***************************************************************** 09/11/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.217 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 DOE plan would set 2007 glassification deadline 2 New report reveals energy deregulation will not necessarily cause nuclear danger 3 National lab director makes the case for new nukes 4 Nuke dump facts lost in the spin 5 Duratek is Awarded $22 Million Subcontract for Decontamination & 6 LETTERS: DOE is off base on Yucca Mountain promises 7 Yucca Mountain doubts abound 8 Editorial: Make nuke industry pay for its mistakes 9 DOE calls off Yucca Mountain hearings 10 Yucca chief warns of staffing cuts 11 Skeptical scientists concerned about missing Yucca data 12 The volcano that could threaten a nuclear dump 13 Daily Events Report 14 IAEA Daily Press Review 15 IAEA Daily Press Review 16 DJ Maine Yankee Strikes Deal On Nuclear-Plant Cleanup 17 Laboratory Facility to Support Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 18 Study: Uranium plant pollution spreading 19 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Monday, September 10, 2001 20 Public Urged to Attend September 12th and 13th Yucca Mountain Hearings 21 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Tuesday, September 11, 2001 22 DOE Extends Public Comment Period on Scrap Metals Policy 23 Congress threatens to take White House to court - 24 Struggles for money consume scientists 25 NRC Urges Increased Security 26 TVA saves millions by cutting energy use 27 Sierra Club speaker to discuss nuclear reactor fuel environment 28 Trial Over, But Scandal Is Still Taking Its Toll 29 Former reporter for Daily News saved by schedule 30 NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Mcguire Nuclear Station License NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Hanford plutonium cleanup talks set for November 2 Russian TV shows pictures of Kursk sub future home 3 ORNL's broadest reorganization on the horizon 4 Nuclear Booty: More Smugglers Use Asia Route 5 Kursk hitches pose tough questions 6 Where I Stand -- Brian Greenspun: Attn: Mr. Abraham 7 U.S.-Russia Nuclear Programs Questioned 8 Halliburton unit in $5 billion program to destroy Soviet arms - 9 RUSSIA WILL PROLONG PRODUCTION OF WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM 10 Cancer mortality study a focus of health group's meeting 11 Use of secret decrees are illegal 12 EPA unveils sampling plan for Scarboro 13 EPA schedules another Scarboro meeting 14 Department of Energy Seeks Public Comment on Program to Assist Nuclear Workers 15 Nuclear cities face uncertainty 16 'Science cities' see their salvation in brain power 17 Statistics 18 Initiatives 19 RUSSIAN PROGRAMS Russian Foundati ... 20 Russia struggles to revive its past renown in science 21 THE STATE OF SCIENCE Russian d ... 22 One emigre's optimistic view 23 Experts: Signatures were falsified **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 DOE plan would set 2007 glassification deadline This story was published Fri, Sep 7, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer SEATTLE -- The Department of Energy has drawn up a catch-up plan to build a Hanford radioactive waste glassification plant by a 2007 deadline. The question is: Will DOE's Office of River Protection get enough money for fiscal 2002 to convince the state this is a valid plan? If the state is convinced, it will consider stopping the practice of fining DOE $10,000 a week for missing the July 31 legal deadline to start building that plant -- and it might back off of threats to sue DOE, said Tom Fitzsimmons, director of the state Department of Ecology, told the Hanford Advisory Board on Thursday in Seattle. But if the state isn't looking over DOE's plan and the fiscal 2002 glassification budget in October, the fines will continue and a lawsuit will be more likely to be filed against DOE, Fitzsimmons said. "Our lawyers are sharpening every sword and every arrow in their quivers," he said. This year, the state drastically has increased its threats to sue DOE if the federal agency does not keep to the Tri-Party Agreement's legal timetable to build and operate plants to convert Hanford's tank wastes into a benign glass. The Tri-Party Agreement is the legal pact that governs Hanford's cleanup. The agreement gives DOE a legal deadline to start building the glassification plant five weeks ago with glassification to begin in 2007. But DOE fired the original glassification contractor, BNFL Inc., in May 2000 and hired its replacement, Bechtel National, last December. That made the July construction start unachievable. Now, the beginning of actual construction is expected to begin in December 2002, although DOE and Bechtel will try to start it earlier, said Harry Boston, manager of DOE's Office of River Protection. The bottom line: Construction likely will begin one year to 18 months behind schedule. That delay is one major factor in the state fining DOE and threatening to sue the agency to enforce the Tri-Party Agreement timetable. The other major factor is the glassification project's budget for fiscal 2002, which begins Oct. 1. Right now, no one knows if the fiscal 2002 budget will be sufficient to keep to the Tri-Party Agreement's timetable. Early this year, the Bush administration requested Congress to appropriate $1.4 billion to Hanford's cleanup in fiscal 2002, including $500 million to the glassification project. The problem is DOE's own calculations show that $1.832 billion is needed in 2002 to meet Hanford's legal cleanup obligations, including $690 