***************************************************************** 04/06/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.86 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 New nuclear minister backs plan to import spent nuclear fuel 2 Water damage sparks Yucca worries 3 Rethinking Nuclear Power 4 A return to madness? 5 Increased amounts of nuke waste to travel through state 6 NRC, state watchdog Maine Yankee process 7 Environmental Expert Proposes Turning ‘Waste’ Sites into ‘Wilderness’ Areas 8 Bruce Power to spend C$340 million on reactor startup 9 Proposed Nuclear Fuel Waste Legislation 10 51 nuclear reactors in Japan ran at 82% capacity in FY 2000 11 Windscale: Sloppy practice 12 BNFL is fined for radioactive material in worker's drawer 13 Germany to Ship Atomic Waste to France Next Week 14 Fusion project sparks new hope of cheap, clean power 15 Super laser advances fusion research 16 The Oxford sunseekers 17 Possible radioactive contamination slows dismantling of power plant 18 Conservation groups rush to fight Bush NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Labs May Get More Money 2 Laboratory Network News for laboratory professionals 3 Battle lines again forming over sick worker law 4 Our View: Obstructions to sick worker law must be fought 5 Anderson Co. wants courts clear of petty protest arrests 6 Opinion: More on worker exposure issue 7 Bill would order Chao to handle ill workers 8 DOE WASTE BOONDOGGLE 9 Irresponsible weapons - Depleted uranium arms very harmful 10 Tests of nuclear-capable submersibles may have been intelligence target 11 BARC to step up research in S 12 Oversight debate persists over nuclear worker payments 13 Lab experts to speak at nuclear conference 14 Alarm forces evacuation at Hanford's PFP 15 False alarm evacuates PFP 16 Fluor switches plans to remove spent fuel from K Basins 17 Senate supports Hanford budget ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 New nuclear minister backs plan to import spent nuclear fuel MOSCOW - Russ ia's newly appointed nuclear m inister spoke in support of a widely-criticized plan to import spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing that helped cost the job of his predecessor, according to an interview published Friday. "It will showcase Russia's technological potential and pave the way for new projects," Alexander Rumyantsev, who was appointed nuclear minister late last month, told the daily Izvestia. He also said a law permitting the imports of nuclear waste is essential for Russia's efforts to exports nuclear fuel. "If we wan t to sell this product to other countries, we must have a law that allows us to take back spent fuel rods." The plan foresees importing about 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel over 20 years to Russia in special, armored train cars for reprocessing and long-term storage. Rumyantsev's predecessor, Yevgeny Adamov, strongly advoated the project, saying that Russia stands to earn dlrs 20 billion. He promised to spend dlrs 7 billion of the proceeds to clean up radiation spills i n Russia and upgrade safe ty at existing reactors. But environmentalists and other critics of the plan warned that it would turn Russia into an international dumping ground for nuclear waste, and accused Adamov of pursuing his own business interests in the deal. Adamov has denied the allegations. Critics also said that there would be no money left to clean up the environment after funds are spent to build and maintain storage facilities. Parliament approved the bill in the first of three readings last December, but ab ruptly cancelled the second reading last month amid the controversy. Several days later, President Vladimir Putin fired Adamov as part of his sweeping Cabinet reshuffle. Rumyantsev said that the financial aspect of the plan needs more work. He also sought to allay critics' concerns that the ministry earnings from the deal could be misspent, saying that special panels would "track down every single dollar" of the proceeds. Rumyantsev had served as head of the Kurchatov Institute, Russia's leading n uclear research center. www.russiajournal.com ***************************************************************** 2 Water damage sparks Yucca worries April 06, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Areas inside the exploratory tunnel at Yucca Mountain that were sealed off for six months developed so much moisture that electrical test equipment in the rooms shorted out, losing valuable data, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report shows. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear reactor and weapons waste. Water is a concern there because the area's mineral-laden ground water could corrode containers holding the waste, releasing radioactivity into the environment. If the moisture in the tunnel is found to be ground water, the dump project would be in jeopardy. Federal scientists believe if the moisture is from condensation, it would be harmless. State scientists note, however, that even condensation, if it contains minerals from Yucca Mountain's rock, could be corrosive. The Energy Department is expected to recommend the site later this year as the world's first high-level nuclear waste repository. The three research areas were dug out along the 5-mile-long tunnel, which is near the surface, and equipped with probes to measure water inside the rock. They were sealed last August to prevent the dry outside air from entering, to simulate what the mountain was like before the tunnel was excavated. By September scientists realized that the equipment's electricity had failed, including the backup battery power. When they reopened the research rooms in January, they found electrical shorts that appeared to be caused by excessive water. It was one of several studies focused on finding out the path of ground water through the mountain, which is made primarily of layered volcanic ash. If water has invaded the repository level, 1,000 feet below the surface, within the past 10,000 years, the site could be disqualified as a repository. The water table at Yucca Mountain is 1,000 feet lower than the site. So far, none of the studies has definitively shown a problem, but none has ruled out dangerous levels of moisture either. The report on the failed experiment was included in monthly reports of the NRC's on-site scientists, who are overseeing work by the Energy Department. The DOE is charged with studying and, if it is found safe, building the repository. The NRC would have to license it before it could open. DOE researchers reported to the NRC scientists that they had been unable to collect 75 percent of the data they sought on water at the three sites because of power outages in the hundreds of probes. Humidity levels inside the alcoves jumped above 90 percent last summer, DOE scientists said. The DOE suspected steamy conditions inside the alcoves had disrupted electrical connections to the probes monitoring the mountain. Although batteries backed up conventional power lines, their supply lasted only about two weeks. The DOE opened the bulkheads in January, dried the air, better insulated the electronics, then resealed areas. The water monitoring project is expected to continue throughout this year, DOE spokeswoman Gayle Fisher said. Power was restored to the monitors, but conditions inside the mountain have not returned to normal, according to NRC's technical staff. "They have a ways to go yet," Chad Glenn of the NRC's Las Vegas office, said this week. The amount of moisture inside the mountain already has raised questions from independent scientists serving on the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. At a February meeting in Amargosa Valley, the scientists questioned DOE representatives closely about "soaked" drip cloths hanging inside the alcoves. The scientific panel urged the DOE to chemically analyze the water found on the cloths to determine if it came from condensation or from moisture flowing through the mountain's rocks. Scientists working for the state of Nevada, which opposes the repository project, are concerned with the lack of information provided after the DOE's power outages. Water -- even condensation -- could create a film on the metal surfaces of waste containers and shields, causing chemical reactions, said Susan Zimmerman, technical program administrator for the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects. Heat from the buried waste could enhance the chances for such reactions, and the consequences are anyone's guess, she said. The DOE has been studying Yucca Mountain since 1983. By the mid-1990s scientists discovered more water than expected in the rock. Engineers now are suggesting multiple barriers to protect people and the environment from escaping radioactivity. Those barriers include waste packages still being designed, titanium shields to deflect ground water from dripping on the packages and a filler to seal the mountain in 50, 100 or 150 years. The additional protection against moisture is expected to increase the cost of the dump, which is currently estimated to be about $60 billion. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Rethinking Nuclear Power - April 23, 2001 The New American - U.S. - China Standoff, United Nations, Constitution, Faith-Based Charities, Kosovo by Douglas S. McGregor, Ph.D. *— With blackouts, power shortages, and rate hikes becoming more common, now is the time for America to reexamine the promise of nuclear energy. Vol. 17, No. 9 April 23, 2001 Table of Contents More With blackouts, power shortages, and rate hikes becoming more common, now is the time for America to reexamine the promise of nuclear energy. About the Author Douglas S. McGregor, Ph.D., is the director of the Semiconductor Materials and Radiological Technologies (SMART) Laboratory at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where he designs, fabricates, and characterizes radiation detectors and systems. Dr. McGregor has over 15 years of experience with radiation detection and measurement, semiconductor physics, and semiconductor device fabrication, and he is recognized as an expert on semiconductor radiation detector design, fabrication, and characterization. He presently holds records for semiconductor detector results and designs, and has introduced novel concepts for neutron and gamma radiation detectors. Many neutron detectors developed at the SMART Laboratory are used and tested at the Ford Nuclear Reactor facility, where graduate students working with Dr. McGregor characterize their properties. (A photograph of the reactor core at the Ford facility is shown on pages 10 and 11.) Dr. McGregor has authored or co-authored over 36 research publications on radiation detectors, and presently has six patents filed on various detector concepts. He has a B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas A&M University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Michigan. Dr. McGregor has also performed research for the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. Control rods plunge through more than 20 feet of water to the core of the Ford Nuclear Reactor at the University of Michigan. Radiation from fission reactions in the core produces a deep, cool blue light that suffuses the reactor pool water. Faced with rhetorical obstacles from the environmental lobby and regulatory obstacles from Washington, nuclear power has been hamstrung in the United States. The rolling blackouts that have already occurred in California, and the threat of power shortages elsewhere, should focus national attention on a viable energy option that is now responsible for about 20 percent of our electrical power generation, yet could easily be responsible for much more. In fact, France now uses this energy option to generate nearly 80 percent of its electricity, and a number of other countries are also more dependent on this energy option than is the United States (see Figure 1). Ironically, the technology in question was invented and developed here. We are referring, of course, to nuclear power. This industry has been brought to a virtual standstill in this country based on fears that nuclear power is far too dangerous to use. Those fears are unfounded, however, and America should take a second look at this amazing form of power generation. France, Belgium, Switzerland, and other countries that generate a higher percentage of their electrical output via nuclear power than does the United States have been able to do so without loss of life and without harming the environment. Why should it be any different here? This is not to say that nuclear power is 100 percent safe. (No form of power generation is perfectly safe.) Nuclear power is simply safer than other alternatives for generating large amounts of electrical energy, such as oil or coal plants. This is true, in part, because the fuel in a nuclear power plant is highly concentrated. One uranium fuel pellet — typically measuring about 0.3-inch diameter by 0.5-inch long — can produce the equivalent energy of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil. Because relatively little fuel is used, relatively little waste is produced. Moreover, the waste that is produced in a nuclear power plant is contained within the plant itself, where it can eventually be removed for long-term storage. This is not the case with fossil fuel plants, which emit tons of pollutants through their smokestacks into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants do not emit pollutants into the air and for that reason they do not have smokestacks. Some nuclear power plants have cooling towers that are sometimes mistaken for smokestacks, but those cooling towers emit water vapor. Interestingly, an article that appeared in the January-February 2000 issue of *Foreign Affairs*, entitled "The Need for Nuclear Power," also concludes that fossil fuel electrical power plants are actually more hazardous to people than nuclear power plants. That conclusion, in that source, is particularly notable since* Foreign Affairs* is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the CFR is a promoter of internationalism as opposed to American independence. Yet the nuclear power option could make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. Written by Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller (neither of whom, by the way, is a member of the CFR), the *Foreign Affairs* article notes that pollutants from coal-burning plants cause an estimated 15,000 premature deaths in the United States *every year*. In fact, write Rhodes and Beller, "A 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) coal-fired power plant releases about 100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a comparable nuclear plant." Moreover, they explain: Running a 1,000-MWe power plant for a year requires 2,000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil but only 12 cubic meters of natural uranium. Out the other end of fossil-fuel plants … come thousands of tonnes of noxious gases, particulates, and heavy-metal-bearing (and radioactive) ash, plus solid hazardous waste — up to 500,000 tonnes of sulfur from coal, more than 300,000 tonnes from oil, and 200,000 tonnes from natural gas. In contrast, a 1,000 MWe nuclear plant releases no noxious gases or other pollutants and much less radioactivity per capita than is encountered from airline travel, a home smoke detector, or a television set. What Are the Risks? Arguments against nuclear power reactors generally revolve around three main issues: nuclear waste; plutonium build-up; and radioactivity. Each of these issues is addressed below: • *Nuclear waste*: Reactor fuel consists of uranium that has been formed into a usable metal alloy and produced as small pellets, rods, or plates. The fuel is encapsulated with a metal cladding, such as zircaloy, to provide mechanical strength and to prevent inadvertent outside radioactive contamination. Nuclear reactor waste or spent nuclear fuel consists of the fuel pellets that have been used in a reactor for a long period of time (usually several years) and have lost their ability to efficiently release energy. The spent fuel has many radioactive byproducts, such as the fission fragments, and must be stored to prevent hazardous exposure. Presently, spent fuel is stored in shielded basins of water or dry storage vaults at the nuclear power plants. The radioactive byproducts must be allowed to decay to safe levels, which will take hundreds to thousands of years. Solid nuclear waste containers are designed, through both natural and engineered safety barriers, to withstand underground storage for at least 10,000 years. Spent fuel can be safely stored on a permanent basis once a national repository is finally approved. Planned nuclear waste storage facilities such as the Yucca Mountain site are still undergoing environmental impact studies, having suffered numerous delays for the opening date. At present the opening of a national repository for the long-term storage of nuclear waste is over 12 years behind schedule, and at least one government laboratory source (see http://nsnfp.inel.gov) states that a national repository may not be available for another 20 years. But the problem is political, not scientific. One way to address the nuclear waste issue is to reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored. Other countries, such as France, have progressive nuclear fuel recycling programs whereby a large percentage of the unused uranium (and the small amount of plutonium produced) in the spent fuel is salvaged and then processed into new reactor fuel. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), only 3 percent of spent fuel is actual fission byproduct waste; 96 percent is unused uranium, and the remaining 1 percent is the unused plutonium created during the fuel cycle. The benefits of spent nuclear fuel recycling include more efficient nuclear fuel usage, reduced chance of nuclear materials proliferation, and less buildup of nuclear reactor waste byproducts. The benefits of making more efficient use of nuclear fuel are obvious, yet the United States does not have a nuclear fuel recycling program in place at this time. • *Plutonium build-up:* Western nuclear power reactors are constructed and engineered in a manner that minimizes plutonium build-up, and much of the plutonium that is produced inside the reactor is used during an ordinary fuel cycle. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that using fissile material for reactor fuel is a far better method of preventing nuclear proliferation than storage or burying those materials. After the fissile material has been used as nuclear fuel, it cannot possibly be used for weapons, thereby eliminating the possibility of use by potential terrorists. • *Radiation:* The amount of radiation that is emitted by nuclear power plants, as already indicated, is minuscule. According to EPA guidelines, the annual whole body dose to the public is limited to 25 millirems for uranium fuel cycle operations (see 40 CFR part 190.10). But before anyone panics at such a generous regulatory allotment, let’s put into proper focus how much radiation a millirem is. According to information from the NEI, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), natural background radiation from the Earth’s crust ranges from 23 millirems per year at the Atlantic Coast to 90 millirems per year on the Colorado Plateau. Radiation *inside* the body is approximately 40 millirems per year from the food and water we consume and up to 200 millirems per year from natural levels of radon in the air we breathe. The annual radiation dose reaching us from outer space ranges from 26 millirems at sea level to 53 millirems at elevations between 7,000-8,000 feet. The radiation dose from a simple medical X-ray is approximately 20 millirems, and the average radiation dose from a 1,000-mile airline flight is about 1 millirem — meaning that a traveler who flies across the country and back will accumulate about 5 millirems. We also receive 1-2 millirems annually from watching television and would receive another 7 millirems annually from living in a brick building. Now consider this: We would receive .03 millirem annually by living within a 50-mile radius of a coal-fired power plant, but *only .009 millirem by living within a 50-mile radius of a nuclear power plant!* Incredible as it may seem, we would have to live near a nuclear power plant for more than 2,000 years in order to receive the same amount of radiation that we would get from a single diagnostic medical X-ray. Energy Dept. Safe and Sound: The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred at Three Mile Island (left). Yet, there were no deaths or injuries caused by the accident, with the possible exception of physicist Edward Teller who claimed in a two page ad in the *Wall Street Journal *(above) that fighting the anti-nuclear "propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda, and their ilk" were "spewing to the news media" led to his suffering a heart attack. Anti-nuclear propaganda notwithstanding, there is nothing unnatural about radioactivity, radioactive elements, or even nuclear reactors. In fact, all three have existed in nature without any help from man and continue to exist today. At least 14 naturally occurring fission reactors have been documented in the Oklo-Okélobondo natural geological uranium formation in Gabon, a country on the west coast of Africa. These "fossil reactors" contained sufficient concentrations of U-235 for the chain reactions to occur, and those reactions were not regulated by control rods or any other form of human intervention. The discovery of these natural reactors clearly discredits the anti-nuclear, alarmist claim that man is somehow tampering with nature by building nuclear power plants. What If Something Goes Wrong? Nuclear power plants are based on multiple layers of defense designed to protect the environment from the radioactive material inside the reactor core. But what happens if something goes wrong — so terribly wrong that those layers of defense are breached? What then? The most serious accident possible is the release of radioactive material into the environment. It is not a nuclear explosion, for the simple reason that the uranium fuel used in a nuclear power plant does not contain a high enough concentration of U-235 to make a nuclear explosion even theoretically possible. To make such an explosion possible, the uranium fuel inside a reactor would have to be enriched to about 90 percent U-235, but it is only enriched to about 3.5 percent. The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history occurred when the Chernobyl reactor in the Ukraine experienced a heat (and gas) — *not* nuclear — explosion. If such an explosion were to have occurred in a Western nuclear power plant, the explosion would have been contained because *all* Western plants are required to have a containment building — a solid structure of steel-reinforced concrete that completely encapsulates the nuclear reactor vessel. The Chernobyl plant did not have this fundamental safety structure, and so the explosion blew the top of the reactor building off, spewing radiation and reactor core pieces into the air. But the design of the Chernobyl plant was inferior in other ways as well. Unlike the Chernobyl reactor, Western power plant nuclear reactors are designed, under operating conditions, to have negative power coefficients of reactivity that make such runaway accidents impossible. The bottom line is that the flawed Chernobyl nuclear power plant would never have been licensed to operate in the U.S. or any other Western country, and the accident that occurred there simply would not occur in a Western nuclear power plant. The circumstances surrounding the Chernobyl accident were in many ways the worst possible, with an exposed reactor core and an open building. Thirty-one plant workers and firemen died directly from radiation exposure at Chernobyl. Also, it is projected that over 3,400 local residents will eventually acquire and die of cancer due to their exposure to the radioactive fallout. By comparison, within a matter of hours more than 2,300 were killed and as many as 200,000 others injured in a non-nuclear accident when a toxic gas cloud escaped from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. According to conventional wisdom, the worst nuclear power accident in this country occurred at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. Yet, in that incident, nobody was killed and nobody was injured. One exception, perhaps, could be Dr. Edward Teller, the distinguished pro-nuclear physicist who played a key role in the development of nuclear advancements during and after World War II. In a two-page ad appearing in the *Wall Street Journal* for July 31, 1979, Dr. Teller explained that, at 71 years of age and working 20 hours per day, the strain of refuting some of the anti-nuclear "propaganda that Ralph Nader, Jane Fonda and their ilk" were "spewing to the news media" in the wake of Three Mile Island led to a heart attack. He continued: "You might say that I was the only one whose health was affected by that reactor near Harrisburg. No, that would be wrong. It was not the reactor. It was Jane Fonda. Reactors are not dangerous." The event at Three Mile Island occurred from faulty instrumentation that gave erroneous readings for the reactor vessel environment. Due to a series of equipment failures and human errors, plus inadequate instrumentation, the reactor core was compromised and underwent a partial melt. Yet radioactive water released from the core configuration was safely confined within the containment building structure, and very little radiation was released into the environment. The Three Mile Island incident actually underscores the relative safety of nuclear power plants since the safety devices *worked* as designed and *prevented *any injury from occurring to humans, animals, or the environment. Moreover, the accident directly resulted in improved procedures, instrumentation, and safety systems, and now our nuclear reactor power plants are substantially safer. The Three Mile Island Unit 2 core has been cleaned up and the radioactive deposit properly stored; Three Mile Island Unit 1 is still operating with an impeccable record. Status of the Nuclear Industry There are now 104 operating nuclear power units in this country that are responsible for about 20 percent of our total electrical generation. By comparison, over half our electricity is generated by coal-burning plants (see Figure 2). Our nuclear power plants have not only been generating electricity safely, they also have been doing so economically. The February 2001 issue of *Nuclear Energy Insight* listed the average nuclear energy production cost for 1999 as 1.83 cents per kW-hour, as compared to 3.18 cents/kW-hr for oil-burning plants, 3.52 cents per kW-hr for natural gas plants, and 2.07 cents per kW-hr for coal plants (see Figure 3). But the initial capital costs for constructing a nuclear power plant are generally high. Part of these costs can be attributed to improved safety features and tighter government regulations, many of which are not imposed on other types of power plants. And of course there are the seemingly endless environmental impact statements and delays that — thanks to the environmental lobby — also add to the cost of building a nuclear power plant. Finally, there is the public relations problem created by anti-nuclear propaganda. All of these factors must be weighed by those who might invest in nuclear power plants. In fact, one of the risks these investors must consider is whether or not they can even get their nuclear power plant online in today’s anti-nuclear regulatory climate. Consider, as a case in point, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island. The newly constructed facility had acquired all of the necessary approvals and permits, was complete and fully functional, and was already operating at low power. Governor Cuomo, however, refused to approve the plant’s emergency evacuation plan, an arbitrary decision based on "political correctness" rather than facts, and the plant was not licensed for full operation. Instead, the utility that owned the power plant sold it to the state of New York for the ridiculous amount of $1.00, and the state dismantled the plant in 1994. Dozens of unfinished (and presently abandoned) nuclear power plants at various stages of construction are scattered across the United States. So even though other countries are expanding their use of nuclear power, the number of operating units here peaked at 112 in 1990 and has since begun to decline. According to NEI-supplied statistics, no nuclear power generating plants have been ordered in this country since 1977, and no new construction permits have been issued since 1979. On the other hand, there have been 117 nuclear power plant order cancellations by utilities since 1973. The last year that an operable nuclear unit came online was 1996, and since then another five reactor units have been shut down. Nuclear power plants are generally licensed to operate for 40 years but can apply for a license renewal for an additional 20 years. Because many of these plants became operational during roughly the same time period (25 reactor units became operational prior to 1973, 15 came online in 1973, and another 15 came online in 1974), there will be a rapid decrease in nuclear nuclear power generating capacity beginning in about 2010 — unless renewals are issued to the plants whose licenses expire (see Figure 7). In fact, it is projected that by the year 2015, over a third of our operating reactor units will come due for license renewal or decommissioning. Fortunately, because of the rising electrical power demands, license renewals are being given to most plants requesting the extension. For too long the nuclear industry has been a victim of scare tactics and outrageously false propaganda. Yet truth is a much more potent weapon than falsehood, and the truth about nuclear power is that it provides a viable and safe means for satisfying our growing need for electricity. The looming specter of a severe energy shortage in this country should spark an increasing demand for nuclear power on the part of Americans who don’t want to be left in the dark. And that, of course, will create a growing problem for the radical environmental lobby that is not only anti-nuclear power but anti-development. © Copyright2001 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated ***************************************************************** 4 A return to madness? Columbus AlivewireD - Harvey The psychotic fantasy of electric dereg continues, with renewed interest in nuclear power *by Harvey Wasserman * California's deregulatory meltdown will likely cost its ratepayers some $60 billion, for which they will get virtually nothing in return. The 1996 law that threw the state into chaos was written by the electric utilities now claiming bankruptcy. It has allowed them to launder more than $20 billion to their parent companies, with no accountability. Though they spent $40 million to defeat a 1998 statewide green-sponsored referendum that would have repealed this madness, the power companies and their media minions continue to blame the public and the environmental movement for the mess. Another $20 billion to $40 billion has been stolen by Enron, Reliant and other gas companies close to George W. Bush, who manipulated power supplies while federal regulatory agencies and California's Democratic Governor Gray Davis did nothing. The economic and ecological shock waves of this tragedy will reverberate for decades. But for pure psychotic fantasy, none can exceed its use as a pretext to build more nuclear power plants. For weeks now the corporate media has overflowed with "too cheap to meter" bombast. Pompous talk show bloviators have spun reactors as an "overlooked" oasis of energy. Most recently, the right-wing Weekly Standard carried a massive, profoundly inaccurate tome on the alleged need for a nuclear revival. But let's look at some practical realities. To begin with, the crisis in California was actually caused by atomic power. The deregulatory impulse first came from big industrial users and gas companies who meant to undercut the state's utilities, which couldn't compete because of their huge reactor investments. The utilities countered by whining to a bought state legislature that their reactors required a bailout. So deregulation came with $28.5 billion in "stranded costs" tagged on for those bum nukes. Thus far more than $20 billion has been taken from ratepayers and funneled to parent corporations. Now those nukes have suddenly become "economical" in the eyes of the same media that supported their being bailed out. But that very media somehow missed the February 3 fire that knocked out San Onofre Unit Three, near Los Angeles, causing untold millions in damage. A full report is due from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from which we may or may not learn what actually happened. We do know that in an instant, fully a quarter of the state's reactor capacity disappeared, bringing down the capacity to power more than a million homes. As we saw at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, no other technology can do so much damage so instantaneously. The green community bitterly opposed reactors at both San Onofre and Diablo Canyon, demanding the billions spent there be used instead for solar power, wind, electric efficiency and conservation. Had their advice been followed, California would now be energy self-sufficient. Indeed, as early as 1952, the Truman administration's Paley Commission asked the country to build a solar future, predicting 15 million sun-heated homes by 1975. But Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program intervened the next year. More than a trillion dollars has since been squandered on atomic power, for which we now receive a paltry 20 percent of our electricity. In the late 1970s the safe energy movement again pushed for massive investments in renewable and efficient energy sources. This time the Reagan administration sent a booming wind and solar industry packing to Denmark, Germany, Japan and Israel. At 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, wind is now the cheapest and fastest-to-build form of new electric power generation, with capacity growing worldwide at 25 percent every year. In 2000, Germany alone installed some 1,300 megawatts, more than what's generated by any single U.S. nuke. Between the Rockies and the Mississippi, as well as offshore and in hundreds of Eastern locations, the U.S. has more than enough wind potential to generate its entire electrical supply more cheaply and more quickly than any other source. Photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight directly to electricity, are more expensive, but with a large-scale industrial infrastructure, they offer the secure promise of clean energy independence. Increased efficiency--we still waste half of what we burn--can save energy far more cheaply than we can generate it with any new source. Not to mention that the time required for a new nuke to come online--five to 10 years, assuming a site can be selected tomorrow with no public opposition--would hardly ease the current power "crisis." But in the face of all that, the hugely financed nuclear power industry persists. Strangely, much of the nuclear hype has been on a new technology called "pebble bed reactors." The rhetoric is familiar: inherently safe, too cheap to meter, no environmental impact. But no such operating reactors exist today. There was one pebble bed prototype in Germany. It's now shut. Another may be built in South Africa, but that will take five years. The much-vaunted "breeder" technology, meant to produce more fuel than it used, is a certified failure, with dead reactors in Britain, Germany and Japan standing as mute (but radioactive) testimony. Meanwhile, some 500 less exotic "light water" reactors have been built worldwide since the 1950s. By downplaying the technology on which it's relied for a half-century in favor of an untested new design, what is the industry trying to tell us? Right now the industry is boasting about alleged low operating costs and high efficiencies. But with utility deregulation has come the abandonment of nuclear safety standards. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission exists only as a rubber stamp for license extensions on decaying nukes that cry out for retirement. With official approval, staff and maintenance are being slashed. Today's reactor industry is a runaway train, flying down a steep incline with no brakes, setting speed records along the way, but headed for a predictable end. Yet even without factoring in unknown future costs for radioactive waste management, health impacts and the inevitable meltdowns, increased efficiency and conservation are cheaper. So is wind power. And photovoltaics will join them long before the first "new generation" reactor can come on line, no matter which breed of this failed technology gets the nod. A combination of these renewables and efficiencies would allow communities and individual homes and businesses to control their own power supply, independent of the oil, gas and utility companies. Which is the real reason for this nuclear diversion--just as it was 50 years ago. Copyright © 2001 Columbus Alive, Inc. All ***************************************************************** 5 Increased amounts of nuke waste to travel through state April 05, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN The amount of low-level nuclear waste shipped to the Nevada Test Site is expected to increase about 60 percent this year, according to the Energy Department. Shipments of contaminated clothing, laboratory equipment and soil buried at the site, designated a regional repository for cleanup activities at federal facilities nationwide, are expected to increase to 1 million cubic feet from an average of 611,000 annually, DOE environmental management chief Carl Gertz said Wednesday. Most of the trucks taking the waste to the Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, are expected to take rural routes and avoid busy Las Vegas thoroughfares, Gertz told the Citizens Advisory Board for Nevada Test Site Programs, meeting in Las Vegas. "We believe it's important to keep goodwill in Nevada," Gertz said. "Therefore, we are trying to keep the shipments out of the Spaghetti Bowl." In the last quarter of 2000, eight low-level waste shipments went through the congested interchange of Interstate 15 and U.S. 95, Gertz said, compared with one so far this year. The DOE cannot order shippers to avoid certain routes, but the agency has persuaded most contractors to avoid the urban area. Since 1976 more than 11,500 trucks have gone to the Test Site, Gertz said. Low-level radioactive shipments are expected for up to 25 years, adding another 12 million cubic feet of waste to the 17 million cubic feet already buried in unlined trenches and former nuclear weapons craters. However, increasing truck traffic on two-lane roads throughout Nevada will add to the wear and tear on those roads, Gertz said. There are no railroad routes to the Test Site. Residents from Las Vegas and Pahrump said they were concerned about potential ground water contamination from radiation escaping from the site, which is larger than the state of Rhode Island. The DOE is still trying to come up with a workable method to monitor radioactivity escaping the Test Site through ground water. To date, three monitoring wells on the site have not indicated any radiation, Gertz said. The DOE has also promised to meet with Reps. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., to answer questions they posed in January, he said. A DOE presentation on a potential new source of radioactive waste, the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was canceled. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC, state watchdog Maine Yankee process [The Lincoln County News Apr 05, 2001 Vol. 126-No. 14 Greg Foster Maine Yankee's Community Advisory Panel heard various regulatory agency representatives share their current observations of the decommissioning process last Thursday, and for the most part their findings agree it is up to standard. The favorable reports went along with a compliment from activist Ray Shadis, a stakeholder in the process and outspoken critic representing Friends of the Coast, about the company's way of communicating and providing opportunity for public input in its deliberations. Shadis commended the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's handling of Maine Yankee for being a good example of how the NRC should operate. "Our primary duty is to report on our perspective on how effectively the company is carrying out safety measures during decommissioning," one agency spokesman said. Reporting on the status of the decommissioning work, acting vice president in charge of decommissioning Raymond Burke said that in two or three years it is going to be visible to people because the walls are literally coming down. Currently the work being done on site is 41 percent complete but one percent behind. "This is surgical demolition. You will see it happening in April. More and more of the turbine building will be taken down," Burke said. Stop Work Order Burke said the reason for the one percent is the necessity of a stop work order because of a problem with the demolition, which Framatone Bros., Inc. is conducting for the facility. There were problems with a cutting system that Framatone has since modified. "We identified the problem, then resumed work," he said. "Two weeks were lost. That is why we are one percent behind." He reported that so far this year, the company has close to 80,000 work hours without an accident. Burke also reported that a barge brought the reactor container to the site last week on schedule and that because of a greater than anticipated rainfall in the Carolinas it may well be possible to transport the reactor to Barnwell, S.C. via the Savannah River. One agency spokesman said, "I have walked every nook and cranny of the site." He listed three parts of the closure process as, one, identify the areas of concern; two, characterize the site and assess risks; and three, evaluate corrective action. NRC spokesman Randy Raglund gave a regulatory update. He said there was no deficiency found in the spent fuel pool chemistry and cleanliness control. His investigations have included handling and documentation of greater than C level wastes, high radiation key control, reactor vessel segmentation activities and turbine building dismantlement. He said the next five months will be the busiest in terms of preparation for the greater than class C materials being transferred to the spent fuel storage installation nearing completion. Mary Ballou of the federal Environmental Protection Agency spoke of internal readiness assessments but CAP member Dan Thompson of Wiscasset said, "I am not a fan of internal dry runs." He said it should be a joint venture so that there is no need to do over and over again. "Then everything taking place will not be a surprise to anyone." State nuclear safety inspector Pat Dostie told the CAP that the dry casks in which the spent fuel will be stored have a 50-year design life and that there are no limiting components at this point. Shadis complained that the NRC's full report is about 1,000 pages or more long and would be enough to discourage CAP member from reading it all so he referred people to a 48-page summary, which he feels is adequate to provide necessary information. "I hope that you will not be put off by the 1000 page report," he said, persuading people to obtain a copy of the condensed version. "This has plenty of technical stuff to curl your hair." The next CAP meeting, which is open to the public, is set for Thurs., May 17 at 6 p.m. at the former information center at Maine Yankee. *Editor@LCNews.Maine.Com* ***************************************************************** 7 Environmental Expert Proposes Turning ‘Waste’ Sites into ‘Wilderness’ Areas Max Schulz Normal Max Schulz 4 28 2001-03-23T15:29:00Z 2001-03-23T16:23:00Z 1 CEI 1 1 9.4119 Washington, DC, March 20, 2001—The federal government spends around $6 billion a year to clean up Department of Energy nuclear sites from World War II and the Cold War, but a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute says the program wastes taxpayers’ money and has the potential to hurt the environment. In his newly released research paper *From Waste to Wilderness: Maintaining Biodiversity on Nuclear-Bomb-Building Sites*, Dr. Robert Nelson is proposing a new approach that would successfully convert these waste sites into ecologically sound wilderness areas and save billions of tax dollars at the same time. For more than fifty years, the government has restricted access to nuclear weapons sites because of public safety and health concerns, and now many of those areas have become places where endangered species and other wildlife and plants are thriving. “The current government attempts to clean up these areas overlook the environmental value of their rare ecologies. It is time for a new form of stewardship strategy, to take the necessary steps to protect Americans from any actual threats posed by radioactive waste, but also to set as a policy priority the conservation of these DOE sites for their rich ecological diversity,” said Dr. Nelson. Spending billions of dollars on environmental cleanup is not necessarily good for the environment, argues Dr. Nelson, and he points to the Exxon Valdez case as an example. After the oil tanker spilled more than 10 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989, Exxon launched a massive cleanup that cost about $2 billion. But the process, which involved the spraying of intense jets of hot water and oil detergents, ended up doing significant damage to the shoreline ecology. Since then, many analysts have agreed it would have been better to leave nature to do the job alone. To avoid situations like that, Dr. Nelson suggests a new “win-win” approach for the cleanup of nuclear waste sites that includes: recognizing the high ecological value of these sites, minimizing actual risk to offsite human population, recognizing that long-term cleanup requires technological advance, and continuing stewardship of DOE sites to conserve ecological value and protect public health. ©3/20/01 Competitive Enterprise Institute ***************************************************************** 8 Bruce Power to spend C$340 million on reactor startup [Reuters] Friday April 6, 8:45 AM EDT TORONTO, April 6 (Reuters) - Bruce Power said on Friday it will spend C$340 million over the next two years to restart two nuclear reactors at its Bruce A nuclear power plant. Bruce Power, a partnership between British Energy Plc (BGY) and uranium producer Cameco Corp. (CCO), said in a release that it will spend C$30 million over the next three months in the first phase of the start-up plan to bring units 3 and 4 of the Bruce A station back into service by the summer of 2003. The two units have a total generating capacity of 1,500 megawatts. All four units, leased by Bruce Power from Ontario Power Generation, are currently laid-up. The restart of the two reactors is conditional on a number of factors including financial closing of the Bruce transaction, expected by summer 2001, obtaining regulatory approval for the restart, and meeting performance targets for the four operational reactors at the Bruce B plant. ©2000 Reuters Limited. ***************************************************************** 9 Proposed Nuclear Fuel Waste Legislation [Canadian Corporate News] Story Filed: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:48 PM EST OTTAWA, ONTARIO, APR 5, 2001 (CCN Newswire via COMTEX) -- The Government of Canada today took a major step forward in dealing with nuclear fuel waste in Canada. In the House of Commons today, Ralph Goodale, Minister of Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), tabled a Notice of Ways and Means Motion for legislation on the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. "This proposed legislation is the culmination of many years of research, environmental assessments, and discussions with stakeholders and the public," said Minister Goodale. "Together with the existing Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the proposed legislation will ensure that the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste will be carried out in the best interests of Canadians - in a safe, environmentally sound, comprehensive, cost-effective and integrated manner." The proposed legislation, called An Act Respecting the Long-Term Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste, is a key part of the Government of Canada's strategy on nuclear fuel waste management that was developed following extensive consultations with the public, provincial governments, waste owners and other interested parties. The proposed legislation calls for nuclear utilities to form a waste management organization that will report regularly to the Government of Canada. This organization would provide recommendations to the Government on the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste. The legislation would also require that the utilities establish a trust fund to finance implementation of the approach, which will ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not exposed to this financial liability over the long term. "This will add to Canada's ability to deal responsibly with nuclear waste," said Minister Goodale. "Canadians want a solution to this issue and are looking to the Government to establish a clear, fair and comprehensive strategy to make effective progress. This legislation would do that and set the course for years to come." The announcement builds on the Government's Response to the Nuclear Fuel Waste and Disposal Concept Environmental Assessment Panel. Also known as the Seaborn Panel, it called for, among other things, clear policy direction from the Government. This legislation would clearly demonstrate to the public, the nuclear utilities, and the provinces, that the Government of Canada is committed to overseeing nuclear fuel waste management, including disposal, in the long-term best interests of Canadians. NRCan's news releases and backgrounders are available on the Internet at . CONTACT: Natural Resources Canada Pat Breton Press Secretary (613) 996-2007 Copyright (C) 2001, Canadian Corporate News. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 51 nuclear reactors in Japan ran at 82% capacity in FY 2000 TOKYO April 5 Kyodo - Fifty-one nuclear reactors in Japan ran at 81.7% capacity in fiscal 2000, the second highest ratio in the annual survey, the Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency said Thursday. The average period between safety checks at the 51 was 12.7 months, the longest on record, it said. The legal maximum is 13 months. The capacity ratio, up 1.6 percentage points from the previous year, was the second highest following 84.2% in fiscal 1998. By reactor type, boiling-water reactors ran at 79.9%, while pressurized-water ones were at 84.1%. The agency, which operates under the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, received 26 accident reports in fiscal 2000, which ended last month, but all were classified as less serious than a ''level one'' on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Japan has 52 nuclear reactors. The remaining one is not used commercially. 