*****************************************************************
03/04/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.57
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS
1 The Power of Protest
2 GREENPEACE REVEALS DOCUMENTS PROVING CORRUPTION BY RUSSIA'S
3 Waste mismanagement?
4 Envirocare facing cutbacks
5 In the Belly of the Beast
6 CEO recalls beginnings of nuclear plant
7 North Korea may revive N-program
8 Nuclear plants to be built in UK
9 Nuclear plants to be built in UK
10 Nuclear plants to be built in UK
11 British Energy plans nuclear power plants
12 Letter: Dangers of nuke storage are evident
13 Web site gives nuclear shipping information
14 U.S. still resists seismic testing
15 INSPECTORS FIND LAPSES,BUT DECLARE NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFE
16 ConEd's dilemma: Go ahead with NU deal or go to court
17 Kariwa villagers seek plebiscite over MOX nuclear fuel
18 Think twice about a referendum
19 Editorial: Nuclear monitoring
20 Radioactive irregularity: Monitoring and enforcement needed
21 Sellafield nuclear fuel train derailed
22 BNFL train derails with nuclear flasks on board
23 Mox fuel plant hopes rise British
24 Nuclear Waste Disposal
NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS
1 DOE Cut Under Bush Budget Plan -
2 Energy Department fighting Kentucky requirement
3 Dispute on Russian Tests Divides Nuclear Experts
4 Kursk was sunk 'by stray Russian missile'
5 Fallout foul-up may get fixed
6 Hanford glass plant partner eyes bankruptcy
7 Hanford waste glassification contractor faces cash problems
8 SRS firm ponders bankruptcy
9 Bush Urged to Delay N. Korea Nuclear Power Deal Pending Review
10 Lawyer: Sub Saboteur Was on Drugs
11 Assurances given over plutonium transport
12 Errors at INEEL bring citations
13 N-abling the Navy vital
14 Lawsuit alleges mishandling at site
****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
1 The Power of Protest
[Frankfurter Allgemeine]
*Stefan Dietrich*
As the saying goes, you learn from your mistakes. A lot of
mistakes were made in the 1990s during the blockades against
Castor nuclear waste shipments to Germany's temporary storage
facility in Gorleben, Lower Saxony.
The state government there estimated the costs of the last
protest at more than DM100 million ($48 million at today's rate).
It was an unacceptable personnel and logistical effort to move
six containers to their destination. A court decision has helped
push the costs even higher because police must exercise extreme
restraint when dealing with lawbreakers.
If anyone has learned anything, then it is the anti-nuclear
activists, who now realize how they can force the "nuclear state"
to its knees with relatively little effort. No more than 5,000
protesters are needed to do this. A spokesman for the movement
just juxtaposes "the constitutional right to bodily integrity and
freedom of expression" with the ban on demonstrations along the
transportation route to justify every kind of illegal activity.
It is one of the myths of the anti-nuclear movement that they are
the underdogs materially but not morally against their opponents,
the nuclear lobby. Behind this kind of smoke screen, it is quite
easy to see that the protests in Lower Saxony are based on the
simple principle of "we do not want the mess."
The anti-nuclear people have achieved a great deal. If one
recalls the nuclear power concept designed by the government
under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in the 1970s, then one sees that
they have carried the day. Unfinished construction sites and
aging reactors dot the landscape.
The time has now come to shoulder that part of the responsibility
that was always cited as the primary argument against nuclear
energy: taking care of future generations. That task has yet to
be undertaken, and the struggle continues -- against a state that
must still shoulder the burden alone. Mar. 1, 2001
© Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 All
*****************************************************************
2 GREENPEACE REVEALS DOCUMENTS PROVING CORRUPTION BY RUSSIA'S
ATOMIC MINISTER AND CALLS FOR HALT TO HIS PLANS TO IMPORT
RADIOACTIVE WASTE
2 March 2001
Moscow - Greenpeace today released a confidential report from
the Russian Parliamentary Anti-Corruption Commission detailing
the large-scale illegal business activities of the Minister of
Atomic Energy, Evgeny Adamov, and called on the Duma to reject
the Adamov-backed plans, estimated to be worth $20 billion, to
turn Russia into the world's nuclear waste dump.
The 19 page document lists dozens of illegal business activities
by Adamov since the early 1990s. Adamov set up at least 10
companies both inside and outside of Russia. For example, on
August 24, 1994, he set up the consulting and management company
"Omeka, Ltd". Registered in Pennsylvania, USA, at the end of
1999, the company had assets valued at US$ 5,080,000, of which
$3,150,000 were owned privately by Adamov and a further
$1,500,000 by his wife. Currently Omeka has consulting contracts
with Tekhsnabexport, the wholly owned import arm of Minatom, the
company which would most likely benefit from any imports of spent
fuel from overseas.
As an employee of Minatom, Adamov is forbidden to have any
private business interests, however, the report reveals a complex
business portfolio which for example earns him some $US15,000 per
month via Omeka. Adamov worked from 1962-1986 as an engineer at
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, under Minatom, from 1962-86, as
director of the secret NIIKET Institute, Moscow, under Minatom
from 1986-98 and as Minister of Minatom since March 4, 1998.
On April 23 1999 Adamov declared during question time in the
Duma: "... since I'm minister I have never received any business
revenues on my private bank account".
Given the conclusions made, the Committee recommended that all
information related to Adamov’s activities be submitted to the
President, Security Council, Russian Federation Government,
Federal Security Service and Prosecutor General’s Office.
The report further also states that in 1995 Adamov signed a
contract with the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran for the
design of a heavy water production plant for a nuclear research
reactor, violating international nuclear non-proliferation
agreements, to which Russia is a signatory.
"This is a wake up call for the Duma members who voted in favour
of Adamov's multi-billion proposal for importing nuclear waste.
They must now throw out the plan which is nothing more than a
money making scheme for Adamov and the rest of the Russian
nuclear mafia," said Ivan Blokov of Greenpeace Russia.
The report was presented at a closed session of the
Anti-Corruption Committee on February 20th. It is likely that
this was the real reason for the delay in the second
Parliamentary reading of the controversial law amendments to
allow the import of Spent Nuclear Fuel scheduled for February
22nd and now expected on March 22nd.
"Adamov has to be fired immediately and the activities of the
Ministry of Atomic Energy must be investigated. Plans to import
radioactive waste must be stopped when they come before the Duma
on March 22," said Tobias Muenchmeyer of Greenpeace
International.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
- Tobias Muenchmeyer +49 30 440 58 960
- Ivan Blokov +7 095 257 41 22
www.greenpeace.org/~nuclear/waste/russianwaste.html Click the
following link for the confidential report from the Russian
Parliamentary Anti-Corruption Commission detailing illegal
business activities of the Minister of Atomic Energy, Evgeny
Adamov (in Russian) www.greenpeace.ru
Notes for editors:
10 companies that Adamov has set up:
1. 1990: "Forum of scientists and specialists for the Soviet- American
dialog", Moscow.
2. 1990: Forum "Energopool", Moscow.
3. 1993: "Transpool", Moscow.
4. 1993: "Energo Terminal Service", Moscow.
5. 1994: "Omeka Ltd", Monroville/USA.
6. 1995: "Logic Realty", Moscow.
7. 1997: "Energopool", Delaware/USA.
8. 1998: "Allumincotrade", Moscow After appointment as minister.
9. 1998: "Rinsc Ltd", USA and Moscow.
10. 1998: "Agloski International Ltd", Nice/France
*****************************************************************
3 Waste mismanagement?
Idaho State Journal
March 04, 2001
Former auditors update suit against former INEEL contractors
03/04/01
*By Sean Ellis, Journal Writer *
Email this story to a friend
POCATELLO — Accusations by two auditors that past contractors at
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
mismanaged hazardous waste paint a picture of corruption and
deliberate ineptness.
If the charges are true, they would stop just short of
depicting a disturbing scenario of INEEL workers handling
radioactive and hazardous material with little regard for the
environment or the safety of their fellow workers.
Two men who audited the cleanup effort at the
890-square-mile site say contractors tried to thwart them at
nearly every turn in their investigation and subsequent discovery
of a broad array of hazardous waste mismanagement.
Neil A. Mock and Scott H. Lebow, auditors at the
laboratory from the early to mid 1990s, filed a federal lawsuit
against the contractors in Pocatello in 1996.
An amended version of the complaint, “U.S., et al. v.
Lockheed Martin Idaho, et al.,” was filed this week in U.S.
District Court in Pocatello.
Mock and Lebow are filing the lawsuit under a law that
allows individuals who claim contractors committed fraud against
the government to recover 25 percent to 30 percent of any
judgment.
Lebow was a senior environmental, safety and quality
regulatory compliance specialist at the lab and Mock was a senior
scientist. Both men were employed as environmental auditors by EG
Idaho Inc. and later by Coleman Research Corp.
EG ran the site from 1976 to 1994 while Coleman was a
subcontractor at the site to Lockheed Martin Corp., which ran the
lab from 1994 to 1999.
All three companies are named in the lawsuit, along with
Westinghouse Idaho Nuclear Co., which ran a portion of the site
from 1989 to 1994. The Department of Energy and the site's
current contractor, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, are not named in the
suit.
In the 300-plus page report, Mock and Lebow allege, among
other things:
- Improper dumping and disposal of hazardous materials.
- Mishandling of dangerous chemicals such as mercury and
PCBs.