million for the glassification project. Later, both the House and Senate -- by overwhelming veto-proof margins -- voted to appropriate enough money to meet Hanford's legal obligations, including $690 million for glassification. However, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and the federal Office of Management and Budget -- the president's budget crunchers -- voiced opposition to the extra money that Congress wants to allocate to Hanford. Their rationale is they don't want more money sent to Hanford and other DOE cleanup sites until a "top-to-bottom" review of DOE's entire nuclear cleanup program is complete. That completion is expected sometime later this year. However, in a phone conversation with the Hanford Advisory Board Thursday, DOE's new cleanup czar, Jessie Roberson, said the federal agency might nail down some of its revised budget wishes before the entire review is completed. President Bush has not indicated whether he will accept or oppose an increased Hanford budget. Meanwhile, Hanford observers worry about the overall federal budget picture changing significantly since Congress voted for a bigger Hanford budget. New figures show the federal budget surplus is drastically less than what it looked like when DOE's budget request went through Congress. Also, the administration asked Congress for significant increases more than its original defense budget request made earlier this year. Boston said his agency has a plan ready to submit to the state, outlining how it can make the 2007 deadline to begin glassification. He said Bechtel's experience in managing huge projects puts its construction plan on a faster track than BNFL's plan -- and noted Bechtel's contract locks it into the 2007 deadline. Also BNFL unofficially was shooting for starting glassification in 2005 or 2006 -- giving it a cushion for unexpected problems. A significant part of that cushion has been removed, Boston said. But Boston does not want to submit that catch-up plan to the state Ecology Department until DOE has the 2002 budget figures to back it up. And Fitzsimmons said the state does not want to receive the catch-up plan without the budget figures to analyze. He expected it will take the state about a month to study DOE's plan and dollar figures after they are received. In other matters Thursday: The board heard Keith Klein, DOE's Hanford manager, say the upcoming awarding of a long-range Columbia River corridor cleanup contract likely will be the first cleanup contract made by the Bush administration. Consequently, the administration likely will showcase its approach to cleanup contracts with that pact, he said. DOE's Richland office proposed speeding up Hanford's cleanup along the Columbia River. A major plank of that proposal would be a contract lasting until that project is finished, which is supposed to be about 10 years. But, as with the glassification contract, the administration did not request enough money for 2002 to put it into action, while Congress voted to appropriate sufficient funds. So this proposal also hangs on the final budget battle. Bechtel Hanford's river shore cleanup contract expires on June 30, 2002. Meanwhile, Klein guessed that a draft request for proposals on the new contract won't be ready until at least mid-October. A rough rule of thumb has been that it takes at least a year from initially seeking bidders until a new Hanford contract kicks in. Klein said Bechtel Hanford's current contract could be easily extended a few months until the new contract begins. Boston also told the the Office of River Protection is studying ways to speed up glassification over the long run, which will also trim costs. Right now, the current master plan calls for 10 percent of the most radioactive tank wastes to be glassified by 2018, and all the wastes to be glassified by 2028. This plan calls for building additional glassification plants between 2010 and 2020. The Office of River Protection is looking for ways to speed up and improve how Bechtel National's first generation of melters will glassify wastes. Also, Hanford is looking for ways to remove massive amounts of sodium from the tank wastes before glassification. Sodium makes up a significant portion of the wastes and presents extra problems during the melting process. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 2 New report reveals energy deregulation will not necessarily cause nuclear danger edie news: 07/09/2001 Research into the effects of deregulation in a number of industries has concluded that there need not be excessive fear of nuclear accidents from similar restructuring of the energy industry, and that this could even bring about improvements. Scientists from the US looked at three high-technology, safety-critical deregulated industries – the US aviation and railroad industries, and the UK nuclear power industry, in order to gain an insight into possible sources of risk to the US energy industry, 20% of which is nuclear. The study found no evidence of widespread safety lapses resulting from deregulation, and in the cases of air and rail, the period after deregulation was associated with improved long-term safety records. However, care needs to be taken with organisational changes, such as management, staff cuts and financial pressures, all of which can adversely affect the safety culture, says the report. “We found that the rate of change with deregulation can create safety problems, especially during a transitional period,” said Vicki Bier of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, one of the researchers. “Those