2001 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945. ***************************************************************** 11 Windscale: Sloppy practice The Scotsman Online - Scotland's best selling quality national newspaper Steuart Campbell (Letters, 31 March) may believe no-one was harmed by the nuclear explosion at Windscale in 1957. But a study by the National Radiologi-cal Protection Board in 1987 indicated that at least 33 people had died, or would die, through cancers caused by this incident. The authorities were slow to respond to the contamination of the local countryside by radioactive iodine, plutonium, uranium and polonium. Some of these carcinogens entered the food chain because milk was not re-moved from the food supply immediately. The government at the time was unwilling to publicise the fiasco, in case the United States withdrew its co-operation from Britain’s attempt to become a nuclear power. Besides, the public might have panicked. I was not relieved to hear from Mr Campbell that the dumping of radioactive waste into the shaft at Dounreay was "not illegal". This operation has since been universally condemned as dangerous and sloppy practice; if it was not illegal, both the law and the dumping were at fault. In any other field, material which "cannot be accounted for" can be described as lost. Given that large quantities of radioactive material are dangerous in themselves, and also an obvious target for would-be nuclear terrorists, one would have thought an efficient nuclear industry would have been able to account for all the material it had used and produced in this country. JAMES BOYLE Eastwoodmains Road Clarkston, Glasgow ***************************************************************** 12 BNFL is fined for radioactive material in worker's drawer Independent News 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. By Michael Harrison, Business Editor 06 April 2001 British Nuclear Fuels has been fined £12,000 after pleading guilty to breaches of health and safety regulations. The operator of the Sellafield reprocessing works in Cumbria was also ordered to pay £10,000 costs. Whitehaven magistrates' court heard how the company failed to register radioactive sources used to test alarm systems. Some of the sources contained plutonium and, in one case, a radioactive source was found in the office drawer of a former employee. The prosecution came after an investigation by the Environment Agency. Nick Webb, representing the agency, told the court: "Clearly any loss of control of such substances does have a potential for significant impact on human health and the environment." The prosecution was brought after BNFL admitted failing to register mobile radioactive sources at Sellafield and the Drigg low-level radioactive waste disposal site between January 1997 and last December. The company also failed to register the storage and use of radioactive material at Ramsden Dock in Barrow-in-Furness. The court was told that this was BNFL's 10th conviction in 10 years for environmental offences. Andrew Carr, representing BNFL, said: "It is a bitter blow to be back in court." He added that the company acknowledged it had failed to meet its own high standards. The company was at the centre of a scandal 18 months ago after *The Independent* revealed that workers at Sellafield had falsified safety records on shipments of mixed oxide fuel (Mox) bound for Japan. The scandal cost BNFL's chief executive John Taylor his job and forced the Government to cancel the privatisation of the company. Last week, BNFL suffered a fresh setback after the Government ordered a fourth public consultation into plans to open the £460m Mox facility at Sellafield for commercial operations. Also from the Environment section Greens to fight US rejection of Kyoto treaty Bush intends to suspend law that protects endangered species BP accused of environmental vandalism in Alaska refuge Scientists investigate 'contamination' of oilseed rape crops by GM material Greenpeace's targets ***************************************************************** 13 Germany to Ship Atomic Waste to France Next Week Story Filed: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:04 PM EST BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany plans to send nuclear waste to France next week for the first time since Berlin banned the return of its reprocessed waste from France three years ago after massive protests, a French official said on Friday. Yves Gauthier, spokesman for the French nuclear reprocessing firm Cogema, told Reuters the reprocessing plant at La Hague expected a German shipment of waste to arrive on Wednesday. Anti-nuclear activists clashed with police last week when Germany took back the first cargo of reprocessed waste from France since Berlin banned the shipments in 1998 over concerns about radioactive leaks and huge anti-nuclear protests. France agreed in January to take more material from Germany's nuclear power plants for reprocessing if Germany accepted back waste already reprocessed in La Hague for long-term storage. German nuclear energy sources confirmed a report by the environmental group Greenpeace that some 30 tons of waste would be shipped on Monday or Tuesday from three power stations in southwest Germany to the La Hague reprocessing plant. The sources said the transport was due to begin on Tuesday, although German police said a week-long train strike in France could delay the shipment. German officials declined to give timings of the shipments for fear of attracting demonstrators. Greenpeace spokesman Veit Buerger said last week's transport to the Gorleben storage plant in northern Germany, which activists delayed for a day by chaining themselves to rail tracks, had opened the floodgates for shipments to France. ``The government is treating France as the atom toilet of Germany,'' he said, adding that Greenpeace planned peaceful protests against the transports next week. Another anti-nuclear group plans a demonstration on Sunday at the Philippsburg nuclear power plant in southern Germany from where some of the waste is due to come. Buerger said the government planned 40 more waste shipments to La Hague this year. The deployment of some 15,000 police officers last week to guard the first transport to La Hague since 1997 cost the state around $50 million. Greenpeace would not give any details about its planned protests, but many activists say they hope that by driving up the cost of policing such transports they will persuade the government to withdraw more quickly from nuclear energy. Meanwhile, the nuclear news agency NucNet reported on Friday that a German nuclear cargo company had applied for permission from authorities in the state of Lower Saxony to transport another cargo of waste back to Gorleben from La Hague. *Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 14 Fusion project sparks new hope of cheap, clean power BBC News | Sci/Tech | Sunday, November 23, 1997 Published at 01:31 GMT [image: [ If nuclear fusion researchers are correct, polluting scenes like this may become a thing of the past ]] If nuclear fusion researchers are correct, polluting scenes like this may become a thing of the past *A new type of nuclear fusion reactor holds out the possibility of unlimited, cheap, clean energy that does not involve the production of hazardous radioactive waste or the burning of fossil fuels, according to its designers. They hope to have the power plant working within a decade. The world is preparing for the Kyoto environment summit in December. Fusion, if it works, promises to solve many of the world's energy problems. *Toby Murcott* of BBC Science reports.* At present virtually all electricity generation consumes limited resources of coal, oil, gas and uranium, and produces noxious effluent such as smoke, carbon dioxide and radioactive waste. The emission of such gases may be causing global warming and will be on the agenda at the Kyoto summit to discuss ways of tackling climate change. Meanwhile, hopes of unlimited, pollution-free energy rest at the moment with nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun and all stars. But this has proved extremely difficult to harness. Current nuclear fusion reactors depend on the fusion of hydrogen isotopes, including radioactive tritium, but controlling the extreme conditions for this reaction to proceed is technologically very difficult. A commercial nuclear fusion reactor is still many years away. Now a group of physicists in the United States have proposed a fusion reactor that works on a different principle, does not produce radioactive waste and is based largely on establised technology. The starting point is the fuel, which, as Hendrik Monkhorst of the University of Florida, United States, explains, is very different to that in conventional nuclear reactors. "The ingredients are hydrogen and boron, a particular isotope of boron called boron 11. Boron 11 is very abundant in nature, hydrogen is very abundant as well. The hydrogen and boron will be put in accelerators and these accelerators will bring the hydrogen atoms - actually nuclei - to a very high velocity inside this cylindrically shaped device called the colliding beam fusion reactor." It is the accelerators in this reactor that are the key to the new idea. Fusion occurs when two atomic nuclei are squeezed together. They combine to form new nuclei, releasing energy in the process. But atomic nuclei repel each other and need to be smashed together at very high speed to overcome the repulsion. Conventional nuclear fusion reactors do this by heating the nuclei to very high temperatures. The new device uses particle accelerators. The hydrogen and boron nuclei are accelerated towards each other at very high speeds and when they collide, they fuse, producing fast moving helium nuclei. "When the fusion reaction has taken place you get out three helium nuclei and they scatter out of [leave] the reaction chamber into two devices at the end of this reaction chamber called direct energy converters," said Mr Monkhorst. "The virtue of that device is that you can turn the kinetic energy, that is the motional energy of the helium nuclei, directly into electricity. The final result is helium gas and a lot of electricity that you can pump into the electric net. The helium gas is just helium as we know it to fill party balloons." The system is relatively simple compared to current nuclear fusion reactors and calculations suggest that it could produce electricity more cheaply than fossil fuel powered generators. There are other advantages too. "Our reactor for say one hundred megawatts, which would be able to power a small sized city, would be about the size of three or four big city buses standing next to each other. The other advantages are that we have no radioactivity to speak of," said Mr Monkhorst. The colliding beam fusion reactor sounds too good to be true. It uses cheap, abundant, non-radioactive fuel and produces nothing but a harmless gas. A feasibility study is about to start and it could be in commercial service within 10 years. But will it work? Other nuclear physicists are happy that the science behind the design is correct, but are sceptical whether it can ever be commercially exploited to produce electricity. ***************************************************************** 15 Super laser advances fusion research BBC News | SCI/TECH | Friday, 6 April, 2001, 11:59 GMT 12:59 UK Super laser advances By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse Scientists have taken a step forward in their attempt to harness fusion energy, the power behind the Sun. One of the world's most powerful lasers, called the Omega, has imploded a super-cooled pellet of solid hydrogen as part of a research programme to find ways of compressing the element to a critical point where nuclear reactions will occur. The Omega is a testing platform for technologies to explore fusion at the United States National Ignition Facility (NIF) under construction at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. It will be completed in 2003. The super-cooled target tests are the latest in a series of experiments aimed at creating sustainable fusion, which could generate near-limitless power using water as fuel. Very hot, very small Nuclear fusion occurs when atoms are compressed so much that they fuse together and release vast amounts of nuclear energy. The National Ignition Facility will be completed in 2003 One way to do this is to heat gas to tens of millions of degrees and confine it in a magnetic cage. This approach is being investigated by several countries. Success is not expected for decades, if at all. Another approach is to crush hydrogen pellets by firing laser beams at them from all directions. To ignite fusion power, scientists have to pack the biggest punch they can in the smallest space possible. One of the limits to the process is the amount of material being fused. By chilling material to low temperatures, more can be squeezed by the laser. Just testing To find out how to do this, researchers at the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) filled a hollow plastic ball with solid hydrogen under immense pressure and chilled it to minus 250 deg C. The pellets are some of the smoothest, most perfectly round objects in the world. Each pellet must be almost perfect so that the energy from the laser is most efficiently used to start the implosion. The tiny pellet was mounted inside a target chamber. As the laser beam struck it, the pellet was stripped of its protective housing in a split-second and blasted with more energy than 100 times the peak power output of the entire US power grid. The lasers crush the pellet from 60 directions at once, vaporising the plastic shell and sending a shock wave into the frozen ice inside. The hydrogen atoms are superheated, causing them to undergo momentary fusion. Bigger target In less than a billionth of a second, the laser sends the temperature in the pellet from just a few degrees above absolute zero to nearly 27 million deg C, twice as hot as the core of the Sun. "So far we're just testing the system," said David Harding, senior scientist at LLE, "but we have fired on several frozen targets and the results are looking good." Eventually, the ultra-cold approach will be used at the NIF to create a fusion reaction that generates more power than it consumes. Keeping the pressure on long enough is the goal of the NIF, which will focus 192 laser beams on a frozen target and heat it to more than 50 million deg C. ***************************************************************** 16 The Oxford sunseekers BBC News | Sci/Tech | Wednesday, May 12, 1999 Published at 14:13 GMT 15:13 UK The Oxford sunseekers What is the future for Jet? By Richard Hollingham of BBC Science It looks like a giant metal doughnut and it promises a huge amount of jam - in this case, an almost limitless supply of energy. But it will not be tomorrow, and probably not for many years to come. Nonetheless, the scientists and engineers who run the fusion reactor at the Jet Research Institute near Oxford, UK, are confident this machine will lead them to a glorious prize. Richard Hollingham reports from the Jet Research Institute in Oxfordshire For 25 years they have been trying to harness the energy that powers the stars. In theory, it is very simple. Within the stainless steel doughnut, two types of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium - are forced together to release a fantastic amount of energy. In reality, however, it is far more complicated, largely because to make the reaction work, the gases need to be heated to a hundred million degrees Celsius. This is six times hotter than the centre of our Sun. As a result, the Jet reactor consumes more energy than it gives back. It cannot even power a light bulb. Economic question Scientists at the European-funded Jet project are trying new ways of achieving nuclear fusion. But the Director Professor Martin Keilhacker admits that even with a budget of £400m a year they have a long way to go before the process becomes a reality. [[ image: Magnetic fields hold the fusion reaction away from the walls]] Magnetic fields hold the fusion reaction away from the walls "So far we have developed the physics basis for a fusion reactor," he says. "Now the main problems are to develop the materials which can withstand the heat load and then the final question is whether such a reactor will be economical but I think there is a 50% chance that this will be the case. "I'm of the strong opinion that, because of the advantages of fusion, it is worthwhile to spend the amount of money that is presently being spent on fusion research. " Energy alternatives The Jet project has its roots in the oil crisis of the early 1970s. In 1973 alone, the world price of oil quadrupled forcing governments to look for alternative energy sources. [[ image: Fusion produces less radioactivity than fission]] Fusion produces less radioactivity than fission At the end of the 20th Century, the growing threat posed by climate change has made the search for a future free from fossil fuels evermore pressing. "I think the big question is global warming, I think that's really going to make an enormous difference to energy policy, " says Martin Grimshaw, an energy expert at Imperial College, London. "And if many scientists feel global warming is going to be extremely serious then the need for non-fossil forms of energy is going to increase enormously.' Although it is a nuclear reaction, fusion is a great deal safer than the more conventional nuclear fission used in power stations all over the world. Safer technology A fusion reactor can be shut down instantly, making a disaster like Chernobyl