***************************************************************** 06/03/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.139 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Abraham promotes nuclear energy 2 Spent Nuclear Fuel 3 Benefits and Risks of Nuclear Energy 4 Nuclear power possibility gets plants talking 5 Nuclear power is corporate welfare 6 Nuclear power, not green dreams, will solve energy crisis 7 John G. Craig, Jr.: The untapped power 8 Nuclear Power Is Safe 9 The Answer Is Nuclear Power 10 DOE explains nuclear project to Rotarians 11 Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs 12 *IAEA CHIEF REJECTS CHARGES OF ISRAELI NUKE LEAK 13 GOP guns for 'Dr. No' - new Senate leader Daschle 14 Activists Want Uranium Plant Closed 15 FirstEnergy agrees to pay fine by regulatory panel 16 Critics: Plan for 50 nuke plants a myth NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Bush cuts budget for nuclear cleanup 2 White House Seeks Millions for N.M. Labs 3 Bush budget plan could delay Livermore lab cleanup 4 Britain snatched babies' bodies for nuclear labs 5 Pasko gets support 6 Stinson: Kelly investigation uncovers more chilling information ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Abraham promotes nuclear energy toledoblade.com Article published June 2, 2001 BY FRITZ WENZEL BLADE POLITICAL WRITER MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich. - U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told a business and political conference here that America needs to build more nuclear power plants to keep up with increased electricity demands. And, he said, the federal government needs to streamline its licensing and inspection procedures for plants to bring down the cost of construction. "We believe expanding nuclear energy makes sense,’’ he told a lunch crowd here. "To do that, however, we need to overcome some old thinking about nuclear power. Some people’s image of nuclear energy was frozen in time 22 years ago by the accident at Three Mile Island. "But to look at nuclear power as if nothing has changed since 1979 would be the same as looking at the communications industry and ignoring the development of the cell phone and the Internet.’’ Mr. Abraham made his remarks during the Detroit Regional Chamber’s annual political retreat here. In what amounted to a homecoming for the former Michigan senator, who was defeated in his run for re-election last year, Mr. Abraham was upbeat about the future of America’s energy industry. But he stressed that both government and industry had work to do to improve current supplies. Debbie Stabenow, the woman who took Mr. Abraham’s Senate seat from him, said here yesterday that she will introduce legislation to ban drilling under the Great Lakes for oil or gas. Mr. Abraham did not discuss drilling in the region but did call for increased domestic exploration for both gas and oil. Mr. Abraham, speaking to hundreds at the Grand Hotel, said he is concerned that electricity plants built in recent years have, in most cases, been powered by natural gas. He said that, if that practice continues, "it would endanger national security by leaving us defenseless against foreign supply disruptions and almost certainly would trigger very tight markets with resultant price spikes.’’ He said the government, under President Bush’s energy plan, will invest $2 billion in research to develop cleaner ways to burn coal. He said the federal government will encourage construction of more dams to generate hydropower. The secretary finished his speech by emphasizing that the Midwest will not face the power shortages facing Californians, in part because of plentiful nuclear power in the region but also because of a better network of electricity lines. Developing a "truly national energy grid,’’ the secretary said, would allow easy transfer of power from one region to another to satisfy spikes in demand and to avert the periodic blackouts that California suffers currently. Mr. Abraham told the audience here that gas prices should stabilize this summer but that the federal government must revisit its regulations to streamline the process regulating oil refinery construction and operation. Recent price spikes are not caused by petroleum shortages, he said, but rather the result of over-regulation of refinery operations. Still, he said, American needs to develop new domestic sources of oil to help reduce demand for supply from overseas sources. He said the Bush administration is starting an aggressive diplomatic effort with oil-producing nations to guarantee a steady flow of oil to feed U.S. demand. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660, (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an individual ***************************************************************** 2 Spent Nuclear Fuel June 3, 2001 Hard Questions on Nuclear Power (May 29, 2001) [T] o the Editor: The otherwise sensible "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power" (editorial, May 29) states that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel "could greatly ease the storage problem" posed by such fuel. Reprocessing would actually make the waste problem worse because it would create several high- volume radioactive waste streams requiring storage, treatment and burial. The ill-fated experiment with commercial reprocessing at West Valley, N.Y., abandoned in 1972, vastly increased the amount of nuclear waste and has cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion for cleanup. Reprocessing also produces plutonium that can be used in weapons, which is much more costly to store and safeguard than the spent fuel from which it is separated. And since it is not technically feasible to recycle plutonium as fuel more than once, reprocessing does not eliminate the need for a repository for spent fuel; it simply defers it.   EDWIN S. LYMAN Scientific Director, Nuclear Control Institute Washington, May 29, 2001 New York Times Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 3 Benefits and Risks of Nuclear Energy Sunday, June 3, 2001 Re "Storing Nuclear Waste Over the Long Haul," letters, May 27: Ted Russell Neff misrepresents the commercial nuclear waste disposal problem and the energy benefits of gasohol. The radioactive leaks at Hanford are the unfortunate legacy of a quick and dirty disposal project, using thin-walled, ordinary steel containers, in the early days of the Cold War when the highest priority was producing more plutonium for more bombs. The Yucca Mountain project for the disposal of commercial nuclear waste has spent over $3.6 billion to ensure that the spent fuel will be completely isolated for hundreds of thousands of years. Tens of millions of dollars have been given each year to the state of Nevada and local communities to support their scrutiny and oversight of the program. All of this money comes from the nuclear waste disposal fund, supported entirely by a small tax on nuclear power ratepayers. With respect to renewable energy sources, the U.S. Department of Energy has been spending nearly $400 million a year on research and development for over 20 years with little to show for it. The ethanol additive that we are forced to pay for in our gasoline provides a nice benefit for corn farmers, but more energy is consumed in the distillation process than is provided in the product. Peter Gottlieb * Los Angeles The suggestion by Kevin Petersen that we should go ahead with nuclear power on blind faith that we will solve the waste storage problem puts the cart before the horse. There is no credible evidence that the problem is even solvable, let alone that we will have a solution any time soon. In the meantime, we have a storage problem with nightmarish potential. Nuclear power at this point is ill-conceived and unnecessary. We can get all the energy needed without it, and we should put special emphasis on conservation and clean energy. Nuclear has been touted as clean, since it has no smoke-belching stacks, but the "tailpipe emissions" in the form of nuclear waste prevent nuclear power from being a truly green source. If people are so convinced that a solution is in the offing, let them develop the solution and then come back and ask for nuclear power. David Holland Northridge Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 4 Nuclear power possibility gets plants talking 06/03/01 *Web posted Sunday, June 3, 2001 By Dave Williams *Morris News Service* ATLANTA - No American utility has come close to building a nuclear power plant since the reactor meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, followed by the disaster at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union a few years later. But the Bush administration's newly minted energy policy has the industry buzzing over the possibility of bringing nuclear power back from dormancy. The president embraces nuclear plants as a major component in a diversified portfolio of energy sources. But none of the utilities with major investments in nuclear power is going beyond the talking stage. Georgia Power Co., which operates two nuclear plants near Augusta and Baxley, isn't eager to build a third. Neither is Progress Energy, the parent company of Carolina Power &Light, which operates two nuclear plants in the Carolinas and one in Florida. ''We have no plans to build any new nuclear units until the country comes to grips with the issue of spent nuclear fuel,'' said Keith Poston, a spokesman for Progress Energy. Mr. Poston said any movement toward nuclear power is being held up by opposition in Congress to a proposal to build a permanent national repository for high-level radioactive waste beneath the Nevada desert. Without a disposal site for the waste created by nuclear power generation, utilities can't afford to create more of the material, he said. Mr. Bush's allies in Congress are working to create a better atmosphere for revitalizing the nuclear industry. U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham is sponsoring legislation that would offer tax credits to utilities using nuclear power to create additional generating capacity. The Republican's South Carolina district includes the Savannah River Site, a former nuclear-weapons production facility that hopes to parlay civilian nuclear projects into new jobs. Current federal law allows tax credits for other alternatives to fossil fuels, but not nuclear energy. ''It's environmentally the cleanest form of energy, equivalent to solar and wind power,'' Mr. Graham said. But opponents of nuclear power argue that not only is it inherently dangerous, it's also an inefficient source of energy. ''It requires a large capacity of electricity to supply the generation of nuclear energy,'' said Rita Kilpatrick, the executive director of Georgians for Clean Energy. ''Why would you promote a highly resource-intensive source of supply when you're claiming there's a shortage of supply in the first place?'' Reach Dave Williams at (404) 589-8424 or mnews@mindspring.com. *The Augusta Chronicle*. All rights ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear power is corporate welfare DesMoinesRegister.com | News Letters to the editor By Register Readers 06/03/2001 Those of us who oppose building new nuclear plants welcome the opportunity to calmly discuss their economic and environmental impact. Let's begin with long-term economic viability. Surely, we can all agree a potential energy source should be able to pay its own way - including production risks - after 50 years of intense development. Unfortunately, nuclear power can't pass this simplest of economic litmus tests. Since insurance to cover the full cost of a nuclear-power accident would be too expensive, the federal government requires companies to carry only $200 million of insurance per reactor. Additionally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that a worst-case nuclear accident could cost more than $300 billion for a single catastrophe. Since the Price-Anderson Act caps insurance coverage for any nuclear accident at $9.43 billion, that leaves Iowa taxpayers to pay the difference. Nuclear power is a classic example of corporate welfare, where the government props up a technology that is too risky - and potentially too unprofitable - to stand on its own. -Dennis Harbaugh, *6145 Kimball Ave., Waterloo.