transitions could come from very rapid downsizing, or with mergers and acquisitions – both of which can lead to reorganisation or job functions and responsibilities, and to rapid changes and instability.” However, in some cases, competitive pressures were found to have prompted industries to increase their investments in maintenance and to seek to achieve higher levels of reliability. Deregulation will produce a new competitive playing field, says the report, and has already triggered a number of mergers and acquisitions, some plant closings, and a push to increase both the power capacity and life expectancy of plants. However, according to the research, it is too soon to determine what impact these new challenges will have on the safety improvements which have followed in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. “You can’t afford to have one serious accident in any segment of this industry without it being disastrous [to the industry] as a whole,” said Bier. The report, entitled Effects of Deregulation on Safety: Implications Drawn from the Aviation, Rail, and United Kingdom Nuclear Power Industries, is available from the NRC. © Faversham House Group Ltd 2001. This article may be ***************************************************************** 3 National lab director makes the case for new nukes Government Executive Magazine - 9/11/01 National lab September 11, 2001 By James Kitfield, To his critics, C. Paul Robinson is Dr. Strangelove incarnate, a Cold Warrior who after nearly four decades working in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex learned to love the bomb. While even hard-liners in the Bush Administration are today trumpeting "deep cuts" in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Robinson, director of Sandia National Laboratories, argues for new types of nuclear weapons to deter new kinds of threats. Although most of the globe embraces the dream inherent in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of a future world without nukes, Robinson--with unusual, to-the-point frankness--decries this "delegitimization" of nuclear weapons. Not even his critics, however, question Robinson's credentials as an articulate advocate for the continued value of the United States' nuclear deterrent. A physicist by trade, Robinson spent nearly 20 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory, eventually heading its nuclear weapons programs. With the title of ambassador, he also served as Ronald Reagan's chief negotiator and head of the U.S. delegation to the Nuclear Testing Talks in Geneva in the 1980s. He is presently chairman of the policy subcommittee of the Strategic Advisory Group, a panel that advises the four-star commander of U.S. Strategic Command, which is in charge of U.S. nuclear weapons. Many of Robinson's ideas for reshaping America's nuclear arsenal--contained in his white paper "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century"--have been embraced by senior Bush Administration officials. National Journal correspondent James Kitfield recently interviewed Robinson in Washington. NJ: In a post-Cold War era when most policy makers are focusing on reducing nuclear arsenals, you argue in your paper that nuclear weapons not only "have an abiding place on the international scene," but also that new ones should be tailored for new kinds of deterrence. Robinson: As I wrote this paper, it felt like putting my head in a guillotine, because I knew that some people were going to try and chop it off for making these arguments. A lot has been done in recent years to delegitimize nuclear weapons to the point that I find people are lulled into a belief that nuclear weapons are going to go away soon, and thus we needn't worry about them anymore. But it's ridiculous to think that we can "uninvent" nuclear weapons. I also happen to think that nuclear weapons have not only been vital to U.S. national security, but also that history has turned out better for our having nuclear weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons help maintain peace, and a lot of other nations depend on our nuclear umbrella. So, like it or not, for the foreseeable future we have no alternative but to continue to depend upon nuclear weapons and the deterrence they provide. NJ: Are there no compelling strategic and moral arguments for, as you say, "delegitimizing" weapons of such horrific destructive potential? For instance, the United States signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which calls for non-nuclear states to forgo nuclear weapons, and for nuclear weapons states to work to reduce their arsenals eventually to zero. Robinson: The NPT Treaty, the arguments surrounding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a lot of the rhetoric we heard from the Clinton White House all suggested that sooner or later nuclear weapons are going to go away. I simply don't believe that is true. I think it's important that people wake up and realize that nuclear weapons have meant a lot to our security, and we'd better make sure that our arsenal doesn't erode if our future depends on it. NJ: And you've taken on the mission of sounding the alarm? Robinson: No one likes thinking the unthinkable, because it's a tough business. But someone's got to do it. I guess after spending my entire career in this field, I don't think anyone else knows more about the subject than me. NJ: Arms control advocates would argue that the NPT is largely responsible for many nuclear have-nots doing without nuclear weapons. Robinson: Yes and no. I believe the