impossible. However, it still produces radiation so any maintenance has to be carried out by remote-controlled robots. Jet's Dr Alan Rolfe says special technology has been developed to do this. [[ image: Robots have been developed to work inside the reactor]] Robots have been developed to work inside the reactor "It's been designed specifically for our problems at Jet, where we need to be able to do work as if we're doing it manually and so this device may look a bit scary but it's got a lot of capability to replicate what a human can do." Walking around the site, the whole operation certainly appears extremely elaborate but a successful fusion process is looking more and more remote. Big science Latest estimates put the building of a commercial reactor more than fifty years away. And Malcolm Grimshaw says the long-term signs do not look good. "With the exception of Japan and maybe the European Union, the Americans are making it fairly clear that they're not going to fund big science like this. [[ image: Martin Keilhacker: Jet worth the investment]] Martin Keilhacker: Jet worth the investment "The other main centre of research has been Russia, but is out of money at the present'. The JET project is being re-structured later this year. There are already rumours that it could be shutdown unless adequate funding is found. Many see £400m a year as a big investment for a technology that may never actually work. Malcolm Grimshaw believes the fusion scientists will have to fight for their future. "Is it a more sensible use of resources to focus on renewables, which we know are improving, or nuclear fusion which its proponents say is 40 or 50 years into the future?" [[ image: When the nuclei come together, they release energy]] When the nuclei come together, they release energy ***************************************************************** 17 Possible radioactive contamination slows dismantling of power plant ContraCostaTimes.com *Published Friday, April 6, 2001 * ASSOCIATED PRESS SACRAMENTO --The transport of fuel from a Sacramento County nuclear power plant will be stalled for a few days because of possible contamination. The problem at Rancho Seco was discovered Wednesday after a storage canister was loaded with the fuel and under water. A damaged seal may have allowed radioactive water to contaminate the canister, officials said. The canister must be raised from the storage pool, checked for radioactivity and cleaned if necessary. The process could take four or five days. "The conservative thing to do was unload the fuel," said Jim Shetler, assistant general manager of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. "We didn't expect this, but it's a real minor issue. It's part of working your way through the process," Shetler said. The plant was closed more than 10 years ago after a vote by area residents. ***************************************************************** 18 Conservation groups rush to fight Bush [deseretnews.com] Friday, April 06, 2001 By Donna Kemp Spangler Deseret News staff writer When Texas Gov. George W. Bush marched into the White House, conservationists were suspicious about what the former oilman had in mind for the nation's environment. When he named Gale Norton, a former law partner of James Watt, as Secretary of Interior, that suspicion turned to alarm. And with a full-blown energy crisis now fueling consumer demands for more oil, gas and coal, environmentalists are now in a panic. "This has emerged suddenly as an enormous threat," said Heidi McIntosh, issues coordinator for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "It is a strategy to go after public lands that Americans want to see protected." Utah's public lands, some of them rich in coal, natural gas and oil, have already become a target of the nation's rush to find new energy sources. According to the Bureau of Land Management, more than 275 permits to drill on public lands in Utah have been granted over the last six months, a 50 percent increase over a year ago. Officials expect the number to surpass 500 by year's end. There is also a proposed expansion of the massive Intermountain Power Project near Delta, which would increase the demand for clean-burning, low-sulfur Utah coal. Gov. Mike Leavitt has also proposed building additional power plants to meet regional energy needs. All of that has Utah conservationists quietly plotting strategies to turn back a tide of development they believe will forever scar some of the most pristine landscapes in America. "We're going to draw a protective line on Utah's most scenic ecological jewels," McIntosh said. "We're going to use a toolbox of litigation and public education strategies." Utah conservationists are not only closing ranks among themselves, but with other environmental groups across the nation. Among the high-profile groups joining forces are the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Trust, to name a few. "It is a national priority," McIntosh said. It has also become a local concern. The energy crisis was the catalyst behind the creation of Utahns for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a coalition of individuals and organizations that promotes cleaner energy alternatives and conservation of existing energy resources. The group is critical of Leavitt's plan to build more power plants that pollute the air with fossil fuels. "This is akin to going to the well with a bucket full of holes," said chairwoman Sarah Wright. "An alternative would be to focus on plugging the holes, which would make our trips to the well much less wasteful, less frantic and reduce the number of trips," she said. "Let's plug the big holes in the bucket before we rush out and build more outmoded coal-fired power plants." The push by industry to develop more oil and gas, a move sanctioned by the White House, affects almost every Western state with public lands. Rick Moore of the Arizona group Grand Canyon Trust, said recent scientific studies have identified 360 billion tons of coal on the Colorado Plateau — a tempting target for the nation's energy companies. And with all the exploration going on for new sources of oil, gas and coal, "we'll wind up with a maze of roads from well head to well head," he said. President Bush and his staff proposed drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Vice President Dick Cheney has even proposed jump-starting the nation's nuclear power industry — a political taboo for the past two decades. And now the Bush administration is considering tapping into energy sources within national monuments, a proposal that could have ramifications in Utah. State Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, himself a former coal company executive, believes one monument that could be targeted for development is the 1.9 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah, where some of the nation's largest untapped coal reserves are. And he's hoping the energy crisis and the rush to build more power plants will also revive a flagging coal industry in Carbon and Emery counties, as well. "The outlook is good," he said. But environmentalists believe energy companies are riding a wave of public panic as a way to gain access to resources they have been denied in parks, monuments and wilderness areas across the country. Conservationists are suspicious about the entire energy crisis and how it mushroomed from an isolated California problem to a national crisis. "It appeared out of nowhere," said Marc Heileson with the Utah chapter of the Sierra Club. Conspiracy theories abound. Conservationists wonder who is getting rich off the energy crisis and whether it was manufactured to boost profits and expand production into areas otherwise off limits. McIntosh believes there will be so much opposition to drilling in the Alaska refuge that the industry's fall-back position will be to abandon the Alaska refuge in exchange for drilling on Western lands. Today, Bush began backing away from drilling in the Alaska refuge but said that he was prepared to exploit oil and gas resources elsewhere in the nation. "I think it could get a lot worse before it gets better," she said. "I don't think the American people will allow widespread destruction of public lands." *E-MAIL: donna@desnews.com* © 2001 Deseret News Publishing ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Labs May Get More Money Friday, April 6, 2001 Albuquerque Journal--> Michael Coleman--> By Michael Coleman *Journal Washington Bureau* WASHINGTON — The budget for maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile would get an $800 million boost under a proposal adopted by the Senate this week. The Senate amended its budget resolution Wednesday night, in part at the request of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., to increase overall defense spending by $8.5 billion over President Bush's request. The defense amendment also includes an extra $3.1 billion for the Defense Health Program, which provides health care for active military personnel, veterans and their dependents. The budget resolution is a broad blueprint for federal spending and does not guarantee spending levels for specific programs. Congressional appropriators will determine exact spending levels for defense and other programs later in the year. The budget amendment adopted Wednesday would boost funding for so-called nuclear stockpile stewardship from $5.3 billion in President Bush's proposed spending plan to $6.1 billion. Stockpile stewardship, conducted at Department of Energy weapons labs including Sandia and Los Alamos in New Mexico, is the science of ensuring that the U.S. nuclear weapons work. The program relies on computers in the absence of real nuclear testing, which hasn't been conducted in the United States in 10 years. In a floor speech Wednesday night, Domenici said the weapons maintenance program is an expensive, but worthwhile, investment. "This isn't something you get on the cheap," said Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "This is one of the most expensive science programs ever invented by man, to prove, without testing, that our nuclear weapons arsenal is safe. It is very important for America." President Bush, who has called for a reduction in the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War era, initially proposed cutting the $5 billion stockpile stewardship program by about $180 million next year. But at the urging of Domenici, the administration has agreed to an increase, although it remains unclear how much will eventually be appropriated to the program. Domenici said the extra money earmarked for the Defense Health program is needed because Congress has routinely failed to give the program enough money. Medical officials in each branch of the military have told Congress that medical care furloughs, pharmaceutical cutbacks and deferral of equipment maintenance are likely in the next few months because of budget shortages. The military also has deferred medical benefit upgrades that were supposed to have gone into effect in October, according to Domenici's office. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 2 Laboratory Network News for laboratory professionals From the ACS Meeting: New chemistry offers alternative plutonium storage process -->4/5/2001 Storage of the nation's excess actinide metals, including plutonium and uranium, present a myriad of problems from pollution concerns to proliferation risk. Solid-state chemists at the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, NM) have discovered a new reaction process that may prove to be a solution to some of the most serious storage problems. Kent Abney, of the Chemistry Division's Isotope and Nuclear Chemistry group, along with Anthony Lupinetti, a post-doc with a dual C-Division and Nuclear Materials Technology Division appointment, and Ed Garcia also from NMT Division, have been looking at methods of reacting actinide elements with stable elements. The team presented its findings this week at the 221st American Chemical Society national meeting in San Diego. The goal is the creation of uranium, thorium and plutonium compounds that are environmentally friendly and harder to use in weapons. Plutonium is chemically reactive with water vapor in the air. Plutonium metal powder can catch fire if it's not constantly bathed in an inert gas, such as argon. Plutonium metal can also be easily dissolved in water-a potential for environmental and safety problems in the absence of robust containment. Plutonium metal can be converted to an oxide, a more stable form but one that still possesses some of the same problems as the pure stuff-it's reactive with water and has a potential proliferation concern. Plutonium not earmarked for weapons work from seven separate sites across the DOE complex tops 38 metric tons, a sizeable surplus. Most of the material is housed at the Pantex plant outside Amarillo, Texas, and is planned to be used in existing nuclear reactors to generate electricity. To address plutonium's storage challenges, Abney and Lupinetti are looking at new ways to combine actinides with the element boron. It has long been known that plutonium and boron, a solid semi-metal or metalloid-meaning it is an intermediary element, sharing some of the properties of metals as well as non-metals-could be combined to create a very stable and insoluble compound, plutonium boride. However, until now this could only be done at extremely high temperatures, over 3,000 degrees centigrade, and the process was a grind-literally. In order to get the two elements to mix, something they don't do easily, they would have to be melted at very high temperature, cooled, then ground into a powder, then mixed and melted again. Sometimes this process would have to be done over and over to achieve proper mixing. Abney and Lupinetti have developed a reactive process that takes place at more easily attainable temperatures, between 400 and 800 degrees centigrade and doesn't involve the grind. "We're using reactive compounds to overcome the problems of working these very complex reactions that involve double-decomposition, or the double-breakdown of compounds into simpler compounds or elements," said Lupinetti. "By combining actinide metal halides, like uranium tetra- and tri-chlorides with molecular boron precursors like magnesium diboride or calcium hexaboride, we've been able to do reactions at much lower temperatures, in the 500-800 degrees centigrade range." The end result of a uranium tetra-chloride reaction with magnesium-diboride yields uranium boride mixed with a magnesium chloride. The latter is easily washed away, leaving behind the uranium-boride, a compound that is stable and insoluble. In addition, actinides mixed with boron, which readily absorbs neutrons, are not easily converted to their pure form, making them harder to use in weapons. The amounts of material used in the proof of principle research was small, in the 100 milligram range, with the reactions taking place in a small sealed quartz tube. The tube, under vacuum to remove all gasses and water vapor was heated in a small electric furnace over a period of one to five days with a three-day cool down. The resultant compounds were later analyzed through a comparison technique called X-ray-powder diffraction. "We're interested in synthesizing actinide materials that have well-known properties-and have an important impact on our storage problems-using new methods and new materials," said Abney. "With the goal of finding processes that are easier to do and with end results that provide the country with a better way to store our surplus nuclear materials." "It's a very young field," said Lupinetti. "We're still discovering what the rules are in combining these things-using the entire periodic chart and wide variations of temperature with unusual materials like high-temperature solvents, there are so many variables, we're all really learning this together, so it's very exciting science." The bulk of the work is done at the Laboratory's Technical Area 48 Radiochemistry Site, in an actinide lab called the "Alpha Wing." The lab contains both negative pressure and positive pressure glove boxes along with hooded workstations and analytical areas that are perfect for doing small-scale actinide work. Larger scale research is being conducted at the Laboratory's plutonium facility, TA-55. "The Alpha Wing provides the Laboratory with a unique capability in that it's available to not only staff members but undergraduate, graduate and post-doc students without security clearances," said Abney. "It's a great opportunity for our young up-and-coming chemists and engineers to get experience working with plutonium, uranium and other actinides. We feel like we're training the next generation of scientists." And the future looks bright. Abney and Lupinetti are exploring ways to use readily available compounds to get the actinide-boron reactive temperatures even lower using unique materials as solvents, like lithium chloride and potassium chloride, which melt at temperatures around 350 degrees centigrade when mixed in equal amounts. They believe they have solutions to other experimental problems as well and feel as though scale-up of these processes should not pose an insurmountable roadblock to full implementation, once the reactive systems are proven and refined. For more information, contact Kevin Roark of Los Alamos National Laboratory at 505-665-0582 (01-037) or camerahead@lanl.gov. *Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory* © 2000-2001, Vert Tech LLC. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Battle lines again forming over sick worker law Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:07 p.m. on Friday, April 6, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The fight continues to keep a compensation plan for sick nuclear workers in the Department of Labor. Members of the Coalition for a Healthy Environment said Thursday transferring the program to the Department of Justice would kill it. The coalition serves as a support and research group pertaining to the illnesses of workers at Department of Energy facilities and the citizens of Oak Ridge and the surrounding areas. "The Department of Justice has an institutional conflict of interest which makes its mission hostile to the mission of evaluating and paying claims to sick workers," a coalition press release stated. "[The agency's] mission is to litigate and limit liability on the part of the government. This is not compatible with processing medical claims with the presumption for some that 'it is as likely as not' that the workers' illnesses were caused by the workplace." Coalition members said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's quest to get the program transferred out of her department is a "betrayal of the government's commitments to help workers who are sick from working in DOE's nuclear facilities." Earlier this week, several House members introduced legislation ordering Chao to take on the program. The bill has gotten support from U.S. Reps. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District; John Duncan, R-2nd District; and Van Hilleary, R-4th District. Lawmakers also are working on legislation that would expand the program by giving extra money to workers who got sick while relatively young. However, in its press release, the coalition stated, "the existing law, while an important step forward, will only help a fraction of those who are ill, because it excludes coverage for exposure to heavy metals such as mercury and nickel and does not address diseases caused by exposure to toxic chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride." Harry Williams, president of Coalition for a Healthy Environment, told The Oak Ridger earlier that the group is working to expand the coverage of the compensation bill. An announcement on the group's plans is expected soon. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 4 Our View: Obstructions to sick worker law must be fought Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:20 p.m. on Friday, April 6, 2001 Less than three months into his presidency, George W. Bush's own party is trying to send him some signals. The president ought to be listening. Mr. Bush's reckless and irresponsible attempt to essentially gain a pocket veto over a hard-won sick workers' law would raise potentially serious obstacles in those Cold War workers' efforts to get what Congress deemed they are owed. This pocket veto comes in the form of the administration's insistence the new law be administered by the Justice Department rather than the Department of Labor, where other such worker entitlements are now handled. The move treats the sick workers' law more like a legal one-time settlement rather than the ongoing health care entitlement qualifying workers are due, and that Congress intended in passing the bill. The new law is especially important to Oak Ridge and other weapons-producing locales where evidence shows some workers may have been exposed to levels of radiation that created chronic illnesses. Now, we have said before that the government has every right to set qualifying standards stringent enough to assure that the costs of this program do not get out of hand while also assuring that medical ailments are fully documented. But that is a lot different from the current administration effort to move administration of the program to Justice. And that move strikes us as deliberately setting up obstacles. Our own Rep. Zach Wach has joined a handful of legislators, including other Republicans, in trying to correct the Bush Administration's wrongheaded move here. The bipartisan group makes the more convincing case for fairness, compassion and legislative prerogative. Mr. Bush should be listening. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 5 Anderson Co. wants courts clear of petty protest arrests April 6, 2001 By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer Anderson Co. wants courts clear of petty protest arrests OAK RIDGE -- The Anderson County attorney general is again asking police not to send nuclear protesters his way unless there's a serious violation of the law. "There is no sense playing into their hands by cooperating in civil disobedience to overcrowd our jails and the justice system," Jim Ramsey said in a letter this week to Oak Ridge Police Chief David Beams. Ramsey was referring to a protest planned this weekend at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge. The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance said peace activists from 15 states are expected to participate in the protest against nuclear weapons production. The group said the rally will conclude with nonviolent "civil resistance" to dramatize the "human cost" of weapons manufacturing. "It is expected that some demonstrators will risk arrest in the civil resistance action," the group said in a press statement. Ramsey last year dismissed cases against a number of protesters arrested on state charges for blocking the entrance to Y-12 on Bear Creek Road. He said the charges should have been handled by Oak Ridge City Court. "This office is prepared to prosecute felonies and serious misdemeanors such as assault arising out of these anticipated demonstrations, but we expect the city of Oak Ridge to use its City Court and municipal ordinances to prosecute minor infractions such as trespass or disturbing the peace." If the city ordinances are inadequate, then maybe the City Council should enact new ones, Ramsey suggested. "None of this should be coming as a surprise," he wrote to Beams. "It is not always necessary to prosecute just because a person has been lawfully detained." Oak Ridge Police Capt. Bill Moehl said if a city code violation is appropriate for the action, then police will use the city charges. However, if protesters violate state law and there is no applicable city ordinance, then police will arrest them and use the state charges, Moehl said. "We have certain obligations under the law," the officer said. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. ***************************************************************** 6 Opinion: More on worker exposure issue Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:50 p.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2001 To The Oak Ridger: I would like to share some material from the newsletter, Protecting Human Subjects, published by the Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The following segment entitled "ABCs of Workplace Health Research" is by Paul Brandt-Rauf of Columbia University: "It has been suggested that workers may be the 'miner's canary' for the rest of society. On an ordinary day in some workplaces, they may be exposed to potentially toxic substances. "Only when adverse reactions are noted does society initiate a formal investigation of the substance's toxicity. In this way, workers may appear to be 'experimental subjects' testing chemicals previously untried on humans. "This is analogous to biomedical research, but without the usual independent review that balances risks and benefits to the 'research subjects' and ensures informed and voluntary prior consent by the 'research subjects.' "Counter-arguments suggest that the economic structure of employment already addresses the risk/benefit and consent considerations. "Society compensates hazardous work with 'hazard pay,' directly increasing the benefits to those who assume the risk. Furthermore, to the extent that risks are known, right-to-know mechanisms provide the worker with the information necessary for an informed consent." However Brandt-Rauf goes on to say: "It seems doubtful that many workplace situations would satisfy the close scrutiny required of an Investigational Review Board (IRB). "Since our society has apparently decided that those fostering our biomedical progress as human research subjects deserve a high level of ethical scrutiny and protection, serious consideration should be given before denying this level of protection to those who foster our economic progress: the workers." I found this material interesting as I am a chemical engineer who has spent my entire career trying to find or create a challenging job that does not involve being exposed to chemicals or radiation (or doing things that I believe are unethical simply to earn a company more money). I concur with Brandt-Rauf's conclusion that treatment of workers deserves serious consideration. However, keep in mind it was not long ago when workers did not have the "right-to-know" and did not necessarily realize their high wages were "hazard pay." In fact, many workers still don't take advantage of this right (particularly at small, essentially unregulated companies) because of fear of retribution. Private industry and government have historically placed workers in harm's way without informed consent and with no obligation for follow-up to determine long-term health impacts from exposures to former workers. Therefore, it is practically impossible to hold these entities financially responsible when a former worker becomes ill and is unable to earn a living due to long-ago exposures. Is it not time for companies and governments to finally acknowledge that workers are not disposable and face the fact a responsible solution must be found to deal with long-term health monitoring and access to health care and other assistance for those made ill from working with toxins (or living with someone who does)? The problem of long-term health impacts of workplace and other exposures from the previous decades will continue to haunt this country for many decades to come. When are we going to bite the bullet and do something about these issues, which are everyone's problem -- not just those who are sick today. Any of us may be one of the sick tomorrow from some long-ago exposure that we did not understand or have control over. Susan Arnold Kaplan Solway Blue Route foe urges attendance To The Oak Ridger: As reported in The Oak Ridger March 29, 2001, the Tennessee Department of Transportation will soon be holding another round of hearings on the proposed I-475 bypass. I cannot stress enough how very important it is that the citizens of our area attend the hearings and voice their opposition to the Blue Route. The Oak Ridger covered the initial round of hearings in 1997, and did a wonderful job of keeping us informed of the controversies surrounding the issues. Well, the controversy is brewing again. We were opposed to the "original" Blue Route, and we are also opposed to the "revised-extended" plan taking it into Roane County, down Poplar Creek Road, continuing down Sugar Grove Valley Road, crossing Clinch River at Edwards Road, and heading into Loudon County. It is the longest, most expensive route under consideration, off-loading the least amount of traffic, and it appears that TDOT is leaning heavily toward it as their choice of record due to very vocal opposition shown by citizens and politicians in the Orange Route (Hardin Valley) and Green Route (Pellissippi Parkway) areas. We, too, must be just as strong in our convictions, and just as vocal in our opposition. Bill Moore, TDOT assistant commissioner, stated some time ago that the Orange Route is the "better option, but because of the opposition from the Hardin Valley folks, we're trying to look at some alternatives that are more acceptable." More acceptable to whom? Certainly not to us. Selection of the Blue Route will necessitate an increase in city and county taxes. We will be faced with increased air, noise and traffic pollution. We will see property values deteriorate. We will experience loss or destruction of historical landmarks. Also, we cannot forget that we live with all the environmental issues related to K-25: pollutants in our waters, nuclear waste cleanup, toxic chemicals transported in and out of the plant, and emissions from the DOE toxic waste incinerator and other area smokestacks. It's time for each of us to get involved! I urge the elected officials of Anderson, Roane and Loudon counties to just say no to another assault on our communities. I ask all citizens to contact their local and state officials, and TDOT Commissioner Saltsman to voice their opposition. And, I appeal to everyone to watch this newspaper for posting of the TDOT hearings, and pack the hearing halls to maximum capacity. To learn more about the impact of the Blue Route on our area, and for easy access to addresses for all local, state and TDOT officials, visit the Citizens Against the Blue Route Web site (www.lightgate.com/blueroute/). Also, plan to attend a community awareness meeting sponsored by the Citizens Against the Blue Route on June 14, 6 to 8 p.m., at the Kingston Community Center. On the agenda will be speakers to address issues such as the environmental impacts of the Blue Route to our area, and the impact to our fire and police agencies. Also, key political figures such as Ken Yager, Roane County executive, Rep. Dennis Ferguson, Sen. Lincoln Davis and others will be in attendance to express their views and hear your comments. Watch the Web site for updates. Jo Anne Miller Harriman All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 7 Bill would order Chao to handle ill workers Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:01 p.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2001 by Katherine Rizzo The Associated Press WASHINGTON -- A dispute over how to distribute benefits to sick nuclear workers escalated Wednesday when House members, including three from Tennessee, introduced legislation ordering Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to take on the task. "We must stay on track for the sake of the workers who have already become ill while serving our country," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. He sponsored the bill with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from states with weapons plants or beryllium factories. "We can't afford delay," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It won't do a sick worker any good to have benefits come after they're dead." The lawmakers also are working on legislation that would expand the program by giving extra money to workers who got sick while relatively young. Legislation offering full compensation for lost wages is expected to be ready in a few weeks. Meantime, the bipartisan group said it wanted to focus on a jurisdictional decision facing the White House. Chao asked that the program be placed in the Justice Department, which advocates for the workers say is not equipped to promptly handle compensation claims. "We will not let the (Labor Department) shirk its responsibility to these sick workers," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, who like Whitfield has a uranium processing plant in his district. He was a co-sponsor of the bill, along with Wamp; Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.; Jim Gibbons, R-Nev.; Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; John Duncan and Van Hilleary, both R-Tenn.; and Mark Udall, D-Colo. Chao says compensation -- $150,000 plus lifetime medical benefits to workers whose health was ruined by Cold War-era exposure to radiation, silica or beryllium -- would move more quickly if the Justice Department processes the claims. She says that department has expertise with radiation exposure victims, because it runs a program that gives one-time payments to people who lived downwind of nuclear test blasts and to uranium miners who dug ore without radiation protection. In the weeks since Chao's request became known, the White House has been bombarded with phone calls and letters from Capitol Hill. Some legislative heavyweights back Chao, but a larger number of lawmakers have pressed to put the new program in the Labor Department. The White House said it would have no comment Wednesday. Backing Chao are the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, and the chairman of the House committee that oversees the Labor Department. In the other camp are the chairmen of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate committee that oversees the Energy Department, which is in charge of the nuclear weapons complex. Those lawmakers say they want to avoid delays and want their constituents to be able to take advantage of the Labor Department's appeals process for unsuccessful claims. The Labor Department already handles claims from federal workers with injuries or occupational illnesses, including chronic beryllium disease. The department said it gets more than 160,000 worker compensation claims each year, and processes 92 percent of them within 90 days. The Justice Department said its staff takes an average of 193 days to process the requests of the "downwinders" and 274 days to process benefit requests from uranium miners, though some miners have said they waited years for verdicts on their claims. The government is supposed to be ready July 31 to begin taking applications for the new benefit program. It is for workers who contracted cancer or lung disease because of exposure while on the payrolls of private companies that did work for the bomb program. Some worked on federal property, others at factories that had government contracts. The Energy Department preliminarily identified 317 sites in 37 states where exposed workers might qualify for benefits. Justice Department program's claims summary: http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/awards.htm Whitfield: http://www.house.gov/whitfield All Contents.