- Falsification of documents to cover up serious
non-compliance, including the forging of employee signatures.
- Failure to properly manage the decommissioning of
above-ground and underground storage tanks.
- Falsification of documents to hide failures to report
spills and discharges of hazardous chemicals.
- Failure to properly manage and monitor emissions of
hazardous materials from incinerators.
- Failure to properly manage the shipment, handling and
treatment of radioactively contaminated and other hazardous
materials.
Both men also claim they were harassed and forced into
resigning.
They claim that on Aug. 1, 1995, Lockheed's general
counsel, Steven Brumley, pretended to point a rifle at both men
as they were walking across the atrium area in the Lockheed
building.
The report states that on Oct. 10, 1995, the DOE
“received information regarding a possible threat against the
lives of Mock and Lebow.”
In a Feb. 19 article in the New York Times, lawyers for
Westinghouse and Coleman deny the allegations. Edward W. Pike, an
Idaho Falls lawyer representing EG, declined to comment, the
article said.
The Times article said a spokesman for Lockheed Martin,
which is based in Bethesda, Md., said “that there might have been
environmental missteps in Idaho, but that none were intentional.”
Both men charge management of EG, Lockheed and Coleman
thwarted their environmental auditing efforts and “interfered
with (their) free inquiry by refusing to allow auditors to
conduct inspections or audits of various facilities.”
The lawsuit claims a top Lockheed manager told Mock the
manager “did not give a (expletive) about the (expletive)
regulations” and that compliance “did not make good business
sense.”
It also says another top Lockheed manager told a group of
the company's managers and employees that Lockheed “was in
business to make a profit and cannot comply with all the
(expletive) regulations.”
Mock and Lebow claim Coleman and Lockheed management
prevented them from including in their audit reports words or
phrases such as “illegal,” “non-compliance,” “out of control,”
“insufficient,” and “inadequate.”
Sean Ellis covers local government and business for the
Journal. He can be reached at 239-6001 or sellis@journalnet.com.
©2000 . All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Envirocare facing cutbacks
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, March 04, 2001
President's memo blames newly approved state tax
By Matt Canham
Deseret News staff writer
Envirocare is facing employment cutbacks because of a new
state tax on low-level radioactive waste, the company's president
says in an internal memo.
In the March 1 memo obtained by the Deseret News,
Envirocare President Charles Judd says the tax, the result of a
negotiated compromise between his firm and legislators, will
slash his company's profits and cut yet-to-be filled jobs at the
company.
When contacted by telephone Saturday, Judd said he doesn't
expect any current employees to lose their jobs, although he said
the company will re-evaluate the situation in the future.
Judd also thanked the many Envirocare employees who
doggedly lobbied against House Bill 370 — a factor that he said
saved the company from massive layoffs.
The Legislature approved the tax on Wednesday, the last
day of the 2001 session. The measure is awaiting Gov. Mike
Leavitt's signature.
The bill levies a tax of 5 percent to 12 percent on
disposal contracts, depending on the type of low-level
radioactive waste the Tooele County-based dump accepts. It also
affects International Uranium Corp., which has a
uranium-processing mill in San Juan County.
In the wake of the new tax, and because of its possible
implications, Tooele County Commissioner Dennis Rockwell is
furious with state lawmakers. "They have turned their backs
on Tooele County and are trying to rub us off the face of Utah,"
he told the Deseret News.
As a direct result of the new tax, Judd wrote in the memo,
"we will now need to cut back on our numbers here at Envirocare.
As of today, there are 266 positions at Envirocare with 28 open
positions. For the time being, we will take our cutbacks in the
open positions and not in laying off current employees."
Neither Judd nor lawmakers knew exactly how much revenue
would be generated by the tax, since it only affects new
contracts and not those already held by Envirocare.
However, the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeff Alexander, R-Orem,
has said the tax was primarily intended to make a statement, not
to make money for the state.
"What we are really trying to do is send a message: If
people want to dump their waste in Utah, they should pay a fee,"
Alexander said in a previous interview.
Envirocare executives hammered out an agreement with
Alexander and other legislators in the last week of the session.
Alexander's original bill, which called for a set tax per cubic
foot and per curie, the standard measure of radioactivity, would
have netted $34 million in state taxes. Early estimates suggest
that the amended bill may generate as much as $3 million for the
general fund. The bill also calls for a $200,000 flat annual fee.
The state would use that money to manage the facility should
Envirocare fold.
The memo credited the bill's changes to lobbying by
Envirocare employees.
"We would like to say to you that your involvement
directly influenced the decision made on this bill and that we
were able to receive a more reasonable tax rate because of your
efforts," Judd wrote.
While he is glad the tax is not higher, Rockwell is still
angry because of the impacts any cutbacks could have on Tooele
County. Envirocare pays the county between $3.5 million and $4
million in mitigation fees, which goes to support county police,
road construction and other necessities.
The county commissioner said the tax would make it hard
for Envirocare to compete with other radioactive-waste dumps,
which will bring down profits and lower the mitigation fees.
"And if they have layoffs or close down it will devastate
Tooele," Rockwell said.
Envirocare contracts with Broken Arrow Construction, which
has a work force of 200, for its equipment needs. Rockwell
worries that if Envirocare folds, Broken Arrow and even some
county jobs will go with it.
"The Legislature is trying to take Envirocare out of
business and possibly run it themselves," he said.
House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, R-Layton, disagrees and
says the tax is overdue.
He said Envirocare handles 97 percent of the nation's
low-level nuclear waste, and lawmakers set a tax that is lower
than that placed on Envirocare's competitors. Garn doubts the tax
hurts Envirocare's profitability and would force it to lay off
employees.
"I think the tax we imposed is fair. The fact of the
matter is the state should have imposed this tax a long time
ago," he said. "I am convinced that we did not impose an
excessive tax."
Leavitt has not decided whether he will sign HB370,
according to his spokeswoman Vickie Varela.
"We have not had any detailed discussions about it," she
said.
Whether Leavitt signs the bill or not, Envirocare promises
to continue lobbying the Legislature, not only to lower the tax,
but also to allow the company to accept higher levels of
radioactive waste.
Envirocare now stores low-level Class A waste, which is
mostly contaminated soil. Company executives want to accept Class
B and C wastes that are thousands of times more radioactive. The
new set of taxes only apply to Class A storage.
*E-mail: mcanham@desnews.com Contributing: Brady Snyder* © 2001
Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
5 In the Belly of the Beast
[Geoff Hausman]
*At Millstone 3, a refueling swells the workforce by one-third as
NU aims for short downtime*
By Paul Choiniere
Published on 3/4/2001
Patterson, Robert
*A worker watches as a fuel assembly is lifted out of the reactor
of the Millstone 3 plant in Waterford. An atomic reaction causes
the fuel to emit a blue glow.*
*Workers enter the airlock that provides access to the reactor
containment building at the Millstone 3 plant, while others
depart. Boots and gloves that have come into contact with
radiation are dumped in barrels before workers leave the
radiation control area.*
*Emerging from the canal that connects the spent fuel pool at the
Millstone 3 nuclear plant to the nuclear reactor, a used fuel rod
assembly is guided by a worker into the storage racks. Each
opening holds one fuel assembly.*
Waterford -- Perched above the gaping maw of the uncovered
nuclear reactor, the three workers clad head-to-toe in yellow
protective suits guide their moveable platform over the intended
target. They wear orange life jackets, a necessary precaution
should they tumble into the water that fills the reactor and
cools its nuclear fuel.
Riding along rails that run aside the reactor, the platform
straddles the open chamber five feet over the water. One worker
peers over the side of the platform, known as the refueling
bridge, while a second taps away at a laptop computer. The third
watches a monitor and presses buttons on a refrigerator-sized
control panel.
The only sound is a beep, heard at five-second intervals, which
monitors neutron activity. The steady beep means the beast is at
rest, the atomic reaction process quelled.
The platform halts and, silently, a mechanical arm extends in
periscope fashion from beneath it, reaching straight down into
the depths of the reactor. Thirty-five feet below the water's
surface it grabs the top of a fuel assembly and begins to pull it
out of the reactor chamber. The 1,400-pound assembly holds 264
pencil-thin, uranium-filled fuel rods, each 12 feet long and
arranged in a neat square. There are 193 such assemblies in the
reactor, holding 50,952 fuel rods.
As it is pulled toward the surface, the assembly does not emit
the “green glow” of science fiction lore, but instead a brilliant
blue. The glow is produced by the electrons thrown off by nuclear
fission. This phenomenon, so striking to an outside observer,
generates no reaction from the workers. It is refueling time at
the Millstone 3 nuclear plant, and blue glows are business as
usual.
Time is money
This is the seventh time the 45-foot-tall reactor vessel has
been refueled at the Millstone 3 plant since it began operations
in 1996. To keep the reactor operating efficiently, about
one-third of the enriched uranium fuel rods have to be replaced
every 18 months and the remaining rods rearranged. Limiting the
time that a reactor is out of operation has become critical to
keeping nuclear power competitive in the newly deregulated energy
market. When a nuclear plant is not operating, it is losing about
$1.2 million a day, according to industry statistics. In 1990,
the average outage lasted 105 days. By 1999, that average was
down to 41.5 days, a 10-day improvement from just the year
before.