establishment of NATO did more to prevent proliferation than the NPT, because it extended our nuclear umbrella over the nations of Western Europe that could relatively easily have developed their own nuclear weapons. I think there's a lesson in that example which applies today to South Asia. NJ: The Bush Administration has proposed deep reductions in our offensive nuclear arsenal as a sweetener in selling its proposed national missile defense shield. At some point, might such reductions erode the United States' ability to extend its nuclear umbrella? Robinson: I support deep reductions, but at some point [those cuts] would call our umbrella into question. I worked on a report on that subject for the commander in chief of U.S. Strategic Command as a member of the Strategic Advisory Group. Essentially, our blueprint concluded that at some point between 2,000 and 1,000 nuclear weapons, we will run into speed bumps and probably a stop sign on reductions. It's not an exact science, and that level would still represent a dramatic reduction from today's massive U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals. At some point in reducing our arsenal, we also have to switch from bilateral to multilateral negotiations, because our nuclear arsenal has to deter a potential threat from unforeseen alliances that might develop in the future between other nuclear states. Stranger things have happened throughout history. Somewhat counterintuitively, a world in which there are just a few nuclear weapons would also be very dangerous, because the possibility that one side would "break out," and secretly construct a dominant nuclear force of a hundred or so weapons, would be quite high. NJ: Do you think the Bush Administration's proposed missile defense system will lessen the need for some offensive nuclear weapons in the deterrence equation? Robinson: I believe both offensive and defensive systems can coexist as part of an overall national security policy, though I have yet to hear that policy articulated. You'll never have a defense, however, that is dominant against offensive nuclear weapons. When I speak publicly on the subject, I also ask audiences to consider that the United States or one of its allies were attacked with nuclear weapons one day, and our proposed missile defense system worked as advertised. Say only 5 or 10 percent, or whatever number you pick, of the attacking nuclear missiles got through. Do you really think the war is then over? NJ: The process of reducing the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia has been gridlocked for years by inertia over the START II treaty, which would bring each side down to roughly 3,500 weapons. The U.S. Senate has ratified the treaty, but the Russian Duma has not. Do you approve of the Bush Administration's suggestion to break the gridlock by abandoning the START process altogether and unilaterally reducing our arsenal? Robinson: Well, the process has definitely become knotted up over the START II treaty. I considered START I a good piece of work and a worthy agreement. The START II treaty, on the other hand, was not the result of a formal negotiation in Geneva. It was more a ministerial statement agreed upon by both sides that they then decided to enshrine as a treaty. And quite frankly, from the Russian point of view, I can see how they find a lot of things wrong with START II. For the Russians, the whole process resembled a guy trying to negotiate with his loan officer. NJ: Why is START II unfavorable for the Russians? Robinson: The treaty certainly didn't win any applause from the Russian military or defense community. They felt it was an awful deal. At a time when Russia's [ballistic missile] submarines are falling apart and they can't keep them at sea, and they lack the money to build the mobile missile systems that they had planned on buying, START II would commit the Russians to going down to single warheads on all their land-based missiles. NJ: Recently, Russia has threatened to rearm some of its ballistic missiles with multiple warheads if the United States unilaterally abrogates the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build a missile defense. Would that be a worrisome development? Robinson: When I heard [Russian President Vladimir] Putin talking about doing that, I knew we needed some new talking points with the Russians, because I can't think of anything more stupid. Presumably, we would be the target, since MIRVs were built to attack missile fields. As the United States has gotten rid of most of our land-based missiles and decreased our reliance on that leg of the strategic triad, however, we no longer present those kinds of targets. Today we have roughly 800 ICBMs, and we've telegraphed our intention of going down to below 500 land-based missiles, all with single warheads. So if MIRVs didn't make much sense in the first place, they make even less sense today. NJ: In your paper, you argue that the United States needs to tailor its nuclear arsenal to deter new types of threats, especially chemical and biological weapons. Do we really need to find new uses for nuclear weapons? Robinson: Not necessarily new. We had a pretty good test case with Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. If you look at the volumes of chemical and biological weapons later reported by United Nations weapons inspectors, it was astounding what Iraq possessed. Why weren't those weapons of mass destruction used? Many military experts I've talked to are absolutely convinced it was because of a secret letter sent by President Bush