©Copyright *The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 8 DOE WASTE BOONDOGGLE Max Schulz Normal Max Schulz 3 11 2001-03-23T16:03:00Z 2001-03-23T16:14:00Z 1 472 2694 CEI 22 5 3308 9.4119 The federal government spends around $6 billion each year on a program to clean up and contain the remaining hazards at Department of Energy (DOE) sites that were used for developing and building nuclear weapons during World War II and its Cold War aftermath. Most analysts agree that much of the money spent for this purpose in the 1990s was wasted; the program made minimal progress in cleaning up the sites. Nonetheless, members of Congress competed to spend as much of the money as possible to create jobs and boost their local economies. The DOE nuclear-waste-management program is arguably the biggest boondoggle in all of current pork-barrel spending.   The management of former nuclear-weapons-production sites is hindered by a complex and confusing set of federal and state laws. The laws seem to mandate restoring much of the area of nuclear-production complexes to allow residential and other ordinary forms of land use in the future. In some cases, this goal is infeasible or exorbitantly costly given current technology. In other cases, it is undesirable as a matter of sound public policy. Because of public safety and national-security concerns, the federal government has tightly restricted access to nuclear-weapons sites for 50 years. As a result, these sites—some of which are quite large—are unique in the United States in their isolation from ordinary impacts of human activity. Some of the flora and fauna found at them is rarely found elsewhere, including many species listed as endangered or threatened under federal and state laws. The current government attempts to clean up these areas overlook the environmental value of their rare ecologies. Indeed, under current policy, the federal government could spend many billions of dollars in an effort to rehabilitate some parts of the sites in order to allow for uses that would destroy valuable species habitat. The federal government should abandon the current nuclear-cleanup program as economically wasteful and environmentally counterproductive. It is time for a new form of stewardship strategy, emphasizing those steps necessary to protect public health from any actual threats posed by radioactive waste, while at the same time setting as a policy priority the isolation and conservation of DOE sites for their rich ecological diversity. Such a “waste-to-wilderness” strategy would give DOE a new flexibility to contain risks at existing sites at lower costs. It could save federal taxpayers many billions of dollars—perhaps as much as $1 billion to $3 billion per year. It would conserve some of America’s most wild lands without requiring new federal measures to “lock up” additional multiple-use land elsewhere. Taxpayer advocates and environmental organizations can find common ground in the use of old nuclear-weapons sites to protect wild and rare ecologies. The only losers would be government officials who administer the present cleanup program, short-sighted politicians, and local communities that desire pork-barrel “nuclear welfare.” ©3/20/01 Competitive Enterprise Institute ***************************************************************** 9 Irresponsible weapons - Depleted uranium arms very harmful MichiganDaily.com :: War is hell, and in this particular hell the goal is to kill the enemy. However in modern warfare every effort should be taken to minimize “collateral damage.” A specific case of this is before the United States military establishment right now. Since the Gulf War the U.S. military has employed depleted Uranium munitions. At first glance these appear to be “superior” armaments. Cheap and effective, their density and self-sharpening properties make them appear to be the “perfect” weapon. However depleted uranium strikes the enemy not once, but twice. Uranium, like most heavy metals, is terribly toxic. The military’s zealous overkills in Iraq, the Balkans, and even Puerto Rico have been littered with highly toxic depleted uranium. An informational presentation will be taking place today in room 1040 of the Dana Building at 7:30 p.m. While many of the alleged dangers of depleted uranium remain in contention, education is always helpful. While the radiological dangers of depleted uranium are less than natural uranium they still remain a concern, and may possibly be linked to Gulf War Syndrome. Depleted uranium remains as toxic as mercury, yet the U.S. military has relentlessly shelled the hills of Kosovo and the countryside of Iraq with this substance. As much as a two-thirds increase in the cancer rate among Iraqis may be due to the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War. Even if, as the Defense Department claims, depleted uranium offers insignificant radiological threat its chemical toxicity remains. While uranium evokes fears of radiation depleted uranium is more dangerous in terms of chemical toxicity. The potential nuclear threat of depleted uranium is dwarfed by the chemical threat. But a chemical analysis of depleted uranium turns up a shocking reality. If depleted uranium were administered to an individual with a teaspoon, its chemical toxicity would kill more people than it could as a low grade nuclear bomb. The dangers inherent to depleted uranium: Kidney damage, liver failure, etc. are significant enough to civilian populations that this hazardous material should be restricted if not outright banned. As the U.S. enjoys a military superiority of immense magnitude these munitions are not necessary and serve only as cost effective tank killers. The toll they take in human life clearly warrants both more research into the long-term effects of depleted uranium exposure and a moratorium on their use and manufacture. Rather than risk the lives of civilian children, military service personal and unknown environmental problems the Defense Department should take responsibility and take measures to avoid the “collateral damage” inherent to depleted uranium. Story was published on 04/05/2001 Copyright © 2001 The Michigan Daily ***************************************************************** 10 Tests of nuclear-capable submersibles may have been intelligence target WorldNetDaily: Were new Chinese subs CHINA HOSTAGE CRISIS: DAY 6 Were new Chinese subs EP-3E's mission? By Jon Dougherty © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com Ongoing sea trials of new Chinese nuclear submarines capable of launching nuclear missiles "all over Europe, Asia and the United States" could have been a major reason why a National Security Agency-sponsored Navy EP-3E surveillance flight was in the area of Hainan Island last weekend, sources tell WorldNetDaily. The new submarines -- the culmination of years of development by the People's Liberation Army Navy -- are also capable of launching cruise missiles while submerged, which, analysts say, pose a distinct threat to U.S. warships and especially aircraft carriers. Corroborating this assessment is a Pravda report stating that "American military expert Brian Bender thinks that EP-3E was not spying upon Chinese ships. It was searching for Chinese submarines." Al Santoli, a national security adviser to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.,said the Chinese navy's first of a planned six Type 094 submarines was launched late last fall. China's sole Xia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine has led to the development of the newer Type 094 class. He said the launching of the 094-type has shaved two to three years off the originally scheduled year of 2005 set by the Chinese navy for its planned deployment of the new generation strategic submarine. The new model is preparing a test run before being commissioned. According to Santoli, the submarine is capable of simultaneously launching 576 nuclear warheads all over Europe, Asia, Australia and the United States. The submarine's Julang-2 or Dongfeng 31-type missiles, armed with three to six independently targeted multiple warheads, have a range of more than 5,000 miles. Santoli and his boss, Rohrabacher, have made many trips to the region over the past few years and have witnessed firsthand developments of China's emerging capabilities. Regarding the EP-3E's mission last week, Santoli said he believed it was "a routine mission," because "we have flights constantly monitoring" the area. "That's essentially what the NSA flights do," he said. However, he said China has been conducting "continuous" naval exercises in the same region "since last summer, and the exercises are significant because [they involve] the integration of new technologies" acquired from -- among others -- the United States and Russia. Santoli said one of the systems being tested "is their new C4I [command-and-control] system, and their ability to encrypt their military communications." That ability, he said, "comes from us." "I would think that's far more significant than their integration of new ships, such as the [Russian-built] Sovremenny, or ships that they're building themselves," Santoli said. "Some of those have the capability of launching nuclear-capable warheads, like the SS-N-22 'Sunburn' missile." "What, to me, is far more dangerous is their integration of U.S. telecommunications and encryption equipment," he said, "so that we can't break their codes. In terms of elements of surprise attack, in terms of having a better understanding of the direction they're going," the gear gives China the ability to mask its intentions. "The ongoing military exercises" -- besides being performed to test equipment -- "are being done for deception purposes also," he said. "For instance, at some point, if they decide they want to make an attack on one of the Spratly Islands … when you have ongoing exercises, they can turn it into the real thing at any time, and if we can't intercept their messages, we will have no advance warning." "This is critical," he added. Yesterday, Stratfor.com, an economic and military forecasting firmbased in Texas, also said the U.S. Navy plane could have been in the area to monitor the Chinese submarines. "There are two vessels at issue," said the Stratfor analysis. "The [Chinese have] placed a new version of the Russian-designed Kilo-class submarine into service April 4, 2000," according to a brief Hong Kong newspaper report cited by the intelligence firm. "The new Kilo is equipped with anti-ship weapons and has conducted recent drills simulating combat with carrier-type ships," the report said, quoting the Sing Tao Jih Pao newspaper, which -- in turn -- cited Chinese army sources. "It takes up to a year to qualify a new vessel and crew for duty at sea." Russian-built 636 Kilo-class sub of the type exported to China. "But the Chinese navy may have made a more significant breakthrough," Stratfor.com said. "It has been working for years on a variant of the larger, more powerful [Russian-designed and built] Victor III submarine. This submarine … [was] due for completion sometime in late 2000, [and] was designed to launch cruise missiles while submerged. "That would allow the Chinese to threaten the pre-eminent American weapons system in the region: The aircraft carrier," the report said. Sources told WorldNetDaily the subs can also be used to mine harbors and inlets around Taiwan, as well as interdict sea lanes that bring oil, supplies and goods to northeast Asia. Also, reports said a U.S. Navy vessel was chased out of a Yellow Sea exercise area inhabited by Chinese naval vessels earlier this year. Experts said one or more of the new submarines could have been operating there as well. Analysts -- some who wished to remain anonymous -- told WND that China's seemingly belligerent reaction to the U.S. Navy plane could be tied to protecting its newest naval assets. Santoli said China operates a pair of submarine flotillas in the South Sea Fleet; one naval base that supports this fleet is the northern port of Haikou, on the island of Hainan -- where the 24 U.S. crew members made an emergency landing after "bumping" a Chinese fighter last weekend and where they are still being held. "I look at the way they've reacted after this incident," Santoli said. "The actual incident could have been an accident, but the way they've been responding afterwards appears as though China is sending the entire region a message: 'If the United States is helpless against us, you better not even think about resisting us.'" The Stratfor.com analysis said it appeared as though "the new Kilos not only have entered service but also may have been certified to take part in deep-water operations, ostensibly against American carriers in case of war." Last year, the Defense Department, in a report, said China's Kilo subs were to be adapted to use Russia "quieting technology" and sonar, as well as weapons systems. The Pentagon estimated that China "is expected to begin arming some of its submarines with submerged launch cruise missiles." "As a result," the Pentagon study said, "China's submarine fleet could constitute a substantial force capable of controlling sea lanes" in and around China, Taiwan, the Spratly Islands and other areas of interest to Beijing. Santoli said Chinese weapons were progressing in capability much faster than many Western analysts believe because Chinese technicians -- "many trained by us here in the U.S., at some of our finest schools" -- are very capable. The national security expert also said an internal power struggle against "two, maybe three factions," within China was also bound to shape the country's future and its dealings with the U.S. U.S. military officials were warning of China's emerging submarine threat as early as 1997. During an April 8, 1997 hearing before the Senate Armed Service Committee's seapower subcommittee, Rear Adm. Michael W. Cramer, director of naval intelligence, said China's new subs, "designated the Type 094, will be fitted with new ballistic missiles currently under development, the JL-2 with a range of over 4,000 nautical miles -- making it China's first truly intercontinental strategic nuclear delivery system." Cramer also told the Senate panel that the upgraded Kilos purchased by China from Russia were "among the quietest in the world." Santoli said China had increased the number of deployed submarines around Asia the past few years "as they have increased the number of submarines acquired." He also said China's indigenous sub-building programs were in full swing. "We should not underestimate the technological capabilities of the Chinese," he said. Russian Amur-class diesel-electric submarine, reportedly several times quieter than current Kilo-class subs. Russian navy sources said one of two fourth-generation Amur-class diesel-electric submarines -- laid down in 1998 -- was intended "for export," while the other will go to the Russian Navy. Officials did not say which country was importing the sub, but Russia and China have signed a number of strategic partnership agreements, and Beijing purchases several weapons systems from Moscow. Published information claims that the Amur-class subs are "several times quieter than Kilo-class submarines." *Jon E. Doughertyis a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."* © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 BARC to step up research in S 6 April 2001 : The Times of India MUMBAI: The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) will accelerate research in the fields of nuclear science and technology related to energy, food and healthcare, according to its newly- appointed director Bisweswar Bhattacharjee. Mr Bhattacharjee, who had been silently pursuing a leading role in the country's national security programmes on special materials for more than three decades, has decided to speed up research and technology for utilisation of thorium for power generation involving development of Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) systems and also Accelerator Driven Sub-critcal System (ADSS), work on which was recently initiated at BARC. Talking to newspersons on Wednesday, Mr Bhattracharjee said, ``BARC will accelerate both power and non-power R to make them more visible to the people of the country so that the mind set of the people about nuclear energy can be changed. ``India has to take a leadership role in introducing thorium utilisation technologies in a big way since we have limited uranium resources,'' he said, adding ADSS will enhance the production of uranium-233 which is also produced by irradiation of thorium in the blanket of fast breeder reactors. Although ADSS is going to be a technological challenge, it is essential for providing much needed energy security for the country, he said adding that ADSS can also be used for burning up of long lived actinides, thus simplifying the nuclear waste management. (PTI) ***************************************************************** 12 Oversight debate persists over nuclear worker payments [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, April 06, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada lawmakers back bill giving job to Labor Department By STEVE TETREAULT DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- President Bush is facing growing pressure to assign the Labor Department the job of compensating workers who were exposed to radiation and poisons while building the government's Cold War nuclear arsenal. This week, seven House members introduced a bill that would force Bush to give the job to Labor, despite protests from department Secretary Elaine Chao that she won't be able set up a compensation program in time. Reps. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., and Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., are among the sponsors. The lawmakers also are pressing Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking him in a letter to make clear his views. Sources said Ashcroft has written the White House saying he doesn't want the compensation program either, but a copy has not surfaced and Justice has not commented. The White House is expected to rule soon on who will be responsible for processing claims from thousands of people once employed at weapons-making factories, assembly plants and test facilities, including the Nevada Test Site. A draft executive order favors the Justice Department, prompting opponents to step up their activity. The issue is a tangle among bureaucracies, but there are human faces not far from the fight, officials said. They belong to victims suffering from cancers and lung diseases who waited decades for acknowledgement that their service to the United States got them sick and who are hoping for financial assistance. A bill passed last year by Congress would grant eligible workers $150,000 and medical benefits. Families of people who already have died of work-related illnesses also would get compensation. Between 4,000 and 6,000 people may qualify, including possibly several hundred who developed the lung disease silicosis from working at the test site. Former test site workers also are being examined for other ailments, such as toxic beryllium disease. But the work needed to establish a major compensation program may get delayed as officials struggle to get it started. It has been planned for checks to begin being issued July 1. At a news conference this week, Berkley told of attending a Las Vegas meeting with former test site workers. "Every single person in that room stood up and they had maladies and ailments I had never heard of before," she said. Supporters of assigning the program to Labor say the department has regional offices and a staff of more than 900 that for decades has handled workers' compensation claims by federal employees, longshoremen and victims of black lung disease. Gibbons said Congress gave Labor $60 million last year to get started. "The Department of Labor has administered federal workers' compensation programs for up to 90 years," he said. "It has the staff and infrastructure already in place to handle thousands of claims, possibly as many as 25,000 workers." David Michaels, a former Energy Department assistant secretary who helped write the compensation bill last year, said the Clinton administration and most lawmakers intended for compensation to be distributed by Labor. But Labor Secretary Chao said professional staffers have told her the department would have to start from scratch. Interviewed on television by talk show host John McLaughlin, Chao said reconstructing radiation exposures would be difficult. "Someone would basically have to go back decades and try to reconstruct how this exposure came about, when did it come about, how much was the worker exposed," she said. On the other hand, Chao said, the Justice Department already runs compensation for "downwinder" radiation victims and uranium miners. But critics say those programs involve single payments, not ongoing compensation, and that Justice doesn't have the staff to handle the anticipated wave of claims. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-06-Fri-2001/news/15813962.html ***************************************************************** 13 Lab experts to speak at nuclear conference *April 05, 2001* FROM STAFF REPORTS Nuclear weapons experts from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are scheduled to speak Monday, April 9, in Washington, D.C., during a conference on nuclear power and the spread of nuclear weapons. Zachary Davis, a nuclear analyst at Livermore Lab, and James Hassberger, a lab senior nuclear scientist, are scheduled to give presentations at the conference, sponsored by a research institute that promotes nuclear nonproliferation. Since its creation in 1981, the Nuclear Control Institute has worked to stop commerce in plutonium and weapons-grade uranium. Hassberger will speak about the possible technical fixes for building nuclear power plants that cannot be used to assist nuclear bomb-making efforts. And Davis will discuss the role that civilian nuclear power played in India's nuclear weapons program. He will also discuss whether non-proliferation efforts can prevent the use of civilian radioactive materials in weapons. Richard Rhodes, author of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," and former U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary are also featured speakers. For more information about the conference, visit www.nci.org. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 14 Alarm forces evacuation at Hanford's PFP This story was published Thu, Apr 5, 2001 By The Associated Press An alarm indicating a possible radiation release forced the evacuation of more than 400 workers from the Plutonium Finishing Plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation on Thursday. All of the workers had been screened less than two hours after the incident, and none showed any evidence of contamination, said Erik Olds, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy. "At this time, there is no evidence that a criticality has occurred," he said. But until crews can get inside the building and survey it, "we can't conclusively say it was a false alarm. We have to treat this like an emergency," Olds said. Surveys conducted along the perimeter of the building, in the 200 West Area in the center of the 560-square-mile reservation, showed no indication of a radioactive release, he said. The alarm may have been triggered by an interruption of power to a radiation detector in the building, or a conduit to the monitor may have been disturbed, setting off the alarm at about 2:45 p.m., he said. The building was placed in a lockdown state, and all 400-plus workers were evacuated to 50 predetermined sites for speedy evaluation, Olds said. Nothing out of the ordinary was being done at the PFP when the alarm sounded, he said. Workers there have been working to stabilize and convert to safer forms more than four tons of plutonium for storage and disposal. Under certain conditions, plutonium pieces arranged in a certain way can "go critical" - shooting out bursts of radiation that could be fatal from several feet away. From 1949 to 1990, the Plutonium Finishing Plant took plutonium nitrate liquids from other Hanford chemical processing plants and converted those solutions into hand-size plutonium buttons. The buttons were shipped to other DOE sites to be fashioned into atomic bomb components. Hanford was established in 1943 as part of the top secret Manhattan Project to build an atomic bomb during World War II. Plutonium created at Hanford was used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. The PFP was revamped for the stabilization work. In May 1997, 35 gallons of hydroxylamine nitrate and nitric acid in a vat exploded at the PFP. The chemicals had been mixed in a water-diluted solution for a training exercise four years earlier, and 200 gallons were left in a tank. The water eventually evaporated and the originally safe solution became volatile. The explosion blew the top off the tank. It broke a pipe and caused water to flood downstairs, flushing tiny amounts of plutonium residue outside. Fumes were spewed outdoors and were inhaled by at least nine workers. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 False alarm evacuates PFP Tri-City Herald Online exclusive: Sign This story was published 4/6/2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer A false criticality alarm caused Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant to be evacuated Thursday afternoon. About 400 workers left the PFP complex at 2:45 p.m., staying out until technicians finished determining at 6:20 p.m. that no criticality had occurred, said Erik Olds, a Department of Energy spokesman. Evening shift PFP workers returned to the west-central Hanford complex. All of the evacuated workers were checked for radioactivity, and no one was contaminated, Olds said. Technicians found no increased radiation inside the PFP complex after it was evacuated. A criticality is an uncontrolled nuclear reaction that shoots bursts of potentially fatal radiation. It occurs when the right radioactive substances in the right masses and shapes come close enough to each other under the right conditions. The PFP's mission is to convert 4.4 tons of plutonium mixed within 19.6 tons of scrap into safer forms. Criticality safety is a major fact of life at the PFP, where plutonium chunks and powders are routinely moved about. A criticality alarm went off near where workers were installing some plutonium-packaging equipment. No plutonium nor other radioactive materials were in the vicinity of the alarm at that time, Olds said. DOE had not figured out what tripped the alarm Thursday night. A criticality alarm screams out a distinct "aawooogah," which tells workers to immediately run through the nearest exits to assemble at preordained rendezvous points. Some employees were working with plutonium, wearing protective clothing and had to rush out wearing those clothes. Consequently, doorways and pathways will have to be checked thoroughly for radioactive specks that might have been tracked out, Olds said. Hanford's history records two criticality accidents. The first took place in 1951 during an experiment on plutonium solutions in an underground concrete test chamber in the sagebrush near the old White Bluffs town site. No one was radiated. The second criticality accident occurred in 1962 when some overflowing plutonium liquid dribbled into some other radioactive fluids, triggering a blue flash that exposed four workers -- three above Hanford's annual radiation absorption limit of 5 rems. Problems with criticality safety practices caused the PFP to stop all movement of plutonium in 1997 and 1998, so procedures and training could be overhauled. The PFP's last full evacuation occurred in 1997 when a chemical tank exploded, exposing 10 workers to fumes. Hanford's last major evacuation took place in January 1998 when a small vial of possibly explosive picric acid was found in the 327 Building. That led to the evacuation of the entire 300 Area. Back to top stories Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************** 16 Fluor switches plans to remove spent fuel from K Basins This story was published Fri, Apr 6, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer Hanford officials are switching to Plan B to remove highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel from the K Basins, believing it has a better chance of meeting the project's legal deadlines. The key component is moving all of the K East Basin's fuel to an upgraded K West Basin fuel handling operation. "The key in the next six to seven months will be how things come together," said Mike Schlender, the Department of Energy's deputy manager for site transition at Hanford. Last week, DOE approved Fluor Hanford's plan on how to pick up the pace of moving fuel out of the basins. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the lead regulator on the K Basins, also has approved switching plans, although it is skeptical about the chances of meeting legal deadlines. The K Basins are two indoor, leak-prone, water-filled pools near the Columbia River that hold 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Starting with the K West Basin, Hanford is putting the fuel into special canisters, which are then pulled from the pool and sucked dry of all moisture. The canisters, which each hold about 5.5 tons of fuel, are then moved to a huge underground vault in central Hanford. The first canister was shipped in December. Fluor is now working on its seventh canister. The K Basins project has had two legal deadlines under the Tri-Party Agreement, which governs Hanford's cleanup. The K West Basin's 1,210 tons of enclosed intact fuel are to be moved by Dec. 30, 2002. But the deadline to move the 1,090 tons of fuel in the K East Basin -- most of which is in open-ended containers with corroded and broken fuel -- is July 2004. Fluor and DOE came up with the new plan because of the slow pace of moving canisters out of K West. The work has been slow because workers are just learning the processes, according to Fluor and DOE. "This is a one-of-of kind (operation). The worst thing you can do is rush at the beginning," said Bob Heck, Fluor's vice president in charge of the K Basins. Fluor and DOE expect to move 24 canisters -- roughly 132 tons over 10 months -- by Sept. 30. That pace is supposed to increase dramatically in October. But the concerns over pace of work led Fluor to develop the recently approved second plan. The plan's main plank is not to build the same elaborate canister-loading system in the K East Basin that exists in K West and moving K East fuel to the other basin for loading. Fluor also plans to add a second work shift in a couple weeks, and increase to three shifts in early 2002. Savings at the K East Basin are to be spent upgrading the K West Basin, supposedly keeping the project's $187 million budget stable in 2001 and 2002, Heck and Schlender said. The actual 2002 budget request won't be known until Monday, when DOE in Washington, D.C., reveals Hanford's cleanup budget. Doug Sherwood, EPA's Hanford site manager, said although he has qualms whether Fluor will be able to speed up fuel movement sufficiently this fall, the new plan has a better chance of meeting deadlines. Heck said Fluor aims to begin moving fuel from the K East Basin by Nov. 30, 2002. A month later, Fluor is to have removed the equivalent of what's now in the K West pool from K West. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 17 Senate supports Hanford budget This story was published Fri, Apr 6, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer The U.S. Senate wants a nationwide Department of Energy cleanup budget of $6.6 billion, which would make up most or all of an anticipated Hanford money shortage in fiscal 2002. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, led a small fledgling coalition of senators from states with nuclear cleanup sites, which convinced the Senate Thursday to unanimously call for an extra $1 billion for DOE's nationwide cleanup budget, according to Murray's staff. The bottom line is that now both the U.S. House and Senate have called for a DOE cleanup budget of $6.6 billion to $6.65 billion for fiscal 2002, which begins this Oct. 1. That does not guarantee that $6.6 billion will materialize. First, DOE will unveil its nationwide 2002 cleanup budget on Monday. No one outside of DOE's top leaders knows what the amount will be. Then the House and Senate will negotiate and pass authorization and appropriation bills. This is when DOE, congressional committees and the full House and Senate haggle over how much will be actually spent where. The Senate's action on Thursday means it is setting aside $6.6 billion for cleanup work so other senators won't touch it for other projects. This will be the Senate's starting point when it negotiates the cleanup budget with the Bush administration. DOE is expected to cut its nationwide cleanup budget request to Congress below 2001's level of $6.25 billion. Only clues with no confirmed figures have surfaced on how much DOE wants to cut. Consequently, a mishmash of numbers are floating about with the House and Senate using different figures. The Senate used an estimate of $5.6 billion for 2002 has the start-off point for its $1 billion increase. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., led a House effort that used the 2001 figure of $6.25 billion to call for a $400 million increase to $6.65 billion. Hanford received $1.5 billion in 2001. It needs $1.85 billion in 2002 to meet it legal obligations and $1.9 billion to also accelerate cleanup along the Columbia River. So, Hanford would need most, if not all, of the increase to $6.6 billion to meet its needs. However, DOE cleanup projects in other states are also seeking extra money in 2002. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************