The industry may be reaching the limits of how quickly a reactor
can be refueled. Last November, the Braidwood 2 nuclear plant in
Illinois completed an outage in a record 15 days. Because nuclear
plants are shutting down for shorter periods, they are annually
generating more electricity. The result over the past decade has
been the equivalent of adding 23 new plants the size of Millstone
3, according to the United States Energy Association, an industry
trade group.
The current outage at Millstone 3 began Feb. 3, and management
had set a goal of returning the reactor to service in 35 days,
which would have been the fastest turnaround ever at a Millstone
plant. Company officials now expect that schedule to slip some,
probably until the end of March, due to delays caused in
repairing cracks found during the inspection of the plant's large
turbine blades. The quickest Millstone outage was just short of
41 days, set last year at unit 2.
During the outage, workers have to complete the refueling of the
reactor and 9,000 maintenance activities as well. It was during
some of those maintenance activities – the disassembling and
inspection of the plant's 150-foot-long turbine – that the
cracking problem was found.
To accomplish the mammoth refueling and maintenance workload,
Northeast Utilities brought in 500 outside contractors, swelling
the workforce by one-third. Many of these workers specialize in
specific aspects of the refueling process, traveling from plant
to plant as needed. About 1,500 people will assist in some
fashion in the outage.
Bob Beckman, the outage manager, said the key is careful
planning. This planning takes place throughout the 17 months the
reactor is in operation, assisted by the individuals responsible
for the work. Every job is given a schedule and carefully
coordinated so as not to interfere with other jobs, down to how
much floor space is needed to lay out the components while a
valve is being refurbished, Beckman said.
A challenging balance is sought during reactor outages as
management pushes employees to get their work done expeditiously,
while warning them not to cut corners or ignore problems when
trying to meet schedule goals. “One thing we always tell people
is we are going to hold you accountable for safety and quality,”
said Lee J. Olivier, vice president and chief nuclear officer at
Millstone. “You can't say, 'I felt pressured and I thought I'd
take a shot at doing it this way.' That's unacceptable, and the
workforce knows that.”
Beckman, who has worked his way up the management ladder during
17 years at Northeast Utilities, said workers are urged to call
for assistance if they run into a problem.
“We have communication expectations built into the refuel
concept,” said Beckman. “If you're having trouble for more than a
half hour, make a phone call, we'll get the appropriate resources
from the rest of the station to help you. It's no badge of shame
to call for help.”
Keeping a close eye on this refueling is Gene Grecheck, vice
president of power generation at Dominion Energy. Grecheck has a
keen interest in how the outage is going since his Virginia-based
company is paying $1.3 billion to buy Millstone station from NU.
Dominion intends to keep the current management team in place.
The station was offered at auction as part of the state's plan to
dissolve the NU monopoly and introduce competition. Dominion is
expected to take control in April.
Hostile environment
A refueling is the only time the 180-ton head, or cover, is
removed from the reactor. The head is removed by a “polar crane,”
permanently affixed to the top of the 210-foot-tall containment
dome and capable of lifting 270 tons. The containment dome is a
testament to the power, and potential danger, posed by the
nuclear reactor. Containment walls consist of 4.5 feet of
reinforced concrete with a half-inch steel liner. The base is 10
feet thick. Beams and supports are attached with nuts the size of
a man's head. The containment shell is a protection against the
unthinkable: The meltdown of the reactor and a massive radiation
release.
When in full operation the atomic reaction process heats the
water swirling through the reactor to 587 degrees Fahrenheit. The
water does not boil because it is kept at 2,250 pounds of
pressure. During a refueling, the fuel rods cool to about 150
degrees and the water circulating through the reactor to about
100 degrees. Inside the containment dome, the atmosphere is as
humid as the steamiest summer day.
For this outage, NU has installed new refueling equipment,
allowing about seven fuel assemblies to be moved every hour,
compared to the prior rate of three to four. The fuel never
leaves the water. After being pulled from the reactor, each
assembly is placed on a cart that rides on a rail system under
water. A hydraulic arm lowers the assembly flat on the cart,
which then rolls through a canal to the adjacent storage pool.
Working around the clock, 193 fuel assemblies are removed in
eight to 10 days. One-third are replaced with fresh fuel. The
rods are then transported back to the reactor, with the returning
rods rearranged in a new configuration. The used rods remain in
the storage pool.
The containment area is a hostile environment. Before entering,
personnel are briefed on warning signs indicating hot spots of
high radiation or industrial dangers. Boots, gloves and jumpsuits
are worn to protect from radiation contamination, adding to the
discomfort caused by the humidity. To cut down on the potential
for contamination, individuals are told to resist the impulse to
scratch a nose or wipe a sweaty forehead. Before leaving, all
visitors are scanned to determine the level of radiation received
while in the containment building.
A personnel hatch, seven feet in diameter, is the only way
workers travel in and out of the containment dome. Personnel
enter the airlock, which is then sealed shut. For several
moments, the visitors remain entombed in the airlock while vents
direct airflow toward containment, making sure no air ever flows
out. A second hatch then opens, providing access to the
containment area. Another airlock, 15 feet in diameter, is used
to move equipment in and out. Health physics technicians brief
workers on the best possible way to do their jobs while acquiring
the least amount of radiation exposure. During a refueling, these
technicians are kept extremely busy, checking hundreds of workers
daily.
Among the technicians scanning tools during a recent visit to the
reactor chamber was Linda Doll, seven months pregnant and a
senior health physics specialist. Not to worry, Doll said, she
monitors her exposure very carefully to assure there is no danger
to the growing fetus.
Grecheck, the Dominion vice president, said if the current outage
is done properly it will bode well for future operations. Sloppy
jobs now would lead to problems and a poor start for Dominion's
ownership. That is not an outcome Grecheck wants, or expects.
“It doesn't help anybody to cut a corner and do something quicker
than it needs to be done because that will potentially have an
adverse impact on the ability of the plant to run,” Grecheck
said. “Once it's back up, we want it to run well.”
© 1998-2000 The Day Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
6 CEO recalls beginnings of nuclear plant
03/04/01
Topeka Capital-Journal
030401 kansas 3 CJOnline NEW STRAWN -- A few years after he left
the Air Force, Otto Maynard came to Wolf Creek just when the
instincts and tenacity of a fighter pilot were needed most.
He arrived in 1982 as a senior engineer in the licensing section
of the plant, which was still under construction. Just three
years earlier, disaster had struck at the Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.--> Last modified at 1:53
a.m. on Sunday, March 4, 2001
Otto Maynard, president and chief executive officer of the Wolf
Creek nuclear power plant, stood in front of the plant's reactor
building. Maynard has worked at Wolf Creek for nearly two
decades. He began there as an engineer.
*Chris Grenz/The Capital-Journal*
By CHRIS GRENZ
*The Capital-Journal *
NEW STRAWN -- A few years after he left the Air Force, Otto
Maynard came to Wolf Creek just when the instincts and tenacity
of a fighter pilot were needed most.
He arrived in 1982 as a senior engineer in the licensing section
of the plant, which was still under construction. Just three
years earlier, disaster had struck at the Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania.
Although plant workers at Three Mile Island managed to prevent a
meltdown, mechanical and human failures resulted in a frightening
breakdown of the reactor's cooling system. The incident led to
criticism of the nuclear energy industry and raised questions
about its future in the United States.
Name: Otto L. Maynard Born: Feb. 4, 1947, in Muskogee, Okla.
Current Residence: Burlington Occupation: President and chief
executive officer at Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.
Education: Graduated from North High School in Wichita in 1965.
Earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering from
Wichita State University in 1970; also graduated from the U.S.
Air Force pilot training and Flight Safety/Accident Investigation
courses and from the Nuclear Plant Engineering School at the U.S.
Navy's Westinghouse Nuclear Reactor Facility in Idaho.
Hobbies: He enjoyes flying his Cessna 310 to his cabin on Grand
Lake in northeast Oklahoma where he keeps his boat and jet skies.
He also likes scuba diving and claims to at least own a set of
golf clubs.
Family: Wife, Joleen, and two grown children -- a daughter who
lives in Connecticut and a son who is in California.
"Some thought it was the future of electricity, and some wanted
nothing to do with it," Maynard said. "There were a lot of
emotions on both ends of the spectrum. It was a very exciting
time to be involved because there were a lot of new things going
on. It challenged your ability."
In Kansas, the Three Mile Island incident resulted in many
costly modifications to the design of Wolf Creek. The sweeping
changes had to be implemented after construction of the plant was
already under way, and it was Maynard's job to coordinate the new
regulations.
Maynard found himself working with federal regulators to ensure
the plant's licensing procedure remained on track, helping plant
workers remain focused on their work while outsiders criticized
their industry and trying to convince the public of nuclear
power's promising benefits -- it is a potentially unlimited
source of near pollution-free power.
It was a tall order.
"Things like that build character," Maynard said with a chuckle
during an interview in his office, located in the shadow of the
familiar dome-shaped reactor building.
In nearly two decades at the plant, Maynard has worked his way
up to president and chief executive officer of the Wolf Creek
Nuclear Operating Corp. He answers directly to the corporation's
three owners: KCPL; KGE, a Western Resources company; and KEPCO.
His job is to keep the owners happy, which means keeping the
power on and the company pointed in the right direction.
"If you're not trying to improve or get better, you're going to
get worse," said Maynard, 53. "There's no such thing as stable
performance. My job is to make sure we're moving forward."
Among the most pressing issues Maynard has confronted on his
watch is the question of how to handle nuclear waste produced as
a byproduct of manufacturing power at the plant.
