***************************************************************** 05/07/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.111 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 TVA, other utilities still looking for places to store 2 Two valves at Yankee fail in test 3 DOE delays seeking Yucca license: Budget shortfall may hinder 4 Yankee's rising value signals nuke resurgence 5 Transcript Of May 3 Remarks By Bush, Sec. Of Energy Abraham, 6 Bush team pursuing a retrograde energy strategy. 7 DOE Issues Yucca Mountain Science &Engineering Report, Supplement 8 Nuclear Power's New Day 9 GPU Reports That Appeals Court Rules that Remaining Claims in 10 New burial design may be more dangerous 11 N.K. nuclear reactor controversy reviving 12 Tourists at risk from Dounreay radiation 13 Editorial: So much for having Bush's ear 14 Energy Department conjures new plan for nuke waste 15 Radioactive waste ads campaign draws ire from several critics 16 Nuclear power, energy option: If waste problem can be solved, new NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 DOE oversight groups scheduled to meet in Oak Ridge this week 2 Our View: Stewardship issue demands ongoing national attention 3 Tough talks expected as state, feds deal with cleanup funding 4 Susan Gawarecki: City facing environmental budget disaster 5 Site cleanup draws mixed review 6 Plutonium proposal at SRS sparks safety debate 7 Nuclear Fuel Firm Fights for Russia Deal 8 Bush threatens to slash spending on nuclear safety aid to Russia 9 Who is our nuclear enemy? 10 Seoul denies nuclear accord revision 11 UK nuclear sub leaves Gibraltar - 12 Nuclear sub leaves Gibraltar 13 On Depleted Uranium: Gulf War and Balkan Syndrome 14 Israeli Nuclear Workers Strike 15 Blair under new pressure over Hindujas 16 PLAN IN WORKS: City prepares for potential terror... ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 TVA, other utilities still looking for places to store radioactive waste Monday, May 7, 2001 CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- The Tennessee Valley Authority and other utilities are pleased that an energy policy announced this month by the Bush Administration suggests promoting more nuclear power. But officials say the utilities must first address a major problem: the disposition of radioactive wastes already in underground storage. "It's time to put energy back on the front burner," said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., who serves on the House appropriations panel that oversees energy projects. "But you can't really bring nuclear power back in until you address responsibly the issue of where the waste is going to go that is now stored on site." Vice President Dick Cheney, who is heading a task force expected to develop the energy policy by the end of the month, has suggested that nuclear plants should be among the 65 new power plants built each year to meet rising energy demands. But critics say the wastes build up is getting worse, and there's not a permanent method of disposal in place. Nuclear utilities have been waiting for the U.S. Department of Energy to build a permanent national nuclear waste storage facility. The current proposed site for the facility, which has been met with opposition, is deep inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In the meantime, some utilities like Browns Ferry in North Alabama, have resorted to storing the spent fuel in above ground concrete containers. "Until such time DOE accepts the spent fuel, evaluations of available storage expansion technologies have demonstrated that the safest and most cost-effective option for Browns Ferry is dry storage -- the use of above ground, concrete containers with steel inner canisters," TVA said in a statement. "Dry storage of spent fuel is a proven technology that already is used at 14 U.S. nuclear power plants." TVA piles up about 136 tons of spent nuclear fuel each year to generate about a third of its electricity. To date, about 2,002 tons lie in underwater storage in East Tennessee and North Alabama. Nationwide, the 103 operating nuclear reactors have generated more than 44,000 tons of nuclear wastes that could remain radioactive for more than 240,000 years. Until permanent storage is developed, critics like U.S. Rep. John Badacci, D-Maine, say nuclear power production should simply be put on hold. "Why generate more nuclear wastes when we don't have a place to put what we already have?" TVA is the nation's largest public power producer, serving some 8 million people in Tennessee and parts of Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov/ All Contents.©Copyright *The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 2 Two valves at Yankee fail in test *May 06, 2001* By TOM MARSHALL Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- Two valves on a backup cooling system at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant failed a test during the plant's scheduled outage, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported Friday. The failure, which was reported on the NRC Web site's daily events report, took place at 7 a.m. Thursday and was self-reported by the plant. According to that report, two steam-exhaust check valves exceeded minimum leakage rates during the test, and were taken out of service for repairs. The reactor was not in operation at the time. Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the two valves -- which are designed to monitor steam-blowing, in the event of leakage in the primary coolant line -- did not fail entirely, but exceeded conservative leak-rates established by the NRC. Nuclear power plants such as Vermont Yankee use water both as a coolant for the nuclear reaction, and to generate steam for electricity. So the valves and equipment associated with water-cooling are inherent to the plant's safety. "Most of the activity during an outage is testing," said Williams, suggesting that Thursday's test had accomplished its purpose of identifying potential problems. The scheduled outage at Vermont Yankee began April 26 and is expected to last until mid to late May. ***************************************************************** 3 DOE delays seeking Yucca license: Budget shortfall may hinder 2010 opening of site May 07, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Lack of funding has pushed back the Energy Department's application for a license to open a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain by a year and could threaten the proposed project's 2010 opening, a DOE official says. The Energy Department needs $1 billion a year for the next seven years to get the project through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's rigorous licensing procedure, according to Victor Trebules, the DOE's Office of Project Control. The DOE, which would build and operate the repository if it is approved, is $98 million short, and as a result, the agency has postponed its plan to file its license request from 2002 to 2003, Trebules said Friday. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied to store 77,000 tons of commercial nuclear reactor fuel and defense waste. "To maintain the 2010 opening, more money is necessary from Congress each year," Trebules told state and local government officials after the DOE released four reports updating scientific information about Yucca Mountain. This year the DOE received $390 million for scientific studies after requesting $430 million. In 2000 Congress approved $351 million compared to a $409 million request. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was behind the move to freeze the Yucca Mountain budget for this year, as well as yanking money used to advertise public tours of the project. Reid, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, plans to continue trimming DOE funding for Yucca Mountain, committee spokesman David Cherry said. The Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee meets on Thursday, and Reid plans to question the DOE on the need to increase its budget, Cherry said. Reid said he will examine the DOE's funding request carefully. "I'm going to see what I can do," the senator said. While studies inside the 5-mile-long exploratory tunnel continue, the DOE had planned to spend the extra money for designing a repository with enough detail to satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Trebules said. Instead, the DOE funneled money to support ongoing scientific work, and the license request was put on hold, he said. In addition, more than $11 billion has been added to cost estimates for the repository, bringing the total to $58 billion, Trebules said. The bulk of the increase is $7 billion to install titanium shields to protect buried containers from water moving through the mountain. Other expenses include $2.7 billion for steel reinforcements to protect machinery and workers inside the repository, $1 billion for regulatory hurdles and management and $1 billion to expand surface facilities, including an extra pool for storing spent reactor fuel until it is prepared for burial. "What is clear from these new reports is that the overall cost of this proposed repository has ballooned to more than $50 billion and will likely continue to climb as design work continues," Reid said in a statement Friday. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said that the rising cost for Yucca Mountain "shows this project is out of control. Yucca Mountain is not the answer to our nation's nuclear waste problem." In addition, Reid, the assistant Democratic leader, noted no limit for radiation releases from a repository has been set and no specific transportation routes have been proposed. None of the DOE's reports released Friday addresses effects from transporting the nuclear wastes or what would happen if there were an accident before trucks or trains reached the site. There is no rail line to either the Nevada Test Site or the mountain. Meanwhile Gov. Kenny Guinn vowed not to let the Legislature remove his $5 million request for state funds to fight the repository on legal and public levels. The bulk of the money would be used to hire the best attorneys specializing in nuclear matters, Guinn said late Friday. Some of the money would be used to support a nationwide information campaign to explain the dangers of shipping high-level nuclear waste across 43 states. "We're going to fight back," Guinn said. "We are going to put up the best fight you've ever seen." With the thousands of pages of documents from the DOE, state officials will analyze the scientific evidence for indications that building a repository will harm the state, the governor said. "If they take any action that substantially causes harm, the state will be prepared," Guinn said, adding Nevada plans to go to court. Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said the DOE ignored earthquake hazards and water in the mountain, forming the basis for the state to take legal action. "As Nevada's chief legal officer, let me reiterate that this office is committed for the long haul and is preparing to challenge the Yucca Mountain Project with all the resources at our disposal," Del Papa said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Yankee's rising value signals nuke resurgence The Times Argus Online - By STEVENSON SWANSON Chicago Tribune VERNON – To understand how dramatically the fortunes of the nuclear power industry have turned around lately, consider the case of Vermont Yankee. When it was put on sale in 1999, only one buyer showed interest, offering $23.5 million for the plant. But just before the sale closed, another company said it would pay more. The first company countered with an offer of more than $93 million. Like an art dealer savoring the prospect of selling a Monet, the state Public Service Board, the board that oversees Vermont Yankee, has ordered that the plant be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The premium prices that once-shunned nuclear plants are now fetching testify to nuclear power’s remarkable turnaround, a revival that can be attributed in part to problems with other forms of energy – mainly the high price of natural gas – and in part to dramatic improvements in running nuclear plants more efficiently, resulting in lower costs. In Illinois, for instance, the former Commonwealth Edison plants produced only 49 percent of their potential power output as recently as 1997. Those plants, now owned by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., pumped out 94 percent of their potential output last year. And now the company plans to file for 20-year license extensions for its Dresden and Quad Cities plants, which in the past were on the federal government’s watch list of troubled nuclear facilities. Important obstacles, such as dealing with radioactive waste, remain to be solved before nuclear power achieves the kind of full-blown revival that seems to be envisioned by Vice President Dick Cheney, who gave nuclear energy its strongest public endorsement in decades in a speech last week outlining the Bush administration’s probable energy strategy. But in the current euphoria sweeping through the nation’s 103 existing nuclear plants, those hurdles look like mere speed bumps. Industry executives are starting to talk about building new nuclear plants, an idea that would have been laughed down only a year or so ago. “I think it’s pretty likely that more will be built,” said Ross Barkhurst, president of Vermont Yankee, which is owned by a consortium of New England utilities. “The groundwork is laid.” Cheney, who is putting together a national energy plan for President Bush that could be released as early as mid-May, cited the environmental benefits of nuclear energy in his speech to newspaper publishers in Toronto. Unlike power plants that burn coal and natural gas, nuclear plants, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, produce no sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide emissions, blamed for acid rain and global climate change. “If we are serious about environmental protection, then we must seriously question the wisdom of backing away from what is, as a matter of record, a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source,” he said, without divulging any specific details of the plan. Such talk elicits counter arguments from foes who want to rekindle the nation’s doubts about nuclear power, which fell into disfavor in the 1970s and 1980s in the aftermath of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. “Instead of calling it a revival of nuclear power, we would refer to it as a relapse to a failed technology,” said Paul Gunter, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Washington, D. C. anti-nuclear group, who cites a 1985 Forbes cover story that declared the U. S. nuclear power program “the largest managerial disaster in business history.” But it’s clear the Bush administration does not share that view. Now, to make construction of new nuclear plants possible, the nuclear industry is lobbying the White House for help in tying up some vital loose ends. At the top of the list is the decades-long uncertainty over where spent radioactive fuel will be deposited. Currently, plants store the used fuel on site, but they are running out of room for the highly radioactive waste. The Energy Department is supposed to issue a long-awaited scientific assessment of the proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada later this year. Industry officials want the government to go ahead with the site, which was supposed to be open three years ago. “The federal government has failed in its obligation to begin removing spent fuel from reactor sites by 1998,” Exelon chairman Corbin McNeill told a Senate hearing last week on the state of nuclear power. “The federal government must work to meet its obligation in a more timely manner.” In addition, the industry wants White House support for a renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits a plant’s liability in case of a catastrophic accident. The law, which expires next year, is crucial for utilities to float bonds for financing new plants. That the nuclear power industry is being taken seriously on Capitol Hill and at the White House is all the more remarkable in light of its early history of cost overruns, construction delays and plant cancellations. But industry officials