented by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy (PACE) Workers International Union. USEC planned to announce staffing of the Portsmouth Transfer and Shipping/Cold Standby/Deposit Remediation organization April 12. The company postponed the announcement because reviews to ensure equity had taken longer than expected and because it was no longer clear that DOE would fund deposit remediation, ie removing uranium deposits from the cascade. If the remediation were not funded, 170 additional employees would lose their jobs. After lobbying by Governor Bob Taft, Senator Mike DeWine, and Congressman Ted Strickland, DOE agreed to provide $5 million for deposit remediation. (The $5 million will be in addition to $125.7 million that Energy Secretary Abraham promised March 1 for winterization, cold standby, and worker transition.) USEC subsequently decided to begin to give out layoff notices and job offers April 23. (USEC Press Release, 4/2/01; Memo from General Manager Pat Musser, 4/12/01; Press Releases from Gov. Taft and from Mike DeWine and Ted Strickland, 4/19/01) Huntington Pilot Plant DOE’s recent listing of the Huntington Pilot Plant in West Virginia among the facilities from which workers are eligible for the nuclear workers’ health compensation program has put the plant in the spotlight. The Pilot Plant was on the grounds of what is now the Special Metals plant, but was formerly owned by Inco. Ltd. The Pilot Plant produced nickel carbonyl powder, which was shipped to Oak Ridge and also, reportedly, “decontaminated scrap from uranium plants” and recycled scrap. The remains of the nickel plant are buried in the X-749A landfill at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. (Jim Ross, [Huntington] Herald-Dispatch, 4/20/01 and 4/21/01; DOE, Independent Investigation of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, May 2000) Cold standby contract for USEC The Platts Web site reported April 20 that DOE was preparing to employ USEC to keep the Portsmouth plant in ‘cold standby’ condition after the plant ceases operations in June. The initial contract with USEC would be for two years, but DOE has told USEC that it will consider USEC for additional work. The agency chose USEC in part because of USEC’s “’unique position . . . to maintain the current NRC certificate for operations.’” (www.platts.com) IV US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) DOE Budget The US Senate budget resolution, passed April 6, calls for $1 billion more for environmental cleanup at DOE facilities than the Bush administration has requested. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and a few other senators proposed the increase. (James R. Carroll, Courier Journal, 4/7/01) The detailed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2002, released by the Bush administration April 9, would, if enacted, cut expenditures for environmental programs across the DOE complex by more than $400 million, although it would increase by $231 million (to $5.3 billion) funding for nuclear weapons research. Not all sites fared equally in the environmental management allocations. The FY 2002 request for the East Tennessee Technology Park (the K-25 site) at Oak Ridge is $101,818, 000 down from the FY 2001 comparable appropriation of $151,497,000. For Paducah the FY 2002 request is $72,982,000, down from an appropriation of $86,505,000 for 2001. For Portsmouth the FY 2002 request of $201,096,000 represents a major increase over the FY 2001 appropriation of $87,861,000 due to the administration’s decision to provide $125.7 million for winterization, cleanup, and cold standby. (Apparently $59 million for these areas in FY 2001 was taken from the existing FY 2001 environmental management allocation. The environmental management allocation for FY 2002 will cover $66.7 million for FY 2002 transition activities and $59 million for repayment to the programs from which money for transition activities was taken in FY 2001.) Members of Congress representing the Paducah site have vowed to increase the funding for Paducah. In the Defense Environmental Management Privatization Budget, Oak Ridge was allocated $26 million for the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, Paducah $13.3 million for a planned Paducah Disposal Facility, and Portsmouth $2 million for a planned Portsmouth Disposal Facility. Under a privatization contract, the contractor funds construction of a facility and is paid only after the facility is in operation. (Alliance for Nuclear Accountability Press Release, 4/9/01; FY 2002 Congressional Request available on www.doe.gov; Bill Bartleman, Paducah Sun, 4/10/01) Compensation for nuclear weapons workers Labor Secretary Elaine Chao announced April 18 that she had told the White House that she agreed to the Labor Department’s administering the health compensation program for nuclear weapons workers. Her attempt to shift the administration of the program to the Justice Department had been severely criticized by nuclear workers members of Congress, particularly those from states with nuclear weapons sites. Chao has said that her staff cannot meet the July 31 deadline for accepting applications for compensation and will seek an extension of the deadline from Congress but that medical benefits will be made retroactive to July 31. She has also said that she would like changes in the way rejected claims can be appealed. She would prefer that appeals be settled by administrative review rather than by applicants’ going to court. (Memo to the DOL Team, 4/18/01; Associated Press, 4/18/01) The Web page of DOE’s Office of Worker Advocacy, with information on the compensation program, is now at: http://tis.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/index.html. The Energy Department has a toll-free information line on the program: 877-447-9756. Review of compliance agreements April 4, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham sent letters to EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and to the governors of states with DOE facilities, saying that the cleanup compliance agreements that are the basis of DOE’s Environmental Management program may be outdated and in need of change. He cited, as reasons for modifying the agreements, the development of new cleanup technologies, completion of waste characterization programs, and the acquisition of experience with cleanup approaches. Carolyn Huntoon, acting assistant secretary for environmental management, will lead a review of “ways to improve the compliance framework.” Abraham seeks input on the review from the EPA and the governors. (Weapons Complex Monitor, 4/23/01) Weapons sites as wilderness The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released “From Waste to Wilderness: Maintaining Biodiversity on Nuclear-Bomb-Building Sites,” a report proposing that the federal government “abandon the current nuclear-cleanup program [at DOE sites] as economically wasteful and environmentally counterproductive.” The government could set the DOE sites aside as wildlife habitat instead of imposing “new federal measures to ‘lock up’ additional multiple-use land elsewhere.” The report thus dovetails with the views of the current administration on public lands as well as with its desire to reduce spending on cleanup. Certainly many DOE sites are rich from the point of view of biodiversity, but other aspects of the report are controversial. Robert H. Nelson, the report’s author, takes the position that humans need an environment that is relatively free from radiation; but wildlife does not, a stand with which many biologists, taking a long-term view, would disagree. Nelson also takes the position that sources of on-site radiation that would impact humans offsite can be contained without the “current nuclear-cleanup program.” Water pollution is not so easily confined. Susan Gawarecki of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, reflects the view of many citizens. Nelson’s proposal is not realistic, she says. “I have seen the problems out there.” “It’s got to be dealt with.” ( www.cei.org; Paul Parson, Oak Ridger Online, 4/10/01) Card nomination President Bush has chosen Robert Card for DOE undersecretary. Card was president and CEO of Kaiser-Hill Company from 1996 until April of this year and is still a senior vice president of the firm. Kaiser-Hill is in charge of cleanup at the mothballed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production site. While Card led Kaiser-Hill, the firm was fined or penalized more than $725,000 for various violations, but its safety record improved yearly. Card is also a senior vice president, board member, and shareholder of CH2M Hill, which owns 50% of Kaiser-Hill. (Josey Ballenger, Center for Public Integrity, 4/25/01) CH2M Hill and USEC have together formed American Conversion Services, which recently bid for the contract to convert depleted uranium hexafluoride stored at the gaseous diffusion plants. V US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) Recertification procedure The NRC has made changes to the draft report, NUREG-1671, retitled Standard Review Plan for the Recertification of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants. It is currently offering the public the opportunity to comment on Section 14.0, Decommissioning Fund Plan and Financial Assurance Mechanisms, and on an introduction to be added to the draft report. A strikeout version of Section 14.0 and the introduction can be found at www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1671/REVISED/index.html . Comments should be submitted by May 25 to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, US NRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001. VI UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION (USEC) License for transport packs USEC has granted Columbiana Boiler Company (CBC) an exclusive license to manufacture and sell worldwide the MED 2000 overpack for transporting sample cylinders of UF6. The MED 2000, designed by USEC, is the “only package that fully complies with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s new requirements for UF6 shipments,” a company spokesperson reports. USEC will receive a license fee for each overpack sold. CBC will manufacture the packs in Columbiana, Ohio. (USEC Press Release, 4/23/01) Worker suits Six former USEC employees at the Paducah plant have filed federal and state suits in which they charge that the company terminated their jobs in order to avoid having to pay them full pensions. They were replaced, they contend, with younger workers who had had much less experience. Eight other workers who lost their jobs at Paducah have filed a state suit that charges USEC with sex, age, and racial discrimination and sexual harassment. USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle says that USEC developed a very thorough and fair process for deciding who would be affected by job cuts. (Associated Press, 04/12/01) USEC stock USEC stock has recently been among the best performers on the market. Although the value of the stock fell sharply during the first eighteen months after USEC’s privatization (from $14.25 to $3.44 a share), the stock has almost doubled in price since the beginning of last year and was at around $8.50 in late April. It was among the twenty best-performing members in the Russell 2000 index, which ranks shares of smaller companies. Irving Kahn, chairman of Kahn Brothers & Co., an investment firm that owns USEC shares, sees several possible reasons for the advance: the likelihood that USEC will be able to discontinue paying above-market prices for uranium from Russian warheads, the possibility that USEC will attract takeover bids, and the fact that the company will benefit if a decision by the US Commerce Department that Eurodif and Urenco are “dumping” uranium in this country results in the levying of duties against the Europeans. At the time that USEC was privatized several companies were interested in acquiring USEC, including Lockheed Martin. (David Wilson, Bloomberg.com , 4/11/01; The Economist, 4/27/01) Defense against hostile takeover The USEC board of directors has adopted a Shareholder Rights Plan, which is designed to help prevent a hostile takeover after July 28, when the legal restriction on anyone’s owning more than 10% of the company’s common stock expires. If a person or group obtains 15% or more of USEC’s common stock, each shareholder of record on May 9, 2001, will be able to buy additional shares of common stock at a 50% discount from the market price. The plan would greatly increase the cost of carrying out a hostile takeover. (USEC Press Release, 4/24/01) Third quarter finances April 24 the board of directors declared a dividend of 13.75 cents a share on common stock. April 25 USEC reported operating earnings for its third quarter ending March 31 of $8.1 million, or $.10 per share. Operating earnings in the third quarter of the previous fiscal year were $22.6 million or $.25 per share. Not taking into account a special tax credit, USEC earned $33.7 million or $.42 a share in the nine months ending March 31. These figures compare to $71.3 million or $.77 a share for the same period the previous year. USEC anticipates earnings for the year to be approximately $35 to $40 million, before special items. These results would exceed the previous guidance of $30 to $35 million. Lower costs and lower net interest expense have led to better than expected financial performance. Revenue for the third quarter totaled $243.1 million as compared to $281.8 million for the third quarter of the previous fiscal year. For the first nine months of the fiscal year revenue was $857.0 million, an 11 percent decline, from $960.3 million, for the first nine months of the previous fiscal year. The decline was caused by sales of a lower volume of separative work units (SWU) at lower average prices. Sales of SWU accounted for 93 percent of revenue. Revenue from the sale of natural uranium in the first nine months of FY 2001 amounted to $60.4 million, which compares to $44.9 million for the same period in the previous fiscal year. Megatons to Megawatts USEC submitted a report on the *Implementation of the Russian HEU Purchase Program* to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a hearing on DOE nonproliferation programs with Russia March 28. The company pointed out that as executive agent for the program, it had made possible the use in civilian reactors of 113 metric tons of Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU), the equivalent of more than 4500 nuclear weapons and thus “enough nuclear explosives to destroy every large city in the world.” The program is 40% ahead of the original 1993, 20-year schedule for conversion of 500 metric tons of HEU; and USEC and the Russian executive agent Techsnabexport enjoy a “strong, flexible, responsive and cooperative working relationship,” the report stated. (USEC Press Release, 4/3/01; USEC, Implementation . . . , 3/28/01) In a letter of April 12 to Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, USEC Senior Vice President Philip Sewell said that “’appointment of additional executive agents would destabilize the economics’” of the US-Russian HEU deal and “compromise the highly cooperation relationship with our Russian counterparts.” Dissenting views The Ad Hoc Utilities Group, which formed to protest USEC’s antidumping and countervailing duty actions against Eurodif and Urenco, sent a letter to Rep. Barton April 26 in response to USEC’s letter. Stephan E. Becker of Shaw Pittman, Counsel to the Group, stated that the actions against European enrichment providers could, if USEC succeeds in obtaining duties, give USEC a monopoly and “significantly impact ratepayers and the future competitiveness of nuclear power.” The Group “disagrees with USEC’s claims that the appointment of additional Executive Agents would destabilize the economics of the HEU deal." Additional executive agents would mean that USEC could rely less on importations from Russia to satisfy customer demand and would be prompted to increase its domestic production. The Group doubts that USEC can put a new technology into industrial service, before it has to retire the Paducah plant. Therefore, a domestic source of enriched uranium can be best assured by “construction of a new plant by the private sector using commercially proven centrifuge technology.” Utilities in the Group include Exelon, Entergy, Duke Energy, and Southern Nuclear. The Group’s views paralleled those expressed by John R. Longenecker in testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality March 27. Longenecker, former deputy assistant secretary and first “transition manager” of USEC, recommended that the US government consider appointing a second executive agent for the HEU deal. He advised that the government consider not allowing USEC to keep all the profits from the trade engendered by the US-Russian agreement. In addition, he warned against the possible results of the anti-dumping action brought by USEC. www.nuke-energy.com ***************************************************************** 12 NCPA - Federal Spending And The Budget - Nuclear Revival -- With Changes Nuclear Revival -- With Changes Proponents of nuclear power have been encouraged by recent Bush administration statements that it must be an essential part of the national energy mix. So they are dusting the cobwebs off plans that have been on the shelf for years. But this time they are following a somewhat different strategy. + If a younger generation of nuclear plants does make an appearance, it will probably be as small-scale additions to existing nuclear sites. + That's because the sites have already weathered the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rigorous site review, and the hardware -- substations and high-voltage transmission lines -- needed to get the power to customers is already in place. + Nuclear energy backers maintain they can build reactors that cost less and are far safer than the 1960s and 1970s era plants. + Three new nuclear designs that represent evolutionary improvements over existing reactors have been approved by the NRC in recent years -- the pebble-bed modular reactor being prominent among the new technologies. The pebble-bed reactors would be only one-tenth the size of the most recently constructed conventional nuclear plants in other countries. At $150 million apiece, investment costs are relatively modest, construction times could be much faster and plants could begin selling power much more quickly. That would reduce carrying costs that crippled utility balance sheets a generation ago. Nuclear power advocates are also pushing the commission to staff a licensing division that received its last new plant application in 1973. Source: Rebecca Smith, "Nuclear Power: Revival or Relapse?" *Wall Street Journal,* May 2, 2001. For text (requires WSJ subscription) For more on Energy http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/budget-7.html Dallas Headquarters: 12655 N. Central Expy., Suite 720 - Dallas, TX 75243-1739 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924 Washington Office: 655 15th St. N.W., Suite 375 - Washington, DC 20005 - 202/628-6671 - Fax 202/628-6474 © 2001 NCPA ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Radiological Emergency Response Plan [Federal Register: May 3, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 86)] [Notices] [Page 22270] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03my01-133] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants; Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, AGENCIES: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Federal Emergency Management Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have issued for public comment the Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.'' This NUREG is the basic emergency planning guidance document for radiological emergency planning and preparedness for commercial nuclear power plants and is used by licensees and by State and local government emergency response agencies to develop and maintain radiological emergency plans for nuclear power plants. DATE: The comment period ends August 1, 2001, of this Federal Register notice. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Federal workdays. Those considering public comment may request a free single copy of the Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, by writing to: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov, or Facsimilie: (301) 415- 2289. The Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, also is available electronically by visiting NRC's Home Page (http:// www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR0654/R1addenda/index.html) or FEMA's Home Page (http://www.fema.gov/pte/rep/). A copy of the Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, is available for inspection and copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room O1F21. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Halvey Gibson, Chief, Emergency Preparedness and Health Physics Section, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, Telephone (301) 415-2910; electronic mail address: khg@nrc.gov or Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Branch, Preparedness, Training, and Exercises Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, telephone (202) 646-3664; electronic mail address: vanessa.quinn@fema.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces the availability of and request for comment on the Draft Addenda to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants.'' NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, was issued in November 1980 and is the basic emergency planning guidance document for radiological emergency planning and preparedness for commercial nuclear power plants. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, is used by licensees and by State and local government emergency response agencies to develop and maintain radiological emergency plans for nuclear power plants. NUREG- 0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, is also used by staff of the NRC and FEMA to review, respectively, licensee and State and local government radiological emergency plans and preparedness, and to make findings and determinations regarding the adequacy of these plans. As part of FEMA's strategic review of its radiological emergency preparedness program, FEMA and NRC staff determined that it was not necessary to revise NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, but that to enhance its usefulness, the outdated citations in the document should be replaced with updated citations through means of an addenda. An initial version of the addenda was posted on the FEMA web site and provided to the member agencies of the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee for comment. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of March 2001. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Glenn M. Tracy, Chief, Operator Licensing, Human Performance, and Plant Support Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. For the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Russell Salter, Director, Chemical and Radiological Preparedness Division, Preparedness, Training and Exercises Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency. [FR Doc. 01-11112 Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-U ***************************************************************** 14 Feds eye plan to bury N-waste [The Toronto Sun] Thursday, May 3, 2001 NEW CORPORATION TO BUILD CONCRETE GRAVES? By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU OTTAWA --  The federal government is pushing to set up a taxpayer-funded corporation to manage Canada's radioactive nuclear waste. But critics charge that the corporation is just a front for nuclear energy promoters to ease Canadians into accepting plans to bury their waste in the Canadian Shield. Bill C-27 will see nuclear fuel waste producers, including the federal government agency Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., controlling the new publicly funded corporation. Ontario Power Generation is expected to have the biggest hand in shaping the corporation because it produces about 90% of nuclear fuel -- most of it at the giant Pickering and Darlington generating stations. UNDERGROUND CHAMBERS Natural Resources Minister Ralph Goodale promised that the arms-length corporation will offer at least three solutions to Canada's nuclear waste disposal dilemma. But the best option, according to AECL spokesman Larry Shewchuck, is burial. Shewchuck said AECL wants to dig underground chambers in the Canadian Shield's plutonic granite to hold concrete-encased, firelog-sized radioactive bundles. The chamber would then be filled with concrete. Shewchuck said the site would be dug where there's no nearby water. "The waste is incredibly radioactive," he said. "You want to find a site where there is no water movement from where your vault is to where the surface is." It takes about 500 years for a bundle to lose enough of its radioactivity so that it can be handled like natural uranium. Shewchuck said AECL doesn't have a site picked out, but if it's near a community residents would have to agree to the deal, which would see them gain 1,000 new jobs and more than $1 billion in investment. Previous story: Probe of videotaped beating on Next story: Gas relief not on Grit menu Copyright © 2001, Canoe Limited Partnership. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Truck carrying radioactive material crashes in Dryden [Thestar.com] ** May. 2, 2001. 10:21 AM DRYDEN, Ont. (CP) - A fiery head-on crash involving two trucks, one carrying radioactive material, claimed the lives of at least two people on the TransCanada highway early today. ''As a result of the nature of the cargo, it kind of hampered the firefighting efforts initially,'' said Const. Rick Krueger. ''Since then, firefighters have been allowed to get in and deal with the flames.'' Krueger said a small quantity of iridium was being shipped in crash-proof containers in one of the trucks. ''I believe that material is used in surveying, so I believe it's not that hazardous,'' Krueger said. ''However, it is radioactive material so precautions do have to be taken.'' Hazardous materials teams from Environment Canada, Atomic Energy of Canada and the Spills Action Centre were called to the scene. The highway was likely to remain closed for most of the day. There was at least one fatality in each truck, and more bodies may be found, Krueger said. ***************************************************************** 16 NUCLEAR power stations would be "phased out" under the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy announced yesterday, as he unveiled plans to establish an international centre of excellence for decommissioning at Dounreay. The controversial plans would be the death knell for the nuclear power station at Hunterston in Ayrshire, and Dounreay in Caithness. Neither complex would be recommissioned when they reach the end of their operating life. Some may see the announcement as an attempt to hold on to the marginal seat for Caithness, Sutherland, and Easter Ross, where Robert Maclennan, the incumbent Lib Dem MP, is stepping down. However, Mr Kennedy insisted yesterday that the Liberal Democrats was the only party with long-term policies to protect the environment. He promised better home insulation, doorstep recycling, and cheap, reliable public transport as he vowed to place the environment at the heart of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Championing a "green budget" assessment on every policy, the Lib Dem leader unveiled a raft of proposals to cut pollution and protect the environment. Mr Kennedy said: "Both Tory and Labour governments in Britain have paid lip service to the environment, but their actions have not matched their rhetoric. "Britain has widely been seen as the 'dirty man' of Europe. The environment has never been on the Tory agenda. The environment is still at the bottom of the Labour Party's in-tray. The Liberal Democrats are different. We place the environment at the heart of our thinking." A top priority is to reduce energy consumption by making homes, businesses, and transport more efficient. An insulation programme would improve household energy efficiency standards, help to eradicate fuel poverty and provide new jobs. Mr Kennedy said the Lib Dems would require a minimum 10% of the UK's energy to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2010. *- May 3rd* ***************************************************************** 17 UK's BNFL says E.ON nuclear deal helps Mox plant UK: May 3, 2001 LONDON - British Nuclear Fuels said a prelimary deal to supply German utility E.ON with Mox reactor fuel should help it gain government approval to open its 460 million pound Mox manufacturing plant. The controversial Sellafield Mox Plant (SMP) has lain idle since its completion in 1997 because regulatory approval to start up has been witheld because of fears there were insufficient customers for the mixed oxide fuel, a combination of plutonium and uranium oxides. In late 1999 revelations that quality control data on a batch of Mox, made in a small demonstration unit and sent to Japan, had been falsified led to import bans by a number of countries, raising questions about the size of exports markets. Yesterday BNFL spokesman Bill Anderton told Reuters the deal with E.ON was a "major step foward for getting approval to start-up of SMP." Anderton said the deal with E.ON increases the amount of contracted business to over 36 percent from 22 percent adding that breakeven for SMP is 40 percent. Under the deal, the details of which have yet to be finalised, BNFL will extract plutonium and uranium from E.ON's spent nuclear fuel to create Mox which E.ON will re-use at its nuclear plants. The government is set to make a decision on SMP sometime this summer once a review by consultants Arthur D Little into the plant's viability is completed. Nigel Hawkins, an utility analyst at Williams de Broe said of the E.ON deal: "It is one step closer for BNFL getting approval, but it is far from certain". Hawkins said he thought BNFL would also have to show progress on possible deals with Japanese customers, since the country is a key market. BNFL's Anderston said the company's Japanese customers have declared they will do business with his group although no specific orders have been made. Critics of Mox fuel, including environmental group Greenpeace, say manufacturing Mox makes little economic sense since it is more expensive to make than conventional uranium reactor fuel. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 18 EBRD to help Bulgaria fund closure of old reactors BULGARIA: May 3, 2001 SOFIA - The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will assist Bulgaria attract funding for the closure of two of its oldest nuclear reactors, Bulgaria's energy agency said yesterday. The State Energy Agency (SEA) said in a statement that its chief Ivan Shilyashki and EBRD Vice President Joachim Jahnke had discussed in London a planned donors conference to set up an International Kozloduy Fund at the end of May. Bulgaria, as apirant to membership, has agreed with EU conditions to close the two 440-megawatt reactors, number one and two, at the Soviet-designed Kozloduy plant before 2003. They were previously due to close in 2004 and 2005 respectively. A final decision over the earlier closure of the other two 440-megawatt reactors, three and four, will be taken after negotiations with the European Commission in 2002. "The International Kozloduy Fund and the EU grant would ensure the safe closure and decommissioning of the reactors," Shilyashki told reporters upon his return from London. He said Britain was ready to join the decommissioning fund contributing 1.5 million euro ($1.3 million) and several more countries had indicated their intention, he added. The Kozloduy Fund would be similar to the Ignalina Decommissioning Support Fund to start operating in Lithuania for the closure of the nuclear power plant there, Shilyashki said. Bulgaria expects to receive a 85 million euro grant from the EU, aimed at helping it close the two oldest reactors and build a nuclear waste storage, the agency statement said. Bulgarian energy officials say full decommissioning of the two reactors was expected to cost up to $400 million REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 19 £millions Order Boost For Mox The Whitehaven News Thursday, May 03, 2001 HUGE new orders worth many millions of pounds are on the way to BNFL from Germany to clinch the future of Sellafield's Mox plutonium-recycling plant on which thousands of long-term West Cumbrian jobs depend. The fate of the £400 million Mox plant hangs in the balance. Until the government decides whether or not to grant a licence to operate after another round of public consultations into its economic viability the plant cannot operate despite having orders. But today The Whitehaven News can reveal that BNFL has struck a big deal with one of its major customers to land its biggest ever Mox contract representing a 14 per cent increase on the order book. It comes as a massive and timely boost for the company and the Sellafield workforce who are worried about their futures. Thousands of jobs are at risk if