***************************************************************** 03/07/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.60 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Majority Whip Tom DeLay Testifies on National Energy Policy 2 Nuclear reactor fuel really does glow. 3 Millstone Sale The Subject Of Court Hearing 4 ConEd Fires Back At NU 5 Nuclear power's new day 6 ConEd, NU Deal Unraveling 7 *Power failure during storm closes Seabrook * 8 Global warming fixes available now at low cost - UN 9 Firm renews proposal to bury waste in salt caverns 10 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.10 | 27 February - 06 March 11 Green energy: A viable alternative? 12 Legislators spreading word on Yucca 13 Tests at Temelin Continue, Control Valves to be Adjusted Now 14 Czech CEZ may shut Temelin reactor pending repairs 15 Leukaemia study finds unexplained home radiation 16 Promises, promises: Has Blair really been a friend of the environment? 17 Palo Verde expansion in future? 18 PNNL studies quake potential at Rattlesnake Ridge 19 TVA gets citizens' input on extending life of Browns Ferry NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 In These Times 25/08 -- Editorial: Strategic Deception 2 Sweden Can't Rule Out Nuclear Arms in Kaliningrad 3 Russia reported to have deployed new nuclear weapons in the North 4 Tireless is not your business, Spain is told 5 DOE specialist to speak at lab 6 Hastings must be Hanford's champion 7 Hanford budget plans still hazy 8 Hanford tank fails test, just doesn't hold water 9 Lab says it's willing, able for Pu-238 role ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Majority Whip Tom DeLay Testifies on National Energy Policy Before the Energy and Commerce Committee [PR Newswire] Tuesday March 6, 3:54 pm Eastern Time Press Release *SOURCE: Office of the Majority Whip* WASHINGTON, March 6 /PRNewswire/ -- House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) testified today before the Energy and Commerce Committee at a hearing on national energy policy. Mr. DeLay oversees and coordinates energy issues for the House leadership. Congressman DeLay's Testimony Follows: ``Over the course of the campaign, President Bush insisted that the country needed to make fundamental changes in our energy sector. He pointed to warning signs and inefficiencies that threaten the safe and dependable energy supply our economy and national security demand. Well, subsequent events have now vindicated the President's perseverance. That is why we are here today. ``We have serious problems within the American energy sector. And it's past time that we took stock of our position. We've seen things recently that offer a clear lesson: There are artificial barriers in place that are preventing us from producing the steady, dependable energy supply that American consumers expect. And this problem has broader consequences. Because we must remember that our economic strength depends on our energy security. So, it's our job as a Congress to remove those barriers. ``A great source of pride, among the men and women that work for the companies that make up our varied energy sector, is the satisfaction that they take in providing a secure, dependable energy supply to American families and businesses. Unfortunately, their ability to supply consumers with steady energy at a fair price has been compromised by burdensome regulation and inefficient government policies. ``Of course, everyone also wants clean air and water. Fortunately, this is not an ''either or`` proposition. I'm certain that, by applying common sense standards to the restrictions hampering energy development and exploration, we can create both deep and reliable sources of energy and the infrastructure to deliver that energy to consumers. Taken together, these improvements will, once again, provide the energy security Americans want and expect. But first, we must face the challenges that lie ahead. ``The upheaval in California clearly demonstrates that energy issues aren't simply a state-by-state problem. California's troubles lay the predicate for a federal role in enhancing energy security. A comprehensive solution can't ignore shortcomings in either generation or transmission. California's supply shortcomings are harming other states. California is damaging neighboring states in two ways. First, consumers in surrounding states are paying higher rates to subsidize the increased demand caused by California's inability to meet its own needs. And second, California's neighbors are compromising their own energy security by drawing down resources that historically provide their energy needs during periods of peak demand. ``For example, states like Idaho traditionally allow their lakes and damned rivers to rise during the winter and spring to ensure a steady supply of hydroelectric power for periods of peak demand over the summer. This year, the mountain states are being forced to squander their water resources to produce power for California instead of storing-up water for the dog days of summer. Because when the hot weather hits, California may very well have succeeded in exporting the rolling blackouts and brownouts it brought upon itself to its neighbors. ``We now have the technology and the experience to provide energy security for the American people without trading environmental degradation for efficiency. But this won't happen unless we first adopt a comprehensive plan to create a dependable energy supply. What we need is a national energy strategy that considers all of our potential sources of supply and all of the challenges that are constraining the market for energy in America. ``Among the issues we must resolve are: ``Expanding supply by encouraging a myriad of sources to produce the energy necessary to meet our growing needs, including oil, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, and renewables. ``Increasing our refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years. In 1981 we had 315 refineries. Today we only have 155. That must change. ``Providing access to our domestic resources at home to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies. And yes, that includes opening up Alaska reserves and approving Lease Sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. Today the energy industry can extract oil and gas while treading lightly on the environment. ``Developing an adequate system of electricity transmission. We need to not only increase electricity generation by building new plants in underserved states like California, we need to also build the transmission facilities that will create a reliable electrical grid. If we can do that, electricity will become a true commodity and consumers will benefit through enhanced reliability and more competitive prices. ``Reforming our tax code to promote capital investment in energy technologies and infrastructure. Streamlining the regulatory process to promote a free and competitive marketplace in pricing, technology, energy efficiency and selection of fuels and energy suppliers. ``Promoting energy technology development and long-range research and development initiatives. ``On the Speaker's direction as the Leadership's energy point man, I'm looking forward to working with the President, Vice President Cheney, my friend J.C. Watts, and the committees of jurisdiction as we work together to develop a comprehensive energy strategy that balances regulation with the imperative for energy security.'' *SOURCE: Office of the Majority Whip* Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 2 Nuclear reactor fuel really does glow. A Fill-Up Lights Up By AL LARA The Hartford Courant March 06, 2001 As workers at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford use a crane to drop a depleted uranium fuel rod assembly into a submerged storage rack, it casts a bright aura in the water. But it's a blue glow - not the green you'd expect from watching a fluorescent lump of uranium fall out of cartoon character Homer Simpson's shirt. And it is the most striking impression among first-time witnesses of refueling, including some long-time employees who'd never seen the phenomenon. The monthlong refueling of Millstone's Unit 3 nuclear reactor was completed Sunday. Before the scheduled shutdown, the plant had operated at full capacity for 585 consecutive days, the second-longest run ever of its reactor type in the 31-year history of the U.S. nuclear energy program. The achievement is a return to grace for Millstone and owner Northeast Utilities. Once the pride of the nation's nuclear industry, the plant hit rock bottom in 1996 when all three reactors were shut down because of mismanagement and safety and licensing problems. Millstone 2 stayed closed for two years, and Millstone 1 never restarted. The reversal of fortune comes as Millstone prepares to hand over the keys to the plant to Dominion Resources Inc. of Virginia. Acting through a new subsidiary called Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, it expects next month to complete its purchase of the entire Waterford complex for $1.3 billion, a record for a U.S. commercial nuclear power plant. The refueling of a nuclear reactor is a carefully choreographed ballet in which workers' speed and efficiency are rewarded with minimal exposure to radiation, and plant owners are rewarded with a quick return to profitable power generation. The ambitious goal had been to get the reactor back online in less than 35 days - or by Friday. But cracks that were discovered in the turbines that generate power from reactor steam - a routine problem that will be repaired - will keep the unit offline until at least the end of March. During the outage, only the power station's 870-megawatt Unit 2 reactor continues to produce power. Though temporary, the loss to Connecticut's power generating capacity is significant. The 1,150-megawatt Unit 3 reactor produced 10.5 billion kilowatts of power last year, enough to power 1 million homes and businesses for a year. The emphasis on a speedy refueling seems at odds with safety. But "outage" manager Bob Beckman says that's not the case. "Quick refueling outages are the safest because a lot of planning has to happen first," Beckman said. The industry shares the best practices leading to an efficient refueling, he said. Although the reactor is not generating power during refueling, the Millstone work force swells by as many as 500 additional workers to assist and ensure a safe process, Beckman said. These include more than 900 steps, part of 9,000 individual maintenance steps that are rechecked before being approved. Refueling workers enter the reactor wearing protective clothing that includes bright yellow coveralls, cloth boots covered with rubber overshoes, lined rubber gloves, hearing protection, safety goggles and hard hats. Electronic passkeys are required for access to nearly every door in the reactor complex. Around their necks, workers carry gray electric dosimeters - devices that gauge their exposure to radiation. Smaller non-electric "thermo-luminescent" dosimeters clipped to clothing keep track of cumulative radiation during longer periods. Upon entering or leaving the reactor building, workers step into a booth for a whole-body radiation count. Workers also are required to recheck their exposure by inserting their arms into smaller kiosks before going through certain doors. An enormous cylindrical airlock with huge, airtight steel doors separates the reactor from the rest of the facility. It opens to a cavernous gray shell of reinforced concrete 4½ feet thick. Signs everywhere caution of dangers. More than a week after the shutdown of the reactor, the air temperature inside is still 90 degrees. When in operation, the temperature at ground level reaches 105 degrees, and as much as 115 degrees at higher levels. What looks like a backyard pool of inviting blue water in the center of the reactor building is cordoned off. Something glows at the bottom. Thirty feet below the surface of the hot water is what looks like a steel pot with the lid slid off. Inside sits 110 tons of uranium. The Westinghouse pressurized water reactor is fueled by a mixture of enriched uranium compressed into tiny black pellets and filled end-on-end into 12-foot-long metal rods called "pins." About 264 pins are bundled in a metal frame called an "assembly." The reactor vessel contains 193 assemblies. Workers operate a large blue crane directly over the water to remove and replace spent fuel-rod assemblies. In practice, it's not much different from taking the ashes out of a fireplace and putting in new logs. Reactors "burn" hottest at the center of the collection of assemblies, allowing most of the undepleted rods from the outside edges to be reused. The refueling process is slow and meticulous, with the bulk of the time spent "indexing," or identifying and accounting for each assembly. The record-keeping is critical, particularly since the revelation last year that two fuel rods dating from 1980 were misplaced and have yet to be accounted for. Plant operators believe the rods are with others in the reactor's spent fuel storage pool. The specially treated water is the only thing shielding workers from radiation. But it is very effective. Boron particles in the water absorb most of the radiation. An audible "click" sounds out throughout the building every five seconds or so, indicating the rate of exposure. "If you hear it go any faster, there's a