High-level waste is spent fuel removed from the reactor during
refueling, which occurs every 18 months. Last year, Wolf Creek
completed a $12 million dollar rearrangement of the pool where
high-level waste is stored. The project, which will allow Wolf
Creek to store its spent fuel until its operating license expires
in 2025, was necessary because the U.S. government is more than a
decade behind in building a federal repository for high-level
waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Wolf Creek was one of several nuclear power plants to win a
lawsuit against the government for reneging on its contract to
ready the Nevada site.
"In the next few years, I think we'll see some changes so that
we can begin to move forward again," Maynard said of the
high-level waste repository. "It's in the nation's best interests
to have one central spot for storage."
Low-level waste -- anything from clothing to tape that has some
level of radioactive contamination -- also is an issue. Kansas
was one of five states to enter the Central Interstate Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Commission, which also includes Nebraska,
Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. A site in Nebraska was selected
as the low-level waste site, but Nebraska fought the decision.
The issue has been tied up in the courts for years and has cost
taxpayers millions of dollars.
"We're disapipointed that the issue has drug on as long as it
has and that we're at the place we are right now," Maynard said.
"We never put all our eggs in one basket. We have other ways to
legally and safely handle our low-level waste. But there is still
a need to resolve the long-term compact."
Maynard said he is proud of how Wolf Creek employees have
handled the challenges they have been dealt.
"I get the most enjoyment out of having seen us come through
some very difficult times to get to the point where we're at
now," he said.
Chris Grenz can be reached at
(785) 295-1190 or cgrenz@cjonline.com.
The Topeka Capital-Journal/CJ Online. All
*****************************************************************
7 North Korea may revive N-program
[deseretnews.com]
Sunday, March 04, 2001
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea reiterated a warning
Saturday that it might scrap a moratorium on long-range missile
tests and revive a nuclear program that Washington fears was
being used to develop nuclear weapons.
A spokesman for the reclusive communist state's Foreign
Ministry accused the United States of failing to maintain its end
of a 1994 framework in which North Korea agreed to freeze its
nuclear facilities in return for two Western-designed reactors.
The reactor project has been plagued by delays, upsetting
the North's Stalinist regime.
"Under this situation it is self-evident that it is
difficult for the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea
to unilaterally and indefinitely keep in force such measures as a
moratorium on the launch of satellites and missiles," the
spokesman said in remarks carried in English by the North's
official foreign news outlet, KCNA. As usual, the spokesman was
not identified.
North Korea issued a similar warning Feb. 21 in angry
reaction to comments by senior Bush administration officials that
they would review policies regarding the North — remarks
interpreted by both Koreas as a sign that Washington might take a
tougher stance toward the communist North.
Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security
adviser, responded to the threat in February by saying that
development of missile technology in countries such as North
Korea was one of the reasons the United States is considering a
missile defense system.
North Korea said, however, that "it is none other than the
DPRK (North Korea) which is exposed to threat owing to the
conservative hard-line stand expressed by the U.S.
administration. We have neither intention nor capacity to
browbeat anyone."
Under the 1994 agreement with Washington, a U.S.-led
consortium is building the two new reactors in the North at a
cost of $4.6 billion. As part of the deal, Pyongyang suspended
its own nuclear program, which Washington feared was being used
to develop nuclear weapons.
But North Korea has been unhappy with the slow progress of
construction. The reactors, originally to be completed by 2003,
are several years behind schedule.
North Korea also agreed to suspend missile tests in
September 1999 as long as talks continued with Washington on
resolving concerns over Pyongyang's missile program. In turn, the
United States eased some sanctions.
Washington says the United States will keep its promises
under the agreed framework and expects North Korea to do
likewise.
Some South Korean officials worry privately that a
rekindled standoff between the United States and North Korea
could jeopardize Seoul's efforts to engage the North.
© 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
8 UK News: Nuclear plants to be built in UK
The Sunday Telegraph - Leaders
Sunday 4 Mar 2001
Issue number 2073
Atom of sense
BRITISH Energy, as we report today, would like to replace its
ageing nuclear power stations with new ones. The proposal will be
greeted with outrage by the environmental lobby, and with
surprise by practically everyone else: since the explosion in the
ageing Soviet nuclear reactor at Chernobyl more than 15 years
ago, nuclear power has been almost universally written off as a
disastrous folly.
Nuclear power, however, has been unjustly vilified. Today's
nuclear power stations are both extremely safe and, increasingly,
economically viable, as gas prices follow oil ever-upwards. If
there is such a thing as global warming, allegedly the result of
the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, then
nuclear power is the only realistic solution. Nuclear power does
not produce carbon dioxide - unlike gas and coal-fired
electricity generation, which pumps millions of tons of it into
the atmosphere every year.
Wind, wave and other forms of "clean" power so enthusiastically
promoted by environmentalists have so far generated only
disappointments. There is no prospect that Britain's energy needs
could be met by them.
Nuclear power is the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels.
We hope that the Government encourages the construction of a new
generation of nuclear power plants in Britain.
© Copyrightof Telegraph Group Limited2000. Terms &
Conditionsof reading. Commercial information. Privacy Policy.
Information about www.telegraph.co.uk.
*****************************************************************
9 Nuclear plants to be built in UK
The nuclear option
ISSUE 2109 Sunday 4 March 2001
Six years ago Britain abandoned building new nuclear power
stations. But they are back on the agenda, says Mary Fagan, as
British Energy faces up to the reality of rapidly dwindling UK
gas reserves
JUST before Christmas 1995 British Energy announced the death of
the UK's nuclear power industry by scrapping plans to build any
new nuclear generating plants.
Only months after the UK's first modern pressurised water reactor
opened for business at Sizewell in Suffolk, the rest of the
planned PWR family of four huge power stations were consigned to
the radioactive dustbin. Robert Hawley, the then chief executive,
said that the plants were simply not commercially viable. They
could not compete with power generated from natural gas, then
seen as the fuel of choice for generating electricity.
Six years later British Energy, now privatised and making its
way in the commercial world, believes that nuclear's day has come
again. Gas prices have risen sharply in the wake of soaring oil
prices and there are concerns over how long the UK's gas reserves
will last. Even the price of coal has gone up - and the UK's
economic reserves are dwindling rapidly. Oil as a fuel for power
generation is virtually forgotten. Although the Government has
ended a moratorium on building gas-fired plants, there is little
evidence of generators rushing to build them.
Nuclear, on the other hand, claims to be competitive with gas
generation with the economics improving as British Energy gains
approval for extending the lifetime of its plants. Supporters of
nuclear power say that 60 per cent of the cost of running a
gas-fired plant is fuel compared with 10 per cent for nuclear.
They also argue that nuclear has very stable long-term costs.
One said: "Gas is the big issue. For one thing there is the cost
and for another the question of where it comes from. Gas plants
have operational lives of maybe 25 years and they need a stable
gas supply over that period. By then the gas could end up coming
from Siberia. There are issues about reliability and security of
supply. This was not an issue five or even 10 years ago."
So almost 40 years after Britain's first commercial nuclear
power station was built at Berkeley in Gloucestershire, a new
nuclear era may be about to dawn. Over the next decade British
Energy, headed by Peter Hollins, is expected to add to its family
of eight nuclear power plants - of which all but Sizewell B are
advanced gas-cooled reactors - as it seeks to maintain its market
share. Analysts say that potential sites for new nuclear stations
could include Hinkley in Somerset, where there already is a power
station and where Nuclear Electric, one of British Energy's
forerunners, was granted planning permission for a PWR but never
took it up. Other potential locations are the site of existing
plants at Hunterston in Scotland and Dungeness in Kent.
The AGR at Hunterston is likely to be one of the first to be
taken off the system because of age. The site could be deemed
suitable for a new nuclear power plant as Scotland currently
relies on Hunterston and one other AGR for half of its
electricity.
British Energy is coy about its plans but insiders say that it
is looking closely at the opportunities for new nuclear plants in
the UK. Top executives are known to feel that the economics of
power generation is swinging in favour of building new nuclear
power plants. They are also conscious that nuclear electricity is
the one form of power that does not contribute to global warming.
There is a view that, far from being viewed as a pariah, nuclear
power generation should be given a tax advantage in a world which
is obsessed with climate change. A spokesman said: "We would not
rule out new nuclear build at some point in the future. But the
market and financial framework would have to be right."
One industry insider said that the company's concern is to
maintain its UK market share, which is approaching 25 per cent,
rather than growing it. The existing AGRs will start to retire
between 2012 and 2014 and building a new one could take 10 years.
"They are not talking about extending capacity but replacing it.
In reality its gas or nuclear and the comparative economics are
beginning to swing [in favour of nuclear]," he said. "Some time
during the lifetime of the next Parliament this issue will have
to be addressed."
All this is a far cry from the furore that surrounded the
privatisation of the nuclear industry, first attempted in 1989/90
and finally achieved in 1996 without the ageing Magnox reactors,
which have been left in state hands. The City then had grave
fears over decommissioning liabilities and operating costs at
some of the AGRs.
The decommissioning dilemma was resolved with the creation of a
£228m "segregated fund" into which British Energy also pays
annually. The company also confounded critics by hugely improving
the operating efficiency of the AGRs. It seems inconceivable to
British Energy, which is expanding rapidly in America, that it
would have problems raising money for new power plants.
There is also the prospect of being able to build nuclear plants
for less than the £2bn investment (in 1994 money) in Sizewell B.