say that in the last decade or so, utilities have mastered the art of running these highly complex facilities. Last year, the industry’s average capacity factor – a measurement of how much power a plant produces versus how much it could produce if it ran full-time – was 91 percent, up from about 70 percent 10 years ago. “We have added the equivalent of 23 reactors just by operating effectively, without turning any dirt,” said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group. One main reason plants are running closer to their full potential is a sharp reduction in the amount of downtime for the periodic replacement of uranium fuel rods, during which much other plant maintenance is also done. At Vermont Yankee, its current refueling outage will last only about 20 days, down from 35 days or more in the past. “We’ve changed a lot of procedures for efficiency enhancement,” said control room shift supervisor Mike Harris, pointing to a flow chart of the work that will be done while the plant is idle. “In the past, there would have been gaps between ‘projects’. Now, as soon as one is done, we start the next one, and that was all planned months before the outage.” Utilities that own plants approaching the end of their initial 40-year operating license have begun to line up for 20-year extensions, the first of which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted last year to plants in Maryland and South Carolina. In preparation for receiving applications for new nuclear plants, the regulatory commission has overhauled its review process, a sore point in the past with utilities, which were required to go through separate licensing procedures to build and then operate the plants. In the future, the commission will grant a single build-and-run permit, and opportunities for public input have been reduced. Times Argus 540 North Main Street, P.O. Box 707 Barre, Vermont 05641 Tel (802) 479-0191 Fax (802) 479-4032 Email info@timesargus.com ***************************************************************** 5 Transcript Of May 3 Remarks By Bush, Sec. Of Energy Abraham, Deputy Sec. Of Defense Wolfowitz After Energy Advisors Meeting WASHINGTON, May 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is a transcript of May 3 remarks by President Bush, Secretary of Energy Abraham and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz after Energy Advisors Meeting: The Roosevelt Room 1:55 p.m. EDT THE PRESIDENT: I want to thank you all for coming today. I've assembled a team within my administration, in particular, the Secretary of Energy, as well as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, to discuss energy. As the country knows, we're in the process of developing a comprehensive energy plan that will work to increase supplies, as well as encourage conservation. This is a long-run solution to the energy problems we now face. This administration is deeply concerned about California and its citizens. We're worried about blackouts that may occur this summer. And we want to be a part of any solutions. Since I became sworn-in, we've been working with the state of California to provide regulatory relief to encourage an increase in the amount of supplies available for the consumers in that state. Today, I am instructing all agencies, federal agencies, to reduce their peak hour electricity use in the state of California. And the Secretary of Energy will be traveling to the state today to consult with the governor of the state of California, as well as work with our respective agencies in that state. Secondly, I am pleased to report that the Secretary of Defense, after a careful review, believes that this Department, which has got a large presence in the state of California, can reduce peak hour usage by 10 percent -- and can do so without harming military readiness. We're also -- and the Secretary is going to make it clear to the officials in the state of California that should Governor Davis, or any other governor, for that matter -- request power generating units owned by the federal government, they'll be available to help in the case of an emergency. As well, FEMA, under Joe Allbaugh, is developing plans to help states that do face blackouts, to make sure the citizenry doesn't get harmed in any way. This is a serious situation in the state of California. And as I said from the very beginning of my administration, we'll work to help California in any way we can. And the best way we can is to be good citizens. So I want to appreciate very much, Mr. Secretary, all your work, and I know you'd like to say a few words. SECRETARY ABRAHAM: I'll be brief. As I think everybody knows from the very first day of this administration, the President has directed me and other members of the administration to work with California and respond to requests they have made -- whether it's to extend emergency orders, to make sure electricity and natural gas was provided, or to try to expedite permits so that new energy supply could be brought on line, we have done that consistently. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has, of course, also ordered refunds where charges were unjust and excessive. We want to continue to play the role that we can to try to avert the most serious crisis confronting California, which is the now-anticipated 30 to 35 rolling blackouts that may hit the state during various peak periods this summer. Today, I'll be traveling to California, I'll be meeting with the governor and then in the morning, with the representatives of all the federal facilities of the state to talk about ways that we can and to implement a plan to begin to reduce peak load usage at our federal facilities, so that we can play our part in trying to make sure we avert, to the degree we possibly can, blackouts this summer. We consider this to be a top priority of the Department, so we're going to be maintaining close vigilance on those efforts and the agencies in California will be reporting back to me in 30 days on the measures they're taking to help make sure we achieve our objectives. THE PRESIDENT: And we have with us Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: The Department of Defense, I think, consumes roughly 1 percent of California's peak load, which does make us probably the largest single consumer in the state. And we are going to do our part to try to mitigate the energy shortage through a combination of conservation, power generation and investment in energy efficient methods. With this initiative that the Secretary will be announcing -- Secretary Rumsfeld will be announcing this afternoon, we are focusing on reducing peak loads in California. And we plan by this summer to achieve a 10 percent reduction in our total electricity load from the California commercial grid during peak demand hours. That's a 10 percent reduction from the levels of 12 months before. We're going to work down, hopefully by summer of next year, we'll be 15 percent below peak loads of a year ago. Ultimately, our investments should make some 200 megawatts of additional power available in California, the equivalent of building a 200 megawatt power plant. But 75 percent of that 200 megawatts will come from energy efficiencies; 25 percent will come from new power sources, including some fairly innovative ones, among them, hooking up the idle wind generation plant in the California desert to Edwards Air Force Base. We'll be investing $32 million this fiscal year and $19 million in fiscal year '02. That $50 million investment should leverage almost $300 million from additional private sector investment and produce about $25 million a year in savings for Department of Defense operations when we're finished. So as the President said, this not only provides energy efficiency for California, but frees up some funds to improve the operation of our bases in the state, as well. Q Mr. President, are you asking federal agencies nationwide to cut back? And what will the White House do? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we ought to ask all agencies to review energy policy. We're focused right now on California because that's a state that's going to suffer blackouts. But we've always got to be mindful of being energy efficient. And since I've asked other agencies to review their policy, I'm going to ask the White House to do the same. Chief of Staff Andy Card has done just that today. We want to be good, efficient users of energy here in the White House. Stretch. Q Mr. President, your energy team is preparing a long-term report and the Vice President earlier this week gave a speech in Toronto that really, frankly, gave short shrift to the concept of conservation and concentrated, instead, on exploration, finding new ways to get natural gas pipelines built. Will conservation be a primary focus of the long-term plan, or is this really just something that's for the here and now and the short-term in California? THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I think conservation has got to be an integral part of making sure we've got a reasonable energy policy. But what the Vice President was saying is we can't conserve our way to energy independence; nor can we conserve our way to having enough energy available. So we've got to do both. We must conserve, but we've also got to find new sources of energy. I haven't seen the final report yet, but I suspect the American people will find a balanced approach. But what people need to hear, loud and clear, is that we're running out of energy in America. And it is so important for this nation to improve its infrastructure so we can not only deliver supplies, but we need to go find new supply. And I strongly believe we can do so in an environmentally friendly way. This nation is confronted with a major problem. And this administration is going to be honest with the American people about the nature of the problem and we're going to come up with some solutions. And it's going to take a lot of political will for people to buck some of the trends that somehow believe -- who believe that without finding additional supplies of energy, this nation is going to be okay. Q If I could follow-up, sir? Will there be a more prominent role for nuclear power, as part of your plan? THE PRESIDENT: You must wait until the report comes out, because I'm going to have to, too, until I see the final copy. But I would suggest that what this nation needs to do is review all options. John. Q Sir, the Vice President seemed to be saying on Monday that Americans were already pretty energy efficient, so there's not much to be gained by conservation. Do you agree with that? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I agree that we've made great strides in energy efficiency; home building materials are more efficient. But we just found a place where we can reduce energy during peak hours by 10 percent. We must continue to find. But what the Vice President and I understand is that you cannot conserve your way to energy independence. We can do a better job in conservation, but we darn sure have to do a better job of finding more supply. It is naive for the American people and its -- and those who purport to speak for the American people, some of those, to say that we can be okay from an energy perspective by only focusing on conservation. We've got to find additional supplies of energy. One thing this administration will do is we're going to do our part when it comes to conservation in the state of California. But we will be honest with the American people. And the American people need to have an honest assessment of the issues this country faces, not only short-term, but long-term. And that's exactly what the Vice President was saying the other day in Canada. And this report will be that way. Steve, final question. Q Sir, on the China policy, could you -- could I ask you to explain what happened yesterday with the Rumsfeld order, and what will it take now to have military-to-military exchanges with the Chinese? THE PRESIDENT: In terms of what they call the tick-tock, you need to talk to the folks at the Defense Department. But what the Secretary was rightly doing was saying that we're going to review all opportunities to interface with the Chinese. And if it enhances our relationship, it might make sense. If it's a useless exercise and it doesn't make the relationship any better, then we won't do that. But each opportunity will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. That makes sense. We've only been in office for 104 days. We've got to review all policy that we inherited. But what the Chinese must understand is that we'll be firm in our philosophy, consistent in our beliefs and we want to work to have a relationship that is a positive relationship for both countries. Q Do you feel better after seeing Foreign Minister Peres this morning? THE PRESIDENT: Had a good visit with him. Q -- better after talking to him? THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's an optimistic person. And I was so pleased that Mr. Peres came by. I don't know what his statements were like to the press, but he leaves knowing full well this administration is actively engaged at, first and foremost, trying to break the cycle of terrorism that grips that part of the world. But he gave me a very good assessment of how he viewed the world. And he's always been an optimistic person, so I do feel better having talked to him. He's a fine statesman, as well. Q Thank you, Mr. President. END 2:06 p.m. EDT *Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.* ***************************************************************** 6 Bush team pursuing a retrograde energy strategy. The Earth Times/OPINION: By Sumit Ganguly *© Earth Times News Service* AUSTIN -- As Californians continue to reel from the aftershocks of a flawed deregulation of public utilities and prepare themselves for summer brownouts the Bush administration continues down the path of an utterly retrograde energy policy. Instead of urging Americans to conserve energy and reduce their consumption of scarce carbon-based energy resources the administration continues its quixotic quest of expanding supplies. To this end it has renewed its emphasis on opening up the Arctic oil reserves despite widespread and thoughtful opposition from a variety of environmental groups. Also, it has, in complete disregard for the acute and well known problems of safely disposing nuclear waste, reiterated its interest in jump-starting the American nuclear industry. Finally, it has shown scant interest in urging Detroit to improve fuel efficiency standards on new cars and light trucks. Faced with these signals from the administration, large energy companies are gleefully awaiting the green light to start despoiling the pristine Arctic wilderness in their unending quest to meet the insatiable energy needs of a pampered population. The nuclear power industry long in the doldrums thanks to concerted ecological opposition is again holding out the dubious promise of smaller and more efficient nuclear power plants. At another level, the United States finds itself supporting a range of unsavory and undemocratic regimes in the Persian Gulf to ensure uninterrupted supplies of oil. This retrograde energy strategy is singularly ill-considered. It does little or nothing to break America's continuing dependence on unreliable oil suppliers, it does nothing to wean the country on its reliance on scarce fossil fuels and it does little to address declining environmental standards. On the other hand it encourages more irresponsible energy consumption, fails to provide incentives for the development of alternative fuels and provides little or no relief to poorer Americans. Worse still, it lacks the vision to foresee further problems as global energy demands increase with the rapid industrialization of continental economies such as India and China. With the Republican control of the White House and the virtual Republican control over both houses of Congress, this feckless energy policy will, in large measure, be implemented. Only a nationwide mobilization of environmental and consumer groups in concert with members of both the major political parties acting in tandem can this energy juggernaut be stopped dead in its tracks. Whether enough Americans will realize the adverse short and long-term adverse consequences of this ill-conceived