problem," Beckman said. After two hours in the reactor, most dosimeters show exposure to slightly more than 1 millirem - a unit measuring exposure. The annual exposure limit for Millstone workers is 1,000 millirem, and the federal limit is 5,000 millirem. In comparison, a chest X-ray produces about 20 to 40 millirem. As the rod moves through the water, is gives off a bright blue glow called Cerenkov radiation. The uranium "decays," shedding high-energy beta particles that exceed the speed of light in water. After their passage, hydrogen molecules reorient to fill the gap, creating a pulse of electromagnetic radiation that emits a blue light. "Pretty ominous, isn't it?" asked Ken Hajnal, the plant's health physics technician, who watches worker exposure to radiation. The entire process is monitored by specialists watching computer and video screens in the reactor control room in a nearby building. Wall-to-wall computers and lit-up dials and meters fill the room. A crew of employees-in-training follow and watch the veterans. In another building adjacent to the reactor, three of Unit 3's massive, 300-ton generators lie in pieces on the plant floor. Ducted turbine rotors 10 feet in diameter and weighing 150 tons sit alongside their usual platform perch. Each part is scrutinized by plant workers and specialists from the manufacturer, General Electric Co. "Essentially, you're rebuilding it each time," said Eugene S. Grecheck, vice president of operations at Millstone. "You're looking for inconsistencies that may cause imbalances," said outage team coordinator Rick Meehan Jr. The scrutiny is necessary. When in operation, pressurized steam turn the turbines 1,800 times a minute - or 30 times a second. Over time, the stress causes cracks to develop, as were discovered in all three turbines last week. The workers are proud of their work, especially those who date from the years when Millstone was often offline because of persistent problems. "People are starting to realize nuclear power is not a joke anymore," Grecheck said. "I think the technology's improved, and reliability and cost factor is why nuclear power should be part of the overall energy mix," plant spokesman Peter Hyde said. ***************************************************************** 3 Millstone Sale The Subject Of Court Hearing [Geoff Hausman] By Paul Choiniere Published on 3/7/2001 New Britain — A Superior Court judge will conduct a hearing March 12 to decide whether the Millstone Nuclear Power Station sale to a Virginia company should be delayed. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. at the Superior Court in New Britain. The Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone is seeking an order to block the sale while the anti-nuclear organization's appeal of the Jan. 24 state Department of Public Utility Control decision is pending. The DPUC approved the sale unanimously. The buyer of the nuclear station, with two operating and one closed reactor, is Dominion Resources, Inc., a utility company based in Richmond, Va. Dominion is paying $1.3 billion for the station. Dominion expects to close the sale early next month. Dominion plans to turn Millstone over to a newly-created limited liability company, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. The Coalition appealed the approval on Feb.20 on the grounds that the subsidiary lacks assets to assure the reactors can be safely operated and maintained. To block the sale it will have to convince the court that it has a strong likelihood of winning the lawsuit and that allowing the sale to proceed while the appeal is pending would cause irreparable harm. Courts give regulatory agencies wide latitude in interpreting their regulations and are reluctant to reverse their decisions. Dominion has pledged to provide up to $150 million to its new Connecticut subsidiary should Millstone suffer loses due to operating problems. Joseph H. Besade, a coalition member who resides in Waterford near Millstone, said the $150 million the parent company pledged to back up the subsidiary is not sufficient to cover the kind of losses a nuclear plant can experience when it runs into trouble. Beasade noted that when Dominion had to replace steam generators at one of its reactors in Virginia ten years ago, the cost was $185 million. The DPUC rejected the group's arguments during hearings on the sale. © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 4 ConEd Fires Back At NU [Geoff Hausman] *Files lawsuit over failed $7.5 billion merger* By Paul Choiniere Published on 3/7/2001 Consolidated Edison Inc. filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday, claiming potential losses facing Northeast Utilities' subsidiary Select Energy violate the merger agreement between the two companies and allow ConEd to break the deal. The lawsuit filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York appeared to be a legal preemptive strike, launched one day after NU announced plans to sue ConEd for failing to follow through on the merger deal. The two utilities, which had described themselves as “natural partners who share a common vision” when the $7.5 billion merger was announced back in October 1999, are now trading accusations as to which is to blame for killing a merger that would have created the largest utility in the country. ConEd's lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment, a ruling by the court that the violation of the merger agreement is so clear that no further judiciary proceedings are required. Tough day for NU shareholders It was not a good day for NU shareholders. While ConEd stock finished the day up 23 cents at $36.28 per share, NU stock slipped $2.20 to $18 per share, a 10.5 percent reduction in value. On Monday, NU had charged ConEd with violating the merger agreement and said it would file a lawsuit to obtain the benefits its shareholders would have realized from the merger. ConEd in turn said Tuesday that potential financial losses due to supply obligations it had uncovered at Select Energy was a violation of the merger agreement. ConEd focused its attention on Select's obligation to provide electricity to Connecticut consumers through 2003 at a fixed price. As part of the state's plan to introduce competition in the state, customers who do not choose an electric supplier receive electricity at a fixed “standard offer” price. Because wholesale prices have been so high since deregulation officially began last year, there has been no competition and almost all consumers are receiving electricity at the fixed rate price. Select Energy is obligated to provide the standard offer service to half the consumers, with NRG Energy Inc. of Minnesota providing 40 percent and Duke Energy of North Carolina, 10 percent. NU won the right to be the chief supplier through a competitive bidding process. But in a Feb. 2 prospectus, NU states that “servicing this load after the end of 2001 ... poses a significant risk to Select. “If Select is unable to source its remaining requirement for the Connecticut Light &Power load at prices below the standard offer contract price as a result of continuing high energy prices, its earnings would be adversely impacted,” states the financial document. Connecticut Light &Power is NU's power distribution subsidiary. Select is its wholesale marketing and trading group. Michael Clendenin, a ConEd spokesman, said the potential financial problems facing Select raised legal issues regarding NU's ability to satisfy its merger obligations. NU contends nothing has changed since the merger deal was proposed in October 1999 and approved by shareholders for both companies in April 2000. Select Energy's standard offer obligations were in place at the time the merger was announced, though at that point it was not characterized as a “significant risk.” Michael G. Morris, chairman, president and chief executive officer of NU, said his company's financial situation has improved since the deal was first proposed, enjoying a profit of nearly $30 million in 2000. Ironically, in its February financial statement, NU cited the loss of Millstone Nuclear Power Station as a big reason Select may face money problems after this year. Select had been entitled to receive a large portion of the electric generation from Millstone. With Select forced to buy power on the open market to fill its CL contract, it could be forced to pay more than CL is allowed to charge Connecticut customers. This is one of the problems that has led California's two major utilities, Pacific Gas &Electric and Southern California Edison, to run up billions of dollars in debts. NU was obligated to sell Millstone as part of the state's deregulation plans. It could have created a subsidiary to bid on the plants, but chose not to. And ConEd, seeking to get out of the nuclear business, wanted no part of Millstone, offering a $1 bonus per share if the station was dumped in speedy fashion by NU. Dominion Resources Inc. of Virginia, which bid $1.3 billion for Millstone, is scheduled to take over ownership next month. Among the shareholders with the most to lose as a result of the merger collapse are NU executives themselves. Morris was set to cash in $12.7 million in stock options and 11 other top executives would split $17.5 million, including $5 million for Bruce D. Kenyon, president of the generation group, and $4.7 million for Chief Financial Officer John H. Forsgren. ConEd had agreed to acquire all common stock of NU for $25 per share, an amount that at the time of the merger collapse had increased to $26.71 per share, due to late penalties and the Millstone sale bonus. © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear power's new day Energy crisis raises profile Doug Abrahms Gannett News Service Mar. 7, 2001 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration could be ushering in a new energy era in the United States - the construction of nuclear power plants for the first time in more than 20 years. California's electricity woes, coupled with sharply higher natural gas prices, are making nuclear power look more attractive, said Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for Westinghouse Electric, which has built about half the world's nuclear power plants. Today's plants employ better technology and cost far less than models built 30 years ago, he said. "Clearly, the energy crisis in California has had a positive impact on how people view nuclear power," he said. "We're getting a lot more interest, but we're not going to sell one tomorrow (in the United States)." Under a sweeping energy bill proposed by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be required to streamline licensing new nuclear plants and the industry would get more subsidies and tax breaks worth at least $500 million over 10 years. According to a January survey by the Nuclear Energy Institute, 51 percent of Americans support building more nuclear power plants, compared with 42 percent in October 1999. Many environmentalists dispute the survey. Support for nuclear power would be far lower if people were asked if they favor placing a nuclear plant near their homes, said Erich Pica, an economic policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, an environmental group. "The general sentiment of the public hasn't changed at all," he said. "The nuclear energy companies have been working to change their image." Protests over nuclear power have died down, especially in the face of higher energy prices. In January, environmentalists and public officials protested restarting a nuclear power plant about 35 miles outside New York after radioactive water leaks were detected. But the plant is running at full speed today after federal officials deemed the facility safe. Nuclear power's heyday was in the 1960s and '70s, when U.S. utilities ordered about 100 nuclear plants. But the bottom dropped out of the market because of high construction costs. Also, the near-disaster at Three Mile Island in 1979 ended utilities' plans to build more nuclear projects. A lingering problem is what to do with nuclear waste, which continues to pile up around existing nuclear plants. The United States has yet to choose a nuclear waste repository, despite the Energy Department's assessment of Yucca Mountain in Nevada for depositing most hazardous waste. But the nuclear industry, which generates about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, sees opening up a nuclear waste dump as more of a political than technical issue. "I do not think the high-level waste issue will hold up this industry," said Oliver Kingsley, chief nuclear officer at Exelon Corp., which operates 17 nuclear power plants. "I definitely think nuclear will come back, but there are still things that have to fall in line." The price of natural gas, which fuels most new electric plants, must remain high to make it economically viable to construct nuclear plants, he said. The permitting process also must become easier so that utilities do not have to apply with numerous state and federal agencies, he said. The nuclear industry sees so much potential that Westinghouse developed a next-generation nuclear power plant, whose design was certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 1999, Gilbert said. The new plant would have half as many valves and 80 percent fewer pipes than existing models; two 600-megawatt modules could be constructed within three years on a site already housing a power plant. Westinghouse, now