The industry, including British Energy, is keeping a close watch
on developments in the US, where Westinghouse is developing the
AP600, a smaller, modular version of the PWR which would be
cheaper than existing designs and take less time to construct.
The modules could, say experts, be virtually factory built and
the power plants customised on site.
In South Africa, Eskom is developing a reactor that would use
small balls of uranium fuel. Eskom's partners are BNFL of the UK
and Exelon, British Energy's partner in its North American
venture, Amergen.
British Energy, meanwhile, is still busily working at extending
the lives of its AGRs. It has high hopes for Hunterston, which
has already been granted a life extension from 25 to 35 years.
Analysts reckon that every five years added to a plant's life
equates to between £10m and £20m on the company's bottom line.
British Energy, if it proceeds with its brave new build, may
well face a barrage of criticism from the anti-nuclear lobby. But
it seems well prepared to argue the economic case. Philip Lambert
of Lambert Energy Advisory, believes the UK must think about
nuclear energy.
He said: ."Nuclear has never managed to convince the public on
security and on decommissioning issues. But there is nothing like
a fuel shortage to get people to change their views. There is one
part of the PR battle it should win - in a world transfixed by
emissions it does not have any. The British record on nuclear has
by and large been fantastically good.
"The nation has a decision to make. Gas is a very fine fuel - by
far the cleanest of the hydrocarbons - and we have become a
gas-fired economy. But if you are about to lose your
self-sufficiency in gas you should, as a nation, look at nuclear
and at least have a policy."
www.telegraph.co.uk.
*****************************************************************
10 Nuclear plants to be built in UK
ISSUE 2109 Sunday 4 March 2001
By Mary Fagan, Deputy City Editor
BRITISH Energy is drawing up plans to build a chain of nuclear
power plants.
The nuclear generating company believes that rising natural gas
costs and worries over future supplies from the North Sea have
made atomic energy more attractive. British Energy is planning
the replacement of its seven advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs),
the first of which are due to be shut down by around 2014.
The first of the AGRs to be replaced could be at Hunterston in
Scotland, Dungeness, Kent, and Hinkley, Somerset. A spokesman for
British Energy, which was privatised in 1996, said it was keen to
keep its 25 per cent share of the generating market. The company
would need the approval of industry regulators, including the
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
Sir Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary
and the secretary of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy, said
nuclear power was the only way forward. A spokesman for Friends
of the Earth said: "Any attempt to build new nuclear stations
will provoke fury."
*****************************************************************
11 British Energy plans nuclear power plants
[Reuters]
Saturday March 3, 7:40 pm Eastern Time
LONDON, March 4 (Reuters) - Nuclear power generator British
Energy is drawing up plans to build a chain of nuclear power
plants to replace its seven advanced gas-cooled reactors, the
Sunday Telegraph newspaper reported. The first of the gas-cooled
installations is due to be shut down by around 2014.
The newspaper said that the company believed rising prices for
natural gas and concerns over long-term supplies from the North
Sea made atomic energy more attractive.
A spokesman for British Energy said it was keen to keep its 25
percent share of the country's generating market.
Any expansion of nuclear power in Britain will spark anger from
environmental groups who have opposed it as a source of energy,
especially since Ukraine's 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
But the Sunday Telegraph said that permission to build the
planned reactors should be granted.
``Today's nuclear power stations are both extremely safe and,
increasingly, economically viable, as gas prices follow oil
upwards,'' it said in an editorial.
Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Letter: Dangers of nuke storage are evident
March 02, 2001
The rising level of concern about the proposed Yucca Mountain
nuclear storage facility is hardly premature.
There is a kind of pompous pretense in federal government
assurances that the decisions on this matter will be based on
"science." As a relatively recent migrant from Washington state,
this matter has a familiar ring. The Hanford nuclear facility in
Richland, Wash., is a festering sore that threatens to poison
ground water. That water is moving toward the Columbia River,
which goes to Portland, Ore., and then travels to other thriving
communities. There have been many news articles about storage
containers that have failed to contain this toxic waste safely in
that facility. There have also been many pronouncements from the
Energy Department on how these problems would be addressed. There
continue to be public health studies of "downwinders," people who
have lived in close enough proximity to have suspiciously higher
incidents of cancer.
The burial of large amounts of radioactive waste within 90 miles
of Las Vegas creates a permanent risk of unknown proportions. It
seems particularly ill-advised as this area is experiencing
considerable population growth. Our past experience with nuclear
waste storage makes it clear that what is described as science is
at best hypothetical, if not outright propaganda.
ERIC STEFIK
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
13 Web site gives nuclear shipping information
Some data withheld to prevent sabotage
*March 03, 2001*
By Glenn Roberts Jr.
STAFF WRITER
Though the transportation of radioactive waste and materials is
highly regulated, the information about shipments can be cloaked
in secrecy or clouded by a maze of federal agencies and reports.
In 1988 an electronic information center was launched as a
one-stop, online destination for those who want to learn more
about the shipments.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and General Electric Vallecitos
Nuclear Center in Sunol are among the Bay Area facilities that
ship and receive radioactive materials.
Born out of a transportation research institute at the University
of New Mexico in Albuquerque, the Transportation Resource
Exchange Center -- or T-REX -- is operated under an agreement
with the U.S. Energy Department and supported by grants from
several federal agencies.Web address
The Web address is www.trex-center.org, and the center has a
toll-free hot line at (877) 287-TREX.
Nancy Bennett, T-REX program manager, said information about the
shipments can be scattered among different agencies, and center
staff respond to telephone and e-mail queries about information
that cannot be found on the site.
"It is a strange and mysterious subject for many people," said
Bennett, and the site is intended "to break it down into basic
facets and components." Subject areas on the site include
carriers, packaging, materials, routes, health, environment, and
safety.No single resource
No single Internet resource is yet available that allows a
person to type an address and find out about the location,
frequency and variety of each shipment of radioactive materials
that passes near that address.
"We don't have a big reference book with every single route,"
Bennett said. But there are links on the site to other databases
with information about preferred routes for radioactive
shipments.
Specifics about some defense-related nuclear shipments are hidden
from the public to avoid sabotage, and even the shipment dates of
highly irradiated spent fuel rods from nuclear power reactors are
concealed until after the shipment, Bennett said.
There are several Bay Area highways used for radioactive
shipments. Interstate 80 from Nevada to I-580 north of Oakland,
I-205 from I-5 to I-580, I-280 from I-680 to I-380 in San
Francisco, I-580 from I-5 southwest of Tracy to I-680 in Dublin,
and I-680 from I-80 in Cordelia to I-280 in San Jose are among
the preferred routes for radioactive shipments.
I-880 from I-980 in Oakland to I-238, and I-980 in the Oakland
area from I-580 to I-880 are also among the preferred
routes.Livermore Lab shipments Livermore Lab, a federal weapons
lab, ships high-level radioactive waste to the Energy
Department's Nevada Test Site, and the lab also ships chemicals
and low-level radioactive waste to a variety of sites.
"We ship in very small quantities," said Bert Heffner, a
Livermore Lab spokesman.
The lab has built up a stock of "legacy waste," or nuclear waste
produced during lab operations in past years, that is being
stored on-site while the lab awaits the approval of a federal
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and the start of shipments
to another radioactive waste facility in New Mexico.
The Vallecitos facility in Sunol receives, packages and ships
radioactive medicines and also receives and ships or stores spent
nuclear fuel rods. Since 1979 Vallecitos has received about 35
fuel rod shipments and sent out about 22, General Electric
officials have said. The center receives about one or two rod
shipments per year, on average.
*****************************************************************
14 --> U.S. still resists seismic testing
March 3, 2001
By JAMES MALONE, The Courier-Journal
+ A C-J in-depth look: The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
PADUCAH, Ky. -- The federal government continues to resist state
efforts to make it take another look at how well a low-level
radioactive landfill could withstand an earthquake at the uranium
plant near Paducah.
The government may spend $10 billion to clean up soil, junk and
underground water.
The state insisted on upgraded seismic standards at the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant after receiving updated maps from the
U.S. Geological Survey that placed the landfill in a "seismic
hazard area," said Mark York, a spokesman for the state Natural
Resources Cabinet.
York said the standards would apply only to new areas of the
landfill that are developed.
The U.S. Department of Energy, however, is seeking a stay of
Kentucky's requirement by appealing it to a state hearing
officer.
The plant rests squarely within the New Madrid Seismic Zone --
parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee -- which
experts say is overdue for a moderate to major earthquake. Major
upheavals along the fault in 1811-12 caused damage 250 miles away
and caused the Mississippi River to flow backward.
Since 1995 the Energy Department has been fighting Kentucky's
permit conditions for the landfill through administrative appeals
and in the state and federal court system. The department argues
that Kentucky cannot pre-empt the federal government in
regulating radioactive material.
The Energy Department's appeal of the state's permit conditions
filed Feb. 28 contended that "the requirement to completely
re-evaluate the ground motion potential along local faults, and
all other seismic risks in the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the
Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is invalid because it is too vague."
The Energy Department also opposed a new requirement that
groundwater and landfill liquid be tested quarterly for
radioactive materials, including tritium, radium and uranium. The
federal agency said the requirement is unreasonable and exceeds
Kentucky's authority under federal and state laws.
Don Seaborg, the Energy Department's site manager at Paducah,
said the dispute is an "ongoing saga." The Energy Department does
not object to doing seismic testing, "but we don't want to
re-evaluate our existing work," Seaborg said.