threatening the gravest consequences if such weapons were released. President Clinton made a similar threat against North Korea during a crisis in 1994. NJ: If our implicit threat of nuclear retaliation deterred rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea, why do we need new nuclear weapons? Robinson: The problem is, the strategic nuclear policy we developed during the Cold War has been stretched about as far as possible to fit a changing post-Cold War era. Today, we are threatened not only by nuclear weapons in the arsenal of peer nuclear competitors like Russia, but increasingly by biological, chemical, and radiological weapons that could kill huge numbers of people in a flash. Yet it's pretty incredible to think that the United States would respond to such an attack by vaporizing 11 million people in a rogue state just because they were poorly led. Where the hell are we going to use missiles with four to eight warheads, or half-megaton yields? Even the few "tactical" nuclear weapons that we have left have high yields of above 100 kilotons. I would hope a U.S. President would think it was crazy to use such weapons in response to a rogue-state attack. After a decade of trying to sort out what we learned from the Cold War and how we might tailor our nuclear deterrence and deterrent message to fit the future, I now argue that we need lower-yield nuclear weapons that could hold at risk only a rogue state's leadership and tools of aggression with some level of confidence. NJ: Isn't the United States' vaunted conventional military superiority-based in large part on our increasingly accurate precision-guided weapons-enough of a deterrent? Robinson: No. We've seen examples as recently as the [1999] air war with Serbia, when we attacked underground targets with conventional weapons with very little effect. It just takes far too many aircraft sorties and conventional weapons to give you any confidence that you can take out underground bunkers. By putting a nuclear warhead on one of those weapons instead of high explosives, you would multiply the explosive power by a factor of more than a million. NJ: Wouldn't fielding new, low-yield nuclear weapons capable of penetrating underground bunkers require new designs and a return to nuclear testing? Robinson: In my paper, I conclude that we would neither have to conduct testing nor redesign for such a weapon, because we have them already. Right now, all of our weapons have primary and secondary stages. Through a process known as "boosting," you get a thermonuclear reaction. The primary alone, however, has a yield of 10 kilotons or less, or basically what you would want for a bunker-buster or a weapon that would cause relatively low collateral damage. All we have to do is send these weapons back to the factory and replace the secondary stage with a dummy. The beauty of that approach is that we are already very good at building dummy secondary stages. For safety and costs reasons, most of the weapons we have flown and tested in the past have had dummy secondary stages. So we could develop these lower-yield weapons without forcing the nuclear testing issue back onto the table, with a richer database of past tests, and at relatively low cost. NJ: On the issue of nuclear weapons tests, the Bush Administration caused a furor when it was reported that they instructed the nuclear labs to develop a streamlined plan for a return to testing. Robinson: I read those stories that jumped to the conclusion that the Bush Administration was planning a return to nuclear testing, and that's wrong. There was a congressionally mandated commission, however, that recently looked at why it would take the nuclear labs roughly two years to return to testing. If we discovered a serious problem with the nuclear stockpile, the commission members suggested to me that a President would probably drop-kick me out of the Oval Office if I said it would take us two years to figure out what was wrong. You simply can't have people who stay up at night worrying about the security of the nation kept in doubt for that long. So, the Bush Administration has asked that we go back and study the issue to figure out why it would take so long and how we might streamline a resumption of testing. We haven't come up with the answers yet. NJ: During the 1999 debate over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, you expressed considerable skepticism over the ability of the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship program to ensure the long-term reliability and safety of the nuclear stockpile without testing. Has anything happened in the interim to change your thinking? Robinson: You're the first person to ask me that. I would say that since 1999, the Stockpile Stewardship program has, if anything, surprised me by working a little bit better than I would have anticipated. I still have my reservations, however, about whether the program can substitute for testing over the long term. In my mind, the jury is still out on that question. As long as our reliance on a nuclear deterrent is crucial, we'll be taking a chance until we know for certain that Stockpile Stewardship is a reliable, long-term substitute for testing. NJ: Are you seriously worried that aging will cause a catastrophic defect in our nuclear stockpile? Robinson: The toughest single thing I've had to do in my entire life was phone the commander in chief of Strategic Command and inform him that we had identified a problem with a particular warhead that affected a significant portion of the stockpile. We had to retarget many