the government gives the thumbs down to Mox because the plant is needed to recycle the plutonium from Thorp reprocessing. BNFL, who yesterday confirmed the deal after telling workers internally, has signed a Heads of Agreement with the German customer E.ON and this paves the way for a package of multi-million pound business. Twelve of Germany's 19 nuclear power stations are run by E.ON who are also BNFL's biggest single customer world wide. BNFL was already banking on the government allowing the Mox plant to operate on the strength of a revised business case which the company described as strong. The new orders will come on the back of this. A BNFL spokesman said: "The package deal includes a commitment by E.ON to incorporate all of their separated plutonium arisings at Sellafield into Mox fue , the largest single Mox contract for the plant to date, further strengthening the already robust case for the operation of the Mox plant and increasing the amount of contracted\ reserved business for it from 22 per cent to over 36 per cent." Copeland MP Jack Cunningham said: "After all the anxiety, this is a tremendous lift for BNFL and the workforce." Copeland Tory leader Mike Graham enthused: "It's big business for Sellafield and West Cumbria. All we need now is the licence." Site GMB union convenor John Kane said: "Provided we get the licence we can get the business. It's a major morale boost for the workforce and very timely." Sellafield bosses are delighted and BNFL chief executive Norman Askew admitted: "It is a major step forward. Our customers are now showing their support through new agreements and the message that they want SMP brought into operation is now crystal clear." nANOTHER 40 jobs are to go at Marchon with the closure of the lubricant additives plant in 12 months. "It is deplorable, a total shock," said GMB regional organiser Ged Caig yesterday. "These 40 job losses were never expected in a plant which made a £4 million profit last year. There has been no consultation and I am devastated." Site director Tony McGrath said: "Staff on the site have known for a number of months of the intention to sell this business and the likelihood that a sale would lead to the operations being closed in the future. Consultations will start immediately about the 40 jobs and terms and conditions. We will try to get jobs with Rhodia either on site or elsewhere for anyone who wants to stay." The sale is to RohMax Additives which will transfer the work from Whitehaven to one of its sites in Europe, Canada and the United States. The 40 jobs are on top of the 80 axed recently through plant closures. ***************************************************************** 20 Jack and The Japanese See Eye to Eye The Whitehaven News Thursday, May 03, 2001 SELLAFIELD may have moved a step closer to winning vital new Mox fuel orders following Jack Cunningham's talks with Japanese government ministers and BNFL customers in Japan all last week. Describing his Japanese mission as a "huge success", Copeland's MP declared: "The talks were both constructive and encouraging and I am pleased to report that the confidence of BNFL's Japanese customers is now returning. It was an extremely important visit and has done a great deal in helping with the case for the Sellafield Mox plant." BNFL is hoping that the latest round of public consultations, into the economic case for Sellafield's full-scale Mox production plant, will result in the British government giving it a licence to operate after four years of delays. Japanese orders for the recycled plutonium fuel are seen as vital to sustain the plant, which will underpin Sellafield's long-term future and many thousands of jobs, but last year's Mox fuel data falsification scandal which led to the resignation of BNFL's chief executive and the sacking of four Sellafield process workers shattered business confidence all over the world. On his return from Japan, Dr Cunningham said: "It was essential the Japanese understood just how much progress has been made, both at Sellafield and within BNFL, since last year. Equally as important the Japanese needed to know that Sellafield still enjoys the support of the West Cumbria community. Thanks to the existence of the 'Sort Out Sellafield' campaign the Japanese have been enormously reassured that this is the case. In fact, they were so impressed by the Campaign and its achievements that they now wish to replicate it in areas where they themselves have nuclear facilities." While in Japan, Dr Cunningham addressed the Japan Atomic Industry Forum. "BNFL were extremely pleased with my contribution and considered it to be vital in rebuilding the trust of their Japanese customers and of crucial importance towards the commissioning of the Sellafield Mox plant." Copeland Council leader, Robin Simpson, said: "Dr Cunningham's visit has played a massive role in protecting the 11,000 jobs on the Sellafield site and the other 5,000 jobs that depend upon these. All the signs suggest that his visit has had a positive impact on the Japanese government and BNFL's customers there. Japanese business is at the heart of the Mox business case." John Kane, Sellafield union convenor, said he was now even more optimistic that the Mox plant would get the go ahead, adding: "Eventually, I think Jack's visit to Japan will bring wide- ranging benefits to Copeland and West Cumbria, but not least to Sellafield. In Japan, they now know the truth about what's happening here at Sellafield." ***************************************************************** 21 Government challenged over secret nuclear plans FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: [M2 Communications Ltd.] Story Filed: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:12 AM EST May 03, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Friends of the Earth today challenged the Government to 'come clean' on secret plans by state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) to build new nuclear power stations in the UK. The environmental pressure group believes that BNFL intends to develop a new generation of MOX-fuelled reactors but is keeping quiet until after the general election. Last December BNFL's Chairman, Hugh Collum, claimed that "we have the designs for the reactors we need" and "we also have the sites on which to put these reactors"[1]. The sites most likely to be selected are those currently used by the older 'Magnox' power stations including those in Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Gloucestershire and Somerset [2]. Last month, BNFL asked Ministers for permission to operate the new, but so far unopened,Sellafield MOX 'Plutonium Fuel' Plant (SMP). The company suggested that it could be used to make fuel rods out of Britain's own 60 tonne plutonium stockpile [3], but hasn't said who would use them. SMP only has limited contracts with foreign customers capable of using MOX fuel. And British Energy, the privatised nuclear generator which owns the only UK reactor that could possibly take MOX, has refused, saying that there is no commercial or operational case for doing so. In a letter to Energy Minister Peter Hain [4], Friends of the Earth says that the public has a right to know what is in BNFL's new five year 'Corporate Plan' before the General Election. BNFL and the Government have been discussing the new plan for at least a year. Friends of the Earth's Nuclear Campaigner, Mark Johnston, said: "Ministers must come clean over any plans to build new nuclear power stations before the general election. BNFL is publicly owned and the public has a right to know what it is planning to do. "BNFL's reprocessing at Sellafield, Cumbria is creating huge stockpiles of domestic and foreign plutonium. This is economic and environmental folly.Reprocessing must be halted and the wholly uneconomic MOX fuel programme abandoned. BNFL's future lies in minimising the risks to future generations by clearing up and managing the radioactive legacy it has created." Friends of the Earth's Green Cross Code Campaign in the run-up to the General Election is calling on all Parliamentary candidates to pledge a doubling of the UK's current target for renewable energy and to rule out building any new nuclear power stations. [5] NOTES TO EDITORS: [1] BNIF/BNES Conference in London on December 6, 2000, archived at . [2] There are first generation 'Magnox' reactors at eleven sites around Britain: Bradwell (Essex) Hunterston (Ayrshire) Berkeley (Gloucestershire) Oldbury (Gloucestershire) Calder Hall (Cumbria) Sizewell (Suffolk) Chapel Cross (Dumfries &Galloway) Trawsfynydd (Gwynedd) Dungeness (Kent) Wylfa (Anglesey) Hinkley Point (Somerset) [3] BNFL's 2001 MOX Market Review was released by DETR on 28 March 2001 (available at section). Paragraph 6.7 (p10) refers to using SMP for UK plutonium stocks, and this is reiterated in the company's press release of the same date. BNFL is asking for a licence to operate the MOX plant despite a lack of foreign customers. A new UK market for MOX would reduce the financial losses SMP would otherwise make. Such a move would also begin to deal with the hugely embarrassing and growing stockpile of over sixty tonnes of domestic plutonium that has been separated from spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield.Nearly all of the UK's plutonium is stored at the Sellafield site in powdered oxide form. This stockpile is expected to rise to more than 100 tonnes by 2010 due continued reprocessing by BNFL. Plutonium is one of the most dangerous elements on Earth with a radioactive half life of 24,000 years. Originally produced in order to make nuclear weapons, it has no economic use. Using plutonium as MOX fuel is an expensive and wholly uncommercial attempt by the nuclear industry to 'sweep under the carpet' an embarrassing problem and to give the nuclear industry a 'life line' to its long held dream of fast breeder reactors. [4] The text of the letter to Energy Minister Peter Hain MP is attached/below. The Government told Parliament in July 2000 (HC848, Response to Trade &Industry Committee's 9th Report 99/00) that "[in] the context of considering and developing the BNFL Corporate Plan, the Government and its advisers will be testing BNFL's assumptions about markets and the competitive environment." [5] More information about FOE's Green Cross Code Pledges is available on the Campaign Hotline 020 7566 1663 or from the FOE web-site where voters can email all the candidates in their constituency. FOE believes the UK's current target for renewable energy does not face up to climate change and is calling for it to be doubled to 20% of all electricity generation by 2010. [6] In March 2000, the Government postponed indefinitely plans to partially privatise BNFL after the MOX data falsification scandal. The incident triggered a worldwide drop in confidence in the company and will require the return shipment of MOX fuel from Japan. The incident contributed heavily to record losses by the company reported September 2000. CONTACT: Friends of the Earth Tel: +44 (0)20 7490 1555 Fax: +44 (0)20 7490 0881 e-mail: info@foe.co.uk WWW: *Copyright © 2001, M2 Communications Ltd., all rights reserved.