Seaborg said the landfill, known as C-746-U, was built to modern
standards after receiving state permit approval in 1995. "It's an
important landfill to us" for the ongoing cleanup project at the
plant, he said.
The government and contractors currently dispose of material
with only minimal levels of contamination.
The government may have to spend up to $10 billion to fully
clean up the contaminated soil, junk and underground water that
has been fouled from nearly 50 years of enriching uranium for
weapons and, more recently, for nuclear power plants.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering Kentucky's
appeal of a federal judge's ruling favoring the Energy
Department's position that Kentucky cannot regulate radioactive
material.
Copyright 2001 The Courier-Journal.
*****************************************************************
15 INSPECTORS FIND LAPSES,BUT DECLARE NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFE
postnet.com | News &Commentary | Wire feeds | Wire story
Good night, St. Louis | Friday, Mar. 2, 2001
Mar. 2, 2001 | 10:16 p.m.
By WINNIE HU
CORTLANDT, N.Y. -- Federal safety regulators criticized
Consolidated Edison Friday night for falling behind in routine
repairs and improvements at the Indian Point 2 nuclear reactor,
but concluded that the plant was safe over all.
At a public meeting with Con Ed officials at the Town Hall here,
officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cited a backlog of
reports about problems at the plant and a lack of preventive
maintenance, among other things.
The commission's findings, which will be written up in a formal
report in several weeks, were based on a three-week inspection in
December by a team of 13 experts from NRC offices around the
country. It was the federal agency's most comprehensive
assessment of Indian Point 2 in recent years.
``The plant is safe,'' said Jeff Shackelford, who led the
inspection team. ``The margins of safety are adequate, but we
have found a number of performance issues that we discussed here
tonight, and improvements are warranted.''
The meeting drew more than 200 people, including local officials
and residents who have repeatedly questioned the safety of Indian
Point 2 after a series of recent leaks and other mishaps. The
plant, 35 miles north of Manhattan in the Hudson River community
of Buchanan, closed in February 2000 for nearly a year after
radioactive water leaked from a cracked tube. The plant was
restored to full power on Jan. 28.
Several critics said tonight that they were not satisfied with
the agency's findings, and hardly reassured. U.S. Rep. Sue Kelly,
a Republican, said she wished that Con Ed and the NRC had honored
her request to delay restarting the plant. ``We live here,'' she
said. ``We know it's important to the community that the plant
operate within a margin of safety that we are comfortable with.''
Kelly vowed to continue focusing public scrutiny on the plant,
saying that ``many of the problems do not appear to be
resolved.''
At Con Ed, Stephen E. Quinn, a vice president, said, ``We're
pleased that the NRC concurs with us that the plant is being
operated safely, and that the margins of safety are sufficient.''
In a telephone interview from the plant on Friday, he said, ``The
safe operation of the plant is the prime, the only concern of
over 800 employees here.''
Asked about the work backlog, he said: ``We have to work on
closing them out. We agree with them.''
Con Ed plans to sell the reactor by June to Entergy Nuclear, a
Mississippi-based company that bought the adjacent Indian Point 3
plant from the New York Power Authority last year and owns two
other plants in New York and Massachusetts. Asked if the
condition of the plant made a sale advisable, he said, ``I
wouldn't expect that it would be a problem.''
But he added, ``Regardless of who owns the plant, I would expect
continued NRC heightened oversight.''
NYT-03-02-01 2311EST
© 2001 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, postnet.com
*****************************************************************
16 ConEd's dilemma: Go ahead with NU deal or go to court
[Geoff Hausman]
By More Articles
Published on 3/3/2001
Executives at Consolidated Edison Inc. will spend the weekend
choosing between bad options: Either deciding to go through with
a deal to acquire Northeast Utilities despite serious
reservations, or walking away from the merger only to face a
potentially ugly and costly court fight, say industry analysts.
ConEd got a brief reprieve when NU, which had demanded an answer
from ConEd by Friday, reached a mutual agreement to extend the
deadline to 5 p.m. Monday. When announced in October 1999, the
proposed value of the merger was placed at approximately $7.5
billion. The combined company would be the nation's largest
electric and gas distribution utility, with more than 5 million
electric customers and 1.4 million gas customers in seven
Northeast states.
Since then, however, the leaders of ConEd have had second
thoughts as to whether the deal would generate the kind of
profits expected when it was first announced.
When the Connecticut Department of Public Utility approved the
merger in October 2000 it attached numerous conditions, wanting
savings from the merger passed onto consumers. The requirements
included rate cuts, profit sharing and employment guarantees.
ConEd is also reportedly studying other aspects of the deal,
including the performance of NU's unregulated subsidiaries, such
as Select Energy, NU's power marketing subsidiary, which turned
its first profit last year. Another factor is retail electric
prices, which have been capped by the Connecticut legislature
until 2004 and could possibly be extended by lawmakers. NU, tired
of waiting, said it wants a commitment from ConEd to merge or it
will turn to the courts for compensation.
Martin Sikora, editor of the publication Merger &Acquisitions,
said ConEd is facing the reality that the money it expected to
make when it proposed the merger is no longer on the table. But
it has to weigh that against the very real threat of litigation,
Sikora. NU and its shareholders have been waiting two years for
the merger to be consummated, perhaps missing out on other
potential deals during that time, he said.
Mary Jo Keating, director of communications for NU, said the two
utilities are discussing the provisions of the acquisition deal
and its implications. But Keating said the discussions are not a
negotiation and NU will not agree to modify the merger deal it
struck in 1999.
Under the terms of the merger agreement ConEd had agreed to
acquire all of NU common stock for $25. Penalties for missing an
Aug. 5, 2000 merger deadline and an incentive bonus for selling
the Millstone nuclear plants in Waterford brings the total price
to $26.70 per share at this time, according to NU. Jeff Hamon,
senior associate with RCW Mirus, a merger consultant, said ConEd
took an inherent risk in entering into a merger deal that was
subject to regulatory approval. Now that the regulatory process
has not turned out as hoped – at least in Connecticut – the
utility finds itself in a tough position, he said.
Three federal and seven state agencies have approved the deal.
The last required regulatory approval, by the Securities and
Exchange Commission, is expected around the middle of this month.
NU may be in a difficult decision if the merger falls through,
Hamon said. Given the tough stance taken by Connecticut
regulators, other potential suitors may shy away from making a
deal with the Connecticut-based utility, Hamon said. At the very
least, NU is unlikely to attract as sweet a deal as it received
from ConEd, he said.
The arrival of competition in the utility industry is forcing
utilities to merge, Sikora said.
“They need greater size and greater resources to survive in this
environment,” he said. “NU may find itself stuck in the middle
among emerging giants, like the hole in the middle of the donut.”
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who has filed a
lawsuit to try and block the merger, said the continued
uncertainty is evidence the proposed NU-ConEd merger would be a
bad corporate marriage. Blumenthal has criticized ConEd's
environmental record and its corporate leadership.
“After 17 months ConEd still hasn't decided whether the details
of this deal are sufficiently favorable,” Blumenthal said.
“Connecticut should have no doubt that it is unacceptable. We are
more determined than ever to fight it.”
© 1998-2000 The Day Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
17 Kariwa villagers seek plebiscite over MOX nuclear fuel
KARIWA, Japan March 2 Kyodo - Villagers in Kariwa, Niigata
Prefecture, made a second attempt Friday to hold a plebiscite
over a plan to use plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at a
local nuclear plant.
A petition by villagers calling for a plebiscite over the
so-called ''pluthermal'' project at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant
operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. was rejected in March 1999
by the village assembly.
This time, a group of villagers led by Masaaki Kasahara submitted
to the village office a petition with 1,599 signatures, enough to
enable the necessary procedures to hold the plebiscite.
The Kariwa assembly in December last year passed a similar bill
submitted by assembly members, but Mayor Hiroo Shinada vetoed it
and ordered the assembly to vote again. The bill was then
rejected in January.
The plant is located in the village which has about 4,100
eligible voters and part of the neighboring city of Kashiwazaki
on the Sea of Japan coast. The ''pluthermal'' process consists of
using MOX fuel -- made by mixing uranium with plutonium
chemically extracted from spent nuclear fuel -- in a thermal
reactor. The power company plans to introduce the system at the
No. 3 reactor of the plant.
On Monday, Fukushima Gov. Eisaku Sato said Fukushima will not
agree to the use of MOX fuel at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power
plant, also run by Tokyo Electric Power.
Sato's announcement is likely to affect Tokyo Electric Power's
plans to start using MOX fuel in the reactor in April. That would
also affect Japan's national policy for its nuclear fuel cycle.
2000 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945.
*****************************************************************
18 Think twice about a referendum
The Taipei Times Online: 2001-03-02
Friday, March 2nd, 2001
By Hu Tsu-ching J¯ª¼y
Uncertainty persists at the heart of government with the
Executive Yuan agreeing to resume construction of the Fourth
Nuclear Power Plant (®Ö¥|) but, on the other hand, continuing to
advocate a year-end referendum on the issue. There are three
possible significant consequences of the Cabinet's conduct.
One, the republican form of government might be damaged. Two, in
view of the experience of the French semi-presidential system
(Âùºªø¨î), the result of a referendum, even under very
extraordinary circumstances, would be incapable of checking the
legislative majority's exercise of power. The conflict between
the executive and the legislative branches would only become even
more vociferous.