* Copyright © 2001, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear power, not green dreams, will solve energy crisis June 3, 2001 11:13 pm Larry Evans' May 16 column ["Energy expert says conservation, alternatives make the best policy"] blames the energy crisis, global warming, and polluted air on a failure to develop renewable energy (wind and solar) to replace fossil fuels. The United States produced over 3.6 billion megawatt hours of electric power in 1999--20 percent from nuclear generators, over 70 percent from fossil fuel-fired generating systems, and less than 8 percent from renewable sources. Of these latter, hydroelectric and bio-fuels contributed over 6 percent while solar and wind combined less than 2 percent, according to data from the Department of Energy. Nuclear power alone is capable of replacing fossil fuel. Civilian nuclear power generation, developed and first demonstrated in the United States following World War II, has since covered the globe. France's power is 76 percent nuclear, Belgium's 55 percent, Sweden's 46 percent--and so on, across Europe and Asia. America stopped construction in the early 1980s, but 107 previously approved plants were in operation by 1987 and providing already nearly 18 percent of the nation's electricity--almost as much as today's 109 plants contributing 20 percent of the load. Nearly 10,000 years of world-wide operating experience--437 reactors' worth--proves the safety and reliability of nuclear power. The one exception--the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union--was clearly the result of careless operation of an unsafe design that was rejected in the 1970s by American designers. The civilian reactor safety record is reinforced by U.S. Navy experience in the operation of nuclear propulsion systems under far more demanding service conditions than the steady state service demanded in power generation. The same kind of unfounded hysteria that previously (and still) impedes the utilization of nuclear power now wants to ban fossil fuels in favor of solar, wind, and fuel cell power--all being used successfully in application for which they are ideally suited or irreplaceable. But they're no more suited to utility power generation than an eye dropper would be in filling a 10-gallon tank. It's been noted that the survival of a democratic republic depends upon an informed citizenry. If global warming hysteria and anti-nuke irrationality prevail over common sense--as they have in California--no further proof will be needed to show that a combination of an entertainment focused media with a popularity seeking Congress will always win over responsibility. L. M. Raring Spotsylvania Free LanceStar Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Va., Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 John G. Craig, Jr.: The untapped power Pittsburgh Post-Gazette John G. Craig, Jr.: The untapped power America should get over its nuclear energy anxiety Sunday, June 03, 2001 I am sure you remember Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda in the prescient "The China Syndrome" and even better the terrifying accident at Three Mile Island that occurred within days of the film's release. The United States has never gotten over March 28, 1979, and neither has the domestic power industry nor those who finance and regulate it. "No way, not here. Never again." Now, 22 years later, along comes a politically potent confection of rolling brownouts in California, the Kyoto Treaty and Vice President Dick Cheney, and everyone is talking. The Economist is prompted to ask in last week's cover story, "A New Dawn for Nuclear Power?" and Tuesday's New York Times included an editorial, "Hard Questions on Nuclear Power," that, given the gravity of the subject, was appropriately humongous. John G. Craig Jr. is editor of the Post-Gazette (jcraig@post-gazette.com). If one were to sum up the collective reaction of the American press and public, it goes something like this:* Yes, I hear everything the scientists and operators have to say about safety and more efficient operations. Yes, there are many very good arguments for doing more with nuclear power as a supplement to burning fossil fuels. Yes, it is true that millions of people have been getting safe, clean energy from nuclear power generators for over 40 years now. But I just cannot help myself. Nuclear reactions and radiation still scare the hell out of me. *I don't wish to pick on the Times, but here are its four principal reservations that illustrate the point that the opposition is as irrational as it is reasoned: Nuclear power is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, so it will have no effect on global warming, because transportation exhausts are the primary villain when it comes to air quality. So who needs clean electricity? The expansion of nuclear generating in the United States would pose no increased nuclear weapons risk, but more nuclear power plants in other countries could increase the risk of weapons proliferation because they might be used as a cover for weapons programs. No one has figured out how to get rid of nuclear waste permanently; there is a site in Nevada that might significantly ease the U.S. problem, but if the storage problem were eased globally in this manner, it would increase the risks of weapons-grade plutonium falling into the wrong hands. The costs of building nuclear plants are too high and this is not likely to change. The first three arguments are really of the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose variety. They largely answer themselves, depending on political bias. The last one does not. That is why it is emphasized by most critics, including The Economist, which reports these estimates from the International Energy Agency: The capital cost of today's nuclear plants is $2,000 per kilowatt, compared with $1,200 per kilowatt for a coal plant and $500 for a combined-cycle gas plant. Construction costs are a huge impediment to nuclear power plant construction. That reality, when coupled with factors like regulatory delays and organized political opposition, as has long been the rule in the United States, have been decisive in shutting down new plant construction in this country. Ironically, there is general agreement that the nuclear plants operating in the United States today, including Three Mile Island, are very safe and exceptionally efficient (nuclear 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour, coal 2.1 cents and gas 3.5 cents). Pressures are mounting to relicense plants for 20 more years, as the 40-year licenses under which most U.S. plants operate expire over the next decade. There are also concurrent arguments from the industry for renewed building because designs have been simplified and made more safe. As the Bush administration forces a national debate on the subject, there are two other significant realities to keep in mind. The United States does not have control of the situation. Consider Russia's recent announcement that it wants to create a massive site for permanent nuclear waste storage and that 15 nations are interested in paying to use it. Washington made it known that it did not like the idea of Russia using the site in Siberia as the location for a multibillion-dollar business, but it is not easy to see how that will stop nations like South Korea from taking advantage of the offer. Nuclear power use outside the United States also is growing, if unevenly, with France getting just under 80 percent of its electrical power from this source and Germany, Japan, Finland, Switzerland and South Korea averaging slightly over 30 percent. The U.S. figure is 20 percent. While lower in percentage terms than what holds in much of the developed world, it still represents a huge number that is integral to the nation's economic well being. Logic suggests, therefore, that studied review of the nation's policies on the use of nuclear energy is very much in order, even somewhat overdue. Rather than dismiss the president and vice president as a pair of oil wildcatters from Texas, we should be applauding them for raising the subject. ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear Power Is Safe ctnow.com The Hartford Courant June 02, 2001 With all due respect to Lou Friedman [letter, May 26, "Nuclear Energy Can Devastate"] for his five trips to Ukraine to visit the Chernobyl area, and for his talks with Indian tribe leaders on the use of Yucca Mountain to isolate radioactive material, I beg to differ with him on the safety and economics of nuclear power. Rather than trying to predict the future safety of nuclear power plants, we need only look at past performance. They have been operating safely in this country for more than 50 years. There are currently more than 100 producing commercial power. In addition, nuclear reactors have been operating safely in hundreds of submarines and surface vessels for decades. To equate the Chernobyl plants to those in the United States is misleading. Our regulatory requirements would not have allowed the design or operating conditions that led to the Chernobyl accident. The use of Yucca Mountain for storing waste is being evaluated by professionals. The process has been under way for more than 10 years with no indication of insurmountable safety issues. The economics of nuclear power have been improving dramatically. As reported for 1999 by the Utility Data Institute, operating costs for nuclear plants were lower than those for plants burning natural gas, oil or coal. Building costs for nuclear plants are higher than those for competing plants, but we can be certain that, when new nuclear plants are built, market conditions under deregulated power will require that they be economically competitive with all other power sources. Those who have been advocating against nuclear power for years are understandably frustrated by the prominence currently being given to its benefits. It is important, however, that the public be aware of all aspects of the discussion in order to provide the support needed by legislators in future deliberations involving energy plans. Alfred G. Schoenbrunn Simsbury *The writer is a retired engineer from the nuclear power industry.* Students Need Eye Exams Copyright © 2001 Myway Corp. Portions © 2001 ctnow.com. ***************************************************************** 9 The Answer Is Nuclear Power Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report ( June 02, 2001 ) For 30 years the environmental extremists have successfully blocked the further development of nuclear power in the United States. A small fraction of our energy needs is being met by nuclear power plants that were built before the Green propaganda machine got up to speed, and the nuclear power industry is managing to keep these existing plants in tip-top condition. But no new nuclear power plant has been built in the United States in decades. Now however, as such politically important areas as California and New York City face the prospect of "rolling blackouts" this summer, nuclear power is on the verge of making a spectacular comeback. It's high time. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has marched on. France now depends on nuclear power for 80% of its electrical energy. Japan, which has little or no reserves of fossil fuels like oil and coal, is not far behind. And the same is true of Taiwan, for the same reason. Comically enough, back in the '60s, when the environmentalists were just starting out on their crusade, their lawsuits against power plants fueled by coal and oil (those nasty polluters) always contained boilerplate language pointing out that, fortunately, reliance on coal and oil was unnecessary because a highly efficient source of energy-nuclear power-was available, which caused no pollution whatever. By the 1970s, however, the environmental lobbies had recalibrated their guns and added nuclear power to their list of targets. Fanning Fears Not Based in Reality Their objection to nuclear power plants was, and still is, based on fanning fears that have no basis in reality. Most people understand nuclear power generation only very dimly and are suckers for horrific scenarios in which a nuclear power plant "explodes" (which is physically impossible) or suffers some sort of catastrophic melt, down in which radiation is spread far and wide around the countryside, causing a number of deaths that is limited only by the imaginations of the doom-peddlers. Actually, the only meltdown that ever occurred in an American nuclear power plant-the accident at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pa.-demonstrated the safety of American plants: The containing mechanisms worked exactly as they were designed to, and not a single life was lost. That leaves the critics stuck with Chernobyl, the Soviet nuclear power plant near Kiev, which did indeed experience an uncontained meltdown that cost many lives. But arguing that America must forgo nuclear power because the Soviets constructed and operated a primitive, ramshackle power plant that wouldn't have obtained a permit in the United States in 1,000 years is like saying we must shut down our aviation industry because the Soviets' Tupolev bombers had an alarming record of crashes. The truth is that the environmentalists have gotten away with bad-mouthing nuclear power because, until recently, we were able to meet . our energy needs with coal and oil (despite their noisy objections to both of these). But now the energy crunch is here with a vengeance, and as Vice President Cheney pointed out in his recent speech on the crisis, we simply have no option but to look to nuclear power to help meet our growing needs. Perhaps the chief beauty of nuclear power is that it results in no polluting side effects whatever: no acid rain, and above all no carbon dioxide (and hence no contribution at all to the menace of greenhouse gases, with their alleged consequence, global warming). The radioactive wastes produced by a nuclear power plant are easily "vitrified," or converted into solid glass, which can then be safely buried in salt deposits that have been undisturbed for tens of millions of years. None of this, of course, mollifies the environmental extremists, because their hidden agenda calls for halting all of the immense wealth-producing economic processes that depend on growing supplies of energy. In part this agenda stems from nostalgia for a simpler, not to say primitive, lifestyle that could not possibly support the world's six billion people, and in part from a highminded hatred of the supposedly evil corporations that generate the energy. But whatever their motive, the environmental extremists are going to lose the battle over the energy requirements of mankind. - www.powermarketers.com ***************************************************************** 10 DOE explains nuclear project to Rotarians Elko Daily Free Press: Content Jun 1 2001 12:00AM By By GARY BÉGIN After it was over, many in the crowd were still undecided about whether or not it was safe to store nuclear waste deep in a mountain in southern Nevada 90 miles from Las Vegas. Elko City Councilman Lee Hoffman's response after the meeting was typical. "I'm still undecided," he said. At least 10 persons in the crowd are also members of the Elko Chapter of the Navy League and toured the Yucca site recently with almost everyone of them in favor of the project. Navy League members are pro-nuclear energy and technology and strongly support the idea of studying Yucca Mountain as the potential repository site. Many of the Navy's ships and submarines are powered by nuclear energy. As Powell gave a slide show, he also spoke about the refusal of the state government of Nevada to accept the Department of Energy's offer of $100 million a year for the last 14 years because he said the state was more interested in litigation and has decided if it accepted the money it would be perceived as accepting the program, which it doesn't. Elko County Treasurer Ceasar Salicchi, a Rotarian, was also in the audience yesterday and gave his point of view on the potential for the $1.4 billion in money the state never received because of political pressure to denounce the program. Salicchi commented that the $100 million might have come in handy over the years and joked that it would have at least paid for another unfunded state mandate - the raise for elected officials expected to start next year. Powell said the $100 million was to be split evenly between education and transportation. He said that although the state legislature has already voted to reject the program, the Department of Transportation has not officially designated routes for the highly dangerous material yet. Powell also emphasized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn't officially ruled on Yucca's acceptability yet either, nor has any vote taken place in Congress. Powell told the group one route gaining acceptance in planning circles may be a rail link south from Wells or Carlin to the site. The Carlin site (see map) would go nearly straight south skirting Tonopah and Goldfields into the Yucca site and have to be constructed from scratch at a cost of $1 million per mile for more than 300 miles. The Wells route parallels the eastern side of the state on already existing rail lines until it reaches the Caliente-Chalk Mountain east-west proposed rail link which then turns south towards Yucca. One Rotarian, who didn't wish to go on record, spent most of the hour-plus meeting making cynical remarks about the DOE's wasting of billions of dollars on the project, including a special booklet printed just for the Rotary meeting. That same person brought up a point which many anti-Yucca adherents say is reason enough to oppose the project - "if the casks containing the waste are so tough and safe, then why not just leave them where the waste is produced instead of shipping them cross-country?" The DOE's answer to that oft-posed query is a matter of space. The waste producers are running out of it on-site. There are 33 states with nuclear waste producing sites and Nevada would easily be outnumbered if any vote came to Congress on where to store or dispose of such spent nuclear fuel. New political questions have arisen as to what impact the new Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate may have on the program. Some pundits say Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat and the new Majority Whip, may derail any plans by the energy-industry backed Bush administration to force Yucca's acceptance by Nevadans. Powell also mentioned how Las Vegas, during the summer months, gets "half of its power" from a nuclear site in Arizona and it was ironic how Nevadans in its most populous city are mostly against the Yucca project. He told the group how he recently escorted members of the Nevada Highway Patrol around the site and said the troopers were not overly concerned with the potential for hazardous spills. If everything goes as planned - at least the DOE plan - the NHP will be in charge of escorting truck shipments of the spent nuclear fuel, some of which may use U.S. Highway 93 and Interstate 80, which both pass through Elko County en route to Yucca Mountain. Powell told the audience, which included geologist and Navy League member Jim Muth and League President Bill Nisbet, that if the project is not approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, the search for another site will begin. Powell said he was a Nevadan with two children in school in Las Vegas and he felt the program was safe. Every major elected official in the state, including those who represent Elko County, have publicly opposed the project, however it is widely believed the Congress will vote to accept the plan anyway with Bush's signature not far away. The new majority in the Senate is seen as a bright spot for anti-Yucca forces, even though they are a bi-partisan group in Nevada. Elko Public Lands Advisory Commission member Don Decker sat through the presentation and afterwards had several comments to make. "Our state officials, and perhaps some from Las Vegas, are hypocritical in using electricity from a nuclear power plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, while saying no to the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP)," Decker said. He pointed out that "Palo Verde sits above ground, within 50 miles of a metropolis twice the size of Las Vegas. The Yucca Mountain Project is buried underground, 100 miles from Las Vegas," he said. Decker feels "we must press forward with the YMP for the sake of national energy independence and sustainable development." Decker said he was "encouraged" by Reid who suggests America needs to continue research and development of renewable energy. "This obviously includes geothermal, solar, wind, and nuclear sources of energy," Decker said. "Producing electricity from a decaying geothermal system, or a decaying atomic particle is in a sense, very similar. Both have enormous power potential," Decker said, "and both leave behind some kind of byproducts. We need to accept this as a fact and deal with it scientifically." Decker made a presentation to the county commission last summer explaining the positive aspects of embracing the YMP. He feels Nevada's elected officials should "stop saying 'No' to YMP, but embrace it for the good of the state of Nevada." "Do not let us take a cash 'buyout,' but more importantly take control of the land resources in order to build a sustainable tax base for generations to come," Decker said. *©Elko Daily Free Press 2001* ***************************************************************** 11 Nuclear Energy: Look at the Costs washingtonpost.com: Friday, June 1, 2001; Page A30 At least two issues associated with the economics of nuclear power generation were left out of May 15 news stories on energy development. The first is the issue of liability. In the infancy of nuclear power, the electricity-generating industry refused to build nuclear plants without assurances that it would never have to bear the full cost of any catastrophic accident. It got -- and still has -- the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry. In effect, the taxpayer is the insurer of last resort of the nuclear power industry. The second is the issue of decommissioning costs. The question of how best to dispose of nuclear fuel wastes is trivial compared with the question of how to dispose of outmoded nuclear plants. Studies estimate that it will cost more to decommission a nuclear plant than it cost to build it. Any comparison of the costs of producing electricity in nuclear power plants and fossil-fuel plants needs to take into consideration these issues. MARCIA RUCKER Bethesda © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 12 *IAEA CHIEF REJECTS CHARGES OF ISRAELI NUKE LEAK Middle East Newsline - Area News - Updated Daily CAIRO [MENL] -- The International Atomic Energy Agency has rejected Arab allegations that the Israeli reactor at Dimona near the Egyptian border is leaking nuclear radiation. IAEA officials said that so far the agency has not detected dangerous levels of nuclear leakage in the Middle East. The issue was discussed during a nuclear energy conference in Cairo, which ends on Friday. Arab diplomats and Egyptian officials raised concerns over the Dimona reactor with IAEA director-general Mohammed El Baradei. The Arab representatives urged El Baradei to demand an international inspection of the Dimona reactor amid reports that the aging facility is leaking radiation. Both Egypt and Jordan have expressed fear that Dimona is no longer safe. The facility -- nearly 40 years old -- is believed to have produced up to 200 nuclear weapons for Israel. But El Baradei said after his talks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher that the IAEA was not informed of any radiation leaks from Dimona or other facilities in the region. El Baradei said the IAEA was ready to monitor the area around Dimona or anywhere else in the Middle East if the agency detects radiation leaks. ***************************************************************** 13 GOP guns for 'Dr. No' - new Senate leader Daschle ContraCostaTimes.com *Published Sunday, June 3, 2001 * UPDATE Daschle says Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan "dead": Nevada got a boost in its fight to keep nuclear waste from being stored at Yucca Mountain when the incoming Senate majority leader put up a formidable partisan roadblock. "I think the Yucca Mountain issue is dead," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., after arriving in Las Vegas to attend a fund-raiser for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. "As long as we're in the majority, it's dead." Since 1987, Yucca Mountain has been the only site studied to become the graveyard for 77,000 tons of the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste. The Energy Department is scheduled to forward its recommendation next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who will make a recommendation to President Bush. The earliest it could open is 2010. The state's bipartisan congressional delegation, Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, state and city leaders and the gambling industry are opposed to the dump site, 90 miles from Las Vegas. Associated Press By Jill Zuckman CHICAGO TRIBUNE WASHINGTON -- As the result of a one-man rebellion that altered the nation's political power equation, Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, an earnest, soft-spoken South Dakotan, takes over as majority leader when Congress returns Tuesday. But even before he assumes the Senate's highest post, the White House-controlled Republican National Committee has launched a campaign to undermine Daschle and portray him as a knee-jerk partisan unwilling to compromise or cooperate with President Bush. "How will Tom Daschle work with President Bush to solve the nation's problems when Daschle has attacked everything President Bush has done?" asks a RNC release that dubs Daschle "Dr. No." The release cites Daschle's opposition to John Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general, to Bush's tax-cut package and even his support for former Vice President Al Gore's Florida recount effort against Bush. One reason the Republican Party is gunning for Daschle is because of the power he acquires. As majority leader, he will be able to set the agenda for action in a way that Bush cannot, and Daschle will have the ability to bottle up bills he opposes. For example, many Democrats say Bush's plan to drill for natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is dead. Daschle makes no apologies, citing Republican and Democratic disapproval of drilling in Alaska. "I don't know that it would be prudent for (Bush) to pursue that," he said. Daschle, 53, twice married and the father of three grown children, finds himself squarely in the center of a fight to be seen as a purveyor of bipartisan compromise. And he will have little to guide him. Not since Grover Cleveland was president has one party controlled the White House and the House of Representatives but not the Senate. Daschle said he is committed to finding a way to work with Republicans, noting that he has offered several times to work with Bush. But what if Democrats and Republicans cannot find common ground? "There has to be," he said. "We won't be able to move any legislation in the Senate unless we work together." Daschle said the Senate will pass a bipartisan education bill upon its return, and he said compromise also is possible on a patient's bill of rights, a prescription drug benefit for seniors, a minimum-wage increase and legislation to address the energy crisis -- all Democratic priorities. During his years in Congress, Daschle has racked up a liberal record, voting primarily with his party. But he also has tended to the interests of South Dakota. Just this year he voted for a bankruptcy bill that benefited Citibank, a big employer in South Dakota, despite Democratic complaints that the bill was anti-consumer. Charles O. Jones, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, said Daschle is assuming a complex role as a majority leader without much of a majority. "That's a tricky bit to avoid what the Republicans are setting up for being 'Dr. No' and having him be 'Dr. Yes,'" said Jones. "There are going to be the expectations; you're leading, what have you got?" While Daschle remains confident in the face of the Republican onslaught, other Democratic senators said the attacks disprove Bush's claim that he is changing the tone in Washington. "I think personal attacks and personal politics will always backfire," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a member of Daschle's leadership team. "It's a waste of time, it turns off the American electorate, and it diminishes the entire process." Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Daschle's elevation to majority leader made the attacks inevitable. "They've already written the script and now they're looking for the evidence," said Durbin, another key member of Daschle's team. John Weaver, a Republican political consultant to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the White House was making a mistake with Daschle, similar to the way officials dealt with Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republican Party to become an independent and recalibrated the Senate from 50-50 to 50-49-1. "I don't think they should underestimate Daschle, nor does it make sense to vilify him either," said Weaver, whose boss severely criticized the party over Jeffords and is frequently at odds with Bush. "It's going to be very difficult to do so legitimately, much less before he's taken office." But Ed Gillespie, a Republican political consultant with close ties to the Bush political team, said there is nothing wrong with using Daschle's own words to foreshadow his actions. "He's a pretty forceful and steely leader, very partisan. And he cracks the whip pretty happily in his caucus," said Gillespie. According to Daschle's colleagues, his style of leadership is more consultation and less whip-cracking. Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who will become the assistant majority leader, said that when Daschle has an idea, he consults first with his leadership team and is exceedingly patient. Daschle's path to the post of Senate majority leader is all the more remarkable because he comes from a highly Republican state. As a former congressional aide to Sen. James Abourezk, he ran for the House from his hometown of Aberdeen in 1978, winning by just 139 votes. In 1986, Daschle defeated an incumbent Republican senator by campaigning to improve the weak farm economy and charging his opponent with voting to cut Social Security. In the Senate, Daschle worked on agriculture and veterans issues, becoming a protege of Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, D-Maine. When Mitchell announced his retirement in 1994, Daschle began campaigning to replace him. Then the Democrats lost control of the Senate, though Daschle vanquished Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., by 24-23 to become minority leader after promising his seat on the potent Finance Committee to Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., in exchange for her vote. He has proven to be a savvy media player. For the last six years as the Democratic leader, Daschle has held daily briefings with reporters and can laugh at himself as he whips out charts, graphs and other evidence in an effort to be persuasive. When opposing Bush's tax plan, Daschle and House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri used a sparkling black Lexus and a rusty muffler to make their case in front of the Capitol. "This is a Lexus," Daschle told the cameras. "It is a fully loaded, every-luxury-option-available Lexus, a 2000 Lexus GS-300, just like the Bush tax cut -- fully loaded. If you're a millionaire, under the Bush tax cut, you get a $46,000 tax cut, more than enough to pay for this Lexus. "But if you're a typical working person, you get $227, and that's enough to buy this muffler," Daschle said. Bush's tax plan ultimately passed, though in a somewhat smaller form. While 12 Democrats voted for it, Daschle complained that there was no bipartisanship at play. A bipartisan tax bill, he said, would have involved negotiations with the Democratic leadership, rather than picking off a few Democratic senators. Now, he expects to run the Senate and lead the Democrats just as he has always done. "What you see is what you get," he said. "I feel pretty comfortable taking the approach that I've taken." ***************************************************************** 14 Activists Want Uranium Plant Closed The Salt Lake Tribune -- June 3, 2001* BY LISA CHURCH SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE MOAB -- Some environmental groups say the White Mesa uranium mill near Blanding should be closed before the state has another contaminated tailings site on its hands similar to the Atlas site north of Moab. Representatives of the Utah Sierra Club Glen Canyon chapter and Living Rivers, both based in Moab, made their remarks during a public comment period to the state's Radiation Control Board, the oversight board for the Division of Radiation Control, during a meeting in Moab on Friday. The White Mesa Mill, in San Juan County, is owned by International Uranium Corp. It uses an acid-leach process to extract uranium and other valuable metals from radioactive waste shipped to the site from around the country. The remaining materials are disposed of in the mill's tailings site. A $10 million bond is in place for reclamation, should the site close, but many environmentalists and area residents say that is not enough money to pay for cleaning up the site. On Friday, the environmentalists described the waste disposal area as being similar to the 13 million tons of tailings produced by Atlas Corp., which processed uranium at a site near the banks of the Colorado River and has been a source of headaches for state and federal agencies since the company closed its plant in 1984 and filed for federal bankruptcy protection in 1998. After 10 years and millions of dollars in studies and stabilization work, the Atlas site will be turned over to the U.S. Department of Energy in September. Environmentalists told Radiation Control