* ***************************************************************** 22 Reactor shut down at Balakovsakaya nuclear power plant [ITAR/TASS News Agency] Story Filed: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:10 AM EST SARATOV, May 03, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) -- The first nuclear reactor of the Balakavskaya nuclear power plant was automatically shut down last night by the reactor's automatic security system. Chief engineer of the nuclear power plant Viktor Ignatov said that the reactor was stopped at 1.27 AM Thursday because of the erroneous function of the automatic security system. Repair operations are under way to eliminate the defects found. The incident has causes no damage to equipment and has not affected the radiation level in the area of the nuclear power plant which remains with the permissible norm on an international scale for nuclear powers stations ans was assessed at zero level. By Alexander Karelin (c) 1996-2001 ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 Senate approves Texas dump for low-level nuclear waste HoustonChronicle.com *May 2, 2001, 9:45PM* By KATHRYN A. WOLFE Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- After hours of debate Wednesday, the Senate preliminarily approved creation of a dump in West Texas for nuclear waste from other states. The bill, SB 1541, would license a private company to store low-level radioactive waste from Texas, Maine and Vermont under the terms of a federal agreement, as well as federal waste from the Department of Energy. Much of the debate centered on whether to strip the bill of the provision that allows federal waste, which was introduced in committee against the will of the bill's author. The amendment's author, Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, said federal waste is necessary to make the site financially viable. Rep. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, the bill's author, said the amendment could hamper the state's ability to control the amount of federal waste shipped to Texas. "The reason for the compact (the federal agreement), members, is simply so that we could limit the amount of federal waste ... that could be forced upon this state," Duncan said. An amendment to remove the federal provision was narrowly defeated during the debate, which included interruptions by protesters perched in the gallery. "It's not safe! You are a liar!" one protester yelled before Capitol police scrambled to subdue her. Four people in the gallery were arrested on suspicion of disrupting a public meeting. Low-level radioactive waste is generally defined as any waste except spent nuclear fuel rods. ***************************************************************** 24 Plan would move waste via El Paso, senator says Borderland News May 3, 2001 *Gary Scharrer Austin Bureau* AUSTIN -- Nuclear waste will certainly move through El Paso, Sen. Eliot Shapleigh said Wednesday after the Texas Senate tentatively approved legislation opening up the state for the U.S. Department of Energy's radioactive waste. Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, and Shapleigh fought a losing battle to keep the federal government's radioactive waste out of Texas. An emotional two-hour debate triggered three separate outbursts from four spectators in the Senate gallery, some of whom screamed that lawmakers were "insane" for allowing nuclear waste to be imported from other states. The protesters were quickly subdued and arrested by Department of Public Safety officers. The state's low-level radioactive waste site is likely to be built in Andrews County -- just north of Odessa and Midland in West Texas. Accidents and leaks of radioactive material are inevitable, said El Pasoan Bob Geyer, who has long objected to attempts to use West Texas as a dumping site of hazardous waste. Low-level radioactive waste is produced as a byproduct of medical, research and industrial activities, as well as by nuclear power plants. "There are several Department of Energy sites on the West Coast. A lot of that waste will be traveling through El Paso on I-10. The fact is, it's highly dangerous radioactive waste," Geyer said after the Senate's 19-10 vote for the bill. "Any type of accident or leak is going to be dangerous to the citizens of El Paso." Shapleigh said it's a 100 percent certainty that radioactive waste will be shipped through El Paso if the House goes along with the Senate bill, which faces a final but routine vote today. "We have no obligation to take DOE waste. The only reason to take it would be to benefit one person," Shapleigh said. Billionaire Harold Simmons owns Waste Control Specialists, which wants to build the dump for radioactive waste in West Texas. Shapleigh tried to remove a provision in the bill that allowed federal radioactive waste to end up in Texas. Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, attached the amendment to the bill several weeks ago because, he said, private operators of the low-level radioactive waste dump need volume to make the project profitable. Duncan, author of the low-level dump bill, supported Shapleigh's attempt to remove the provision accepting the federal government's radioactive waste. "I don't think it's the right public policy for the state of Texas," Duncan said. Most of the federal Department of Energy's radioactive waste comes from Superfund cleanup sites, Duncan said. He fears that the Department of Energy provision will jeopardize final approval of the bill, which he considers necessary as a means of building a storage site for Texas' own low-level radioactive waste, which is now kept at about 1,200 locations. Texas also must keep its commitment as a compact state that will accept low- level radioactive waste from Maine and Vermont, Duncan said. For most of the 1990s, state leaders planned to build the dump for low-level radioactive waste near Sierra Blanca until the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission rejected the site as unsafe. Duncan and three other Republicans supported Shapleigh's effort to keep Department of Energy radioactive waste out of Texas. But six of Shapleigh's fellow Democrats voted against him in the 16-13 vote to table Shapleigh's amendment. "The Legislature works in strange ways," Shapleigh said after the vote. "The power of the lobby is large." In the past two elections, Simmons and his companies contributed more than $1.6 million to Texas politicians and federal candidates, according to Lobby Watch, a publication of Texans For Public Justice. Simmons and his companies also paid lobbyists as much as $640,000 through 2000, the report said. And three utility companies pushing for the radioactive waste dump paid 88 lobbyists up to $3.5 million last year to help make their case, according to the report. Sierra Club officials will try to change the bill on the House side of the Capitol. "This bill opens the floodgates to importing radioactive waste to Texas," said Erin Rogers of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "This bill is a boondoggle for one private company and the billionaire who owns it, and it sticks the rest of us taxpayers with liability for a massive cleanup bill." *Gary Scharrer may be reached at gscharrer@elpasotimes.com* ***************************************************************** 25 Keep Your Waste The Salt Lake Tribune -- Keep Your Waste May 3, 2001* Envirocare's engineering consultant Ronald Gaynor writes soothingly (Forum, April 24) that if Utah's citizens would just listen to the "facts," we would have nothing to fear and Envirocare could get on with the business of importing hotter radioactive waste into the state. But what Mr. Gaynor, Private Fuel Storage, and other supporters of the nuclear waste industry have to remember is that Utah's citizens have been listening to such reassurances of safety for the past five decades -- the safety of atomic testing, of Dugway's nerve gas, of uranium mining, and so on -- and have become justifiably suspicious of such "facts." (If you have any doubts about this sad legacy of deceit, I'd recommend Chip Ward's Canaries on the Rim or Curtis and Diane Oberhansleys' new book, Downwinders: An Atomic Tale.) And there is one other fact that those who would make Utah the nation's nuclear waste dump conveniently keep overlooking: The overwhelming majority of Utahns do not want hotter nuclear waste brought into this state, period. Now, that's a fact! KELLER HIGBEE Salt Lake City © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Special Metals says it was kept in dark May 3, 2001 Tri-State News 7 Day Archive - Monday - President says nuclear operations weren’t revealed when it bought Inco By JIM ROSS - The Herald-Dispatch jimross@herald-dispatch.com HUNTINGTON -- Special Metals Corp. says it knew nothing about a nuclear fuel preparation factory in Huntington when it bought Inco Alloys International from Inco Ltd. 2 1/2 years ago. "In fact, until quite recently, Special Metals itself was unaware of the RPP’s existence," T. Grant John, president of Special Metals, said in a letter to The Herald-Dispatch on Wednesday. He said Special Metals "purchased the facility in October of 1998 and this issue was not disclosed at the time." Not many people in the Huntington area, other than those who worked at Inco in the 1950s and 1960s, knew much about the plant, and the ones who knew the most had been sworn to secrecy by the federal government. The RPP, or Reduction Pilot Plant, was owned by the federal government and operated on what was then Inco property from 1952 to 1963. It produced nickel carbonyl powder for use at uranium enrichment plants. If Inco kept the RPP secret from Special Metals, it wasn’t the first time the company had done so. At least twice in the 1960s, Inco printed brochures showing site maps for its Huntington works, and both times the maps omitted the RPP, leaving only a blank area between the maintenance building and the service center where the RPP should have been. Documents obtained by The Herald-Dispatch show some nickel that had been contaminated with enriched uranium was sent back to the RPP for reprocessing. The plant was demolished and buried in 1979. A check of the property after the demolition showed no residual radiation. But enough workers may have been exposed to radiation that the Department of Energy has included the RPP on its list of factories whose workers would be covered by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The Herald-Dispatch has been contacting as many former RPP workers as it can locate. Only a few have said they have had a cancer that might be related to their work at the RPP, but many wonder if it just hasn’t shown up yet. The federal program compensating former atomic weapons workers for radiation-related cancer specifies that the employee’s cancer was at least "as likely as not" related to the employment. A memo dated Nov. 14, 1979, discloses some of the history of the plant. The memo contains the name T.H. Hardin, director of the supply division at Oak Ridge, but it does not specify whether he is its writer or the recipient. The memo says the RPP was built by