Three, the person who proposed a referendum, the president,
would have to be politically responsible for it's result.
In terms of the first of the consequences described above, not
all democratic nations in today's world take the form of a
republican type of government. The UK, for example, retains a
titular monarchy. The US, on the other hand, is a federation of
states. The ROC's republican form of government was modeled after
the French Republic. The fundamental principle of a republic is
to restrain the abuse of executive power by the legislative
branch. If the executive branch stands up against the parliament
through referendums, not only will republican traditions become
empty formalities, but populism will become rampant.
The first elected president of the French Fifth Republic,
Charles de Gaulle, enjoyed strong executive powers. Even in his
time, however, the French semi-presidential system never departed
from the republican principle mentioned above. Even when the
executive power won a public referendum, the president
nevertheless had to win over a legislative majority before he was
able to implement his policies.
The 1962 amendment to the French presidential election system is
considered a classic example. Invoking Article 11 of France's
Constitution, de Gaulle proposed a public referendum on direct
presidential elections. His proposal was controversial in the
following respects.
First, the procedure for amending the Constitution must follow
Article 89, rather than Article 11, which de Gaulle invoked.
Article 89 stipulates that the initiative to amend the
constitution rests with the president, upon the proposal of the
prime minister and members of parliament. Article 11 states that
the president may submit to a referendum any bill dealing with
government affairs, on the condition that the referendum does not
contravene the Constitution.
More importantly, political tradition in France has it that a
referendum may only be held with parliament's approval. The
French government found itself facing a major political crisis,
similar to the recent one in Taiwan, as 118 parliamentarians who
originally supported de Gaulle switched their positions and
supported a no-confidence vote in protest at the violation of the
constitution.
On Oct. 5, 1962, the French National Assembly decided by a 280
to 241 vote to censure Prime Minister Georges Pompidou's
government. Four days later, on Oct. 9, after Pompidou offered
his resignation to de Gaulle, the president dismissed the
parliament. In a referendum later, on Oct. 28, voters supported
direct presidential elections and de Gaulle's supporters also
gained their victory in the parliamentary elections on Jan. 18
and 25, 1963.
Although de Gaulle's act was controversial, he was fortunate
enough to win both the referendum and the parliamentary
elections, ultimately resolving all the disputes.
The next controversial issue is that of what political
responsibility the president should bear if the voters reject a
proposal in a referendum. For example, when de Gaulle tried to
solve another crisis through a referendum in 1969, the proposed
constitutional amendment was not approved. As the proposer of the
referendum, de Gaulle earned respect when he said at the end of
his resignation speech that he was stepping down in order to
accept political responsibility.
If President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) wishes to resolve disputes
through a referendum, he should be prepared to face the same
consequence.
In short, the Executive Yuan's suggestion of a referendum will
hinder, rather than facilitate, solutions to the current
disputes. The reasons are simple.
One, Chen's government was forced to continue the nuclear
project due to a lack of support for its policy in the
Legislative Yuan. If the situation persists, it will be
impossible for legislators to pass the referendum law. If the
Executive Yuan insists on "giving it another try," then they will
only compound the confusion.
Two, the French experience suggests that the republican form of
government should not be abolished at will. If Taiwan is in favor
of establishing its own referendum law in the future, that law
should require the Legislative Yuan's approval of any referendum.
Otherwise, Taiwan's democratic politics might be threatened by
populism, which will be much more dangerous than today's disputes
over the power plant project.
Third, learning from France's experience of amending the
Constitution, as well as our own experience in the nuclear plant
case, to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan is the only way
for Chen to carry out his will. Even de Gaulle, with his
significant popularity, would not and could not constrain
parliament by a referendum at will, and had to step down because
of a referendum's result.
Chen and Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (±i«T¶¯), therefore, should
think twice before they promote a referendum on the nuclear plant
issue.
*Hu Tsu-ching is an associate professor in the department of
political science at Tunghai University. * Translated by
Eddy Chang
This story has been viewed 306 times.
URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/03/02/story/0000075874]
Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
19 Editorial: Nuclear monitoring
Editorial
*
Saturday, March 03, 2001
Bangladesh, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and by the terms of reference of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, is entitled to support and technology transfer
from nuclear powers for its national agenda of peaceful uses of
atomic energy. We have a long-standing atomic energy commission,
and we have fair enough communications and exchanges with the
atomic energy-related establishments of the UN.
We have not been able to make much headway, though, with our
Rooppur Nuclear Power Project. No member of the nuclear club, nor
any other advanced country with expertise as well as safe process
and equipment for nuclear power generation have as yet come
forward with technical assistance and support.
Be that as it may, our Atomic Energy Commission has been engaged
in peaceful uses of their nuclear expertise in a limited way in
agriculture and medicine. Nuclear power from our laboratory plant
for research-bound fission programme has been used by the
Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission to help preservation of
bio-germs of high-yielding crop varieties.
In nuclear medicine, the BAEC has been maintaining fourteen
medical centres and institutes, and extending radio-active
treatment to same one lakh patients annually for thyroid, liver,
heart and brain diseases. The BAEC has also taken the initiative
of establishing a tissue-bank. By preservation of human tissues
with nuclear technology, medicament of burn patients and accident
victims could be greatly facilitated in repair of damaged
tissues.While we may thus continue to use and expand our nuclear
expertise and equipment for productive and constructive purposes,
it is time that we also think about a role model for ourselves in
the world-wide network of nuclear know-how for
instance.Bangladesh happens to be placed strategically in the
midst of three neighbours with nuclear arms capability and
arsenal.
The United Nations is duty-bound to monitor the radio activity in
the region through IAEA. Bangladesh very much qualifies as a site
for such monitoring activity. To expand our nuclear expertise and
activity perhaps we could begin discussing that possibility in
earnest with UN nuclear establishment.
*****************************************************************
20 Radioactive irregularity: Monitoring and enforcement needed
The Daily Star: Editorial Page
Volume 3 Number 538 Sat. March 03, 2001
Editorial
That most of an estimated 130,000 X-ray machines used at
different hospitals, clinics and diagnosis centres across the
country don't have Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission licence is
yet another instance of enforcement failure. As is the case with
many more such areas, here, too, the law is there all right but
is regularly flouted in absence of an effective and efficient
enforcement system. In this particular case, failure to regulate
and enforce laws has caused, what we may call, a double-barrelled
impact, affecting both the public health and the public
exchequer. The commission has been deprived of crores of taka in
unpaid licence and renewal fees from the establishments using
X-ray machines and other sources of radiation since September
1998. Secondly, and crucially, unregulated and unmonitored use of
radioactive devices could well result in improper use of these on
patients, thereby inflicting irreparable damage on them. We are
more concerned about the hazard posed to the public health and
cannot help condemn the criminal callousness shown so far by not
only the commission but also other relevant government agencies.
In our considered view, the government should immediately
undertake a two-dimensional redressal measure to put things in
order on the radioactive front, so to speak. The commission's
countrywide survey to find out the exact number of radioactive
machines currently in use, albeit incomplete, has been a positive
development towards accomplishing one of the solutions we have in
mind. It is imperative that the commission go ahead with the
survey and finish it as soon as possible. Here, however, the
commission should try to find out a rough estimate of
unauthorised users through an elimination process. We are sure it
has a list of those establishments who have been regular in
licence renewal. Once the preliminary data is at the commission's
disposal, it should segmentise the country and institute a
central enforcement and monitoring cell for each segment. There
should also be an apex body to co-ordinate the monitoring and
enforcement efforts. Unlicensed users of radiation sources should
not only be slapped with hefty fines but also be made liable to
criminal procedure.
As we have said, this is much too serious an issue to be
overlooked. We hope the commission and the relevant government
agencies would realise that.
The Daily Star Internet Edition, is jointly published by the
Daily Starwith comments about the Daily Star: Internet Edition or
the Daily Star site please contact the Webmasterat Onirban. Page
generated on : Sat. March 03, 2001
*****************************************************************
21 Sellafield nuclear fuel train derailed
ISSUE 2108 Saturday 3 March 2001
By Auslan Cramb
Selby crash: Number of dead may be lower than first feared
A FREIGHT train carrying empty spent nuclear fuel flasks was
derailedyesterday as it arrived at a nuclear power station.
The incident, in which one wagon jumped the tracks but remained
upright, led to the temporary closure of the east coast main line
east of Edinburgh. No one was hurt and police said there were no
safety implications, although a large number of emergency service
vehicles were at the scene near the Torness power station outside
Dunbar, East Lothian.
The train was reversing at 5mph on a siding when the derailment,
which was blamed on frozen points, happened. None of the three
50-ton flasks on board was damaged. The trains regularly carry
spent nuclear fuel from the plant to the Sellafield reprocessing
plant in Cumbria.
Janine Claber, of the freight company Direct Rail Services, a
subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuel, said: "It was a very minor
derailment which happened at low speed and not on the main line."
*****************************************************************
22 BNFL train derails with nuclear flasks on board
Independent
By Emma Hartley
3 March 2001
The safety of the nuclear power industry was in question
yesterday after the derailment of a train carrying nuclear fuel
flasks near Dunbar in Scotland. The accident happened at 9.45am
while the train was reversing into a siding at 5mph near the
Torness power station. Two carriages left the track, one of them
containing an empty nuclear flask. The second carriage was empty
but there were two other flasks on the train. Both carriages
remained upright and the flask was not damaged.