owned by British Nuclear Fuels, is shopping its new nuclear plants around the world and hopes for sales in China and the United Kingdom, he said. "We would clearly like to build the plant in the U.S.," Gilbert said. • Arizona Republic • 12 News • Arizona Guide • PhoenixAz Copyright 2001, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. Gannett Co. ***************************************************************** 6 ConEd, NU Deal Unraveling March 06, 2001 ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- Consolidated Edison Inc.'s planned $3.8 billion acquisition of Northeast Utilities continued to unravel Tuesday as ConEd sued Northeast for allegedly failing to satisfy conditions of the deal. ConEd claimed Northeast's power marketing subsidiary, Select Energy, was mismanaged, saying Select's power-supply contracts posed a "significant risk" to the company's profitability if electricity prices skyrocket. The New York-based utility asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to absolve it of any obligations it had to Northeast under the 1999 merger agreement and asked the court to protect ConEd from any damages sought by Northeast. Northeast said Tuesday the lawsuit has no merit and that it would seek damages. On Monday, Northeast had declared the merger dead and said it would sue ConEd next week for filing to consummate the deal. ConEd officials would not say whether the merger agreement - which ConEd insisted Monday night was still in effect -- was now beyond redemption. ConEd said Select could have problems getting cheap power starting in 2002, when its entitlement to part of the output of the Millstone Nuclear power plants ends. The main problem, ConEd claimed, was that Select was at risk of not having enough power to serve Connecticut Light &Power at prices that would be profitable. Northeast said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month that this situation poses a "significant risk" to Select. Northeast said the risk was reduced, however, by agreements with its hydroelectric subsidiary and by the availability of power in the competitive market. Northeast said Tuesday it is financially stronger now than it was in October 1999, when the deal was reached. Anticipating that more power plants will be built throughout New England, Northeast said Select will take advantage of the competition to negotiate lower prices. "We had a difficult time helping ConEd understand this business. We tried for months," said Jeff Kotkin, director of investor relations for Northeast. Still, more than one-quarter of Select's revenues come from supplying 2,000 megawatts of power to CL, another Northeast subsidiary. State law caps CL's rates until the end of 2003. If Select has to buy power on the open market to fill its CL contract, it could be forced to pay more than CL is allowed to charge Connecticut customers. This is one of the problems that has led California's two major utilities, Pacific Gas &Electric and Southern California Edison, to run up billions of dollars in debts. The deal had been approved by shareholders and state regulators and approval was expected shortly from the SEC. But the regulatory approvals came with conditions that both companies had said might prove unworkable. The agreement was also criticized by consumer activists and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. Northeast operates the CL, Western Massachusetts Electric Co., Public Service Company of New Hampshire and Yankee Energy Systems, a natural gas distributor. ConEd operates Consolidated Edison Company of New York, an electric, gas and steam utility that serves New York City and its suburbs. The company also owns Orange &Rockland Utilities Inc., serving Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Shares of Northeast fell $2.20, or 10.5 percent, to $18.80 in trading on the New York Stock Exchange, where shares of ConEd rose 23 cents to $36.28. On the Net: http://www.coned.com http://www.nu.com All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 *Power failure during storm closes Seabrook * The Union Leader & New Hampshire newhampshire.com Calendar News - March 7, 2001 +By JERRY MILLER Union Leader Correspondent SEABROOK — Seabrook Station was forced to shut down when the Seacoast nuclear plant lost incoming power during the storm Monday night. According to plant spokesman Alan Griffith, an”unusual event”was declared at approximately 11:30 p.m. Monday when all three off-site power lines were lost to the plant. Three transmission lines carry electricity into Seabrook Station, though only one such line is needed to operate the plant. At one point, all three lines were lost and control-room operators decided to shut down the entire facility. Griffith said the situation never presented any danger to the public and that all plant systems responded well. An “unusual event” is the lowest and least significant of the four emergency classifications which must be reported by the nuclear plant. Griffith said Seabrook Station is in “cool down” status and will remain off-line until all services on the power grid can be stabilized. Seabrook officials hoped that would be”sooner, rather than later.” ***************************************************************** 8 Global warming fixes available now at low cost - UN GHANA: March 6, 2001 ACCRA - Effective technologies and measures to combat global warming are available now, at a lower cost to society than sometimes imagined, but need the political will to implement them, a United Nations report said yesterday. The report, the third in a series, was compiled by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and published after a conference in the Ghanaian capital, Accra. "Most model results indicate that known technological options could achieve a broad range of atmospheric CO2 stabilisation levels...over the next 100 years or more, but implementation would require associated socio-economic and institutional changes," the summary for policy-makers said. The Accra report was released the day after environment ministers from the world's leading industrialised nations pledged in Trieste, Italy, to finalise a 1997 pact on cutting pollution that none of them has yet ratified. "We commit ourselves...to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol," the Group of Eight (G8) ministers said in a formal declaration. The Accra report referred to "hundreds of technologies and practices for end-use energy efficiency in buildings, transport and manufacturing industries" and pointed to advances such as the market introduction of wind turbines and hybrid engine cars. The researchers assembled by the U.N. assessed the cost of recommended measures to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions. "Half of these potential emissions reductions may be achieved by 2020 with direct benefits (energy saved) exceeding direct costs (net capital, operating and maintenance costs)," the report said. THE TECHNOLOGY IS OUT THERE "For me, the message is that there are a lot of technologies out there, a lot of ways governments can change their policies to make things work better," one U.N. source in Accra said. "It's out there, it's just a matter of liberating it, giving incentives to companies, removing the barriers to rolling out new technologies and changes in the system to make it all work." The thrust of the final statement did not differ from the draft put forward by the researchers in Geneva last month. In Geneva, oil producer Saudi Arabia and heavily industrialised China were reported by conference participants to have obtained some softening of the text. The Accra report says that in the short term, "at least up to 2020", energy supply would remain dominated by fossil fuels which are relatively cheap and abundant. But, it said, natural gas could be used more and play an important role in emission reduction. Other sources involving low levels of carbon emission that could be preferred included by-products of farm and animal waste, landfill methane, wind energy and hydro-power - and "the use and lifetime extension of nuclear power plants". Nuclear energy is opposed strongly by environmental groups, who have warmly welcomed the earlier IPCC reports and urged governments to shape policies in accordance with their findings. Old economy sectors would lose out under the IPCC scenario. "...coal, possibly oil and gas, and certain energy-intensive sectors, such as steel production, are most likely to suffer an economic disadvantage," the report said. This is the third of four studies by the IPCC. The first, released in Shanghai in January, for the first time cited what its some 900 scientist-compilers said was clear proof that global warming was the result of human activity and not just a chance shift in the earth's climate. The second, released in Geneva in February, found that if warming through greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide was not slowed and then turned around in coming decades the planet could see huge floods, spreading disease and social chaos. The fourth, due in September, will summarise all three. Story by Kwaku Sakyi-Addo REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 9 Firm renews proposal to bury waste in salt caverns March 06, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN An oil and gas exploration company has revived an idea to bury deadly radioactive wastes in salt caverns 10,000 feet under land or sea, a plan the federal government had put to rest. A Strategic Environmental Technologies executive announced last week that the company was reviving a 2-year-old alternative to a Yucca Mountain repository, one that would keep nuclear shipments off America's roads and rails. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site under study by the government to dispose of the nation's 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. The Yucca site would require shipments of waste to travel through 43 states by truck or train. Strategic Environmental Technologies has developed a boring machine that can go 10,000 to 12,000 feet straight down into the earth -- below ground water levels -- SET's president and 90 percent owner Robert Gardes of Lafayette, La., said. Once the boring has reached that level, up to 100 tunnels can be drilled horizontally to hold the waste, he said. In comparison, nuclear waste canisters would be buried roughly 1,000 feet below ground, which is 1,000 above the ground water level at Yucca Mountain. "Why salt?" Gardes asked. "It insulates heat and it's plastic, so it would mold around the nuclear wastes if multiple barriers failed. Salt does not have fractures or cracks." Suitable salt beds for such disposal exist beneath the Gulf of Mexico, west Texas and New Mexico, Gardes said. Instead of shipping the nuclear waste across the country by truck or by train, a ship escorted by two military destroyers would bring the waste to the below-sea sites or to ports near the land-based sites, Gardes said. "After all, most of the nuclear power plants are on the East Coast," he noted. If nuclear waste is buried in salt under the ocean, such as the Gulf of Mexico, they would be irretrievable, Gardes said. On the other hand, bury them in salt caverns under western Texas or in New Mexico, and the nuclear wastes could be retrieved, he said. The DOE's approach to Yucca Mountain comes from old mining techniques, not deep bore-hole technology, he said. "The technology we are talking about wasn't available when the DOE began studying Yucca Mountain." Deep bore-hole techniques advance all the time, Andrew Hanson, an assistant professor who specializes in petroleum geology at UNLV, said. The deepest bore hole in North America was drilled to a depth of 25,000 feet in Wyoming last year, he said. While salt could contain nuclear wastes, miners would have to make room for it deep in the earth, he said. Salt domes below the earth's surface have been mined and proposed as sites for waste burial, Hanson said, "but you still have to make space for the wastes." The Waste Isolation Pilot Project near Carlsbad, N.M., opened in 1998 to contain plutonium defense waste, used such salt caverns. Drillers would have to create space by dissolving the salt with liquids under the company's scheme or with large boring bits, Hanson said. "For storage, you have to create space somehow," he said. If Yucca Mountain doesn't pass scientific muster, the DOE will need an alternative proposal, Gardes said. Strategic Environmental Technologies contacted the DOE two years ago about the alternative disposal method, but heard nothing, he said. "Personally, I think Yucca Mountain is a disaster," Gardes said. "It's above the water table, the volcanic ash that made it ought to tell you where it came from." The last volcanic activity in the area occurred about 70,000 years ago, U.S. Geological Survey scientists have said. A 5.6 magnitude earthquake occurred less than 12 miles from Yucca Mountain in June 1992. The deep bore-hole solutions would save billions, Gardes said. Instead of spending more than $58 billion to build a repository inside Yucca Mountain, his company can do the job for $7 billion and start within five to seven years, Gardes said. Both the Department of Energy, which is studying Yucca Mountain, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency that would permit building and operating a repository, said the idea for deep burial has been investigated and abandoned. After Congress singled out Yucca Mountain as the lone site for study in 1987, the DOE did not pursue such alternatives as deep subseabed disposal of commercial reactor fuel and nuclear weapons wastes, because international law forbids it, spokesmen for both agencies said Monday. However, the sites suggested by Gardes in the Gulf of Mexico are not in international waters. "It sounds good," said the NRC's Breck Henderson of Arlington, Texas, after hearing the proposal. But the DOE did study the idea, he noted. The late Charles Hollister, a subseabed researcher at Woods Hole, Mass., wrote in 1992 and 1997 that nuclear wastes could be buried below the ocean's floor -- but not necessarily thousands of feet -- where it would stay put for millions of years. The DOE and the National Academy of Sciences both suggested continuing research on subseabed nuclear disposal, but Congress never funded that approach, said Steven Nadis of Cambridge, Mass., a science writer who co-authored two articles with Hollister before he died in a Wyoming hiking accident in 1999. Subseabed disposal differs from the deep bore-hole method because the waste is buried in the muddy layers beneath the sea, rather than thousands of feet under the bottom of the ocean. The International Maritime Organization in London has promoted banning any such nuclear waste dumping in the oceans, and the United States has signed onto the ban along with 12 other nations. The proposal could become international law by 2003. Asked why his company came forward with the idea, Gardes said he believes the Bush administration will listen. "When people ask me whether I'm Democrat or Republican, I tell them I'm American," he said. "I think President Bush is reasonable." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.10 | 27 February - 06 March 2001 A weekly summary of international news relevant to uranium and the nuclear energy industry. [NB01.10-1] UK: British Energy is making plans to replace its existing portfolio with nuclear, rather than gas-fired, plants. A spokesman for British Energy said 'nuclear is certainly an option for the future. A lot will depend on the financial and political frameworks developing over the next few years'. In a separate piece, the Sunday Telegraph Newspaper delivered a ringing endorsement of nuclear power calling on the Blair government to encourage 'the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants in Britain'. *(Electronic Telegraph, 4 March; see also News Briefings 00.50-16)* [NB01.10-2] Ukraine: German nuclear services specialist NUKEM Nuklear is to construct a waste management facility for the treatment of solid radioactive waste at the Chernobyl site. The waste management facility is necessary for the conditioning of radioactive waste generated during the operation of the nuclear power plant as well as during the decommissioning of units 1 to 3. The contract from the Ukrainian company Energoatom of US$35.6 million will be financed by the European Commission and should be completed within 28 months. *(Tessag, 5 March)* [NB01.10-3] US: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received an application to construct a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site. The agency will conduct an initial review of the application to ensure it is complete and later begin a more detailed technical review. The DoE is to construct a MOX fuel plant with a consortium of Duke Engineering & Services, COGEMA Inc, and Stone & Webster (known as DCS). DCS could build and operate the MOX facility which would convert weapons-grade plutonium oxide, into fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors. The plutonium in the fuel would be used in a once-through process, to render it essentially inaccessible and unattractive for future weapons use. *(NRC News Online, 2 March; see also News Briefings 00.35-4)* [NB01.10-4] The failure of the Swedish government to carry out an environmental impact study before ordering the shutdown of Barseback-1 violated EU rules. The EU environment commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, has written to the Swedish government following a complaint lodged by Sydkraft, the operators of the plant. Sydkraft had argued that an environmental study should be carried out prior to decommissioning. *(NucNet News, 69/01, 1 March; see also News Briefings 99.48-1)* [NB01.10-5] Australian Senator Robert Hill has requested an assurance from Southern Cross Resources (SCR) that processed water cannot contaminate groundwater at the Honeymoon uranium project in South Australia. Senator Hill denied that the request for these assurances had anything to do with pushing the Honeymoon start date until after the federal election. *(Ux Weekly, 5 March, p3; see also News Briefings 01.06-5)* [NB01.10-6] The third reactor at the Pivdeno Ukrainska power plant in the South Ukraine was shut down on 1 March following an electric system failure. No increase in radioactivity was recorded during the incident. The power plant has three VVER-1000 reactors, the Soviet-era equivalent of pressurized water reactors. *(Russia Today Online, 1 March)* [NB01.10-7] Ukraine is to buy US$209 million worth of nuclear fuel from Russia in 2001. The first payment will be made in March for two Ukrainian nuclear power plants. *(Ux Weekly, 5 March, p3; see also News Briefings 00.08-9)* [NB01.10-8] South Korea: The applications period for local governments to bid for the country's first nuclear disposal site has been extended by four months to June by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy. The decision was a result of the fact that no regional governments had applied to house the site by the current deadline. The ministry also said Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO), the site's contractor, will make a selection if it obtains no applications in the extended period or deems a proposed site inappropriate. *(Asia Pulse Online, 1 March; see also News Briefings 96.38-10)* [NB01.10-9] Russia and Vietnam are finalising arrangements for a bilateral deal on nuclear cooperation. Vietnam has long term plans for nuclear power generation and other countries have been interested in cooperation with Vietnam including Japan, China, India and South Korea. *(NucNet News, 71/01, 2 March; see also News Briefings 95.22-1)* [NB01.10-10] The US government will release US$125.7 million to help save jobs at the uranium enrichment plant at Piketon, one of two uranium enrichment plants operated by the US Enrichment Corp (USEC). USEC wants to consolidate production of power plant-ready uranium at its plant in Paducah. A union leader said the money will save about 800 jobs at the plant, which employs 1730 people. The money, to be released over two years, would pay for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant to be put in a standby condition. It also includes severance pay and money to train workers. *(Associated Press, 2 March; see also News Briefings 00.41-3)* [NB01.10-11] Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) intends to keep its nuclear and hydro operations in the public sector when five of its thermal power generation companies are privatised. No date for the listing of thermal companies has been established yet. *(Ux Weekly, 5 March, p4; see also News Briefings 01.09-1)* [NB01.10-12] The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its third report of the year released after a conference in Accra, Ghana focuses on means of reducing greenhouse emissions and concludes that nuclear power should be part of the energy mix in lessening the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 'The use and lifetime extension of nuclear plants' is mentioned as one of the means by which the causes of global warming can be reduced. The report also states that economic benefits could actually exceed the costs of implementing technologies to cut emissions. *(MSNBC Online, 5 March; see also News Briefings 01.04-21 and 01.08-16)* The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has announced that the climate change talks suspended in November 2000 are to resume in July 2001. The talks will resume in Bonn from 16-27 July and the chairman Jan Pronk said that 'it is essential that we maintain political momentum so that all key players are committed to taking early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions'. Officials at the resumed talks will have the benefit of the latest five year scientific and technical assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. *(Framework Convention on Climate Change, 28 February; see also News Briefings 01.07-19)* [NB01.10-13] Current Japanese targets for CO2 emissions reduction are threatened by delays in the siting of new nuclear power plants. A working party group on energy policy has found that CO2 emissions will actually increase by 2010 if coal fired thermal stations fill in the shortfall. *(NucNet News, 67/01, 28 February; see also News Briefings 01.07-18)* [NB01.10-14] The Bulgarian government has sacked the head of the Bulgarian Atomic Energy Committee (BAEC), Georgi Kaschiev. His deputy Robert Popits has been appointed as replacement. *(Reuters, 5 March)* [NB01.10-15] The government of Switzerland has published its draft proposals for a federal nuclear energy law and sent them to parliament for approval. The government also recommended rejection of two would be plebiscite anti-nuclear initiatives. *(NucNet News, 68/01, 28 February; see also News Briefings 00.06-17)* [NB01.10-16] Cattenom nuclear plant in France operated by Electricitie de France (EdF) was briefly evacuated after a radioactivity alert on 5 March. 131 staff were immediately evacuated and after checks on radiation levels returned to work. A spokeswoman for EdF said that there was no trace of contamination. *(Reuters, 5 March)* [NB01.10-17] Czech Republic: An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) has completed a mission to the Temelin nuclear power plant. The team evaluated workers' knowledge of operating safety rules and the ability of the Czech utility CEZ to operate Temelin to international standards. *(NucNet News, 73/01, 2 March; see also News Briefings 00.51-9)* [NB01.10-18] UK: A train carrying empty nuclear flasks was derailed outside Torness power station in Scotland. No one was hurt and the local MP John Home Robertson said that lessons could be learned from the accident but the 'flasks are extremely strong and can withstand being hit by a high speed train'. Janine Claber of Direct Rail Services, a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) said that none of the flasks had been damaged. In a separate development the Greater London Authority (GLA) is to set up a committee to investigate safety concerns surrounding rail transportation of radioactive waste through the capital. The new Radioactive Waste Trains Investigative Committee will hear evidence from BNFL and Railtrack, who are responsible for track management, as well as representatives from local community groups before putting a report on its findings before the GLA by August 2001. *(London Evening Standard Online, 2 and 5 March)* Previous News Briefing NB01.09 *Prepared by the Uranium Institute Information Service. All news and views are those of the publications cited.* ***************************************************************** 11 Green energy: A viable alternative? BBC News | UK | Tuesday, 6 March, 2001, 14:28 GMT Campaigners want more use of power from the elements The government has pledged that 10% of the UK's energy will come from renewable energy sources by 2010 - a promise backed up by a £100m boost announced by Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday. Mark Johnston, Climate Solutions Campaigner with Friends of the Earth (FoE), says while environmentalists welcome Mr Blair's announcement, they would like to see the 10% target doubled. But at present less than 3% of Britain's electricity comes from alternative sources and to Ian Fells, Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, achieving the target by 2010 would be "difficult". BBC News Online asked both men to weigh up the benefits and problems of different sources of renewable energy. Hydroelectric power Almost all the UK's electricity generated from renewable sources comes from the two hydroelectric dams in Scotland. Benefits: Very powerful. A tried and tested form of energy production which has already proved successful. Problems: Requires a dam to be built which environmentalists say risks disturbing river or estuarine ecosystems. The structures are also large and expensive to build. "We have run out of space for large hydro," says Ian Fells. Wind Wind power has created a lot of interest in recent years and is one of the world's fastest growing energy technologies. There are 600 wind farms around the UK and the first off-shore farm was opened last year off Blyth, Northumberland. [Wind turbines BBC] The use of wind power is rising rapidly However, just 0.25 of the Britain's energy needs are currently met through wind power. Benefits: The UK is one of the windiest countries in Europe so it makes sense to harness the energy. According to Mark Johnston, the UK has the potential to provide three times its current energy requirements with wind power. We could rely more heavily on this source in the winter when the weather is windier. It is also cheap to harness. Problems: Each wind turbine is large - about 70m across - and some people object to the idea