Board members that the White Mesa Mill is a toxic waste dump, accepting materials that will produce little uranium or valuable metals. They said the mill also could pollute the underground aquifer that is the water source for the Ute Reservation, and said the aquifer would then carry the toxins into the San Juan River which joins the Colorado River at Lake Powell. "This is a huge watershed that feeds the entire West," said John Weisheit, chairman of the Glen Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club. "I'm disappointed in the leadership of Utah. We don't want nuclear waste here." Sierra Club member and longtime environmental activist Ken Sleight urged the board to close the White Mesa Mill, which earlier this year applied to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to transport and process radioactive lead waste from a site in California. Owen Lammers, executive director of Living Rivers, told board members that International Uranium, which has operated the mill located on the Ute Reservation south of Blanding since 1997, is not financially stable. He cited figures from the company's 2000 annual report filed with the federal Securities Exchange Commission, which show that the company's assets have dropped from $32 million in 1998, to $6 million last year. "We have a situation where the company is declining. They're having trouble," Lammers said. Urging the state to "investigate independently" how much reclamation of the White Mesa site will cost, Lammers cautioned board members to carefully review the financial disclosures in the company's annual report. International Uranium president Ron Hochstein, who attended Friday's meeting, said the company is financially secure and stressed that White Mesa is a working mill, not a toxic dump. He said the company's annual report shows lower assets because the value of mining properties the company owns has declined in recent years due to a drop in the price of uranium. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 15 FirstEnergy agrees to pay fine by regulatory panel Published Sunday, June 3, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal. Akron firm accused of intimidating worker *Press* NORTH PERRY VILLAGE: The operator of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant has agreed to pay an $80,000 fine for intimidating a plant supervisor who was testifying in a co-worker's safety lawsuit. Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., which runs the power plant, told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it will not contest the fine or violation, said company spokesman Todd Schneider. He noted that while the company will pay the fine, it was not admitting the violation. The commission had proposed a $110,000 fine in 1999 but dropped it to $80,000. FirstEnergy officials had said that a Perry plant manager had only counseled a supervisor, George Sutton, about following company policies. The commission, however, found that the plant manager had intimidated Sutton, who testified in the trial of another employee, Kevin Doody. Doody said he had been fired because he had reported safety problems at the plant, and he filed a wrongful discharge suit. Sutton testified in state court that he had been warned to be careful about what he said. Sutton also said he was told by FirstEnergy officials that they had placed a disciplinary letter in his personnel file. Sutton no longer works at the plant. ***************************************************************** 16 Critics: Plan for 50 nuke plants a myth June 02, 2001 By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-power industry executives, meeting in the nation's capital at an annual conference last month, were flushed with unprecedented optimism. President Bush had included them in his National Energy Policy. They were earning endorsements from noted environmentalist Bruce Babbitt and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a leader on energy issues. Vice President Dick Cheney even stopped by to assure the executives that they were a "very important part" of the solution to energy shortages. It all led up to a striking announcement by the industry's top trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, which unveiled a "bold" new goal: Roughly 50 nuclear power reactors should be built in America by 2020. But realistically, can it be done? Critics say no. Construction costs are too high, public fear too widespread and government red tape too thick, they say. "Because there is such a long lead time in building plants and such a high capital cost -- as the past has told us -- (50 plants) really is mythical," said Jill Lancelot, co-founder of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group. Another obstacle: The plan would increase by 50 percent the number of nuclear plants in America, currently 103, which means 50 percent more nuclear waste. That has Nevada officials worried because Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the proposed -- and yet unapproved -- site of the nation's nuclear waste dump. Current law says Yucca could hold 77,000 tons of waste, which is what the 103 plants will have produced by the time Yucca closes later this century. If 50 plants were built, Congress would either have to expand Yucca or look for a second site. "They would have to face this all over again," said Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste office director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. As the nuclear industry gathered in Washington, critics also closed ranks. NEI chief Joe Colvin had said the plan was "doable." But one activist likened the industry's goal to "science fiction." Even more critical than the waste issue, the cost of constructing, permitting and licensing a plant is simply too high, said David Lochbaum, nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He doubts the industry will build even one plant. "This industry has a very difficult time going from blueprint to back yard," Lochbaum said. Tom Clements, director of the Nuclear Control Institute, said he doubts whether many nuclear executives believe their own rhetoric. "They know that the costs are prohibitive," Clements said. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in America since before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Public fears are still high, critics say. "People are very concerned about nuclear waste transportation, and they are even more concerned about nuclear power plants in their back yard," said Kevin Kamps, an activist with Nuclear Information &Resource Service. If a plant were to be built today, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion, and construction would take about six years, Mitchell Singer, NEI spokesman, said. That's substantially more money than a coal or gas plant. NEI has a task force that is looking at ways to lessen the cost, Singer said. "These are economic decisions that will have to play out," he said. So far, only one company, Exelon Corp., is realistically considering building a plant soon. The Chicago-based company is a $7.5 million partner in a test-model reactor in South Africa, touted as "meltdown-proof." The plant relies on new "pebble bed" technology that fuels a reactor with tennis-ball sized uranium granule canisters. The South Africa plant could be operational by 2005, and Exelon officials say America could be the technology's next home. But industry watchers are skeptical. David Jermain, a principal with Andersen LLP consulting firm, said he would be "quite surprised" to see a new nuclear plant in America in the next 10 years. It's a hard sell to convince investors that accident and waste-transportation risk factors are minimal, that nuclear power can compete economically with coal and natural gas, and that the public will embrace new plants. "Public opinion about nuclear power is going to take a long time to change, if ever," Jermain said. Industry officials outside Exelon said their companies are not planning new plants. "That goal (50 new plants) would be what I would call very optimistic, or very aggressive," said David Christian, senior vice president for nuclear operations at Dominion Energy, which operates six reactors. The 50-plants plan is more of an incentive to industry leaders to maintain safe, efficient plants, Christian said. "Realistically, I don't think companies are even taking steps toward that goal," he said. Building new plants is just too expensive, Christian said. The company's two Surry reactors in Virginia cost a combined $420 million by the time they opened in the early 1970s. Dominion's two North Anna reactors in Virginia cost a combined $1.3 billion by completion in 1980. Christian noted that Dominion Chief Executive Thomas Ferrell warned that "irrational exuberance" may be at play. The waste issue is just one of several obstacles for new plants, Ferrell told the industry executives last month. "If that (waste) stalemate persists, I just can't imagine more nuclear plants in the United States," Christian said. Entergy Corp., which owns eight reactors, is focused on re-licensing its current plants, not building new ones, Entergy spokesman Larry Gottlieb said. The unresolved waste issue is a major obstacle, he said. But given Bush's pro-nuclear stance and congressional desire to loosen federal regulations on the industry, it's no wonder tongues are wagging, Gottlieb said. "Now is the time to do it," he said. "If everything falls into place, I can see plans being fast-tracked." But independent experts also warn the nation isn't ready for more nuclear plants. Five factors aside from the waste issue have to be addressed before utilities seriously consider new reactors, James Asselstine, managing director of Lehman Bros. Inc., told a Senate panel last month: The public must accept the plant. Producing nuclear power has to be cheaper than coal and gas. Investors have to be guaranteed that plant construction will be on time and on budget. Financing has to be solid. The uranium fuel that feeds the plants must remain affordable. Finding investors who are willing to finance new plants is the overriding concern, said Eileen Supko, a nuclear industry consultant with Energy Resources International Inc. "They need to be able to secure funding and assure shareholders that they are making a prudent decision, and to do that, having a predictable process and predictable costs is the bottom line," Supko said. Still, if utility companies can figure out how to build plants economically, new plants could spring up this decade, said James Lake, president of the American Nuclear Society, an 11,000-member association of engineers and scientists. "That's a challenge to put 50 nuclear plants on line by 2020, but it is not infeasible," Lake said. "Remember: It's a goal." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 17 Critics: Plan for 50 nuke plants a myth June 02, 2001 By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-power industry executives, meeting in the nation's capital at an annual conference last month, were flushed with unprecedented optimism. President Bush had included them in his National Energy Policy. They were earning endorsements from noted environmentalist Bruce Babbitt and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a leader on energy issues. Vice President Dick Cheney even stopped by to assure the executives that they were a "very important part" of the solution to energy shortages. It all led up to a striking announcement by the industry's top trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, which unveiled a "bold" new goal: Roughly 50 nuclear power reactors should be built in America by 2020. But realistically, can it be done? Critics say no. Construction costs are too high, public fear too widespread and government red tape too thick, they say. "Because there is such a long lead time in building plants and such a high capital cost -- as the past has told us -- (50 plants) really is mythical," said Jill Lancelot, co-founder of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group. Another obstacle: The plan would increase by 50 percent the number of nuclear plants in America, currently 103, which means 50 percent more nuclear waste. That has Nevada officials worried because Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the proposed -- and yet unapproved -- site of the nation's nuclear waste dump. Current law says Yucca could hold 77,000 tons of waste, which is what the 103 plants will have produced by the time Yucca closes later this century. If 50 plants were built, Congress would either have to expand Yucca or look for a second site. "They would have to face this all over again," said Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste office director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. As the nuclear industry gathered in Washington, critics also closed ranks. NEI chief Joe Colvin had said the plan was "doable." But one activist likened the industry's goal to "science fiction." Even more critical than the waste issue, the cost of constructing, permitting and licensing a plant is simply too high, said David Lochbaum, nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He doubts the industry will build even one plant. "This industry has a very difficult time going from blueprint to back yard," Lochbaum said. Tom Clements, director of the Nuclear Control Institute, said he doubts whether many nuclear executives believe their own rhetoric. "They know that the costs are prohibitive," Clements said. No new nuclear plants have been ordered in America since before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Public fears are still high, critics say. "People are very concerned about nuclear waste transportation, and they are even more concerned about nuclear power plants in their back yard," said Kevin Kamps, an activist with Nuclear Information &Resource Service. If a plant were to be built today, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion, and construction would take about six years, Mitchell Singer, NEI spokesman, said. That's substantially more money than a coal or gas plant. NEI has a task force that is looking at ways to lessen the cost, Singer said. "These are economic decisions that will have to play out," he said. So far, only one company, Exelon Corp., is realistically considering building a plant soon. The Chicago-based company is a $7.5 million partner in a test-model reactor in South Africa, touted as "meltdown-proof." The plant relies on new "pebble bed" technology that fuels a reactor with tennis-ball sized uranium granule canisters. The South Africa plant could be operational by 2005, and Exelon officials say America could be the technology's next home. But industry watchers are skeptical. David Jermain, a principal with Andersen LLP consulting firm, said he would be "quite surprised" to see a new nuclear plant in America in the next 10 years. It's a hard sell to convince investors that accident and waste-transportation risk factors are minimal, that nuclear power can compete economically with coal and natural gas, and that the public will embrace new plants. "Public opinion about nuclear power is going to take a long time to change, if ever," Jermain said. Industry officials outside Exelon said their companies are not planning new plants. "That goal (50 new plants) would be what I would call very optimistic, or very aggressive," said David Christian, senior vice president for nuclear operations at Dominion Energy, which operates six reactors. The 50-plants plan is more of an incentive to industry leaders to maintain safe, efficient plants, Christian said. "Realistically, I don't think companies are even taking steps toward that goal," he said. Building new plants is just too expensive, Christian said. The company's two Surry reactors in Virginia cost a combined $420 million by the time they opened in the early 1970s. Dominion's two North Anna reactors in Virginia cost a combined $1.3 billion by completion in 1980. Christian noted that Dominion Chief Executive Thomas Ferrell warned that "irrational exuberance" may be at play. The waste issue is just one of several obstacles for new plants, Ferrell told the industry executives last month. "If that (waste) stalemate persists, I just can't imagine more nuclear plants in the United States," Christian said. Entergy Corp., which owns eight reactors, is focused on re-licensing its current plants, not building new ones, Entergy spokesman Larry Gottlieb said. The unresolved waste issue is a major obstacle, he said. But given Bush's pro-nuclear stance and congressional desire to loosen federal regulations on the industry, it's no wonder tongues are wagging, Gottlieb said. "Now is the time to do it," he said. "If everything falls into place, I can see plans being fast-tracked." But independent experts also warn the nation isn't ready for more nuclear plants. Five factors aside from the waste issue have to be addressed before utilities seriously consider new reactors, James Asselstine, managing director of Lehman Bros. Inc., told a Senate panel last month: The public must accept the plant. Producing nuclear power has to be cheaper than coal and gas. Investors have to be guaranteed that plant construction will be on time and on budget. Financing has to be solid. The uranium fuel that feeds the plants must remain affordable. Finding investors who are willing to finance new plants is the overriding concern, said Eileen Supko, a nuclear industry consultant with Energy Resources International Inc. "They need to be able to secure funding and assure shareholders that they are making a prudent decision, and to do that, having a predictable process and predictable costs is the bottom line," Supko said. Still, if utility companies can figure out how to build plants economically, new plants could spring up this decade, said James Lake, president of the American Nuclear Society, an 11,000-member association of engineers and scientists. "That's a challenge to put 50 nuclear plants on line by 2020, but it is not infeasible," Lake said. "Remember: It's a goal." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Bush cuts budget for nuclear cleanup At the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, spotter Robert Valandingham, atop truck, helps load containers of low-level radioactive scrap metal. The waste is being shipped to Utah for disposal. President wants evaluation; critics decry delay *Sunday, June 3, 2001* Jonathan Riskind By Jonathan Riskind *Dispatch Washington Bureau Chief* W ASHINGTON -- When southern Ohio economic-development czar Gregory Simonton gazes over the vast 3,700-acre site of the shuttered Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, he sees massive buildings that could be sold or leased to private businesses and vacant land ripe for construction. But first the contaminated byproducts of the Cold War must be mopped up at the uranium-enrichment plant in Piketon, about 60 miles south of Columbus. Once a key part of the nation's atomic-bomb program, the plant last month stopped producing commercial material for nuclear fuel. The total cost of cleaning up Piketon isn't cheap -- an estimated $749.1 million -- and that figure could go up, according to recently released U.S. Department of Energy figures. But President Bush's proposed 2002 budget would cut money for nuclear cleanup sites nationwide to about $5.9 billion from about $6.3 billion this year. That has outraged Simonton and nuclear-cleanup advocates in Ohio and around the country who say more, not less, money is needed to make inroads into paying an estimated $300 billion Cold War contamination bill. "The administration has recommended a step back . . . after a decade of real progress," said Robert Schaefer, a spokesman for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog group based in Seattle and in the nation's capital. The advocates are worried that after several years of building up the Ohio and national cleanup budget -- which still hasn't reached levels they consider adequate -- this marks the start of a backslide that could delay for years the decontamination and reuse of nuclear sites. Energy Department officials acknowledge that cleaning up dozens of nuclear sites, large and small, will take hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of time. The locations range from Piketon to the Battelle Columbus nuclear research lab in West Jefferson, Ohio, to the Hanford nuclear reactor in Washington state and the plutonium-polluted Savannah River site in South Carolina. But the administration wants to assess how much progress has been made and whether the job can be done more efficiently before deciding whether to increase spending, officials say. "The entire (department) budget in environmental management is subject to an ongoing, comprehensive policy and project review initiated by Secretary (of Energy Spencer) Abraham," said Ken Morgan, a spokesman for the agency's Ohio office. The department "will continue to work with our regulators and the governor's office to ensure that cleanup activities continue and that the health and safety of our workers and the public is not compromised, period." On Friday afternoon, the Bush administration announced that it was proposing adding $180 million nationwide to this year's cleanup budget as part of a $6.5 billion 2001 supplemental budget request it is sending to Congress. Piketon fared relatively well in next year's budget, considering that some Ohio sites received deep cutbacks. Still, the approximately $76 million allocated for cleanup at Piketon was the same as current funding, not allowing an expansion of the cleanup now that the plant has ceased operations. On the positive side, $125 million is proposed to keep the plant on standby, saving for at least 18 months many of the 1,700 jobs there. More standby money has been promised, but not committed, for as long as 31/2 more years. Containers of radioactive scrap metal await removal from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon. Still, Simonton is concerned about whether enough money will be committed in future years not just for cleanup efforts but also to make good on previous federal promises to build a recycling plant to dispose of thousands of cylinders of depleted uranium stored on site. The full cost of getting rid of those cylinders, which could run into the billions, isn't included in the Piketon cleanup price tag. "Everything's a holding pattern," Simonton said of attempts to plan the long-term redevelopment of the site and figure out how many cleanup and recycling jobs will be there in years to come. "There's one promise now, and two years from now you could have a whole different set of circumstances. This year-to-year process is to say the least frustrating and also disheartening." The picture is bleaker at other Ohio nuclear sites. The Fernald site near Cincinnati, a former uranium-metal production facility, saw its funding held to about $290 million when it had been expected to reach $330 million next year to help meet a 2006 cleanup goal. The Mound site in Miamisburg, which was a key producer of nuclear-weapons components, suffers a cut of at least $20 million in the Bush budget, to about $76 million, including about $5 million for security and other noncleanup needs. Sharon Cowdrey, a member of a Miamisburg citizens' advisory