William Worthing, an area production manager with Railtrack,
said: "We shut down the line and specialists from Torness came
down to make sure there was no leakage."
A spokesman for Friends of the Earth said: "The public may be
surprised to learn that dangerous radioactive waste regularly
travels through our urban areas – these particular flasks
probably came through Edinburgh's Morningside on their way to
Torness."
More than a dozen Railtrack officials and police officers were at
the site yesterday afternoon, examining the track for clues to
the cause of the accident.
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
23 Mox fuel plant hopes rise British
Nuclear Fuels' hopes of being allowed to start operating a new
£460m mixed oxide fuel (Mox) plant at Sellafield improved last
week, following a broadly positive progress report on the company
from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
The outcome of the safety regulator's report was crucial for
BNFL. Further orders for reprocessing fuel at Sellafied's main
£3.5bn Thorp facility are almost certainly contingent on
customers being able to take back the plutonium arising from the
process in the form of mixed oxide fuel. No nuclear utility in
the world would want to face the security problems associated
with shipping plutonium.
The Inspectorate said it was 'encouraged by the vigour and
commitment' BNFL had given to addressing issues raised by three
critical reports a year ago, after a scandal over the
falsification of quality assurance data on fuel manufactured for
Japan.The discovery obliged the company to pay £40m in
compensation to Japan, and jeopardised its chances of starting up
the £460m Sellafield Mox plant, which will make mixed oxide fuel
from uranium and plutonium. Chief
executive
Norman Askew warned at the end of last year that if there was no
prospect of new Mox orders by last month, the company would have
to write off the Mox plant investment.
The report said the company had now fully addressed the 15
recommendations it had made in respect of the Mox Demonstration
Facility — where the quality assurance falsification took place
in 1999 — and could now put forward a case for recommissioning
the plant as a research facility.
It added this had clear implications for the start-up of the
larger plant: 'As part of our Mox plant inspection activities we
are checking to see whether relevant lessons from the facility
are being applied to this plant.' The
Mox plant is undergoing uranium commissioning, but the key
decision will be the one that allows it to proceed to plutonium
commissioning — a step that would take several months and
instantly make the plant hugely expensive to decommission.
This go-ahead is not expected before the election and will depend
on economic justification — sufficient commitments to place
orders — as well as clearance from the safety regulator. While
BNFL is saying nothing publicly, the position in respect of new
orders has clearly improved since Askew's ultimatum.
However, there is still more to do on the safety side. The report
noted that many of the required changes in safety culture would
take time to take effect. '
We recognise there's still a lot of work to be done,' said a
company spokesman.Greenpeace seized on the report's admission
that the company had so far met only three of the 28
recommendations covering the site as a whole in last year's
control and supervision reports as 'a shocking indictment of
Sellafield's continuing safety crisis'.
Copyright Centaur Communications Ltd.All rights reserved.
arvidj@centaur.co.uk.
*****************************************************************
24 Nuclear Waste Disposal
Sunday, March 4, 2001
To all those day dreamers who have recently written articles and
letters to the editor urging that, because of the energy
shortage, we jump in with new nuclear plants and just pump out
more energy, I would remind them that we don't know what to do
with all the low-yield waste just from medical use.
No one, no one, has come up with an acceptable solution to the
disposal of nuclear waste from power plants.
Yes, we have the know-how to build bigger and better plants, but
the waste may lay waste to some part of our environment for an
indeterminate time. Are you wishful thinkers willing to pay for
immediate new power sources with the health of our grandchildren
and their grandchildren into the indefinite future?
Until we think of some way to dispose of large amounts of nuclear
waste, don't even think about more nuclear power plants.
ALFRED W. KORNBLUTH
Calabasas
Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
1 DOE Cut Under Bush Budget Plan -
By Megan Scully
By Megan Scully
States News Service
WASHINGTON -- Assigned to solve the largest energy crisis that
Idaho and other western states have faced in recent memory, and
handle a continuing task of nuclear waste cleanup, the U.S.
Department of Energy received more bad news last week.
The president wants to cut its budget.
A summary of President Bush's 2002 budget proposal indicates that
the administration is seeking to slash the department's budget by
3 percent, or $700 million, leaving the department with $19
billion.
The cuts come as Bush tries to weigh budget concerns against
goals to dramatically decrease taxes, expand education programs
and pay down the debt over the next decade.
The vague outline of the full budget proposal, which will be
released in April, does not reveal which energy programs would be
targeted for a cut. It does, however, say the administration will
evaluate the performance of major projects across the department,
including environmental and science programs. At least one Idaho
Republican, Rep. Mike Simpson, is concerned the budget cuts could
prevent the federal government from making good on its promise to
clean up nuclear waste at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
"I'm very concerned about possible funding shortfalls at the
INEEL, both in the current fiscal year and in the future,"
Simpson said.
Simpson said he has written Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham,
urging him to beef up the environmental management program
budget, which funds INEEL cleanup.
But Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said he believes the full budget
will contain adequate funding for waste management.
"My one priority is to get the appropriate and necessary funding
for the Department of Energy and its commitment to Idaho and
INEEL for cleanup projects," Craig said. "We're going to make
those commitments. That's our responsibility and I am confident
that we can get that done."
The future for INEEL cleanup looks a bit shaky, with reports from
the Associated Press revealing that the laboratory exceeded its
budget this year by $37 million when it tried to meet a deadline
to ship nuclear waste out of the state. As many as 370 jobs could
hang in the balance.
Despite the cutbacks, Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., who sits on the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with Craig, said
the budget cut does not portray a weakened resolve by the
administration to address the West's growing energy problem.
Rather, Thomas said, Bush's attempts to "move around" and
"rearrange" funding priorities demonstrate an effort to turn the
department around and find a solution to energy shortages.
"The fact is, we had an Energy Department that hasn't done much
in regards to solving the energy problem over the last eight
years," Thomas said.
Chris Changery, a spokesman for Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
R-Colo., another member of the energy committee, likewise
expressed confidence in the administration's ability to deal with
energy issues.
"Given that we have a former Texas governor and a former Wyoming
congressman (in the White House), Sen. Campbell has always been
very confident that this administration is in touch with the West
and energy concerns," Changery said. But on the other side of the
aisle, Democrats such as Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a ranking
member of the energy committee, fear budget cuts will hinder
research and development.
"This proposal appears to cut programs -- such as basic science,
renewable energy, and oil and gas research and development -- by
about $1 billion," Bingaman said in a statement. "Clearly, we
don't know all the details of the plan, nor do we know where a
majority of the cuts will fall, but it's hard to see how we can
have a comprehensive energy strategy while making cuts to R&;D. "
Budgets for several Energy Department programs, however, would be
beefed up. That includes a 100 percent increase over the next 10
years for the Weatherization Assistance Program, a plan to help
low-income families properly insulate their homes in an effort to
decrease their energy costs.
The Bush plan focuses on research and development of solar energy
and other alternative resources, promising to "winnow out those
projects that are less than promising" and direct greater
attention to more successful projects. To further encourage the
use of renewable resources, the plan also provides a tax credit
for homes and businesses that use rooftop solar equipment or fuel
produced from renewable sources.
*****************************************************************
2 Energy Department fighting Kentucky requirement
Messenger-Inquirer: News
*4 March 2001*
Associated Press
PADUCAH -- The federal government is seeking a stay of Kentucky's
requirement that it look again at how well a low-level
radioactive landfill that is in a hazardous area of the New
Madrid fault could withstand an earthquake.
Mark York, a spokesman for the state Natural Resources Cabinet,
said the state insisted on upgraded seismic standards at the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant after receiving updated maps from
the U.S. Geological Survey. Those maps placed the landfill in a
"seismic hazard area," York said.
York said the standards would apply only to new areas of the
landfill that are developed.
The U.S. Department of Energy is appealing the requirement to a
state hearing officer.
The plant rests squarely within the New Madrid Seismic Zone --
parts of Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee -- which
experts say is overdue for a moderate to major earthquake. Major
upheavals along the fault in 1811 and 1812 caused damage 250
miles away and caused the Mississippi River to flow backward.
Since 1995 the Energy Department has been fighting Kentucky's
permit conditions for the landfill through administrative appeals
and in the state and federal court system. The department argues
that Kentucky cannot pre-empt the federal government in
regulating radioactive material.
The Energy Department's appeal of the state's permit conditions
filed Feb. 28 contended that "the requirement to completely
re-evaluate the ground motion potential along local faults, and
all other seismic risks in the New Madrid Seismic Zone and the
Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is invalid because it is too vague."
The Energy Department also opposed a new requirement that
groundwater and landfill liquid be tested quarterly for
radioactive materials, including tritium, radium and uranium. The
federal agency said the requirement is unreasonable and exceeds
Kentucky's authority under federal and state laws.
Don Seaborg, the Energy Department's site manager at Paducah,
said the dispute is an "ongoing saga." The Energy Department does
not object to doing seismic testing, "but we don't want to
re-evaluate our existing work," Seaborg said.
Seaborg said the landfill, known as C-746-U, was built to modern
standards after receiving state permit approval in 1995. "It's an
important landfill to us" for the ongoing cleanup project at the
plant, he said.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is considering Kentucky's
appeal of a federal judge's ruling favoring the Energy
Department's position that Kentucky cannot regulate radioactive
material.
©2000 Messenger-Inquirer
*****************************************************************