of them dotting the landscape. They generate a relatively low amount of power and Professor Fells reckons 1,500 turbines would have to be built by 2010 for 2.5% of our energy to come from the wind. The wind does not blow all the time so we would need to use a battery technology to store the energy, which is expensive to do. Tidal and wave energy Waves can be used to turn a generator or turbine - as on Islay where the UK's first, and only, commercial wave power station was opened last November. Tides can be used to fill a hydroelectric dam. Benefits: As an island nation, Britain has a huge coastline which it could use for these forms of power. [Wave BBC] The UK's coastline could be harnessed A US company is considering building a plant to harness tidal power off the Welsh coast, using the aggregate from slag heaps to build a "hollow island" which would have its own regular tides. "This would benefit the environment in two ways: by clearing up the Welsh countryside and by providing clean reusable energy," says Mark Johnston. Problems: The Islay power station only generates 500kw - a relatively low rate of power. Ian Fells says 10,000 such stations would be needed around the Scottish coast to create as much power as the two nuclear power stations in Scotland. There are few sites with a great enough difference between low and high tides to make harnessing tidal power possible. Solar Energy from the sun can be harnessed in solar cells - also called photo-voltaic cells. These can be small enough to meet specific energy needs such as heating a house's water or grouped together in large banks. [Solar panels BBC] Solar energy is expensive at present Benefits: While solar energy is expensive to harness at present, it is rapidly coming down in price. Mark Johnston says it should be as cheap as wind within a decade. We could rely on this source more in the summer although at least one company has developed a cell which can be used in low light and possibly even moonlight. Problems: It is expensive to harness so it would need a high level of subsidy to make it viable. As with wind, this is an intermittent source of energy which might need a battery technology to make it reliable. Biomass or crop fuel Fast growing plants such as willow or elephant grass can be harvested and turned into woodchips which can then burnt in power stations. Benefits: A "smart source of energy" says Mark Johnston - it is cheap, easy and quick to develop. "We also hope that biomass could be a way to rescue the rural economy," he says. In a combined heat and power plant (CHP), as well as turning a turbine in the same way as fossil fuels, the heat created could be used to provide hot water and heating for rooms at the power station. This would greatly increase energy efficiency. Problems: Huge amounts of crops would need to be grown in order to make the use of biomass worthwhile. "To provide half the electricity which comes from Dungeness nuclear power station in Kent, you would have to cover the whole of Kent with trees," says Ian Fells. Search BBC News Online ***************************************************************** 12 Legislators spreading word on Yucca Today: March 07, 2001 at 11:13:26 PST By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, said today that efforts by Nevada lawmakers to convince their counterparts in other states of the dangers of transportation of nuclear waste is "starting to pick up steam." "Some of the folks in other states didn't understand the impact to their states," Perkins said. Nevada legislators have been talking with lawmakers in other states during national conferences in an effort to head off the decision by Congress to choose Yucca Mountain as a site for the burial of high level radioactive materials. The Energy Department is expected to make a recommendation later this year to President Bush. "Most of our delegation is networking this way .... raising their (other state lawmakers') awareness," he said. Getting legislators in other states to talk to their congressional delegation will be helpful, Perkins said. This effort has been going on for a few years, but it is starting to intensify as the decision-making time nears. The campaign effort dovetails with the program proposed by Gov. Kenny Guinn for a $5 million appropriation, part of it for a media campaign to alert people in other states that the dangerous waste is going to be trucked through their urban areas. "Some of these states with nuclear waste want to get rid of it," Perkins said. "And they are in a quandary." "The Utah folks have been talking with us all along," he said. Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt has been talking with Guinn to launch a joint program, Perkins said. Missouri is another state where contacts have been made. He said shipments of nuclear waste would be routed through St. Louis. These legislators in other states, the speaker said have not given much thought to the issue before now. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, introduces a resolution today that says Nevada officially disapproves of any move by Congress to send the waste to this state. The resolution was scheduled to be introduced Tuesday, but the Senate did not have a floor session. The resolution, signed by more than 90 percent of the lawmakers, urges President Bush to veto any legislation to locate a temporary or interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in Nevada and for the Bush administration abandon consideration of Yucca Mountain as a permanent site. The resolution said the federal government is prohibited from putting the repository without prior expressed consent of the Legislature. And the resolution says it is the "official disapproval" of any action by Congress. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 Tests at Temelin Continue, Control Valves to be Adjusted Now Central Europe Online - TEMELIN, South Bohemia, Mar 6, 2001 -- (CTK - Czech News Agency) The reactor of the first unit of the Temelin nuclear power station is still running at 28-30 percent, and after tests at this level the Skoda Energo company will adjust control valves in order to reduce vibrations of the piping, Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar told CTK today. The adjustment of valves should take about six days, he added. Before the adjustment, Temelin staff will reduce reactor output without stopping the nuclear reaction, although Temelin director Frantisek Hezoucky said on Saturday that after this phase of the tests the reactor should be shut down. The reactor was restarted on February 25 after a shutdown lasting longer than a month. During the shutdown, Temelin staff revised both the primary and the secondary circuits, replaced parts of the turbine piping, and attached steel rings to the piping in order to remove vibrations. *((c) 2001 CTK - Czech News Agency)* ***************************************************************** 14 Czech CEZ may shut Temelin reactor pending repairs CZECH REPUBLIC: March 6, 2001 PRAGUE - Czech power utility CEZ said on Monday it would cut output or close the reactor at its controversial Temelin nuclear power plant this week to repair vibrating steam valves on the plant's turbine. CEZ spokesman Ladislav Kriz said the repair work at the power station, which is going through a series of tests prior to launching full operations, would take about a week. "It is still to be decided whether the repair will be done while the reactor is running at low capacity or whether it will be shut, but neither should have a large time impact," he said. He said the plant still planned to start full operations of the first of its two blocks in June, the latest deadline after previous delays. The $2.5 billion plant, combining a Russian-designed reactor with a western control system, has ran into repeated delays in construction and the launching process. It is fiercely opposed on safety grounds by environmental groups and neighbouring Austria. The Czechs say the plant is a state of the art project. The latest glitch was caused by vibrations and a crack in steam piping in the non-nuclear part of the plant. Related repair works have already delayed the planned start of full operation by a month. The reactor is now runnning at 30 percent of its 1,000 megawatt capacity. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 15 Leukaemia study finds unexplained home radiation Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search James Meek, science correspondent Wednesday March 7, 2001 Powerful, unexplained electromagnetic fields have been measured in homes that are nowhere near electricity pylons, scientists reported yesterday, throwing further confusion on possible links with cancer. Long-term exposure to high levels of electromagnetic radiation, such as that found near pylons, is associated with a possible two extra cases of child leukaemia each year on average, 0.4% of the total in Britain, the report said. But this did not prove that electromagnetic radiation caused the cancer, said Sir Richard Doll, head of the report team. Nor was there evidence that the extra cases existed. He would "bet money" on a statistical quirk being responsible for the association. The team's most startling finding was that only four-fifths of the estimated 275,000 Britons exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation lived close to pylons; the rest might be experiencing the effects of their domestic wiring, or the local electricity distribution network. "The discovery that most high exposures are away from power lines is new," Sir Richard said. "It was quite a surprise." The report was prepared for the national radiological protection board. Stuart Allen, an NRPB expert who acted as consultant for the inquiry team, said he suspected mains supply lines to homes were involved, but could not be sure. Electromagnetic fields are measured in teslas. A high domestic exposure is consid ered to be an average 0.4 microteslas or more. Household appliances generate much higher levels, but only at very short distances. The combined effect of scores of electric motors and pumps in a home would not be enough to bring the average exposure to children up to 0.4 microteslas. Electromagnetic radiation in the home could be measured with a handheld device, but the NRPB said that, while more research was needed, it saw no reason to change guidelines in the wake of the report. Like the recent report on mobile phone radiation, the Doll group did not do field work, but collated results of nine projects around the world. They found exposure to more than 0.4 microteslas was associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia before age 15 from about one in 1,400 to one in 700. But the numbers of children involved were so tiny that it was hard to prove this was happening in Britain, and impossible as yet to prove that any increase was linked to electromagnetic fields. Unlike ionising radiation - the kind produced by nuclear reactions - there was no sign that electromagnetic radiation caused mutations in human cells, which can lead to cancer. Sir Richard said he himself did not believe it was dangerous for families to live near power lines, but conceded that a link between electromagnetic fields and cancer had not been ruled out. "We can't say these fields cause cancer, only that the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposure can increase the risk of leukaemia in children," he said. [UP] ***************************************************************** 16 Promises, promises: Has Blair really been a friend of the environment? Independent By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor 7 March 2001 When Tony Blair made his final pitch to voters ahead of the 1997 general election, the youthful Labour leader promised to put the environment at the "heart of government". After its victory, the party impressed campaigners with its determination to push green issues up the agenda. A new department was created – the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions – in an effort to force the lumbering Department of Transport to build environmental issues into its daily brief. Each department was given its own "green minister" and a Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee was set up to provide proper Parliamentary scrutiny of Whitehall. Fuel prices Michael Meacher, the Environment minister, said the automatic fuel duty escalator, introduced under the Tories, was valuable in persuading people to use public transport. Unfortunately, the huge rise in the price of crude oil last year left the Government vulnerable to the petrol protests. Ministers panicked and opted for cuts in duty for hauliers and a freeze in petrol prices without any environmental assessment. Cars John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, said soon after taking office that he would have failed if the number of journeys made by car rose during Labour's first term. The number of journeys is still rising and up to 24,000 people die prematurely in the UK every year because of air pollution. When Lord Macdonald was appointed as Transport minister, he said the Government was not "anti-car". Legislation was introduced to allow congestion and workplace charging in London, but Labour attacked Ken Livingstone when he outlined plans to go ahead with the idea. Most worrying of all to green groups was the decision to push on with widespread road building and bypass projects. Climate