group that oversees the Mound cleanup, said about $92 million a year is required to decontaminate the site by 2006, the target date. Cowdrey worries that the site, on top of a hill, could leak dangerous radioactive waste into the community's groundwater before too long if cleanup isn't completed. "Everything on that hill has to migrate down," Cowdrey said. "There is no way the community wants to be strapped" with the cleanup taking longer than expected. Included in Friday's announcement is $21 million more this year for Fernald and Mound, although it wasn't clear how much is intended for each site. And the attempt to add more money to this year's cleanup pot doesn't mean the administration is seeking to increase its 2002 request. The concerns of local officials and people such as Simonton and Cowdrey is shared by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which helps oversee federal cleanup efforts on some of the state's nuclear sites. Graham Mitchell, chief of the OEPA's office of federal facilities oversight, said the Bush budget is "shortsighted" in not recognizing the risks and costs of delaying the closure of contaminated Cold War sites. Contamination might migrate off some sites, Mitchell said, and the longer cleanup takes, the more it will cost taxpayers. "We need to make sure the new administration understands that commitments have been made," he said. "There is the potential here to solve real environmental problems and get these sites off the federal government's books and actually save money in the long run." The Energy Department is wise to review how nuclear-cleanup money is being spent, said Kate Probst, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a Washington-based think tank that conducts research on environmental issues. Probst notes that about $50 billion already has been spent on cleanup since 1989. She worries that too much emphasis has been placed on cleanup as an economic-development initiative to replace jobs lost when the nuclear plants shut down -- and not enough on cleaning up the most important sites first and all sites efficiently. "There could be more scrutiny of where all the money is going and are we getting the most out of it," Probst said. "It's a lot of money, and a lot of people out there think that money could be better spent. I can't say whether (this year's) cuts are good or bad, but doing things better is important." Still, if lawmakers such as Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, have their way, the cleanup money will be substantially increased for 2002 even as that re-examination goes forward. The Piketon plant is in Strickland's district. Members of Congress will try to increase cleanup funding in 2002 by as much as $1 billion, though that will butt heads with many other initiatives in a year when Bush is trying to hold down domestic spending. It's important for the federal government to keep funding promises at places such as the Mound and Fernald sites and to step up efforts at the Piketon plant, DeWine said. "It's a responsibility of the federal government," he said. "The federal government created the problem, and we need to live up to our responsibilities." Joseph Gantos, manager for decontamination and decommissioning for Battelle Memorial Institute, agrees. Money for cleanup of Battelle's West Jefferson lab, a Cold War nuclear-research site, was slashed in the Bush budget to $10 million from $16.1 million. If that figure holds and does not increase significantly in future years, the West Jefferson site wouldn't be completed until 2015, Gantos said. Battelle pledges to spend its own money, if necessary, to ensure contamination doesn't endanger the environment or surrounding community. But since the work was done on behalf of national security, the federal government should make good on promises to restore the site for both environmental and economic-development reasons, Gantos said. "We want our facilities back so we can put them back into business use," he said. "It would be good for the community to have another business thriving." Copyright © 2001, The Columbus Dispatch ***************************************************************** 2 White House Seeks Millions for N.M. Labs Saturday, June 2, 2001 Albuquerque Journal--> John Fleck--> By John Fleck *Journal Staff Writer* The Bush administration on Friday asked Congress for $140 million extra this year for the U.S. nuclear weapons program, much of which would be spent at Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories. The administration also requested $180 million for environmental cleanup for the Department of Energy and $153 million for the Airborne Laser, an Air Force anti-missile program with headquarters at Kirtland Air Force Base. The money was included in a $6.5 billion supplemental budget request the White House sent to Congress on Friday. Most of the money, the administration said, is needed to make up shortfalls in this year's defense budget. The spending package is likely to win quick congressional approval, said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. The Bush request did not specify how the nuclear weapons money was to be spent beyond saying its purpose was "to ensure the safety and operational readiness of the nuclear weapons stockpile." The administration decided to ask for more money for nuclear weapons after John Gordon, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, met personally with President Bush, according to Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. Wilson said $40 million of the new money is aimed at Los Alamos for work manufacturing plutonium components for U.S. nuclear weapons. The program has been criticized for being behind schedule and underfunded in recent years. Los Alamos has the job of making new plutonium cores, called "pits", for U.S. nuclear weapons. No new U.S. bombs are being made, but the lab is preparing to make replacement pits for weapons being taken apart and tested to see how their pits are aging. According to budget documents submitted to Congress earlier this year, there is only one extra pit available for dismantlement and testing of the W88 warhead. Los Alamos not only must be able to build pits for U.S. nuclear weapons, but it also must be able to go through a rigorous formal certification process to demonstrate that the pits meet rigid specifications demanded of stockpile weapons. Los Alamos director John Browne recently called those two areas — manufacturing and certification — two of the lab's most important programs. On Thursday, he announced the formation of a blue-ribbon panel to review the effort to make sure it stays on track. "It is imperative that we meet the goals and milestones of these programs on time, within budget and with the highest quality products and processes," Browne said in a statement issued Thursday. The budget request also should provide additional money for the Energy Department's Stockpile Life Extension Program, an effort led by the laboratories to refurbish U.S. nuclear weapons so they will last longer. In the past, U.S. nuclear weapons were usually replaced after 10 to 15 years by new designs. But with a 1992 halt to nuclear testing and no new weapons being designed, the laboratories are being asked to find ways to ensure the safety and reliability of existing U.S. weapons indefinitely. Major work is under way at the laboratories to define the work necessary to refurbish two U.S. weapons, and the Department of Energy has developed a long-range plan to eventually refurbish all nine types of warheads and bombs in the U.S. nuclear stockpile. According to Domenici, some of the new money requested for the Department of Energy's environmental programs could be spent at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, a nuclear waste dump near Carlsbad. The administration request also beefs up work on the Air Force's Airborne Laser program, intended to build an airplane-based laser to shoot down enemy missiles. While the program is based at Kirtland, most of the money is spent by contractors outside of New Mexico. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 3 Bush budget plan could delay Livermore lab cleanup Thursday, May 31, 2001 Efforts to clean up groundwater contaminated by the toxic remnants of nuclear weapons research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would grind to a halt under budget cuts proposed by President Bush, officials said yesterday. The administration's proposal to cut cleanup funding in half worries some residents of Tracy, just eight miles from pits full of toxic chemicals oozing into the groundwater. It also puzzles local U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representatives, who say it runs counter to the federal government's commitment to clean up the contaminated research site. "This is the first time I've ever seen anything like this happen," said the EPA's Kathy Setian. "It appears to be inconsistent with the cleanup agreements. " The chemicals are stored on 11 square miles known as Site 300 in the Altamont Hills. Nestled among the steep slopes and jagged outcroppings are pits filled with radioactive hydrogen, uranium-238 and other toxic substances. The Lawrence Livermore lab began testing on Site 300 in 1955. Since then, highly volatile and explosive compounds have been leaching into the groundwater toward Tracy. The contaminated groundwater plumes have been held in check since cleanup began in 1992. This year, the federal government spent $22 million on cleanup at the lab as part of the Superfund program, which allocates money for the nation's most contaminated lands. Bush's budget request for the Energy Department in fiscal 2002, however, would cut that amount by almost half. That would force the lab, which is run by the department, to shut down treatment facilities that remove pollutants with the help of wells that collect contaminated water, officials said. "We would not be able to do all the studies of contaminants that we want to do," said Burt Heffner, a lab spokesman. "It also means we would not be able to build the treatment facilities as quickly." The complete cleanup of Site 300 is expected to span 30 years and to cost more than $150 million, said Setian, who oversees the effort. Setian cited pacts between the EPA, the Energy Department and a host of state agencies that require the federal government to continue cleanups and keep contaminants below unhealthy levels. "These are consensual enforcement agreements," Setian said. "The DOE could be penalized." John Belluardo, an Energy Department spokesman in Oakland, said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has ordered reviews of cleanup programs nationwide for cost efficiency, with the help of state agencies. "We don't have a full assessment of the budget picture at this point," said Belluardo, adding that the department is hoping to restore full funding by trimming wasteful spending. Tomorrow, the lab watchdog group Tri-Valley CAREs -- an acronym for Communities Against a Radioactive Environment -- will hold a 7 p.m. meeting at the Tracy Community Center to alert residents about the possible budget cuts. "They've stored up to 100,000 pounds of explosive chemicals up there," said Bob Sarvey, who can see Site 300 from his family's home on the western edge of town. "This isn't just regular TNT, this is experimental stuff." Tracy Mayor Dan Bilbrey says many Central Valley residents have made a good living as employees at the Livermore lab and working at Site 300. He said he would turn to the lab and local members of Congress if cuts in cleanup funding become imminent. But for now, he says, Tracy residents have put Site 300 in the back of their minds. "With 50 percent of our residents moving into Tracy in the past year," he said, "half of the people don't even know that the facility is there." ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle   Page A - 17 ***************************************************************** 4 Britain snatched babies' bodies for nuclear labs Guardian Unlimited Observer | UK News | Eddie Goncalves Sunday June 3, 2001 The Observer Britain's nuclear industry was involved in a top secret international operation to steal dead babies for up to three decades, according to newly declassified documents. The shocking revelation comes in the wake of the controversy over the organ retention scandal at some of this country's leading hospitals. The papers, released by the American Department of Energy, show that scientists from the UK Atomic Energy Authority removed children's bones and bodies to ship to the United States for classified nuclear experiments. Among the hundreds of pages of documents released are letters exchanged between American and British government scientists in which they discuss levels of radiation in the ribs of stillborn babies and lists of dead children's bodies obtained from the Middlesex Hospital and spirited to American nuclear laboratories. The human 'guinea pigs' are not named, but assigned codenames as part of tight security surrounding the experiments. Baby B-1102, for example, is listed as a boy who died aged eight months. Baby B-595 was a girl who was 13 months old when she died. The report listing them - stamped 'top secret' - acknowledges the help of doctors at the Central Middlesex Hospital's Department of Morbid Anatomy and Histology. Although the US government has released hundreds of documents about the operation, it has retained even more sensitive papers thought to detail some of the most embarrassing aspects of collusion between the British and American authorities. Asked to release a file entitled Classified Discussions at Harwell, the Oxfordshire headquarters of the British government's nuclear research activities, the US Department of Energy told The Observer: 'This document has been determined to be not declassifiable and has been removed from this folder.' An investigation into the 'body snatching' programme - codenamed Project Sunshine - ordered by former President Bill Clinton, was scathing: 'Researchers employed deception in the solicitation of bones of deceased babies from intermediaries with access to human remains.' Among the documents obtained by The Observer is the transcript of a secret meeting in Washington of Project Sunshine's keenest minds. They show that Willard Libby, a renowned scientist who later won the Nobel prize for his research into carbon dating techniques, instructed colleagues to skirt the law in their search for bodies. 'Human samples are of prime importance, and if anybody knows how to do a good job of body-snatching, they will really be serving their country,' Libby said. 'We hired an expensive law firm to look up the law on body-snatching. It is not very encouraging. It shows how very difficult it is going to be to do it legally.' British scientists collaborated with the project from the outset in the early Fifties, the documents show. Correspondence between them and their American counterparts at the US Atomic Energy Commission includes a letter from the UK Atomic Energy Authority giving information about stillborn children whose bones had been experimented on in Britain. Other reports compare bodies obtained in England - known as 'Area Five' by the project's controllers - and in San Francisco. One paper says parts from British babies and children up to the age of 10 years were 'readily available'. At the same time as supplying the Americans, British scientists from Harwell and the Medical Research Council conducted their own research on dead children. Between 1955 and 1970, they collected around 6,000 bodies. Jean Prichard, whose baby died in 1957, said her child's legs were removed by hospital doctors and taken to Harwell without permission. To prevent her from finding out what had happened, she says she was forbidden to dress her daughter for her funeral. 'I asked if I could put her christening robe on her, but I wasn't allowed to, and that upset me terribly because she wasn't christened. No one asked me about doing things like that, taking bits and pieces from her.' British governments have always denied any involvement in Project Sunshine, and the link - first suggested in a 1995 Channel 4 documentary - was not investigated for the American report. However, new documents released by the US government and reports now in the UK Public Records Office at Kew, South-west London, show leading British scientists were involved in body-snatching for both nations. They indicate that the British conducted tests on babies from Hong Kong, and acquired body parts from doctors in Cambridge, Newmarket, Norwich and Chelmsford, as well as the coroner for west London. A leading cancer research centre, the Royal Marsden Hospital, London, took part in the project, the documents say. Records show that almost half the bodies were of newborn or very young babies. Laboratories at Cambridge University burnt the bones. Nuclear scientists in Britain say their research ended in the Seventies. In the Nineties, researchers from Aldermaston and Harwell obtained foetal and placental tissues from abortions carried out in Oxfordshire and Cumbria, although this time, they say, it was with the consent of the families. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 5 Pasko gets support Two representatives of the New York-based 'Committee to Protect Journalists' (CPJ) have arrived in Vladivostok to support Grigory Pasko for his upcoming trial. Jon Gauslaa, 2001-06-02 19:50 CPJ is an independent, non-profit organisation that works to safeguard press freedom around the world. Its board member Peter Arnett and its Europe program consultant Emma Gray arrived in Vladivostok on June 1 to show support for Pasko. - We are here to demonstrate our solidarity with Grigory Pasko and to demand justice for him, Arnett said. And we will support him until justice is done. Arnett and Gray plan to accompany Pasko and his lawyers to the Pacific Fleet Courthouse at 10 AM on Monday June 4 for the scheduled start of the trial. At 5 PM the same afternoon, they will take part in a press conference with Pasko's lawyers at "Dom Zhurnalista" at Okeanskii Prospekt 90 in the centre of Vladivostok. Pasko is charged with espionage for leaking information to the Japanese TV-channel NHK about nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. He was acquitted for espionage on July 20, 1999, but convicted to three years for 'abuse of official authority' and released on an amnesty because he had served 20 months in pre-trial detention. The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court cancelled this verdict on November 21, 2000, and sent the case back to Vladivostok for a new hearing of the espionage charges. Observers have considered this decision as a negative signal regarding the independence ofthe Russian judiciary. You are here: www.bellona.no : *News story* | til toppen Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway Menu system java script courtesy of Peter Belesis at the Dynamic HTML lab. ***************************************************************** 6 Stinson: Kelly investigation uncovers more chilling information MySanAntonio: Express-News: Roddy Stinson Express-News: Roddy Stinson San Antonio Express-News *"A complete list of hazardous materials used (in Building 301) during the past year appears at the end of this report .... Twenty-four types of materials are listed . ..." *— From an Air Force document obtained recently by the Express-News This newspaper's investigation of the health-threatening substances that Kelly AFB workers handled and inhaled for decades has turned up another eye-opening — and somewhat chilling — document. The paragraph above was taken from a report titled, "Site-Specific Environmental Baseline Survey: Summary of Building No. 301." Building 301 should be familiar to readers. It has been mentioned in several columns on Kelly hazards and in an Oct. 18, 2000, Express-News article in which Staff Writer Sig Christenson reported: *"Building 301 was the Air Force's largest facility used for plating .... (For nearly 25 years) parts were dipped in vats filled with such chemicals as cadmium and chromium." *By the time the environmental baseline survey was conducted in 1997, plating work at Kelly was slowing, but the "complete list of hazardous materials" still provided a disquieting glimpse into the workaday world of Building 301 workers. Space limitation prevents a discussion of all "24 types" of materials, but several demand attention. (The health threats I cite are from "ToxFAQs" published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.) * Potassium cyanide *(According to the report, 75 lbs. were used in Bldg. 301 in 1997.) *Sodium cyanide *(800 lbs.) "Exposure to high levels of cyanide in the air for a short time harms the brain and heart. Exposure to low levels for a long time may result in breathing difficulties, heart pains, vomiting, blood changes, headaches and enlargement of the thyroid gland. "People with high blood cyanide levels have also shown harmful effects such as weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision and deafness." *Perchloroethylene *(1,925 gals.) "High concentrations, particularly in poorly ventilated areas, can cause headache, sleepiness, confusion, difficulty in walking, unconsciousness and death. "The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that perchloroethylene may reasonably be anticipated to be a carcinogen. It has been shown to cause liver and kidney tumors (in test animals)." *Chromium trioxide* (700 lbs.) *Chromium solution *(5,500 mls.) "All forms of chromium can be toxic at high levels, but chromium VI is more toxic than chromium III. "People who are allergic to chromium may have asthma attacks after breathing high levels of either chromium VI or III. "Long-term exposure to chromium VI can cause damage to lungs and can increase risk of non-cancer lung diseases. "Animal studies indicate that chromium VI is a carcinogen." The survey report also included information about other health hazards in Building 301: *Asbestos *"Friable" asbestos was found in "pipe joint insulation" during a 1989 survey. Surveys in 1980 and 1995 "noted five instances of potential asbestos-containing materials." *Lead-based paint * "Because this facility was constructed before 1981, there is potential for LBP." *Drinking water *"On Aug. 12, 1993, a complaint was filed with BioEngineering Services regarding 'brown water.' No action was recorded." *Hazardous substance spills/releases in 1987-88: *5,000 gallons of a "chrome solution" (June 20, 1987) 6 gallons of a "cyanide solution" (July 21, 1987) 30 gallons of a "concentrated chrome solution" (Feb. 20, 1988) Concentrated chrome solution, amount "unknown" (Jan. 2, 1988) That's quite chilling enough. But what was spilled, released, inhaled, handled and/or swallowed in Building 301 prior to 1987? Only God and his Kelly angels know. If the information we have is any indication of the facts and figures we don't have, it seems safe to conclude that some of those angels arrived at celestial headquarters long before their time. *To leave a message for Roddy Stinson, call 250-3155, or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net. 06/03/2001 Portions © 2001 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. © 2001 MyWay. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************