energy strategy and act to forestall it remains an open question. Sumit Ganguly is Professor of Asian Studies and Government at the University of Texas at Austin. Copyright © 2000 The Earth Times All rights ***************************************************************** 7 DOE Issues Yucca Mountain Science &Engineering Report, Supplement to Environmental Impact Information &Project Cost Estimates energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release May 4, 2001 Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released four documents related to its ongoing work and study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a possible site for a long-term nuclear waste and materials repository. Documents released include: + The Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report that provides a summary of scientific and other technical information developed by DOE over the last 20 years in its study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The department is accepting public comments on this material. + Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. The supplement provides the most recent information on the repository design evolution and the potential environmental impacts associated with this updated design information. The department announced that is it opening a 45-day comment period on the supplement to the draft EIS. The original draft EIS was issued in August of 1999 followed by 21 public hearings and a 199-day comment period. DOE will hold three public hearings on the supplement document in Nevada during the 45-day period. + The 2000 Total Systems Life-Cycle Cost Report of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Program - estimates the total amount of dollars required for project completion. + The 2000 Fee Adequacy Report Assessment - determines whether the fee charged to ratepayers is sufficient to cover the total life-cycle cost of the project and is intended to inform Congress as to the sufficiency of the fee. All the reports can be used by the public as reference materials in providing comments on the technical information and data underlying the consideration of a possible recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site as a long-term nuclear repository. By issuing information on the Yucca Mountain site in stages, DOE hopes to provide all interested parties with ample time to thoroughly review the materials and develop comments on the possible recommendation of the site as a long-term repository. Copies of the documents are available by contacting Gayle Fisher, Public Affairs Specialist, at (702) 794-1322, or through the website at http://www.ymp.gov. Media Contact: Joe Davis, 202/586-4940 or Jacqueline Johnson, 202/586-5806 Release No. R-01-066 Back to Previous Page> ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear Power's New Day May 7, 2001 By RICHARD RHODES [M] ADISON, Conn. — Technologies are born, grow, thrive and decline, much as living organisms do. That should not be surprising. Since they derive from human knowledge, their effective application must be learned, and they compete for social and economic territory. Nuclear power, a product of naval propulsion research, emerged in the United States in the 1950's. Its first use as a commercial energy source came about because it had obvious benefits for pollution control. A Pennsylvania utility, Duquesne Light, built the first commercial nuclear power reactor at Shippingport, Pa., in 1954. The utility had planned to build a coal-fired power plant. When the public objected to further smoke pollution around smoky Pittsburgh, Duquesne switched to nuclear power. Public acceptance of a new technology is essential to its growth. Nuclear power, associated in the public's mind with nuclear weapons, was probably commercialized prematurely, while its complexities were still being worked out. Its environmental benefits were not fully appreciated in the early decades because air pollution was abating under government regulation in the 1960's and 1970's, and global warming had not yet emerged as the ultimate environmental challenge. When conservation slowed electricity demand after the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and 1974, utilities canceled orders for new power plants, both nuclear and coal. Almost all new plants built since then have been fueled with natural gas. But the population of the United States is growing, adding the equivalent of one California every 10 years. Demand has caught up with supply even with significant improvements in energy efficiency and conservation, and the United States has become the world's leading greenhouse gas emitter. These factors make a renewal of nuclear power likely. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun carefully extending licenses for existing reactors for an additional 20 years; eventually all 104 operating United States power reactors will probably be relicensed. Since they produce no air pollution or greenhouse gases, that's good news. The nuclear industry is consolidating, focusing experience and expertise. Several reactors that have been shut down will probably be restored to operation. Several others that were left unfinished when demand slowed will probably be completed. Two or three new advanced light- water reactors, designs the N.R.C. has already pre-licensed, will probably be built at sites that already have construction permits. One company, Exelon, is considering seeking licensing of a simpler reactor, designed so that it cannot melt down, that uses a bed of billiard-ball-sized "pebbles" of compacted uranium oxide and graphite as its fuel and helium as its coolant and working fluid, passing the fission-heated helium directly into a turbine to generate electricity even more cheaply than burning natural gas. If the pebble-bed modular reactor wins approval from the N.R.C., other utilities may decide to use this technology as well. Americans are beginning to understand one of the unique benefits of nuclear technology. A majority now say they approve of nuclear power, a shift that appears to indicate awareness that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. There is less evidence of public understanding of radiation and nuclear waste. Antinuclear activism began in the 1960's with concerns about the disposal of nuclear waste, and disposal continues to be the nuclear industry's Number 1 public-relations problem. The disposal debate is likely to move to center stage later this year, when the scientists and engineers evaluating Yucca Mountain, north of Las Vegas, as a possible permanent waste repository expect to deliver their final report. All energy technologies produce waste. Burning fossil fuels — even relatively clean fuel like natural gas — generates waste that cannot be contained within the power plant, as nuclear waste is, but must be released into the environment as air pollution and toxic waste. In the case of coal, burning releases ash that is mildly radioactive, because radioactive uranium and thorium are ubiquitous in the earth's crust, including coal seams. Even renewable technologies like wind power and solar photovoltaics produce waste: manufacturing the materials for the multitude of collectors necessary to gather up such diffuse sources as wind and sunlight requires burning fossil fuels. Thus wind or solar power systems release far more greenhouse gases across their life cycles than does a nuclear system of equivalent output. The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. One metric ton of nuclear fuel produces energy equivalent to two million to three million tons of fossil fuel. Waste volumes are comparably scaled: fossil fuel systems generate hundreds of thousands of metric tons of gaseous, particulate and solid wastes, but nuclear systems produce less than 1,000 metric tons of high- and low-level waste per plant per year. The high-level waste is intensely radioactive at first, but its small volume means it can be and is effectively isolated and contained. When a nuclear plant is dismantled (few have been so far), the several hundred thousand tons of concrete, which is mildly radioactive, is buried in the same sort of commercial waste site used for radioactive medical and industrial wastes. Spent nuclear fuel loses radioactivity steadily; after 500 years it is no more radioactive than high-grade uranium ore. The risk of radioactive waste's seeping past multiple barriers would be small compared to health risks posed by air pollution from burning fossil fuels, which the World Health Organization estimates causes three million deaths a year, with 15,000 deaths annually in the United States from coal particulates alone. Substituting small, sequestered volumes of nuclear waste for vast, dispersed volumes of toxic wastes from fossil fuels could provide an enormous improvement in public health. The other risk that nuclear power supposedly raises is nuclear proliferation. In fact, no nation has developed nuclear weapons using plutonium from spent power reactor fuel. It's much easier to make weapons from plutonium bred specifically for that purpose. Inspection and proper accounting and control of nuclear materials are the answer to proliferation, not limits to nuclear power. France once burned coal; that nation's electricity is now 80 percent nuclear, with five times less air pollution and with carbon dioxide emissions 10 times lower than Germany's and 13 times lower than Denmark's. At a conference recently in Japan (another nuclear leader, with 36 percent nuclear electricity), French nuclear industry executive Anne Lanvergeon proposed improving the debate about nuclear power by creating an authoritative world database that would assess the advantages and disadvantages of each type of energy in terms of use of resources and economic, environmental and health impact. Measured against other energy sources, nuclear power would emerge at the top of such a list. Energy needs in the United States will grow in the coming decades, even with improved efficiency and more strenuous conservation. Nuclear energy needs to be a major component of our energy supply if we hope both to reduce air pollution and limit global warming. *Richard Rhodes is the author of "Nuclear Renewal" and "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."* The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 9 GPU Reports That Appeals Court Rules that Remaining Claims in TMI-2 Litigation Must Be Limited to Existing Evidence of Record *Updated 6:58 PM ET May 2, 2001* MORRISTOWN, N.J. (BUSINESS WIRE) - GPU, Inc. (GPU:NYSE) announced today that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the District Court's determination that the remaining plaintiffs in the litigation involving the 1979 nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island-Unit 2 generating plant will be allowed to advance causation theories based only on the admissible evidence of record existing at the close of discovery. The District Court had dismissed 10 test cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs' proposed evidence as scientifically unreliable. The Court of Appeals said that after the District Court did so, there was insufficient evidence remaining even to submit the case to a jury, requiring that judgment be entered for the defendants. The Court of Appeals said the District Court was therefore correct in precluding the remaining 2,100 non-test plaintiffs from the further discovery of "new theories, new studies, new experts, medical causation theories and opinion, and dose information." A. H. Wilcox, attorney for the defendants, said: "The Court of Appeals decision confirms our conviction that District Court Judge Rambo's decision was correct. Now, more than two decades after the accident, is not the time to try to find support for allegations that the accident caused any injury to the public." Contact: GPU, Inc., Morristown Ned Raynolds, 973/401-8294 ©2001 At Home Corporation. All rights reserved. Excite, @Home, ***************************************************************** 10 New burial design may be more dangerous May 07, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Workers burying waste in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain could be exposed to more radiation if a "cooler" design is used, a supplement to last year's draft environmental impact statement says. The 86-page supplement, released Friday with a 1,000-page scientific report on the project, adds a possible design that would place the canisters of spent nuclear fuel farther apart -- one that scientists say would keep the mountain's rock cooler over time. That design would change calculations of how much radiation workers might be exposed to as they bury the waste over the 60 years it should take to build and fill the repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Workers could be exposed to a fraction of a higher radiation dose under the cooler design, the supplemental report says. The current repository design allows the rock temperature to exceed the boiling point and result in two worker deaths. A cooler, more spacious repository would keep the temperature below boiling but result in 2.8 worker deaths, the Energy Department calculated. The greater danger to workers comes from longer exposure to the waste as they build and monitor more tunnels. Robots would handle the waste containers, the report says. DOE scientists have calculated that no radiation is expected to escape into the environment for up to 10,000 years, the supplement says. That conclusion reflects the original draft environmental impact statement. The supplemental report also allows for a larger waste-handling area on the surface of the mountain to prepare for burial of four types of nuclear waste arriving from commercial reactors and defense sites. The types include commercial spent nuclear fuel -- up to 70,000 tons, most of it uranium metal pellets -- and another 7,000 tons of military wastes such as Navy reactors, liquid wastes transformed into glass blocks and weapons wastes. The DOE has already received 11,000 public comments on its original draft environmental impact statement, released last August. Comments on the supplement may be submitted at a public hearing, in writing, by fax or via the Internet by June 25: + Public meetings. The DOE will provide information to the public about its "Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement" from 5 to 9 p.m. at each hearing. May 31 -- 6 to 9 p.m., Longstreet Inn &Casino, Amargosa Valley. June 5 -- 6 to 9 p.m., Suncoast Hotel &Casino, 9090 Alta Drive. June 7 -- 6 to 9 p.m., Bob Ruud Community Center, Pahrump. + Internet. Written comments or requests for copies of the documents may also be submitted electronically at the DOE's Yucca Mountain Project website: ymp.gov. Go to "Environmental Impact Statement." + Fax: (800) 967-0739 + Mail: Dr. Jane Summerson, EIS Document Manager, M/S 010, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, P.O. Box 30307, North Las Vegas, NV 89036-0307. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 N.K. nuclear reactor controversy reviving welcome to Korea Herald!!