the Atomic Energy Commission, now known as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in 1951 to supply nickel powder for the enrichment plant at Paducah and later at Piketon. The RPP was built on about four acres of federally owned land surrounded entirely by facilities owned and operated by International Nickel Co., now known as Inco Ltd. International Nickel operated the RPP from 1951 to 1963. After the plant closed, Inco maintained it in a cold standby condition. In the 1970s, the Department of Energy decided it no longer needed to keep the RPP standing by, so it agreed to demolish it. But the plant had problems. Some nickel contaminated with slightly enriched uranium had been processed at the RPP, although the memo did not state where that nickel came from. Former RPP workers have said they believe the plant reprocessed nickel that had been taken from pipes removed from the enrichment plants. A radiation survey and security inspection were done at the RPP in January 1975. "Based upon the radiation survey, the presence or potential presence of classified starting material, and the potential presence of nickel carbonyl, it was decided that the process equipment and piping were unsuitable for conventional disposal and consequently scheduled for disposal in the classified burial ground at the Portsmouth, Ohio, Gaseous Diffusion Plant" at Piketon, the 1979 memo said. Along with the process equipment, the residue unloading system and the building walls, floors and structural members surrounding it were slightly contaminated and contained classified material, the memo said. Huntington Alloys Inc., under contract to the DOE, supervised the demolition work, which was done by Cleveland Wrecking Co. Huntington Alloys marked the contaminated material. That which was contaminated with nickel carbonyl was marked with a red X, and that contaminated with uranium was marked with a white X. Demolition started on Nov. 27, 1978, and was completed on May 18, 1979. Four rail car loads and 59 truckloads of scrap were taken to Piketon. At the same time, 138 truckloads of clean scrap were removed by Cleveland Wrecking Co. On May 15, the plant site was inspected for radiation and released for unrestricted use, the 1979 memo said. The remains of the old RPP were buried in what is known as landfill X-749A at the Piketon plant. Part of the old RPP remains. Only the four-story building containing most of the processing equipment was demolished. A smaller building was later used for other purposes and eventually converted into what is now the Huntington works’ wastewater treatment plant. Company president relays info found in storage files to public Copyright © 2001 The Herald-Dispatch Use of this site signifies ***************************************************************** 2 Incinerator could burn 1.6M pounds in FY 2001 Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:34 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Around 1.6 million pounds of waste is expected to be burned in the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge incinerator during fiscal year 2001, which ends Sept. 30, according to federal officials. That will be a hefty increase over FY 2000's total of 552,000 pounds. The FY 2000 amount was so low due because of repairs being made to the Toxic Substances Control Act incinerator, according to Joy Sager, DOE program manager for the incinerator. The incinerator, located at the Oak Ridge K-25 site, burns low-level radioactive wastes in addition to some wastes containing hazardous chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls. According to DOE figures, the total quantities of waste burned by year since the incinerator began operating are as follows: * FY 1991 -- 2,166,000 pounds. * FY 1992 -- 2,706,000 pounds. * FY 1993 -- 3,210,000 pounds. * FY 1994 -- 4,717,000 pounds. * FY 1995 -- 2,988,000 pounds. * FY 1996 -- 3,365,000 pounds. * FY 1997 -- 2,506,000 pounds. * FY 1998 -- 1,778,000 pounds. * FY 1999 -- 1,670,000 pounds. * FY 2000 -- 552,000 pounds. * FY 2001 -- 1,615,000 pounds (estimated total). The annual dose limit for radioactive emissions from the Oak Ridge Reservation is 10 millirem, according to Sager. She said measurements have shown that emissions from the incinerator are consistently below the regulatory limit. In fact, DOE's most recent figures indicate that since the incinerator began operating in 1991, the actual annual dose from the incinerator averaged 0.15 millirem per year through calendar year 1999. A millirem is a measure of radiation absorbed by tissue, taking into account the difference in damage produced by various kinds of radiation. The average American gets a dose of about 360 millirem a year, most of it from radon gas, and some from man-made sources like X-rays and airline flights. One coast-to-coast round-trip flight results in about 5 millirem of exposure. A trial burn of the Oak Ridge toxic waste incinerator is scheduled to take place between May 14 and May 26 to demonstrate the incinerator's compliance with a series of performance standards, including the Toxic Substances Control Act for which the incinerator is named. IT Corp. operates the incinerator under a subcontract with Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Department of Energy's environmental manager in Oak Ridge. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 3 Mercury stockpile focus of meeting Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:38 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Officials with the Defense National Stockpile Center are seeking public input on what to do with an excess inventory of mercury. The Defense National Stockpile Center -- a part of the Defense Logistics Agency -- is responsible for providing safe, secure and environmentally sound stewardship for all commodities in the defense national stockpile, including mercury. A mercury management environmental impact statement is being planned that will evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives for the long-term management of the inventory of excess mercury, including some stored in Oak Ridge. Some of the alternatives being considered are: Consolidating the mercury at one location for long-term storage; chemically stabilizing the mercury to reduce or eliminate toxicity and then storing or disposing of it; selling it; or leaving it where it is. Currently, there are no approved methods for disposal of mercury. Community members will have an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the environmental impact statement during a public meeting Tuesday, May 8, at the Garden Plaza hotel, 215 S. Illinois Ave. An open house will be held from 5:30 to 7 p.m., while the actual meeting is scheduled for 7 to 9 p.m. The mercury in question is stored at four locations in steel flasks -- 76 pounds of mercury per flask, officials said. The combined total of mercury currently stockpiled at Defense National Stockpile Center depot locations is 128,626 flasks totaling 4,408 metric tons. In Oak Ridge, 20,276 flasks of mercury totaling 673 metric tons are stored at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The other three storage locations are in Somerville, N.J., 75,880 flasks totaling 2,615 metric tons; Warren, Ohio, 16,355 flasks totaling 563 metric tons; and New Haven, Ind., 16,151 flasks totaling 557 metric tons. Mercury is a heavy, silver-white metal that is liquid at room temperature. High levels of exposure to certain forms of mercury can interfere with the nervous system of the human body and cause health problems that may include tremors, changes in vision or hearing, weakness, memory problems, headaches and nervousness. Mercury is still used in thermometers, barometers, cleaning solutions and mining and smelting operations, according to information from the Defense National Stockpile Center. For more information, call toll free 1-888-306-6682 or visit the mercury management environmental impact statement Web site at www.mercuryeis.com/ All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 4 Stirring nuclear trouble [Thestar.com] ** May. 3, 2001. 01:01 AM George W. Bush delivered a contradictory, confusing and troubling message this week calling for "a new way of thinking" about nuclear weapons. He hopes to make huge cuts in the U.S. arsenal of some 7,000 warheads. Officials talk of the U.S. having as few as 1,500. That suggests he feels the world will be safer with fewer bombs. Yet in the same breath Bush proposes to develop a broad shield against attack by missiles. That means tearing up the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia, which prohibits such defences to prevent a country from striking first, then hiding behind a shield. This could spook Moscow or Beijing into building up their arsenals to overwhelm U.S. defences. That would blow away Bush's happy vision of a world with fewer nukes. This is an issue Prime Minister Jean Chrétien shouldn't dodge when U.S. envoys come to canvass support. New thinking is good. But clear thinking is better. Canadians can't be expected to endorse a policy with a glaring incoherency at its centre. Cutting nuclear stockpiles makes sense. Scrapping the ABM does not. More to the point, there's no good reason to link the two. The Chrétien government has been silent on this subject recently, fearing to annoy Washington. But now that Bush is soliciting our view, we should have one. The technology is iffy. Allies are skeptical. Even American public opinion is fiercely divided. For nearly 30 years, the ABM has proved its worth, restraining an unbridled arms race by the "major" nuclear powers. It should not be repudiated in a hurry because Bush worries that Iran, Iraq, North Korea or Libya *may* one day possess the technology to pose a credible threat. That day is not yet here. If it ever comes, those countries may no longer be hostile. Iran and Iraq have been on good terms with the U.S. before. North Korea and Libya are thawing. Inviting a global arms-control crisis today, to head off a threat that may not materialize tomorrow, is not strategic thinking. It is strategic folly. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please ***************************************************************** 5 Conference To Tackle Nuclear Trafficking Threat Environment News Service: VIENNA, Austria, May 2, 2001 (ENS) - The threat of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and radioactive sources will bring more than 300 officials from over 70 countries to Stockholm next week. The Swedish government and the Vienna based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will co-host a conference from May 7 to 11, entitled "Security of Material, Measures to Prevent, Intercept and Respond to Illicit Uses of Nuclear Material and Radioactive Sources." [headquarters] Vienna International Center along the Danube River, home of the IAEA. (Photo courtesy Pavlicek/IAEA) Among those in attendance will be representatives of the World Customs Organization, the International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol, and the European Police Office. They will discuss ways to strengthen international security against terrorists and look at measures to prevent the unauthorized removal and movement of nuclear materials and critical equipment. "The potential for the smuggling of large quantities of weapons usable material may be low," said IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. "However, even trafficking of small quantities of such material deserves full attention in the context of non-proliferation, since quantities of nuclear material of strategic value could be accumulated. "Trafficking involving other radioactive materials does not pose a proliferation threat, but can cause, and has resulted in, serious radiation exposure to individuals." [ElBaradei] IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei. (Photo courtesy IAEA) Some of those cases have been documented by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California. The Center's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Terrorism Project closely monitors the news media for reports of terrorist or criminal incidents involving the acquisition and/or use of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear materials. After reviewing more than 280,000 media reports during 2000, staff documented 181 "relevant" incidents. Fifty eight were hoaxes. Here is a sample of the 123 that were not: + On February 3, the head of the Moldovian Republic of Russia Federal Security Service antiterrorism department stated that a "reliable source" alleged that Chechen rebels were planning to terrorize Russian nuclear facilities. + On March 1, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that Chechen rebels had threatened to use radiological agents, obtained from nuclear materials being stored at a combine 30 kilometers southeast of Grozny, against Russian troops. + A bomb exploded on March 6 at a nuclear research institute in Rostov-na-Donu, Russia. The blast from the remote controlled device, which injured two, was most likely tied to Mafia infighting, officials stated. Rumors of high casualties and radioactivity caused by the explosion turned out to be false. + On March 29, Japanese police reported the Aum Shinrikyo cult had acquired information concerning nuclear facilities including details relating to the security of the facilities as well as the transport of materials in Russia, Ukraine, Japan, and other countries. It was suggested that Aum stole the information using the cult’s software companies, which had contracts with government agencies in other countries. + On March 30, Uzbek customs officials detained a vehicle on the Kazakhstan border headed for Pakistan and carrying 10 lead-lined containers emitting radiation 100 times the legally permissible level. The cargo was destined for a Pakistani company, and a British newspaper suggested the shipment could have been intended for delivery to Al-Qaida, Usama Bin Laden’s Afghanistan based organization, and that U.S. intelligence sources had identified the agent as strontium-90. + On May 10, a 9.6 kilogram object believed to be uranium was found with two former members of the Khmer Rouge and a local villager in Prek Mahatep, Cambodia. The three individuals were arrested by Cambodian military police. + On June 2, it was reported that Islamic Jihad had attempted to obtain small amounts of uranium and plutonium from Russia. + On June 6, an envelope laced with monazite, which contains the radioactive element thorium, was received by the Japanese Imperial Household Agency in Tokyo, Japan. The envelope was sent by Tsugio Uchinishi, ostensibly to warn government officials about illegal exports of uranium to North Korea. The incident was similar to nine others involving various government offices in Tokyo between June 6 and 8. + On September 22, the Ukrainian Security Services arrested a group of residents from the Chernigov, Zaporozhye and Sumy regions of Ukraine who were planning to conduct acts of sabotage on a list of Ukrainian facilities, including the nuclear power facility at Chernobyl, in an effort to overthrow the government. In its conclusions, CNS staff said 2000 saw a slight increase over 1999 in incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material (CBRN). Of 1999's 175 cases, 99 were hoaxes. "This total shows a continuing steep rise in frequency of CBRN incidents since 1998, when the number of incidents rose to 153 after an average of 42 incidents from 1995 to 1997," said the center's terrorism project report. It went on to note, "The most dramatic development in 2000 was a sharp rise in the number of incidents of actual CBRN use... The 93 cases where agents were used represent a 138 percent increase from 1999 and constitute the largest event category in 2000. "The increase in the number of casualties was even more impressive, rising from 366 (with four fatalities) in 1999 to at least 782 casualties (and 144 fatalities) in 2000." [flags] Flags of some of the 130 IAEA member states. (Photo courtesy Calma/IAEA) Many countries have been trying to develop better means of combating illicit trafficking threats. The IAEA's annual conference has in yearly resolutions since 1994 underlined the need for more action in this area. Delegates at next week's conference in the Swedish capital will focus on closer cooperation between countries and with law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies. Some 130 countries belong to the IAEA, which serves as the world's central inter-governmental forum for scientific and technical cooperation in the nuclear field. The agency has conducted two international conferences on the same topic. The first was the November 1997 International Conference on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials: Experience in Regulation, Implementation and Operations, and the other was the International Conference on the Safety of Radiation Sources and the Security of Radioactive Materials held in Dijon, France, in September 1998. © Environment News Service ***************************************************************** 6 Public could thwart Yucca plan, ex-DOE official says Today: May 03, 2001 at 11:14:31 PDT By Mary Manning <> and Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN Public opposition to a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain could stop the project within a year, a former Energy Department official told a gathering of nuclear scientists in Las Vegas this week. Leif Eriksson, former DOE technical administrator for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico, brought the political fight to the scientific arena at a meeting of the International High Level Radioactive Waste Conference, which ends today. "Yucca Mountain could be dead within a year if public support is against it," Eriksson said afterward. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied to become the nation's repository for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel and defense waste. WIPP, which opened two years ago 26 miles outside Carlsbad, N.M., is designed to hold 6.2 million cubic feet of plutonium-laden defense waste. Eriksson, a consultant to international energy companies and a critic of DOE's approach to involve the public, said the New Mexico site opened only after gaining community support. "The biggest difference between New Mexico and Nevada was the community supported WIPP," he said. "With rising public opposition, Yucca Mountain may not be built." Eriksson's comments raised an interesting issue: Will opposition in Nevada to the Yucca Mountain project matter? Could the Not-In-My-Backyard argument kill the project? Eriksson argued yes. Momentum behind the project is great: The DOE has invested 14 years and about $7 billion developing Yucca and is expected late this year to recommend it as a safe site to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste. The DOE proposes to spend $445 million developing Yucca next year and preparing a license to store waste. The president, Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must approve the site. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on Wednesday stressed that a permanent waste dump is key to increasing nuclear power output, which is reported to be an important part of President Bush's energy strategy. Abraham called for Americans to begin a new national debate on the merits of nuclear power, but he declined to say if the DOE would wage a public relations campaign to promote nuclear power. "When you look at nuclear energy, you are looking at a public discussion," not a DOE "advertising" campaign, Abraham told reporters Wednesday during a break in his testimony before a congressional panel about DOE's budget. The Bush administration faces a difficult quandary: People want more power, but no one wants a new power plant built nearby. And certainly, no one wants a waste dump in their state. Despite the Yucca project's momentum, Nevada's opposition has been a "huge hurdle" to Yucca's development, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said. "If it wasn't for Nevadans, we would already have nuclear waste in the state on an interim storage site," Ensign said. "We're going to do everything we can to keep it out." Opposition in Nevada could kill the project just as Eriksson suggests, Ensign said. "I think ultimately we will win this battle, this war," Ensign said. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., agreed. He said the DOE has a "credibility problem" with the public. "The public plays an enormous role in the political process, and what worries me is that some people (at DOE) are turning a blind eye to science and to the political process," Gibbons said. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., on Wednesday slammed the Bush administration for touting nuclear power. "That's great for the nuclear energy lobby, but it's going to mean a proliferation of nuclear plants throughout America's neighborhoods, and it's going to pose an untenable problem with nuclear waste," Berkley said. "Yucca Mountain is not safe, and the industry will not be able to dump its waste there." Observers say the DOE has never successfully sold Nevadans on the idea that Yucca could be an economic boon to the state, as it did in New Mexico. Threat of a nuclear accident could hurt the tourism engine that drives the state, some officials say. "The public relations battle has always been there. Since the first day when they put a shovel in the ground, the DOE has tried to argue that Yucca was good for Nevada, but they have never, ever succeeded," said Nevada native David Cherry, of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who works for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. New Mexico activist Don Hancock, who spent years fighting WIPP, said the DOE built support in Carlsbad for that project by promoting economic benefits, but many people statewide still opposed it. In the end, Congress makes the call, said Hancock, director of nuclear waste program at Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, N.M. "Certainly, public opposition is essential to killing the project," Hancock said. "Whether it is enough to kill it or not -- that's up to the politicians." Nevada activist Kalynda Tilges said opposition to Yucca within Nevada was probably not enough to derail the project. "We absolutely need national opposition to Yucca Mountain," said Tilges of Citizen Alert, a Nevada environmental group, who was on Capitol Hill this week lobbying against the project. But Las Vegas businessman Steven Cloobeck, who is leading a campaign to mobilize the resort industry against the project, disagrees. Cloobeck said he has asked scientists, engineers, attorneys and elected officials if anyone has heard of a community receiving a federal project that residents opposed. "Nobody can come up with a project," Cloobeck said. "If we continue to rally and fight this with a strategy, which we are doing now, we have a hell of a shot," he said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 UK nuclear sub in Gibraltar to sail in 7-10 days LONDON - A British submarine stranded in Gibraltar for almost a year is close to setting sail again, a defence ministry official said yesterday. HMS Tireless, the focus of angry protests by environmentalists which has also clouded relations between Britain and Spain, limped into port in the tiny rocky peninsular in the Mediterranean Sea last May after breaking down. "The engineers have finished their work," the spokesman told reporters. "The (nuclear) system has been fired and tested. Within the next seven to 10 days she will be sailing." Local protesters have launched a hunger strike to urge Britain to remove the submarine from Gibraltar, saying that it endangered health and the local environment. Britain has 12 nuclear attack submarines, known also as "hunter killers", but only one is fully operational with the remaining 11 out of service at various stages of repair. "By summer we will have five of these submarines operational," the spokesman said. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 8 Israeli Nuclear Spy Case Imploding May 02, 2001 TEL AVIV, Israel- A judge sent a 75-year-old ex-general back to prison for a week Wednesday, even though what was billed as a nuclear weapons-related espionage case against him was imploding. Judge Uri Goren ruled that the charges against Yitzhak Yaakov didn't relate to the transfer of classified material to hostile elements or foreign espionage agencies. Yaakov, a former military scientist, was believed to have been connected to Israel's nuclear weapons program and was suspected of passing information to unauthorized parties. Israel has never admitted having nuclear weapons, preferring a policy of ambiguity about the subject. Yaakov, considered a defense pioneer and national hero by some, is credited with building the Israeli military's technological capability. He was arrested March 28. His arrest was kept secret by the court until London's Sunday Times printed a report about the case on April 22. With the limits partially lifted, Israeli media reported that Yaakov, a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, was being held on suspicion of espionage. Allegations against Yaakov began to shrink when officials said Yaakov was not involved in espionage. Some wondered what relevant information Yaakov could have, since he retired from the defense establishment in 1973. In court Wednesday, Yaakov complained that he is in poor health and was not receiving proper treatment. He asked to be released to house arrest while the investigation continues. Goren extended his remand order for a week while experts examine Yaakov. Goren has instructed the prosecution to draw up a new indictment. He also told the prosecution to remove elements that harm state security, so that the indictment can be published in full. Yaakov has lived in the United States for most of the last two decades. Until last year he served as chairman of the New York-based high-tech company Constellation 3D Inc., which has branches in Russia and Israel. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 Radioactivity Tests Now in Doubt at Rocketdyne Site May 02 10:11 AM EDT *By MARGARET TALEV, Times Staff Writer* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) acknowledged Tuesday that it is backing away from an agreement to check for radioactive contamination as part of a decade-long cleanup at the Rocketdyne nuclear testing facility near Simi Valley. The research and development at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory was done under contract with the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy (news - web sites). The DOE is in charge of the cleanup that has been widely criticized as inadequate by residents and elected officials. "We'd previously thought and pretty much said our Las Vegas lab would be doing the study. But it looks like that's not the way it's going to go," said Larry Bowerman, a San Francisco-based manager of hazardous site cleanup for the EPA. The EPA announcement follows a Bush administration bid to cut $467 million from the Department of Energy's annual cleanup budget at dozens of nuclear testing and production sites across the country. The sites include three in California--the Rocketdyne facility, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near Oakland and the nearby General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center. Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. and the . ***************************************************************** 10 Suspicious stain on waste tank at Hanford *Thursday, May 3, 2001* POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES Some unexplained staining has been found on the interior wall of a 34-year-old double-shell tank holding 165,000 gallons of highly radioactive waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The U.S. Department of Energy and contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group, which manages the underground tank farms, are trying to determine if there is a pinhole in the innermost wall of Tank AY-101. "That would be the worst possibility," Dale Allen, a double-shell tank project manager for CH2M Hill, said yesterday. It also might be staining that originated during construction of the 1.6 million-gallon tank. * [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 ***************************************************************** 11 Hanford studies 2 possible holes in waste tank This story was published 5/3/2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer Hanford scientists are studying two possible pinholes in the inner steel wall of a double-shell tank that contains highly radioactive wastes. If the holes are confirmed, it would be the first time the half-inch-thick steel of one of the site's double-shell tanks has failed. "This could be the first wall failure in a double-shell tank, and those tanks aren't getting any younger," said Mike Wilson, nuclear program manager for Washington's Department of Ecology. "This makes the point that we can't rely on the double-shell tanks forever, and we have got to get the (waste glassification) plants operating." In recent years, Hanford insiders and observers have voiced concerns about the lifespans of the double-shell tanks. The tanks were built between 1968 and 1986 with theoretical lifespans of 50 years. The tank with the possible pinholes is Tank AY-101 in central Hanford's 200 East Area. The suspicious spots are about 2812 feet from its bottom -- at a high-water mark the wastes reached four years ago. Today, the wastes are about 22 feet below the possible holes. So far, no leaked wastes have been found in the 2-foot-wide gap between the tank's inner and outer walls, said Dale Allan, CH2M Hill Hanford Group's double-shell tanks and waste feed delivery project manager. The suspicious spots' origin is still being pondered. One theory is that outside water might have leaked into the space between the walls, then corroded pinholes through the inner wall. "It's really only a (hypothesis) at this time," Allan said. Hanford has 53 million gallons of highly radioactive wastes in 177 underground tanks -- 149 older, leak-prone, single-shell tanks and 28 newer, safer double-shell tanks. So far, no inner nor outer wall in any double-shell tank is known to have cracked or leaked. Hanford is in the later stages of pumping liquid wastes from the single-shell tanks to the double-shell tanks and is trying to build plants to start converting the wastes into glass several years from now. Plans to encase the wastes inside glass logs have been delayed repeatedly since Hanford cleanup began in the late 1980s. The possible holes were found after the Department of Energy and CH2M Hill began to increase checks for potential leaks and cracks in the double-shell tanks. Researchers have sent robot cameras into the gaps between the inner and outer walls and inserted video cameras inside the inner tanks. A January video inspection of Tank AY-101 showed an abnormally large rust spot on the inner wall. Later, Hanford experts charted large teardrop-shaped stains on opposite sides of the tank's inner walls, with one stain corresponding with the rust area, Allan said. The larger stain is about 18 feet tall and about 4 feet wide near its base. The other stain is about half that size, he said. The tops of both stains and the potential pinholes are within a narrow ringlike stain -- a "beach mark" in Hanford jargon -- circling the tank 28 feet, 7 inches from its bottom. Tank AY-101 is one of a few that received and held liquid tank wastes before they were sent to a nearby "evaporator," where water is boiled out of the wastes to decrease the volume. The last time Tank AY-101's wastes reached the "beach mark" was in 1997, before wastes were sent to the evaporator. The tank's remaining 3 feet of radioactive sludge is topped by 3 feet of radioactive liquid returned from the evaporator. The 1.16-million-gallon tank now holds 165,000 gallons of wastes. Until the stain issue is resolved, no more wastes are to be added to the tank. DOE and CH2M Hill have brought in experts from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory and Savannah River to study the stains. Allan said one theory is that rainwater collects underground and seeps between the tank's outer wall and its dome, which are not welded together. Then, the water dribbles onto the inner wall and corrodes the steel. The lesser air pressure in the tank's inner chamber might suck water through the possible pinholes, then it dribbles down the tank wall. Another possibility is the stains could be left over from the tank's construction 34 years ago. Visual inspections of the double-shell tanks' interiors have been irregular, so the stains might have gone unnoticed, Allan said. A puzzling factor is the stains appear to be exactly opposite each other. Allen said no one knows what that means so far. One possibility is the possible holes could be indentations from an old, long-gone beam inside the tank. Plans and timetables for further studies are being worked out, Allan said. Hanford plans to examine four double-shell tanks with ages and wastes similar to Tank AY-101 to see if its stains and potential holes are duplicated elsewhere. Back to top stories Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************