change Mr Prescott took a leading role in securing agreement at the Kyoto climate summit in 1997 and the party was proud of its manifesto pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 over 1990 levels. The Government is on course to meet its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, but is likely to fail to meet its 20 per cent CO2 target. Worse still, when the Americans frustrated progress at summit in The Hague last year, Mr Prescott accused the French of scuppering a compromise deal. By abandoning the fuel duty escalator and pandering to the haulage industry, emissions are likely to increase. Gordon Brown's new scheme to cut the price of ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol may cut pollution but worsen global warming with a rise in CO2 levels. The Climate Change Levy was welcome, but green groups feel it has been watered down. Wildlife and countryside Labour's first and so far only significant green legislation is the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. The Right to Roam was a particular victory for Mr Meacher and will feature heavily in Labour's list of achievements at the next election. There has also been action to defend peatlands from the destructive actions of peat companies, and tough talk about excessive leakage from water company pipes (although the promised Water Bill has not yet been introduced). Plans to review the Green Belt and to build new homes in the South-east have triggered accusations from the Tories that Labour is not serious about the countryside. On the whole, however, this is a strong area for Labour. Nuclear power Mr Blair has given the nuclear industry strong support since taking office. Sellafield's falsification of its records on nuclear waste due for export to Japan has failed to dampen Mr Blair's enthusiasm for an industry that he believes offers crucial jobs and skills in a depressed region. Renewable energy The Government announced a 10 per cent target for renewable energy by 2010. They have also changed the law to introduce a more effective support system for renewable generators. The 10 per cent target is welcome but does not go far enough for Friends of the Earth, which has argued for a 20 per cent target by 2010, and the Tories have attempted to outflank Labour on the issue by promising 100 per cent capital allowances for the first year of a wind turbine. Yesterday's £100m for solar, wind, wave and biomass is welcome to the fledgling industry, but many experts claim wind power should be boosted with larger capital grants. GM foods With the exception of Mr Meacher, the Government has left itself open to the charge that it is partisan supporter of the bio-tech industry. Mr Blair, while claiming that the "science" should prevail and that Labour was "neutral" on the issue, has intervened personally, under pressure from the former US president, Bill Clinton, to support GM crops and food. Although Mr Meacher has done his best to use the farm trials to protect the Government from such accusations, green groups have pointed to consumer distaste for GM products. © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 17 Palo Verde expansion in future? Emmanuel Lozano/The Arizona Republic Palo Verde was initially designed for five generating units, although only three were built. Max Jarman The Arizona Republic Mar. 7, 2001 Pinnacle West Capital Corp.'s long-term plans to provide electricity could include expanding the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. "It's not something we're looking at right now, but it's certainly something we may consider in the future," said Bill Levine, executive vice president for generation at Pinnacle West's Arizona Public Service Co. subsidiary. Huge cost overruns and the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979 turned public opinion against nuclear power and halted a flurry of construction of power plants. But soaring costs for electricity and natural gas have put nuclear power in a more favorable light. "For the first time in many years, American companies are talking about it," said Richard Majeur, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Plans to expand the plant 50 miles west of Phoenix already exist. Palo Verde was initially designed for five generating units, although only three were built. An economic slowdown in the late 1970s and the skyrocketing interest rates that followed prompted the company to scale back its plans, Levine noted. But even with three units, Palo Verde is the nation's largest nuclear generating unit and second largest power plant. The only facility that tops its 4,000-megawatt output is Grand Coulee Dam in Washington. Palo Verde's power also is some of the lowest-cost electricity in the country at about $11 per megawatt. ***************************************************************** 18 PNNL studies quake potential at Rattlesnake Ridge This story was published Tue, Mar 6, 2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer The fault that runs along the base of Rattlesnake Ridge could produce a 7.0-magnitude earthquake that would make what Olympia experienced last week feel like the gentle rocking of a baby. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists just don't know when -- next week, next year or thousands of years from now. Their best guess, based on incomplete data, is that a major earthquake could shake the Mid-Columbia once in every 10,000 years. But data being gathered this week using ground-penetrating radar at Rattlesnake Ridge could lead to a more exact estimate. "We can't predict an earthquake," said Stephen Reidel, a geologist with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "Rather than predict, you try to understand the history of a fault -- when it last moved and how often -- and get a better idea of when it might move again." Researchers know by dating rock on the ridge that the ridge started growing 15 million to 17 million years ago as rock broke and shifted along the fault line that lies along the base of the present mountain. It's part of a 300-mile stretch of folds and faults across Oregon and Washington. They also know the ridge's very recent earthquake history from data collected since 1969. Researchers believe pressure is building along the base of the ridge. In recent years, PNNL scientists have recorded earthquake swarms to the east of the fault line. Those quakes are not related to faults but indicate pressure is building in the ground -- including at the fault along Rattlesnake. But there has been no recent activity there to release pressure. What scientists want to know now is what happened at the fault line over the past 100,000 years. "The main thing we're trying to do is find out when the last movement was and any earlier movement we can find," Reidel said. "It makes a lot of difference whether it was 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 years ago," said Alan Rohay, a seismologist at PNNL. For instance, in an unlikely, worst-case scenario, researchers could find quakes are occurring about every 10,000 years and the last one hit 10,000 years ago. But just finding that quakes occur about every 5,000 years instead of every 10,000 means the chances of an earthquake double, Rohay said. The first step of the project, paid for by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program of the U.S. Geological Survey, is to determine more precisely where the fault lies. Monday, a team of students and scientists assembled by the lab used ground-penetrating radar to check about 500 feet of a ravine to see rock structures beneath the surface. By choosing the ravine to study, they could look deeper into the earth. The radar can penetrate just 20 to 30 feet. Later this week, they'll check two more places along the ridge. When they identify the most likely location of the fault, they'll bore a hole to collect rock samples. If the results look promising, they'll apply for a permit to dig a trench next year at the fault line to see the layers of rock and sediment beneath the earth's surface. They'll look for areas where the layers have shifted and are now offset -- indicating an earthquake. Newell Campbell, a retired professor at Yakima Valley Community College, did a similar study to learn more about the earthquake history at Toppenish Ridge. The trench dug there showed possible indications of an earthquake 500 years ago -- stories of which have been passed down through generations of American Indians. It also showed an earthquake of 6.5 to 7.0 magnitude 5,000 years ago. Other earthquakes occurred 14,000 years ago, again some time before 65,000 years ago and more than 100,000 years ago, he said. That study was easier because a 10-foot-high scarp clearly indicated the fault line. The data that could result from a trench at Rattlesnake Ridge would be used for U.S. Geological Survey hazard maps, which influence building codes. The results could make construction less expensive. Without much earthquake data available, codes tend to be conservative, Reidel said. PNNL scientists believe an earthquake of the same magnitude as last week's Olympia quake would be far more devastating here. While that one was 33 miles beneath the ground, an earthquake at Rattlesnake Ridge would strike much closer to the earth's surface. That means more shaking and more ground movement. "The only saving grace on our faults here is they don't move as often," Reidel said. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights ***************************************************************** 19 TVA gets citizens' input on extending life of Browns Ferry March 7, 2001 By Bryan Mitchell, News-Sentinel staff writer DECATUR, Ala. -- The public had its first opportunity to voice its opinion about the future of a Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power plant here Tuesday night. "We've enjoyed it," said Steve Crunk, who attended the meeting with a friend. "If you had a problem they let you come right out and say it." Approximately 80 people converged on the Calhoun State Community College campus for a two-part meeting about a proposal to extend the life of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant. The plant, which houses three nuclear units, is roughly 10 miles from the campus on an 84-acre tract. Only two of the three units are currently producing power, and the operating licenses for each will expire in 2014 and 2016, respectively. The meeting was designed to measure public opinion about applying for a 20-year extension license for each unit. The licenses are granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and may take up to six years to receive approval, officials said. First, Karl Singer, senior vice president of nuclear operations for TVA, addressed the crowd about why the meeting was held. Singer was primarily interested in gauging the environmental impact of the extension and also ascertaining what alternatives citizens could offer. "We want to listen to your thoughts and ideas," Singer said to the crowd, which filled about half of the Aerospace Technology Building's auditorium. After Singer spoke for roughly 20 minutes, the crowd broke off into 10 different focus groups, where individuals' interests could be addressed. Before the different groups separated, an impromptu survey was held in which the crowd demonstrated overwhelming support for the extension, with only four people raising their hands in opposition. "It seems like a short-term fix," said Jackie Tipper, one of the four who opposed the extension. Tipper, who lives just up the Tennessee River from the Browns Ferry Plant, said she is happy with the job TVA does, but pleaded for an alternative. "TVA does good stuff, but it seems like we ought to do better for our children," Tipper said. Others disagreed, citing the economic importance of cheap nuclear power to the area. "So far we have enjoyed the availability," Crunk said. "(TVA) needs to use all the resources it has." At the end of the meeting, all of the questions, concerns, and ideas were compiled and will help to create a report which is required by the National Environmental Protection Act. Singer will then present a rough draft of that report to another group of citizens around the end of this summer. After the second public conference, Singer will create a final draft which he will present before the TVA Board of Directors in Knoxville. Bryan Mitchell may be reached at 865-342-6306 or at mitchellb@knews.com. 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 In These Times 25/08 -- Editorial: Strategic Deception [InTheseTimes.com] Doomsday scenarios are back. The most credible has Pakistan unleashing a pre-emptive strike against India. Or perhaps North Korea, a suspected nuclear power, attacks South Korea. Or maybe China hits Taiwan with a few nukes before a land invasion. After a decade of civil wars in Africa, the Balkans and Russia, as well as the spread of the AIDS pandemic, the world's most serious threats seem decidedly non-nuclear. Not so. "Nuclear weapons have become usable again," says Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a Moscow think tank that's close to the Russian government. Anxieties about nuclear weapons are rising, fed by the new Bush administration's avowed interest in building a missile "shield." Defense experts fear this could spawn a new arms race--or worse, launch an actual nuclear attack. Even before the new president can decide whether a missile-defense system is technically feasible, political costs are mounting. European leaders are bewildered by the U.S. position, and China is angry. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in January that a missile shield would "irreparably damage" global stability and probably kill the possibility of an agreement between Russia and the United States to dramatically reduce weapons stockpiles. What's pathetic about all this is that even if a missile defense system were to be developed, which is itself unlikely, everyone from the CIA to independent security experts say that a missile is the least likely form of nuclear attack on the United States--for the obvious reason that such a missile would carry a "return address," guaranteeing swift and certain U.S. retaliation. More plausible threats come from below-radar "cruise" missiles, ships and even hand-delivered bombs. So why is missile defense so appealing to the new administration? To start with, U.S. political leaders have long sought to placate Americans by promising technological "fixes" for the inherent instability of being a world superpower. And then there is the need to find new rationales for huge increases in spending on military innovation. Bush clearly sees in a missile defense system a respectable cover for a giant defense boondoggle (official price tag $60 billion but likely far higher) of the sort not seen since Reagan launched "Star Wars." There is a long history of the U.S. government setting fantastic goals for nuclear weapons builders to attract funding and public fascination. In the '50s, Edward Teller, then chief of one of the nation's two bomb labs, personally lobbied President Eisenhower to endorse work on a radiation-free nuclear bomb. No matter that Teller himself knew such a "clean" bomb was a fiction. The mere possibility convinced Eisenhower to oppose a ban on nuclear testing, which was Teller's real aim. Graham Allison, a nuclear strategist at Harvard University, concedes that domestic political needs have always driven U.S. administrations to push weapons systems with little regard for the effects on international relations. Now it's déjà vu all over again. Allison warns that many countries are unlikely to understand that U.S. politicians aren't serious about missile defense. He worries that China, which he estimates has only 20 working nuclear weapons and none deliverable by missile, might choose to launch a pre-emptive strike against a U.S. ally (such as Taiwan) in order to reset the international balance of power prior to the deployment of a missile defense system. The Bush administration, of course, wants to undermine any international backlash by insisting that U.S. allies would be covered by any defense system. But this offer is meaningless. "A defense against nuclear missiles is technologically possible, but it won't provide a real cover," Karaganov says. And this is precisely the point. Reducing nuclear tensions must come the old-fashioned way, by patient negotiation, compromise and giving incentives (or imposing penalties) on nations intent on developing nuclear weapons. Until all countries agree to foreswear nukes and destroy their stockpiles, the risk of nuclear war--accidental or otherwise--remains. No technological fix can change this. ***************************************************************** 2 Sweden Can't Rule Out Nuclear Arms in Kaliningrad In-depth coverage about Nuclear Weapons Tuesday March 6 10:56 AM ET STOCKHOLM, Sweden (Reuters) - Sweden, current president of the European Union (news - web sites), said Tuesday it could not rule out the presence of nuclear arms in Russia's Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad. Moscow dismissed U.S. claims early this year that it had deployed tactical, or short-range, nuclear arms in Kaliningrad, an area sandwiched between Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic sea. ``I find it hard to believe that you can rule out the possibility that nuclear weapons may exist, from time to time, in Kaliningrad,'' said Stefan Noreen, the Swedish government's top official on Russian affairs. Poland, a NATO (news - web sites) member seeking to join the EU, has called for an international inspection of the Russian arsenal in the enclave. Lithuania, which hopes to join both organizations, has said the issue should be a matter of European concern. Noreen spoke at a news briefing on an EU summit in Sweden March 23 expected to be attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites), who in January dismissed the U.S. claims as ``rubbish''. Noreen said no treaties prohibited Russia from placing tactical nuclear weapons anywhere it wanted within its own territory. The arms in Kaliningrad might be in transit from locations in Moscow's former Eastern European satellites, he said. Noreen said he assumed the Russian denials related to a further deployment and build-up of tactical nuclear weapons in the enclave rather than the prior existence there of such arms. ``If it were the case that Russia has deployed tactical nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and simultaneously denied it, it would obviously be extremely serious, no doubt about that,'' he said. ``But it is not certain that this is the case.'' Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov is scheduled to meet Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson, Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and EU external relations Commissioner Chris Patten in Stockholm Friday. ``We might want to raise this issue and other EU countries might want to do so,'' Noreen said. Copyright © 2001 ., and Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Russia reported to have deployed new nuclear weapons in the North - Defence Minister concerned The Norway Post - Doorway to Norway 7. Mars 2001 The Norwegian Central Defence Command has been informed of US intelligence reports which show that Russia has deployed new nuclear weapons at Kaliningrad, in the Baltic. According to the reports, these weapons are aimed at targets in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe, Aftenposten writes. Defence Minister Bjoern Tore Godal has received the information with concern, and says Norway will follow the situation in the area closely. The Russian enclave of Kaliningrad is now separated from Russia proper, and shares a border with Poland and Lithuania. It is an important harbour and industrial city. Up to now, Russia has repeatedly denied that they have a nuclear presence in the enclave. Analysing satellite photoes, however, experts claim that rockets are hidden inside a nuclear storage plant, but are unsure of what type of nuclear weapons they are. First reports of the deployment came in June last year. (NRK/Aftenposten) Rolleiv Solholm Share this article with others ***************************************************************** 4 Tireless is not your business, Spain is told ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001 By Neil Tweedie THE Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, warned Spain yesterday to mind its own business in the dispute over the crippled nuclear-powered submarine Tireless, saying Madrid had no right to interfere in British military affairs. He brushed aside Spanish protests over an alleged environmental threat posed by the vessel, which is undergoing repairs to its reactor cooling system. In , Tireless has been the focus of repeated protests, both there and in Spain. It was hoped that the vessel might soon be fit to return to Britain, but Mr Caruana said yesterday that testing of the repairs would not be completed until late next month. He said: "We have never had a nuclear submarine repaired in Gibraltar, and the submarine berth is 500 yards from the heart of the city centre so there has been anxiety. But what happens in the military base in British sovereign Gibraltar is a matter for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar and is none of Spain's business. "The French don't ask Spain's permission for what they do in bases near the Franco-Spanish border. The idea that just because you are a neighbour you somehow acquire a right over your neighbour's military assets is unheard of. "It is very important that no one in the United Kingdom allows Spain to get away with the notion that simply because they have a completely un-European, undemocratic, anachronistic claim to recover the sovereignty of Gibraltar 300 years after they lost it, this somehow gives them the right to dictate to the Royal Navy what it can do with its submarines." Mr Caruana made his comments while visiting members of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment at Wellington Barracks in London. The unit is providing the ceremonial guard at Buckingham Palace for the first time, and the Chief Minister was keen to emphasise Gibraltar's continuing loyalty to the Crown. He said: "It's an intensely proud moment for us. Spain has described the fact that the Royal Gibraltar Regiment is forming the ceremonial guard at Buckingham Palace as a colonial act. Well, there's nothing colonial about a British regiment performing ceremonial protection duties for their monarch." Mr Caruana defended the staus quo, saying: "It's absolutely inconceivable that in the Europe of the third millennium one part of the European Community should be handed by one sovereign member state - the United Kingdom - to another democratic state - Spain - contrary to the wishes of 30,000 democratic British subjects. "Spanish sabre-rattling merely alienates public opinion in Gibraltar even more." He also dismissed claims that Gibraltar was a haven for smugglers and money launderers. "It's pure propaganda. It does not exist." Tireless, a Trafalgar-class hunter-killer submarine, limped into Gibraltar on auxiliary diesel power last May after suffering a failure in the piping of its pressurised water reactor. The Ministry of Defence has admitted that 90 litres of slightly radioactive coolant were pumped overboard before the submarine docked. © of 2001. of reading. . . . ***************************************************************** 5 DOE specialist to speak at lab *March 06, 2001* By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE -- Martha Krebs, director of the Energy Department Office of Science from 1993-99, will talk about science management during a visit at noon Thursday, March 15, in the Building 123 Auditorium at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Her talk, which is free and open to the public, is one of two events planned by the lab women's association to celebrate Women's History Month. Krebs, who now directs the California NanoSystems Institute at University of California, Los Angeles, served from 1983-93 as associate lab director for planning and development at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. She established a Center for Science and Engineering Education at Berkeley Lab. The center offers research collaborations between students, teachers and UC faculty. While at the Energy Department, Krebs oversaw funding for programs in basic energy sciences, high energy and nuclear physics, biological and environmental research, fusion energy sciences, advanced scientific computing research, and science education. She also served as science and technology adviser to the Energy Department, advising on the management of the department's labs and the commercialization of department technology, among other duties. On March 22, the lab women's association has planned a panel discussion featuring six women researchers at the lab -- both past employees and current employees. The panel presentation is open to all lab employees. The panel will include Edna Carpenter, Luisa Hansen, Cecilia Larsen, Dorothy Ng, Pam Poco and Faith Shimamoto. Lorie Valle of the lab's Affirmative Action and Diversity Program will moderate the panel discussion. Carpenter joined the lab's astronomy group in 1953 as a mathematician and later became a computer programmer. Hansen joined the lab in 1959 as a nuclear physicist. Larsen was the first woman hired by the lab. Ng, a lab employee since 1978, is a licensed civil engineer. Poco, who joined the lab in 1973, is an assurance manager in the Chemistry and Materials Science program at the lab. And Shimamoto, who joined the lab in 1975, is a project leader in the Nonproliferation, Arms Control and International Security program. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 6 Hastings must be Hanford's champion The Herald editorial board is: + Cheryl Dell,publisher + Ken Robertson, executive editor + Kate Riley, editorial page editor + Kim Bradford, editorial writer + Jack Briggs, retired publisher Published March 6, 2001 Hanford is in sore need of a champion in Congress, and Republican Rep. Doc Hastings is the man for the job. New Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is looking to cut $700 million from the Department of Energy's budget, a move befitting the man who advocated doing away with DOE when he was in Congress. The administration has not detailed where the cuts would happen, but Hanford is unlikely to emerge unscathed. The head of the White House budget office testified last week that while cleanup is a top priority for the new administration, he could not rule out the possibility of significant cuts in that part of the budget. That's especially bad news for Hanford, which usually demands a fourth of the DOE's environmental management money. Hanford can ill afford even a break-even budget in a year when cleanup progress at the site will demand a fatter bank account. Hanford officials say they will need $400 million more than the $1.5 billion they spent this fiscal year to avoid falling behind in cleanup and facing the risk of lawsuits from the state. Some of the extra expense involves strategies, such as the accelerated river shore cleanup, that would save the federal government time and money in the long run. Others, such as the vitrification plant that is needed to get rid of some of the site's deadliest wastes, must have the extra money in 2002 or it won't have a shot at meeting legal deadlines. Responsible leadership would leave neither behind. It used to be, U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., could be counted on to lend his considerable esteem and tenure to protecting Hanford. His loss in the last election has left a void. Hastings, who sits on the House Budget Committee and whose district includes Hanford, is in the best position to fill that hole. He has a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress for the first since he was elected to the House in 1994. He should be poised to produce the results due the voters who have re-elected him three times. There is much behind-the-scenes work to be done on shoring up Hanford's prospects before a more detailed budget is released in April. But should the administration exact its $700 million in a way that imperils progress at Hanford, the Washington congressional delegation must use whatever pull it has to make sure Congress doesn't go along. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., can be counted on to fight for Hanford funding, but her party doesn't have as much pull these days. The state's other senator, Maria Cantwell, has the same handicap, plus the disadvantage of being new to the Senate. Much of the work will fall to Hastings. It could prove a challenge if that means bucking the Bush agenda. Hastings' critics say he puts his party's interests ahead of his district's. What a great chance to prove them wrong. What's your opinon? Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 7 Hanford budget plans still hazy This story was published 3/7/2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer Right now, Hanford's master plan for its budget over the next two years is to cross its fingers and pray. That's because the Department of Energy in Washington, D.C., has not provided a clue on what it wants to spend on cleanup at Hanford and elsewhere in fiscal 2002 and 2003. Hanford usually has a detailed breakdown of the cleanup budget submitted to Congress by early March each year, plus a detailed calculation of what DOE might request the following year. But not this March. DOE officials did not have any solid figures to discuss Tuesday at a workshop in Richland on Hanford's 2003 cleanup budget. A public meeting on the fiscal 2003 budget request is scheduled at 7 p.m. Thursday at Richland's Red Lion hotel. For now, DOE's Richland office and Office of River Protection are gambling that their combined budget wishes -- $1.9 billion each in 2002 and 2003 -- will survive intact. That's because any trimmed budget would push Hanford further behind on its legal obligations. So far, Washington, D.C., is silent on the budget requests. Already, DOE's contracts with its main cleanup companies don't always correspond with the Tri-Party Agreement, the legal pact governing Hanford's cleanup. DOE is gambling it can renegotiate the pact's legal deadlines to fit the already-signed contracts. Hanford's regulators are not thrilled with the approach. Doug Sherwood, the Environmental Protection Agency's Hanford site manager, strongly criticized DOE's contract with Fluor Hanford. The bottom line, Sherwood said, is that DOE is telling Fluor to spend cleanup money on projects that it is not legally obligated to complete, taking money from river cleanup efforts. Even without that side issue, DOE's Richland office's best-case scenario for the 2002 budget falls $23 million short of meeting all of Hanford's Tri-Party Agreement obligations. Most of the haziness about Hanford's budgets can be traced to the fact that a new administration is taking over at the same time Hanford wants to kick its cleanup efforts into a higher gear. Currently, Hanford has $757 million allocated to the Office of River Protection, which manages the tank farms; plus $755 million allocated to the Richland office, which manages everything else. That totals approximately $1.5 billion. However, when fiscal 2002 starts in October, Hanford wants to increase its total budget to $1.9 billion to start building tank waste glassification plants and quicken the pace of cleanup along the Columbia River. Then after 2002, Hanford plans to keep its total annual budget requests about level at $1.9 billion. But new Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham requested $19 billion for all of DOE in 2002, which is $700 million less than DOE's 2000 budget. And he's had little to say on how the money will be divided among cleanup and other programs nationwide. About $400 million of the request would go to new projects that aren't included in existing budgets. That means DOE plans to spend $18.6 billion in 2002 on the same work that cost $19.7 billion in 2001. DOE headquarters expects to provide a more detailed 2002 budget in early April. No one knows when 2003 figures might materialize. While potential budget shortages are on Richland DOE officials' minds, they said Tuesday that they are sticking with their original requests until Washington, D.C., says otherwise. For now, they don't have enough information to create backup plans for smaller budgets. Here is what is known about Hanford's budget requests: n DOE's Richland office is asking for $762 million for 2002. That includes about $50 million to speed up river cleanup. If DOE decides to keep Hanford's 2002 budget a current levels, that translates to $702 million plus several missed legal cleanup deadlines, DOE officials said. n The Office of River Protection is spending $377 million on glassification and $380 million on maintaining the tank farms this year. But as the project gears up, it wants to spend $690 million on glassification each in fiscal 2002 and 2003, plus about $410 million on maintaining and working at the tank farms each year. If DOE trims those wish lists, a major question is if the cuts will come from the glassification or tank maintenance requests. DOE's new 10-year glassification contract with Bechtel-Washington already delays other Tri-Party Agreement deadlines, which will now have to be renegotiated with the state. The company's contract calls for the first glass from high-level radioactive wastes in 2009, which is 18 months after the Tri-Party Agreement's 2007 deadline. Back to top stories ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 8 Hanford tank fails test, just doesn't hold water This story was published Tue, Mar 6, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer A central Hanford auxiliary tank that Hanford officials hoped to use to hold contaminated water has leaked, failing a test. The leak has Hanford experts huddling to come up with a backup plan. Late last week, Hanford officials declared the leak an "off-normal occurrence" -- the least serious on a three-step scale for measuring Hanford incidents. The 11,000-gallon auxiliary tank is near the 200 East Area's A Tank Farm's six single-shell, 1 million-gallon radioactive waste tanks. CH2M Hill Hanford Group recently replaced the ventilation systems on those tanks, and will need to drain contaminated water from the old equipment. The auxiliary tank -- dubbed a "catch tank" -- is a concrete box with a stainless steel liner designed to hold fluids pumped into it. Hanford picked this tank to capture the water from the old ventilation systems. Last August, Hanford put 700 gallons of water into the tank to test it for leaks as preparation for draining the ventilation systems, said Dale Allen, CH2M Hill's double-shell tank and waste feed delivery project manager. After a couple of months, experts were fairly sure the catch tank leaked. Last Thursday, they finished pumping 580 gallons out of the catch tank. Allen guessed about 100 gallons of water leaked and the rest evaporated in the tank. Experts now are studying if they need to build a new catch tank or if the ventilation systems' contaminated water should be pumped to a double-shell waste tank. Since draining the ventilation systems is about a year away, Allen said, the problem should not delay any tank farm schedules. But any fix-it measure will likely cost "tens of thousands of dollars," he said. Noting Hanford's tight budget situation, Allen said, "These days, we regard everything, even tens of thousands of dollars, as crucial." Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Lab says it's willing, able for Pu-238 role [Frank Munger's Column] [Frank Munger] Lab says it's willing, able for Pu-238 role March 7, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer Lab says it's willing, able for Pu-238 role [Frank Munger] If you think radioactive plutonium is bad stuff, try handling curium-244. If you think radioactive plutonium is bad stuff, try handling curium-244. OK, that wasn't exactly what I heard last week during a visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory's nuclear-processing complex, but the message was similar. I got an up-close look at two hot cells at the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, where lab authorities plan to process plutonium-238 for the space program in years ahead. While ORNL doesn't have a lot of experience in processing plutonium, at least not in bulk quantity, the folks there insist there's plenty of expertise to extract and purify the radioactive material for use in power systems aboard exploratory spacecraft. That's where curium-244 comes into play. Bob Wham, program manager at the nuclear center, said curium is much like plutonium but even more hazardous, and ORNL has been processing curium for decades. Curium-244 has a higher alpha activity per weight (more curies per gram), with a half life of 18.7 years -- compared to 87.7 years for plutonium-238. Boiled down, that means the radioactive material -- like plutonium -- has to be carefully contained at all times because of extreme hazards if inhaled or ingested. ORNL uses curium-244 as reactor feedstock to generate californium-252 -- a particularly valuable radioisotope produced at ORNL for industrial scanners and medical treatments. Wham and Larry Boyd, who's in the Department of Energy's oversight office at ORNL, outlined how the plutonium would be processed, ultimately resulting in a powder that would be packaged and shipped to Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Workers at Los Alamos would fabricate the powder into pellets for the space-bound power generators. Wham and Boyd said they are confident ORNL can accomplish its role in the nuclear program safely and successfully. Will there be plutonium emissions? Only a few molecules, according to Boyd, who said high-efficiency filters would remove virtually all of the radioactive material before discharge. The DOE officer said the air releases would not be dangerous and said he would be willing to breathe them directly. Suffice it to say, not everyone is so confident, and there will be additional scrutiny and questions before the Oak Ridge work gets started in earnest. (About $40 million will be needed to prepare the ORNL hot cells for the mission.) Critics note the lack of perfection at other sites where plutonium has been handled, citing some lingering problems at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado -- a former weapons facility where plutonium-239 (with similar hazards to Pu-238) was fabricated into warhead parts. Activists continue to protest missions that send plutonium-based power systems into space, arguing that an explosion could disperse the radioactive material on human populations. Scientists, however, suggest such an occurrence is virtually impossible. ORNL produces the iridium cladding used to encapsulate the plutonium pellets. * BURNING: The restart of the government's toxic waste incinerator is now scheduled for March 19, a couple of weeks later than previous reports -- with actual treatment of waste not likely until early April. According to folks at Bechtel Jacobs, DOE's environmental manager in Oak Ridge, it's still possible a trial burn will be held as scheduled in late April, depending on how quickly regulators approve the necessary documents. The trial burn, which tests the incinerator's capability to destroy chemical pollutants, is required to get new operating permits. Side note: Every time I have to spell out the incinerator's full name -- the Toxic Substance Control Act Incinerator -- I'm reminded of what a stupid job DOE does in naming things. Why on earth would anyone name a facility after the federal act that sets the environmental requirements? Can you imagine the Tennessee Valley Authority calling Bull Run the Clear Air Act Steam Plant? Senior Writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News-Sentinel. He can be reached at 865-482-9213 or at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This column is also available on the Web at www.knoxnews.com/editorsview/munger/ ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************