_National Despite Seoul officials' repeated denials, the United States is indicating that the West should provide North Korea with thermal plants instead of nuclear reactors which they fear may be diverted to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The controversy over power supply to the North has resurfaced again recently as the Bush administration is reviewing its policy toward Pyongyang. Robert Einhorn, assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, recently raised the need to replace two light-water nuclear reactors under construction in the North with thermal power plants. Speaking at a seminar on North Korea in Washington late last month, Einhorn reportedly called for the provision of thermal power plants to prevent the North from obtaining plutonium. Provision of the less dangerous light-water reactors was agreed upon between the United States and the North in 1994, on the condition that Pyongyang freeze its old nuclear development program in Yongbyon. The Yongbon reactors had been suspected of producing weapons-grade plutonium from spent nuclear fuels. Under the Agreed Framework, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), an international consortium led by Western countries such as the United States as well as South Korea and Japan, has been constructing $4.6 billion nuclear power plants in Shinpo, on North Korea's northeast coast. Einhorn's remarks immediately drew attention in South Korea, as they came at a time when the U.S. administration is in its final stage of reviewing Washington's North Korea policy. Since President George W. Bush took office in January, some Republican lawmakers and experts in Korean affairs have urged the Bush administration to replace the light-water reactors with thermal power plants. However, another senior U.S. official, James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, recently expected that the Bush administration will neither scrap the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework nor revise the agreement to replace light-water reactors in the North. "The Agreed Framework of 1994 has been successful. And we, subject to the policy review, which I do not expect will overturn the Agreed Framework, will be generally proceeding along the same path," Kelly said in a Senate's confirmation hearing early this month. South Korean government officials have opposed the replacement of the nuclear reactors with thermal plants, saying it would cost too much. They said the Bush administration has yet to determine its position on the type of replacement power plants, dismissing news reports that Washington already informed Seoul of its decision regarding the power supply. Analysts in Seoul said some U.S. officials and lawmakers are calling for the thermal power plants, as the United States are experiencing a growing financial burden in the wake of a delay in the construction of the nuclear reactors. Washington is supposed to supply 500,000 tons of heavy oil annually until construction is completed. The construction was originally scheduled to end in 2003. But officials here expect it would take a few more years before completing the work. (shinyb@koreaherald.co.kr) By Shin Yong-bae Staff reporter 2001.05.08 (C) Copyright 2000 Digital Korea Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Tourists at risk from Dounreay radiation Independent.co.uk" © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. By Severin Carrell 07 May 2001 Tourists visiting a beach near Dounreay in Scotland are being put at great risk from highly radioactive particles of spent nuclear fuel which has leaked from the plant, an independent report has warned. The report by Dr Philip Day, a chemist at the University of Manchester, has warned that Sandside Bay, a popular beach on the north coast of Scotland, is contaminated with a much higher number of potentially fatal radioactive fuel particles than previously realised. Dr Day claims that despite attempts to monitor the beach by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which operates the Dounreay plant in Caithness, it has probably only found about 1 per cent of the fuel fragments which could be present there. Geoffrey Minter, the owner of the 10,000-acre estate which includes the beach, is now considering legal action against the authority for compensation and to force better monitoring. He said: "The UKAEA have shown little regard for the human dimension of the problem they, and they alone, have created." Health experts have warned that the most dangerous particles could kill if they are swallowed or inhaled, or cause cancers. They could also cause blistering if handled.The discovery of the particles on the sea-bed near the plant's outfall pipes has has already led to a fishing ban and marine exclusion zone. ***************************************************************** 13 Editorial: So much for having Bush's ear May 04, 2001 The state's top Republican politicians, in the closing weeks of the 2000 presidential election, assured Nevadans that they needn't worry. Despite the red flags raised by the Texas governor's many ties to the nuclear power industry, Gov. Kenny Guinn, U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons and U.S. Senate candidate John Ensign all oozed confidence that George W. Bush would listen to our concerns about nuclear waste storage in Nevada, giving this state a fair shake. But Bush isn't even four months into his four-year term, and already there are disturbing signs that the new team in the White House isn't paying heed to Nevada's worries on this critical issue to the state. The administration is anything but shy about the prospect of sending 77,000 tons of man's deadliest waste to a repository just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It's not helpful that Vice President Dick Cheney is using the power crisis to revive the moribund nuclear power industry, whether it's bringing old plants out of mothballs or building new facilities. The administration's love affair with nuclear power, in turn, has emboldened the industry and its supporters in Congress to step up their calls for the burial of nuclear waste inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In one particularly ominous sign last week, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham himself stressed the link between a repository and the need for more nuclear power. Before this industry can expand, Abraham said, a permanent repository must be approved. "First and foremost, we have to deal with the issue of nuclear waste," Abraham said. But the obsession to quickly get more nuclear power plants up and running -- and the fact that Yucca Mountain is the only site under consideration to store nuclear waste -- is causing concern that Bush will not honor his campaign pledge to let "sound science" decide Yucca Mountain's fate. Overall the administration's emerging energy policy has been marked by its indifference -- if not outright hostility -- to the environment. The administration's belief that environmentally sensitive public lands, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, should be open for oil and natural gas drilling is symptomatic of its willingness to do whatever big energy companies want -- even if these polluting industries will endanger the environment or the public's health and safety, as is also the case with Yucca Mountain. The White House energy task force has not issued its final recommendations on a national energy strategy, so there still is time to make changes. At this point it doesn't appear possible that the White House will reverse its misguided advocacy of more nuclear power plants, but Bush should shoot down the argument that more nuclear power presages a need to hasten the opening of a nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Instead of burying waste at such a geologically hazardous site as Yucca Mountain, the waste should be left at the power plants where it's been residing safely while alternative technologies are explored to render the waste less harmful. Repository opponents who encouraged Nevadans to vote for Bush -- such as Guinn, Gibbons, Ensign and an assortment of other influential Republicans -- should bluntly let the president know that aggressively moving forward on Yucca Mountain not only would be scientifically disingenuous, but that it also would run the risk of incurring the permanent enmity of Nevadans. Such a course would be viewed as a betrayal of this state's residents, who narrowly elected Bush after he matched the Nevada-friendly positions on nuclear waste storage that Democrat Al Gore had staked out. If Bush puts nuclear waste storage in Nevada on a fast-track, it would be tantamount to a scorched-earth policy. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Energy Department conjures new plan for nuke waste - 5/6/2001 - ENN.com Sunday, May 6, 2001 By Associated Press [A new design for burying nuclear waste is being considered for Nevada's Yucca Mountain site.] A new design for burying nuclear waste is being considered for Nevada's Yucca Mountain site. The government is considering a revamped, cooler design for storing thousands of tons of nuclear waste in Nevada with the changes adding nearly $12 billion to the overall cost of the project. The new design and cost estimates were outlined in a series of documents released by the Energy Department in advance of a recommendation later this year on whether to proceed with the project. The changes address concerns raised more than a year ago by a nuclear waste advisory board that the concentration of waste — more than 70,000 tons — could generate too much heat under previous designs and cause safety problems, especially if water were to contact waste packages. With the changes now being considered the total cost of the project at in the Nevada desert was estimated to be $58 billion, about 26 percent more than estimated only three years ago, and nearly twice the cost given in the early 1990s. About $6.7 billion already has been spent on the project, mostly for scientific studies and construction of an access tunnel at the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to make a recommendation to President Bush toward the end of this year on whether the Yucca Mountain is suitable for burying the nuclear industry's used reactor fuel, which will remain highly radioactive and toxic for thousands of years. The wastes are now stored at reactor sites in 31 states. Critics, including most Nevada officials, have charged that 20 years of scientific study have shown that the location has too many technical problems. Some contend it will never be approved. "There are still many unanswered questions," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, after reviewing the documents. "The report clearly demonstrates there is ample scientific basis for making a decision to dispose of used nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain," countered Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group. The hundreds of pages of new documents make no recommendations on site suitability and contain no scientific bombshells on what has been a decades long effort to find a place to store the used reactor fuel at commercial nuclear power plants. "There are no conclusions drawn from any of these reports as far as the suitability of the site," emphasized DOE spokesman Joe Davis. The department's nuclear waste office will formally determine whether the Yucca Mountain project should proceed later this year with President Bush expected to make a decision probably in early 2002, according to administration officials. But Friday's documents confirmed that after 20 years of study, the scientists are still making substantial changes in their design for the underground repository where 70,000 tons of waste would be kept in end-to-end canisters more than 600 feet below the surface. "The final design has not been chosen and won't be chosen for some time," said Allen Benson, a spokesman for the DOE's Yucca Mountain Project Office in Nevada. But because of concern over heat accumulation from the waste, the department now is considering a variety of measures — including putting waste canisters farther apart — to keep the repository above the boiling point. The latest design, compared to one tentatively recommended in a 1998 interim report, also now includes expensive titanium "drip shields" over the waste canisters to keep away water deposits. Finally, the designers are now considering keeping the repository accessible for possibly as long as 300 years instead of shutting it in shortly after all the wastes are deposited. This provides greater flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances, some scientists have argued. Together, these changes have added $11.6 billion (in constant 2000 dollars) to the cost of the project from an estimate given in 1998. The cost, which would total $58 billion for the entire project over a 100-year life cycle, could be even higher if the site were left open longer than 100 years, as is being contemplated, officials said. Copyright 2001, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 15 Radioactive waste ads campaign draws ire from several critics w w w . s t a n d a r d . n e t *Monday, May 07, 2001* The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY -- A public service ad campaign about radioactive waste has some people wondering just who the commercials are serving. The six radio spots, cosponsored by the Tooele County Chamber of Commerce and the Utah Broadcasters Association, remind Utah residents about the benefits of products that contain radioactive material, as well as their responsibility to dispose of such waste safely. The campaign is worth about $60,000. Such advertisements usually focus on issues like infant immunization or military recruitment. But these seem to promote Envirocare of Utah, the for-profit company that runs a radioactive waste dump about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The ads were paid for in part with a $15,000 donation from Envirocare, and the ad firm that handled the campaign for the chamber also handles the company's publicity. Envirocare, the chamber, the ad firm and the broadcasters' association all insist the arrangement is honorable and point out the Envirocare name is never uttered in the commercials. "We thought it would be a good opportunity to provide some education about low-level radioactive waste and the benefits it brings to our community," said the chamber's executive director, Jack Howard. But critics see baser motives from the spots, which celebrate cancer treatments and university research that use radioactive materials. Jason Groenewold of the environmental group Families Against Incinerator Risk said the broadcasters' group had been "duped" into acting for Envirocare. "This is an attempt by Envirocare to dress the nuclear wolf in sheep's clothing," Groenewold said. "It's a perfect example of why they can't be trusted." None of the radioactive byproducts mentioned in the ads would be disposed of at Envirocare, because all radioactive waste generated in Utah is required by law to go to Hanford, Wash. In fact, Groenewald said, 80 percent of Envirocare's waste comes from decommissioned nuclear power plants. Company spokesman Tim Barney shrugged off that point. "We are not trying to be sneaky," he said. "The fact is, Utah residents benefit from products that generate radioactive waste." He said Envirocare is a fixture in Tooele County's business community, so it makes sense Envirocare would contribute to the ad campaign. ***************************************************************** 16 Nuclear power, energy option: If waste problem can be solved, new reactors could add energy balance Sunday, May 6, 2001 Twenty-two years after the partial nuclear meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant, it's time the nation got over the scare and gave nuclear power another chance. That's if Congress energizes itself enough to find a place to put nuclear waste. At nuclear plant sites around the country, radioactive waste is piling up in temporary casks awaiting word from Washington on where to dispose of the stuff. That's been the situation for almost 20 years. Congress in 1982 pledged to find a permanent site for nuclear waste by 1998. A special tax was laid on nuclear-equipped utilities -- and passed on to customers -- to pay for setting up such a place. The site chosen four years ago, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is opposed, however, by Nevadans. Last year, they got then-President Clinton to veto legislation sending nuclear waste there. The Bush administration now is doing its own review of the site, with a decision expected later this year. Not until that matter is settled should federal authorities even consider the licensing of new nuclear power plants. But once a waste dump is available, the nation should be open to the idea. You don't have to be from California to see the logic. In almost every state, certainly including Michigan, the energy industry is pinched between competing demands that it produce more electricity, operate more cleanly and keep prices at levels that businesses and households can afford. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that meeting power demands will require construction of 1,300 power plants over the next 20 years, a 47 percent increase in generating capacity. There's good reason to think that isn't an exaggeration. The country's energy use has grown every year since the light bulb was invented and has surged in recent years with the use of ever more home computers, air conditioners and VCRs, in addition to the refrigerators and other appliances that an expanding population requires. Some of the additional need can be met by conserving more of the energy we already produce. But even with aggressive conservation, and use of more solar and wind power, that would still leave us in need of more power plants -- even if the need is only half the DOE's estimate of 1,300. The nation currently gets about half of its power from coal. For Michigan, the share is 75 to 80 percent. Coal supplies are abundant, but so are the pollutant gases pumped out by coal-fired plants. Constant and growing pressure to reduce harmful emissions has forced utilities to turn to cleaner-burning natural gas-fired plants. Ninety percent of new electric power plants in the United States use gas. Of new plants under construction in Michigan, all are to use gas. But gas is a more costly fuel than coal. Increased demand for gas, and environmentalists' resistance to opening of new drilling areas, have further pushed up gas prices and electricity costs. And ever more reliance on gas for power plants puts pressure on household supplies, meaning steadily rising home heating bills. Note that the gas-fired power plant under construction near Zeeland will use about as much gas in a year as would a half-million residential gas customers. Oil is scarcely an option, for cost and emission reasons, and because two immediate effects would be higher gasoline prices and yet more U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Hydroelectric power is limited by the environmental consequences and a lack of available rivers. So the nation is forced to nuclear power almost by default, but it seems an alternative that ought to be considered anyway. Electricity from nuclear plants can be as cheap as from coal. Unlike gas or oil, it is not subject to sharp fluctuations in price. The plants emit little carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases or pollutants. And technology has made them less expensive to build and operate. A new development, the pebble-bed reactor, costs a small fraction of the price of a conventional nuclear plant, operates at lower temperatures, is safer to run and generates less waste. Nuclear power has been used in the United States for more than 40 years and currently accounts for about 20 percent of electric power. Of 103 U.S. plants, three are in Michigan. Worldwide, 434 plants are running. Some European nations rely on them heavily. France draws 76 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants. Yet only once in the world, at the Soviets' badly designed and carelessly managed Chernobyl plant in 1986, has a disaster occurred. The 103 plants in the United States have a record of safety and increasing reliability. Even the one serious accident, at Three Mile Island, involved no release of radiation. Michigan, with 20 coal-fired power plants and relatively high electricity rates, has a particular stake in this issue. The Michigan dependence on coal is 50 to 60 percent greater than the national average. The state thus cannot count on the support of other states as environmental rules raise the cost of running coal plants here or force some to close. Even more than the rest of the nation, Michigan needs to move toward better balance in its energy supply. Expanded use of nuclear power can be a part of that, so long as disposal is part of the package. And that also means research into how waste might be neutralized, short of waiting thousands of years. Having turned on this power source, we ought to learn how to turn it off. Copyright 2001 Michigan Live Inc. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 DOE oversight groups scheduled to meet in Oak Ridge this week Monday, May 7, 2001 from staff reports Two groups that provide oversight and recommendations to the Department of Energy about Oak Ridge activities are scheduled to meet this week. The Citizens' Advisory Panel of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee will meet at 5:15 p.m. Tuesday at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation office, 761 Emory Valley Road. Agenda items include commercial radioactive and mixed waste treatment facilities in Oak Ridge and eastern Roane County and the preservation of a historic building at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site. The Local Oversight Committee was created in 1991 to represent those counties and communities affected most directly by DOE's activities in Oak Ridge. The Local Oversight Committee is funded by a grant from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's DOE-Oversight Division, which is in turn funded by the Department of Energy under terms of the Tennessee Oversight Agreement. The Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board will meet at 6 p.m. on Wednesday at the Garden Plaza hotel, 215 S. Illinois Ave. At the meeting, officials with the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation will discuss the watershed concept as a remediation strategy for the Oak Ridge Reservation. The Site-Specific Advisory Board is a federally appointed citizens' panel that provides advice and recommendations to DOE on its Oak Ridge environmental management program. The group was formed in 1995 and was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 2 Our View: Stewardship issue demands ongoing national attention Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:39 p.m. on Monday, May 7, 2001 Susan L. Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, sounds what at first must seem like a hysterical, or at least overreactive, note on the page opposite this. Except that, to know Ms. Gawarecki is to know that she is not given to hysteria, that she chooses her words thoughtfully and carefully. In fact, we would hasten to note here that Ms. Gawarecki was among the scientific voices who so eloquently debunked The Tennessean's ridiculous and reckless series which fanned local environmental fears and advanced inaccurate stereotypes. So when Ms. Gawarecki and others as thoughtfully introspective as herself wonder why local Department of Energy officials are prohibited from discussing an apparent $90 million shortfall in environmental cleanup funds locally, there is reason to stand up and take note. Granted, part of what she ascribes to "gag order" may be tied to the predictable uncertainties surrounding a changing of the guard in the nation's capital. With a new administration, and thus energy secretary, there is an understandable initial unease about who can speak to what and when. But there is also, undeniably, the budget figures which clearly speak to a new administration's changed commitments. Environmental stewardship, as it is called by local oversight officials, is not a one-time shot in the arm, but rather an ongoing commitment. They note that just as government has an ongoing public stewardship over highways or sewer and water systems, there must be a similar commitment of resources and effort where environmental wastes and its cleanup and disposal are concerned. That does not mean, of course, that there cannot be another, better means of achieving identified ends. It does not mean, even within our litigious culture, that any risk, however minuscule, is unacceptable. But the steward in this case, the government, has an obligation to elaborate on those alternate means, or identify those changing risks. There is much renewed talk of late, and very deserved talk, about re-examining the role of nuclear power as part of the necessary energy mix for a nation that remains hobbled by lack of a long-term energy strategy. But the commitment to stewardship must be at the forefront of the nuclear power discussion, and the federal commitment to places like Oak Ridge today will go a long way tomorrow toward reassuring the public about a thoughtful federal energy policy which takes into account a commitment to proper nuclear waste disposal safeguards. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 3 Tough talks expected as state, feds deal with cleanup funding May 7, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer Tennessee's oversight agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy, whereby the federal government pays for state authorities to monitor Oak Ridge nuclear operations and evaluate the progress of environmental cleanup activities, is due to expire next month. The state's proposal for a new 5-year, $22 million grant is under review by DOE, and there's no word on when a decision may emerge. John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight chief in Oak Ridge, said the proposed agreement and grant application were submitted to the Energy Department last fall. If approved, the agreement would be the third since 1991, when DOE and the state reached a historic pact that shifted the cost of environmental oversight to the feds. Given the size of the Oak Ridge operations and the extent of environmental problems, it would be impossible for the state to regulate DOE's activities without depleting all available resources. "No chance," said Justin Wilson, the policy deputy to Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist. "Nor should we be paying." Wilson said he views the state's oversight function as a part of the overall cleanup responsibility, which rests squarely with the federal government. DOE has signed similar pacts with other states that host federal operations with legacies of Cold War pollution. Owsley said the proposed agreement submitted to DOE would maintain current staffing level (about 60 people) at the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's Oak Ridge office. There are rumblings that the Bush administration wants to chop DOE oversight funds across the country. Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee that monitors Oak Ridge environmental issues for local governments, said there was an early report that the new administration might "zero out" funding for oversight programs. "What I've heard now is that for 2002, the money is probably going to be about 50 percent of the previous level," Gawarecki said. The Local Oversight Committee's funding comes from the DOE grant to the state, so Gawarecki's group could feel the hurt. "I think that's bad, obviously, and not just because the Local Oversight Committee's funding is impacted, but because that's an obligation DOE has to the states," she said. Wilson said he anticipates a tough negotiation. "I can't tell you at this point what my negotiating position is going to be because I don't know," he said, "but the state of Tennessee is going to be very firm. When we make an agreement with the United States of America, then the United States has a responsibility to honor that agreement." DOE made a commitment to fund the Oak Ridge oversight program back in 1991, and Wilson suggested the commitment is still in place, whether it involves a new agreement or an extension of the old one. Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has vowed to reevaluate the entire cleanup program, which costs billions of dollars annually. Abraham has asked the states with DOE sites to provide input to that effort. Wilson will be Tennessee's chief representative, and he said he thinks it's a good idea to rethink the DOE approach to cleanup. Everyone, naturally, is scrutinizing the budget for fiscal 2002 with keen eyes, and there are obvious concerns for the near term. The proposed budget submitted by the Bush administration would provide about $316.4 million for the Oak Ridge environmental management program. That's well below the state's expectations of about $400 million. Although the administration's fiscal blueprint would allow DOE's Oak Ridge operations to stay in environmental compliance, regarding emissions from its research and production facilities, Owsley said it would not enable the agency and its contractors to meet milestones in the Oak Ridge cleanup campaign. "It does not provide sufficient funds for our negotiated agreements," he said. DOE's Oak Ridge office requested enough money to meet the milestones, thus fulfilling its requirements, but the administration decided not to ask Congress for the money, Owsley said. If the proposed amount is not supplemented by Congress, then the state will have to negotiate with DOE to cover the top priorities for cleanup with available funds, he said. But the 2002 budget could jeopardize some projects on the drawing board or, at the minimum, postpone them, he said. Wilson said the bottom line is the money is adequate to protect the health of citizens living around the Oak Ridge facilities. "Obviously, we would like to have more money," he said. "I would not be frank if I didn't say that. We have a situation of having to slow down or delay cleanups that we would like to see happen." But he said the budget appears to fully fund construction of new waste-disposal facility for the Oak Ridge cleanup program. "That's very positive," Wilson said. Gawarecki said she has spent about 20 hours analyzing DOE budget documents, trying to figure out the impacts on Oak Ridge. The overall environmental management budget for DOE's Oak Ridge operations is about the same as last year, she said, but an unusual amount of the money is targeted for non-Tennessee sites that come under the Oak Ridge office's direction. That includes some projects in Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri. Based on her evaluation, funding for cleanup work on the Oak Ridge reservation will decline by about $90 million. "I can't stress enough our concern about the disappearing $90 million," Gawarecki said. "It's going to cause tremendous upheaval." If DOE has to halt projects already underway in various phases, it will add significantly to the overall cost of cleanup, she said. "You can't just walk away," Gawarecki said. "There are penalties for terminating subcontracts. You've got equipment that is contaminated and will have to be cleaned up." There also could be layoffs among the cleanup companies, and those jobs might not be transferable to other Oak Ridge projects, such the Spallation Neutron Source and the modernization of the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, she said. And it's not clear how much Tennessee's congressional delegation will fight to change the Bush budget numbers because state leaders are in the same political party as the new president, she said. Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. ***************************************************************** 4 Susan Gawarecki: City facing environmental budget disaster Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:41 p.m. on Monday, May 7, 2001 Why would Department of Energy Headquarters put a gag order on Oak Ridge's DOE Environmental Management officials? What issue is of such immense national security that they can't discuss it with local officials? The 2002 Environmental Management budget. That's right, the details of your tax dollars at work in your community is a taboo subject with the local environmental managers. Budgets can be difficult documents to analyze, and DOE's 2002 request to Congress for its Environmental Management funding is no exception. In the case of this monster, Oak Ridge Operations figures are scattered across 10 sections containing 722 pages -- and that doesn't include the sections that must be examined to determine if they apply to Oak Ridge. If you'd like to study this material for yourself, go to http://www.em.doe.gov/budget_docs.html. At first glance, the total Oak Ridge Operations request for fiscal year 2002 seems to be "flat" compared to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, dropping only $1.5 million off last year's total of $651 million. As usual, the devil is hiding in the details. When one subtracts out line items specific to Portsmouth, Paducah, and Weldon Spring -- all managed by Oak Ridge Operations -- the picture for Environmental Management at Oak Ridge Reservation becomes clear -- Oak Ridge Reservation stands to lose over $90 million in cleanup money for fiscal year 2002. If the Oak Ridge Reservation budget is missing $90 million, but the Oak Ridge Operations budget is essentially the same as fiscal year 2001, where did the money go? Portsmouth is the spoiler. Because United States Enrichment Corp. has made a business decision to end its uranium enrichment operations at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, DOE must place the plant in standby mode. Up to now, the enrichment process has provided the heat for the Portsmouth facility; consequently, DOE must build a heating plant to keep this enormous facility in a condition in which surveillance and maintenance can be performed indefinitely. What is the motivation for eliminating cleanup activities? Energy Secretary Abraham continues to quote "300 billion dollars over 70 years," figures loosely based on a long-abandoned 1995 analysis, as if they were current cleanup cost projections. This is now the rationale to stop all cleanup projects at Oak Ridge (and other sites around the nuclear weapons complex) while DOE reevaluates -- again -- the scope of its environmental problem. What would taking this particular $90 million out of Oak Ridge mean from an economic point of view? * Funding to Bechtel Jacobs Corp., DOE's local contractor for Environmental Management activities, would be cut by about $65 million. * Funding to BNFL, DOE's contractor undertaking decontamination and decommissioning of three gaseous diffusion buildings at East Tennessee Technology Park, would be cut by about $14 million. * Bechtel Jacobs would have to end its subcontracts with firms performing cleanup work. This is a costly step, as these contracts typically have termination penalties written into them. * Bechtel Jacobs, BNFL, and numerous subcontractors would have to lay off employees involved in the cleanup work. How many family members, friends, and neighbors do you know who might be affected? * Businesses with no other local contracts would leave Oak Ridge. Imagine the impact on the commercial real estate sector. In addition, an already soft residential real estate market would be further harmed. Beyond the grim local economics, many cleanup projects both under way and planned would be stopped. DOE has negotiated agreements with the state of Tennessee and the Environmental Protection Agency that progress will continue on these projects. Under the current budget, these promises would be abandoned. Work slated to address historic waste dumps in Melton Valley and Bear Creek Valley, source areas for mercury and uranium contamination at Y-12, contaminated portions of Bethel Valley (including Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and D and cleanup projects at East Tennessee Technology Park would all be suspended. Money provided to the state for oversight of cleanup work would be halved. Perhaps the biggest casualty would be the credibility that DOE's local Environmental Management program has laboriously built with its stakeholders over the years -- activists, concerned citizens, local officials, and regulators have fashioned a working relationship with local DOE officials. Now this, too, will come crashing down. By the time cleanup in Oak Ridge gets back on track, the momentum would be lost. Progress would be set back years. Documents, institutional knowledge, and project teams would be dispersed. The costs to reexamine and restart the cleanup activities would be enormous. Oak Ridge must not allow DOE to abandon its obligation to clean up the environmental problems remaining from five decades of weapons production and nuclear research. The $90 million necessary for funding environmental restoration and D must be fully restored to the 2002 Environmental Management budget. Our community must settle for nothing less. Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., is executive director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 5 Site cleanup draws mixed review Augusta Georgia: Metro: *SRS supporters cheer Tuesday's radioactive materials shipment, but watchdogs fault priorities * *Web posted Monday, May 7, 2001 By Brandon Haddock *Staff Writer* Tuesday is a significant day at Savannah River Site, but just how significant depends on whom you ask. After years of preparation and millions of dollars, the federal nuclear-weapons site is scheduled Tuesday to make its first shipment of radioactive waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant , an underground repository in New Mexico. The shipment will travel along Interstate 20. Site supporters laud Tuesday's truckload and future shipments as tangible evidence that cleanup is under way at SRS, after years of Cold War operations that produced tons of radioactive waste and polluted soil and ground water. But some watchdogs say the shipments will do little to clean up the site's arms-race leftovers. Instead, critics contend, the shipments will suck money and resources from more pressing environmental concerns at the site. ``I think that, unfortunately, WIPP may just turn out to be a dog-and-pony show,'' said state Rep. Nan Orrock, D-Atlanta, who monitors SRS issues from her seats on the Legislature's Health and Ecology and Intra-Governmental Coordination committees. Ms. Orrock, echoing the sentiments of many observers, said she would prefer that the U.S. Department of Energy concentrate its efforts on cleanup of polluted soil and ground water at SRS. ``I would far prefer to see the dollars, the research, and the energy going into addressing that significant threat to both South Carolinians and Georgians,'' she said. ``My concerns are that we're kind of dabbling around the edges with this WIPP transportation and missing the core of the problem.'' Some SRS supporters disagree, saying the waste could pose a long-term risk to the environment if it remains at SRS. ``While it's being stored safely there now, it certainly isn't designed to be stored there for the next hundred or thousand years,'' said Bill Reinig, a former SRS official who is vice chairman of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, a pro-nuclear group based in Aiken. ``When we designed and built that storage facility, it was not designed as a permanent storage facility to store waste,'' Mr. Reinig said. ``It was designed as a temporary storage facility. ``Basically, the waste has to go.'' Tuesday's shipment will contain 42 55-gallon drums of waste, the maximum possible in a single shipment, said Dale Ormond, the energy department's senior manager for the transuranic waste program at SRS. The barrels contain rags, hoses, gloves, clothing and other debris contaminated with plutonium during years of the site's Cold War operations, Mr. Ormond said. During the next 30 years, the site will send about 1,800 shipments to WIPP - about 55,000 barrels of waste - SRS officials have said. The program is expected to cost about $1.3 billion. The site has spent about $15 million to earn certification to ship wastes to WIPP and to prepare for the first shipment, Mr. Ormond said. ``This is a major milestone for SRS, to start a visible indication of our beginning the process to clean up the Cold War legacy,'' Mr. Ormond said. But some watchdogs maintain that the process should concentrate on other hazards at SRS. ``It's just more of the example that they are not addressing the most urgent priorities generally in the Energy Department,'' said Pat Ortmeyer, field director for nuclear-waste issues at Women's Action for New Directions. ``This is not the critical waste to be shipped. ``It's sort of a false cleanup, in some ways. It's smoke and mirrors.'' Reach Brandon Haddockat (706) 823-3409. All contents ©1996 - 2001 *The Augusta Chronicle*. All rights ***************************************************************** 6 Plutonium proposal at SRS sparks safety debate *The substance would be converted to fuel for N.C. reactors * By JENNIFER TALHELM *Knight Ridder Newspapers * AIKEN -- The bomb plant is simply part of the landscape. About everybody here knows some of the almost 14,000 people who work at the Savannah River Site, one of the factories that produced this nation's nuclear arsenal. Now the site's future is tied to a controversial plan to fuel the Charlotte region's nuclear reactors. About 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium would be shipped to South Carolina if the plan is approved by the federal government in the next couple of years. Most would be converted to fuel and hauled by truck -- about 60 loads every 18 months (-- ) to Duke Energy's nuclear power reactors near Charlotte, on Lake Norman and Lake Wylie. Environmentalists and anti-war activists warn that the effort could be a public health disaster or an invitation to terrorists wanting to steal the plutonium. The U.S. Department of Energy promotes it as a safe, practical way to dismantle bombs. But many in the Aiken area don't dwell on national security threats or the contamination left from decades of nuclear bomb-making. The plant has defined life in the Savannah River region for 50 years, and the plutonium plan means it could stay open for at least another decade. However, with its rolling farmland and Spanish-moss draped oaks, this corner of South Carolina finds itself at the center of a national fight about nuclear safety. The debate continues in Charlotte on Tuesday night, when the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds a public meeting to gather comment on the plutonium plan. The United States and Russia have agreed to begin dismantling nuclear bombs and extracting 50 tons of plutonium by 2007. In the United States, the plutonium would be shipped from Texas and Colorado, among other places, to the Savannah River Site in heavily guarded truck convoys. Over 15 years, about 34 tons of the plutonium would be mixed with uranium, creating a fuel called mixed oxide, or MOX. That fuel would be trucked to the McGuire and Catawba nuclear plants. If implemented, the plutonium plan would mean a new $1.5 billion complex would be built at SRS, where workers would dismantle the same weapons they once helped create. Savannah River Site supporters lobbied hard for the job. "If (plutonium fuel is) going to be somewhere, I'd rather it be here and making more jobs and helping the economy in this area," said Liz Victor, who was raised in Aiken and owns a coffee roastery downtown. Her father recently retired from SRS. job losses and faith The 310-square-mile weapons factory has faced massive change since the end of the Cold War. In the '90s, about 10,000 jobs were eliminated although the annual payroll still is almost $1 billion. Residents near other potential MOX sites across the country protested the idea of using bomb material in commercial power reactors. They feared trucking plutonium would risk millions of people's lives in an accident or terrorist attack. But at an August 1998 public hearing in North Augusta, 600 people -- many of them state and local officials (-- ) crowded a room to speak in favor of building the plant in South Carolina. Victor said she grew up believing the government would protect the people of Aiken from any danger. She still believes that. "We just continue to have that faith that if they're going to bring that here, it's going to be good for Aiken and our area." Infusing money, people Tim Webb, who sells antiques in downtown Aiken, grew up hearing stories of how the government moved people to make room to build the plant in the 1950s. His family was from just outside Ellenton, and former neighbors still gather for reunions at which the government thanks them for giving up their homes. "Before the plant came, it was a nice community, but a small community," Webb said. "When the plant came, it was a population explosion. Now, I generally just think about it as an income and a stabilizer for the community." Pat Mason, director of the Center for Carolina Living, a firm that tracks who moves to South Carolina and why, said the project had a profound economic impact on the entire state. It attracted highly educated people who stayed in South Carolina. Mason compares it to Research Triangle Park, developed near Raleigh a few years later. "A hundred years after the Civil War, nothing was really going on in the South," Mason said. "The first sparks may have been the Savannah River Site. It was the first infusion of money and people and land acquisition. "It's hard to imagine Aiken and Augusta without that. It wouldn't be without that." In the 1980s, concerns about safety and environmental damage fueled by the disastrous explosion at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union focused attention on the nuclear facilities. People learned about accidents and equipment breakdowns -- some of them potentially devastating -- that had occurred through the decades and about how polluted the land and water really is. The entire complex is one large Superfund site, meaning the government has placed a priority on cleaning it up. Contaminating it is everything from plutonium to cancer-causing solvents. Savannah River Site employees qualify for a compensation package for defense workers ill from their jobs in nuclear weapons factories. Among the conditions workers suffer from are hearing loss and lung damage from beryllium and asbestos. But health studies do not show an increased risk of cancer from living near the site. The Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry found the region has a higher than average cancer mortality rate. But the Georgia researchers say another study, done by the Medical University of South Carolina, was more comprehensive. And the MUSC study found the region's cancer rate was no different than the national average. Military retiree Ernest Jackson of Beech Island loves to fish in the tributaries of the Savannah River. He won't eat his catch, though. "I don't trust (the fish)," Jackson said. "I just don't like the water." Many others brush off the talk of cancer clusters and pollution. "I guess you could be worried about stuff like your health: Is there a higher cancer rate down here because of the Savannah River Site?" said Jane Irwin of Aiken. "I love Aiken. That stuff's everywhere. It could be anything. Here, it happens to be the Savannah River Site." 'the right thing' or a 'dumb idea'? Environmentalists say the government should focus on cleaning up the site and that the MOX facility will just add to the risks. Government officials say European nuclear power plants have been using nonweapons plutonium for years. They tout the program as a major step toward nuclear disarmament. "We think it's the right thing to do," said Duke Power spokeswoman Becky McSwain. "We will get the fuel less expensively than we get uranium -- that's a side benefit. The real benefit is once it's used up, it will no longer be used for weapons." Opponents point out that weapons plutonium, designed to explode, has never been used as fuel. "It's in the top five dumb ideas ever tried," said David Lochbaum, of the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists. "We're essentially pointing the threat from our enemies to ourselves." But more than the potential hazards of handling plutonium or the threat of environmental disaster, many in Aiken fear what would happen to their economy without the Savannah River Site. "All in all, I think it has made life a little easier," said Webb, the antique salesman. "I wouldn't want to see it completely closed down because what would this community do? What will replace it?" © Copyright 2001 The State-Record Company ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear Fuel Firm Fights for Russia Deal washingtonpost.com: By Peter Behr Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, May 7, 2001; Page E01 These should be banner days for USEC Inc., the Bethesda-based company that is the only American supplier of enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power plants. The price of USEC's publicly traded stock has nearly doubled since December to close at $8.19 on Friday, recovering about half what it lost after the company was spun off from the government in 1998. Prices for the enriched uranium USEC sells have climbed nearly 20 percent in a year, according to UX Consulting Co. data. With support from the Bush administration, the outlook for the nuclear power industry has brightened. Most important, says USEC, its long-term purchases of nuclear fuel reprocessed from Russian missiles -- a key part of USEC's revenue stream -- are on schedule, eliminating the equivalent of 4,500 Russian nuclear warheads so far while contributing $1.7 billion in U.S. currency to Russia. "I wonder when we're going to start celebrating," USEC President William H. "Nick" Timbers said plaintively at a conference Thursday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the District. Not yet, it appears. USEC's handling of its dual missions -- commercial supplier of U.S. reactor fuel and strategic conduit for decommissioned Russian warheads -- is as controversial as ever. And now there is a new player, the Bush administration. USEC needs White House approval of a new version of the Russian deal that is widely considered to be vital to the company's financial survival. If approved by U.S. and Russian governments, it would lower the price USEC pays Russia for the converted warhead material, at least initially. Profit on the Russian transactions are needed to offset losses on sales of enriched fuels from USEC's plant in Paducah, Ky., according to outside analysts. USEC also proposes to buy some commercial Russian nuclear fuel. But some of USEC's adversaries and critics hope to block the agreement with Russia. USEC's financial gain would come at Russia's expense, threatening to undermine the Megatons to Megawatts warhead reduction program, critics say. Those critics warn that if Russian officials approved the agreement and later became dissatisfied with prices, they might cut deliveries of the reprocessed fuel and threaten the U.S.-Russian agreement to reduce nuclear arms. "It's highly dangerous from a national energy point of view and potentially disastrous for our nonproliferation agreement," Thomas Neff of MIT Center for International Studies said at Thursday's conference. Timbers replied that the new pricing plan has been endorsed by USEC's Russian counterpart, and is also supported by senior Russian officials. "We expect the pricing agreement to become final before 2002," Timbers said recently. "Getting the terms right is very important to the company and its future success." Neff challenged Timbers on that point at Thursday's conference, citing his own recent conversations with senior Russian officials. "The price is not high enough," he said. "It is not defensible in their political system." USEC is trying to get the Bush administration to help force the Russians to accept the new pricing plan, Neff said. "We disagree very, very strongly," Timbers replied. A Bush administration spokesman said no decision had been made on the plan. Ominously for USEC, one of its sharpest critics, former Harvard professor Richard Falkenrath, is on the Bush administration's National Security Council. He turned down a request for an interview. Falkenrath has called the privatization of USEC "a dreadful error," arguing that USEC's commercial interests in profiting from the Russian agreement, and U.S. interest in reducing the Russian weapons stockpile as much as possible, were at odds. Falkenrath has argued that the government should reacquire USEC and resume direction of the Megatons to Megawatts program. The Bush administration might find that step more trouble than it's worth, said Bob Hoehn, head of the Russian American Nuclear Security Advisory Council. The privatization has "worked pretty well," he said. "It's brought a lot of money to the Russians. "By and large, people in the National Security Council rank this among the best of the cooperative nuclear programs," Hoehn said. "I'd be shocked if they were preparing to cause the deal to fail. Whether USEC is the right entity to be implementing this deal is a question. At this point, I don't see any clear alternative." But the U.S. utility industry does. Some of the largest U.S. energy companies, headed by Chicago-based Exelon Corp., would like to replace USEC as the federal government's commercial agent for the Russian program, or share that assignment with USEC. "If that were available, we'd be interested," an Exelon official said. USEC hasn't shaken off critics in Congress and in labor unions who opposed the company's decision to close one of its two uranium enrichment processing plants last year, a step that USEC says will cut its operating costs substantially. Closing the plant in Portsmouth, Ohio, and abandoning a research project on a new enrichment process, reneged on promises that were part of the government's agreement with USEC when the company was spun off, those opponents charge. Even some USEC shareholders are complaining, despite the stock's improvement. Analysts say the higher share price is partly because of the preliminary success of trade complaints that USEC has lodged with U.S. agencies. The company contends that European competitors had been selling nuclear fuel in this country at unfairly low prices, violating trade laws. If USEC wins the final rounds in those cases late this year or early in 2002, the European producers would be socked with penalty duties that could sharply raise the prices they would have to charge on U.S. sales, or force them out of the American market altogether. That would leave USEC's remaining processing plant and the Russians as the sole suppliers for American nuclear plants, a prospect that upsets influential domestic energy companies and some leading nuclear nonproliferation experts. The other, more important, reason for USEC's improved stock price is investors' hopes that the company may be taken over, said David M. Schanzer, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia. In spinning off USEC, the government restricted the ability of one investor gaining too much control of USEC's stock. But that restriction comes off in a month. Anticipating that change, USEC's board recently approved anti-takeover provisions that nettled several institutional investors who took part in a recent company conference call. One investor asked whether the change was a tactic "to entrench management and let shareholders dangle." No, Timbers said. The anti-takeover measures are customary tactics, designed to preserve USEC's bargaining power and block coercive moves by a would-be buyer, he said. The anti-takeover provisions haven't prompted investors to sell USEC shares, however. "The serious players won't be deterred by this," Schanzer said. At the Carnegie conference, Timbers complained that USEC's role in reducing Russia's weapons stockpile had been ignored, while academics and the media focus on USEC's financial challenges. "Why do we keep wringing our hands and trying to fix things that ain't broke? Let our shareholders worry about the [USEC's profit] margin," Timbers said. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 8 Bush threatens to slash spending on nuclear safety aid to Russia Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | US budget cut brings fears of trafficking and a scientific brain drain Special report: George Bush's America Ian Traynor in Moscow Monday May 7, 2001 The Guardian The Bush administration is planning to slash spending on nuclear safety projects in Russia, raising fears that slacker controls on the porous Russian nuclear industry could bring an upsurge in the trafficking of radioactive materials. Throughout the 1990s the US spent billions of dollars on various programmes in Russia aimed at securing nuclear stockpiles against theft, decommissioning weapons-grade uranium and plutonium or converting it for civilian use, and retraining and paying Russian nuclear scientists in order to discourage them from taking their expertise elsewhere. The policy has been widely seen as one of the few relatively successful aid programmes to Russia and the Clinton administration had signalled a 50% increase in funds this year for the projects run mainly by the Pentagon and the US Department of Energy. But White House budget plans from the Bush team have scrapped the proposed increases and instead cut the $800m (£571m) allocated to the energy department by around $100m or more than 12%. "It seems that some projects will need to be scrapped," said Igor Kudrik, a Russian expert on his country's nuclear industry at the Bellona environmental watchdog in Norway. The Republicans came to office in Washington fiercely critical of what they viewed as the Clinton government's failed economic and aid policies towards Russia. The proposed nuclear safety cuts are the first concrete evidence of reduced spending on Russia, though US and Russian experts predict the cuts will encounter strong resistance in Congress. "There are prominent people in Washington, including Republicans, who want to restore and expand the spending, arguing that the nuclear problem is a threat to the US and not a favour to Russia," said Sergei Rogov, Moscow's top expert on the US. Indeed, a recent US government sponsored report recommended that up to $30bn be spent on containing the Russian proliferation risk over the next decade. Instead, under the Bush plans, experts say, key programmes could be eliminated, hastening a Russian brain drain and making it more tempting for Russian nuclear physicists to ply their trade in countries Washington views as rogue states. A billion-dollar scheme to decommission 68 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium, agreed by Presidents Clinton and Vladimir Putin in Moscow last year, is likely to be halted by the Bush administration, said Mr Kudrik. A separate project promoting the development of hi-tech enterprises and retraining Russian nuclear scientists to work in them could also go. More than 2,000 Russian nuclear scientists are employed in such schemes. Employment is on offer from such US bugbears as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. In the eight years since the US energy department inaugurated its nuclear containment projects in the former Soviet Union, new security systems have been installed at 113 sites. But this is a gargantuan work in progress, securing a mere fraction of weapons-grade material regarded as risky across Russia. Apart from planning to cut the nuclear safety funding, the US is also threatening to suspend most other aid to Russia if it concludes that Russian sales of nuclear technology for power plants in Iran are helping the country build a nuclear bomb. Last week the US state department put Iran at the top of its league table of countries sponsoring terrorism. "American officials are convinced both that Iran plans to use that reactor to develop nuclear weapons, and that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons threatens US national security and that of its vital allies," Celeste Wallander of the US Council on Foreign Relations wrote in an analysis last month of the Bush administration's policies on Russia. But in the bout of tension between the Bush and Putin governments, says Mr Rogov, the Russians are pushing ahead with the Iranian contracts because they have concluded that there will be no reward from the West for good behaviour. "We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't," he added. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 9 Who is our nuclear enemy? Miami Herald: * Published Monday, May 7, 2001 * What took years to achieve, the fall of the Iron Curtain, could completely reverse itself in a short time. What I find so frustrating and irritating is that this president is moving forward on an expensive initiative [the missile-defense shield] without a public mandate. Yet, here he is ready to spend billions on a project that President Reagan never finished. Whom we are going to defend ourselves from? Certainly not the Russians, although this may come to pass if Bush continues with this. The Chinese? We have enough problems at home. There is a large number of people, young and old, without good medical care, and this is just one item. Finally, how does Bush plan to finance this? With the financial markets not doing well, overall tax revenue will decrease significantly . . . and this on top of a tax break. *BOB GUTENTAG Weston* Serendipity? Has everyone forgotten the Reagan tax cuts that resulted in a quadrupling of the national debt? Congress certainly appears to have forgotten. Now George Bush has pulled another one by appointing a Social Security commission made up entirely of persons committed to privatizing a portion of future retirement benefits. Let me ask how many of you would be happy to see your retirement nest eggs diminish by more than half, as happened with many mutual funds over the past year? But the Bush tax cuts have already drained so much money out of the system that there may not be enough left to fund the privatization. Maybe we have been saved by serendipity. *MINER K. BROTHERTON Marathon* Copyright 2001 Miami Herald ***************************************************************** 10 Seoul denies nuclear accord revision UPI News Article: Monday, 7 May 2001 2:44 (ET) By CHARLES LEE SEOUL, South Korea, May 7 (UPI) -- South Korea denied local media reports Monday that the United States was seeking to replace light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea with coal-generated plants to prevent possible nuclear weapons proliferation. "It is not true that the United States made a decision to replace the light-water reactor project with coal-generated reactors and delivered the decision to our government," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in a statement. The JoongAng Ilbo newspaper Monday quoted a high-ranking South Korean government official as saying that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage would negotiate the nuclear issue with South Korea and Japan on a visit this week. Armitage and James Kelly, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, are scheduled to arrive in Seoul Wednesday for a two-day visit, which officials here said would focus on policies toward North Korea. They would be the first high-level U.S. foreign policy officials to visit South Korea since the Bush administration was inaugurated in January. Washington is reviewing the engagement policy pushed by the Clinton administration, which Republicans see as too lenient. The JoongAng Ilbo quoted the official as saying Washington believes light-water reactors can be used to extract weapons-grade plutonium, a key ingredient in making atomic bombs. Under a 1994 agreement, the United States and its allies agreed to supply North Korea with two 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors and 500,000 tons of fuel heavy oil annually until the completion of the first reactor, in return for an end to Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons development program. The Agreed Framework was regarded as one of the chief foreign policy successes of the eight-year Bill Clinton presidency. But the $4.6 billion project has been delayed following Pyongyang's test-fire of a ballistic missile in 1998 over Japan, a main financial contributor to the project. U.S. bipartisan foreign policy experts recently urged President George W. Bush to consider possible revisions to the nuclear accord, saying it portends more risk than reward. A government official here expressed concerns that North Korea may consider replacement of reactors as a "scrap" of the landmark agreement which has frozen a North Korean nuclear program. North Korea blamed the United States for delaying the construction of light water reactors, saying it caused an acute power shortage in the impoverished communist state. It also threatened to revive its nuclear development program unless Washington offer compensation for the loss caused by the delay. The North recently asked South Korea to provide 500,000 kilowatts of electricity to ease energy shortages. A high-level delegation from the European Union which visited Pyongyang last week urged the North Korean leader to stick to the nuclear deal. The EU has a role in a U.S.-led consortium that is building two light-water reactors in the North as part of the 1994 deal. Copyright 2001 by United Press International. -- ***************************************************************** 11 UK nuclear sub leaves Gibraltar - CNN.com - May 7, 2001 Gibraltar: Tireless has left the colony and is believed to be heading to the UK MADRID, Spain -- A stricken UK nuclear submarine stranded in Gibraltar for nearly a year has set sail from the British colony. The docking of HMS Tireless in Gibraltar strained relations between London and Madrid, and prompted street protests demanding the immediate removal of the craft amid fears for public safety. The stricken submarine docked in Gibraltar last May after developing a leak in the cooling system of its nuclear reactor. Royal Navy patrol vessels escorted the HMS Tireless from the port in Gibraltar after lengthy work on its nuclear reactor, Reuters reported. Officials declined to reveal the submarine's destination but it was widely believed to be headed for a UK port. The British, Gibraltar and Spanish governments all gave assurances that the craft posed no threat to public safety while docked in Gibraltar. The case also rekindled friction between London and Madrid over Gibraltar, a tiny but disputed colony of about 30,000 citizens. Spain seeks to regain sovereignty over Gibraltar, which was signed over to Britain nearly 300 years ago. © 2001 Cable News Network LP, ***************************************************************** 12 Nuclear sub leaves Gibraltar BBC News | EUROPE | Monday, 7 May, 2001, 08:37 GMT 09:37 UK HMS Tireless fires up its motors for the first time after docking there for repairs almost a year ago. The presence of the HMS Tireless in Gibraltar caused outrage among environmentalists and strained relations between Spain and the UK. The submarine left the harbour on Monday morning accompanied by Royal Navy patrol vessels and protesters who had gathered for its send off. The British military has not said where the Tireless is heading now, but it is believed to be destined for a port in the UK. Protests The submarine was brought in for repairs after a crack was found in a cooling pipe near its nuclear reactor, sparking fears that it could leak and contaminate the environment. Greenpeace protesters arrested trying to board the Tireless The BBC's Spain correspondent Flora Botsford says that the departure of the Tireless will be a relief to the Spanish Government, which has been left in an awkward position since its arrival in Gibraltar. While Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar tried to listen to people's concerns about the vessel, he was keen to maintain his special relationship with the British leader Tony Blair. Although the UK insisted that the submarine posed no risk to the local population or environment, it removed 12 similar submarines from service to check if the crack had been caused by a design fault. People in Gibraltar and in southern Spain staged regular protests against the Tireless and it has been the subject of a high-profile direct action campaign by the environmental organisation Greenpeace. ***************************************************************** 13 On Depleted Uranium: Gulf War and Balkan Syndrome 42(2):130-134 *Asaf Durakoviæ *Nuclear Medicine Division and Clinical PET, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia The complex clinical symptomatology of chronic illnesses, commonly described as Gulf War Syndrome, remains a poorly understood disease entity with diversified theories of its etiology and pathogenesis. Several causative factors have been postulated, with a particular emphasis on low level chemical warfare agents, oil fires, multiple vaccines, desert sand (Al-Eskan disease), botulism, Aspergillus flavus, Mycoplasma, aflatoxins, and others, contributing to the broad scope of clinical manifestations. Among several hundred thousand veterans deployed in the Operation Desert Storm, 15-20% have reported sick and about 25,000 died. Depleted uranium (DU), a low-level radioactive waste product of the enrichment of natural uranium with U-235 for the reactor fuel or nuclear weapons, has been considered a possible causative agent in the genesis of Gulf War Syndrome. It was used in the Gulf and Balkan wars as an armor-penetrating ammunition. In the operation Desert Storm, over 350 metric tons of DU was used, with an estimate of 3-6 million grams released in the atmosphere. Internal contamination with inhaled DU has been demonstrated by the elevated excretion of uranium isotopes in the urine of the exposed veterans 10 years after the Gulf war and causes concern because of its chemical and radiological toxicity and mutagenic and carcinogenic properties. Polarized views of different interest groups maintain an area of sustained controversy more in the environment of the public media than in the scientific community, partly for the reason of being less than sufficiently addressed by a meaningful objective interdisciplinary research. Key words: environmental exposure; leukemia, radiation induced; military personnel; Persian Gulf syndrome; radiation accidents; radiation genetics; radiometry; uranium; veterans; war ***************************************************************** 14 Israeli Nuclear Workers Strike May 06, 2001 JERUSALEM (AP) - Most operations at Israel's main nuclear reactor in the southern Negev Desert were shut down Sunday due to a workers' strike, a union leader said. Ninety-five percent of employees failed to show up Sunday, the beginning of the work week in Israel, said union leader Shalom Shamla. The remaining workers turned up at the plant in Dimona, and were monitoring safety systems, he said. The workers were striking over new contracts negotiated with the government-owned Nuclear Research Institute. Israel's Finance Ministry has so far failed to approve the contracts, which include a 2.5 percent pay rise. The Finance Ministry said in a statement that the strike was not arranged with the approval of the workers' union, and was therefore illegal. Israel has nuclear reactors for civilian use. The country is widely assumed to also have nuclear weapons, but refuses to reveal the exact status of its nuclear program. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Blair under new pressure over Hindujas Independent.co.uk By Chris Blackhurst 07 May 2001 The billionaire Hinduja brothers met Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, to urge Britain to temper its reaction to India's nuclear weapons tests in 1998, it was revealed last night. A leaked letter from one of the brothers to the Prime Minister's office revealed details of a meeting in June 1998 at which the brothers were involved in a discussion over the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. Mr Blair came in at the end of the meeting. On the same day, the permanent members of the UN Security Council refrained from calling for sanctions against India after reported British opposition. In May 1998, Indiastunned the world by conducting five nuclear tests. Pakistan responded with its own series of six tests later that month. The testing triggered universal condemnation and sparked fears of nuclear conflict in Asia. Last night the Tories called on the Prime Minister "to be frank" about his exact relationship with the Hinduja brothers and their involvement with the Government. Revelations about the close relationship between Peter Mandelson and the Hindujas earlier this year forced Mr Mandelson's resignation from the Cabinet. Mr Blair asked Sir Anthony Hammond QC to investigate how Srichand Hinduja came to obtain a British passport. In his subsequent report, Sir Anthony said he was unable to ascertain the full extent of the brothers' dealings with the Government. Now, Andrew Tyrie, a Tory MP, has obtained a letter from Srichand Hinduja to Mr Powell in which the businessman sets out his hopes for a forthcoming meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. The high-level diplomacy revealed in the letter is far above the previously publicised attempts by Downing Street to secure funding from the Hindujas for the Millennium Dome. At the time it was written, in June 1998, the Hindujas were under investigation in India on suspicion of accepting bribes on arms deals. Since then, Srichand and his brother Gopichand, have been refused permission to leave India, pending a possible prosecution. In early 1998, tension between India and Pakistan was rising. The two countries were disputing, as they do still, control of Kashmir in the north of the sub-continent. But the nuclear testing took fears of nuclear conflict to a new level. The UN Security Council condemned India and Pakistan, but many in the West blamed Delhi for initiating the tests. In his letter of 4 June, Srichand ­ "SP" ­ writes that Gopichand "and I with our Indian friend, look forward to seeing the Prime Minister later this morning. Our friend will have with him a letter from the Indian Prime Minister to give to Mr Blair." The "friend" was Mishra, the principal secretary to the Indian Prime Minister. SP continues: "The language and approach being taken by Madeline Albright and others in Washington in preparation for the Geneva meeting this afternoon is a cause for worry. GP and I very much hope that the Prime Minister will ask Mr Cook to persuade Mrs Albright and others in the US administration to moderate their public presentation." On 4 June, Mrs Albright joined the other foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in Geneva to issue a statement which again condemned the tests, and barred the two countries from entering their nuclear "club". But the "big five" did not call for third-party mediation on Kashmir, as India had feared, and refrained from calling for sanctions after reported British opposition. SP encloses a memorandum analysing how India and Britain could work together to mitigate the effect of the tests. A Downing Street spokeswoman said Mr Blair was too busy to have a substantive discussion with Mishra and instead the Indian official and the Hindujas met senior Downing Street officials. Mr Blair did come into the meeting but only, she said, to be handed the letter to him from the Indian Prime Minister. The Hindujas were present, Number 10 said, "at the request of the Indian government". ***************************************************************** 16 PLAN IN WORKS: City prepares for potential terror... LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: Clark County Fire Department Fire Protection Engineer Richard Brenner, left, stands beside firefighter Gavin McDoniel, who wears protective gear that would let him enter a hot zone after a terrorist attack. McDoniel is wearing one of more than 1,000 protective suits ordered for emergency personnel in Las Vegas. Nearly 100 cities across the country are sharing $50 billion in federal funding to develop a plan to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Photo by Clint Karlsen. Monday, May 07, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Official says Las Vegas could be prime target By JOELLE BABULA REVIEW-JOURNAL Terrorism experts say they can't predict the likelihood of an attack on U.S. soil occurring in the next two years, much less the next 50 years, but they are certain it will happen someday. The only question is where. In Las Vegas, health, fire and law enforcement officials are stockpiling antidotes and military equipment to prepare for the potential of a biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack. It's a scenario being played out in 97 cities across the country. The communities are sharing $50 billion in federal contracts to develop a plan -- the Metropolitan Medical Response System -- to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Local officials are buying pharmaceuticals and safety equipment to protect health professionals who might have to work in hot zones, or areas contaminated with nerve agents, gases, disease or radiation. Currently, most major metropolitan areas such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and San Francisco are developing response systems. Medium-sized cities such as Reno and Fresno, Calif., soon might receive funding too. "We have an overall plan already, but it's set up to handle natural disasters or fires," said Mike Myers, the system's local coordinator. "We have no planning for something very catastrophic like a nuclear event, biological release or chemical spill. This plan will help us identify the problem and get potentially thousands of people taken care of." Myers is responsible for writing the plan and getting approval from the federal government each step of the way. He's been working on the system since September and expects to have it ready by the end of the year. Training sessions and mock exercises and disasters are scheduled at area hospitals throughout the year. According to federal officials, the Las Vegas medical plan is one of the best in the country and has been used as an example for other cities to follow. "I am monitoring the Las Vegas plan and it's doing very well," said Dr. William Piggott, director of the office of emergency preparedness for the Department of Health and Human Services. Piggott doles out federal funding for the response system as the Las Vegas plan moves forward. Las Vegas has received nearly $1 million for equipment, personnel, antidotes and training. The $50 billion in funding is to help develop medical teams charged with handling catastrophic events for up to 48 hours until federal help arrives. Cities are chosen to develop the response system based on population, demographics and potential vulnerability to attack. Because of its international tourist population and numerous confined, heavily populated areas like casinos, Las Vegas could be seen as a prime target area for a terrorist, Piggott said. New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles also are considered to be at risk for attack. "If terrorism is an act to create an awareness of a political, religious or social agenda by creating some form of chaos, then wherever you could accomplish that would be a good place," Piggott said. The Las Vegas plan involves training hospital officials, medical personnel, firefighters, paramedics, public health officials and police officers in the use of specialized equipment to deal with the release of biological, chemical or nuclear agents. Hundreds of professionals are currently learning how to handle victims, how to clean up the site of an attack and where to find and distribute antidotes if necessary. In case of a biological attack, Myers is charged with making sure enough antibiotics from local hospitals and pharmacies will be available. To combat a chemical release like nerve, choking or blistering agents such as sarin, mustard gas or chlorine, Myers has purchased and stored 1,200 doses of antidotes on emergency vehicles. "We're only purchasing enough drugs to get us through a short period of time," Myers said. "My job is to handle it until the government steps in." The antidotes allow medical personnel to safely treat others without fear of getting infected or being exposed to the biological or chemical agent. The protective gear and antidotes all have a shelf life, so communities are responsible for maintaining the system and keeping the equipment up to date. Although there is no more federal funding to help maintain the systems, Piggott said he hopes that will change in the future. Grants may also be available to help cities maintain their response systems. "A nuclear event stands on its own. There's no agent or antidote. If that happens, it's going to be destructive and there is going to be loss of life," Myers said. "It's a lot easier to make explosives than it is to make a biological or chemical weapon," said Richard Brenner, fire protection engineer for the Clark County Fire Department. "The one we've really trained our people on is explosives." Part of the plan also includes developing medical strike teams to care for victims at designated "casualty points" throughout the valley. Only the most severely injured will go to area hospitals. The rest would be routed to these casualty points, which would include locations such as the Thomas &Mack Center, Cashman Field and the Las Vegas Motor Speedway. "The hospitals will have to lock down and we will ship them only those that need absolute emergency care," Myers said. "I'm building four medical strike teams at 100 people per team to staff the casualty collection points." The strike teams would consist of doctors, nurses, paramedics and the National Guard. One team would be sent to the scene of the attack to triage patients, and the others to casualty points throughout the city. Myers says the new system will also help better prepare the city for a natural disaster, major flu epidemic or even a plane crash. An Internet-based communication system is also being researched to allow all emergency response agencies to track a disaster, casualties, the number of available beds at area hospitals and other vital information. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************