of our weapons and work like hell to figure out a fix. Our system of confidentiality proved itself in that instance, because we kept it all very, very secret. But that is one phone call I hope no one ever has to make again, because it was very, very tough. NJ: How do you respond to critics who believe that by tailoring new nuclear weapons for new types of deterrence, you would make their eventual use in a crisis more likely? Robinson: My response is that for God's sake, then, let's think this through in advance rather than doing it on the fly. Say Iraq had instigated the first use of biological or chemical weapons during the Persian Gulf War, causing huge numbers of casualties. How would we have retaliated to make good on President Bush's threat? By vaporizing 11 million people? Because I can tell you, we haven't given a lot of thought to this issue. We need to carefully think through our posture of nuclear deterrence, because whatever decision is made during the next crisis will leave a message to all of history. NJ: Why not send a message that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons? Robinson: The burden is on those who believe it is immoral to threaten nuclear retaliation for the use of chemical or biological weapons to propose an alternative. I subscribe to the advice of Winston Churchill: "Be careful above all things not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure, and more sure than sure, that other means of preserving the peace are in your hands." Those words reflect my thinking on the subject very well. ***************************************************************** 4 Nuke dump facts lost in the spin By Jon Ralston Reno Gazette-Journal Monday September 10th, 2001 And the battle of the sound bite goes to . . . Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman. In a world where spin always trumps substance, and on the one issue whether performance is always preferable to results, His Honor reigned supreme at last week’s Department of Energy hearing. By contrast, Gov. Kenny Guinn gave a well-crafted recitation of the challenges ahead and used forceful if not colorful language: “Unlike many of the policy battles that grip Washington, this fight transcends party affiliation, socioeconomic classes, race or gender and galvanizes Nevadans from every corner of this state in opposition,” the governor told the audience in North Las Vegas. He is not a scintillating orator, but Guinn was solid and stern. And when the wire services reported on the eight hours of hearings, where were Guinn’s comments? Either invisible or buried, as deep as the nuclear waste is intended to be entombed at Yucca Mountain. And who made the lead paragraph? Check out, as an example, the Reuters report: “Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has vowed to personally arrest any driver hauling nuclear waste through the city to a proposed underground storage site intended to house the nation’s radioactive spent fuel for the next 10,000 years.” Try to give a factual state of affairs and get relegated to irrelevance. But threaten to flash a meaningless badge and haul a truck driver off to jail, well, that’s the lead, folks. And the hollowness and shallowness of that reality of dump politics was as clear last week as it has been since Nevada first got screwed in 1987, when two other sites were magically erased from consideration as the DOE and a compliant Congress waved a magic wand and turned Yucca Mountain into the only place being considered. We’ve had other clever turns of phrase, too, some of them scientifically silly such as then-Sen. Richard Bryan’s “Mobile Chernobyl.” But they got the media’s attention. That’s all that’s been important for so long. This has always been about performing for public consumption, showing who’s toughest on the dump. Goodman’s grasp of policy details is the opposite of Guinn’s just as his thespian talents are the opposite of the governor’s. So when he came in and did the badge bluster, the stolid Guinn’s performance was quickly forgotten, just as the trite scripts read by the congressional delegation were erased from memory. But what can’t be erased is what comes after this hearing. Actually, “hearing” is a misnomer because it assumes someone was listening. What happened last week in North Las Vegas was the penultimate task before the Bush administration inevitably recommends Yucca Mountain for construction. All that remains now is for the comment process to end and then for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to make his decision. And my guess is when he does, no one in the room will ask him if he’s worried about the Las Vegas mayor arresting the truck driver. Jon Ralston, who publishes The Ralston Report, works for Greenspun Media Group. He welcomes comments and questions. Write him at 2300 Prometheus Court, Henderson, Nev. 89014. Or call (702) 870-7997. © Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 5 Duratek is Awarded $22 Million Subcontract for Decontamination & Decommissioning Monday September 10, 8:15 am Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Duratek, Inc. COLUMBIA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Sept. 7, 2001--Duratek, Inc. (NASDAQ: - news) today announced that it has been selected by Bechtel Jacobs Company to perform the first phase of decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the K-25/K-27 Buildings at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The contract is valued at approximately $22 million over 3 years. Duratek will perform hazardous materials abatement and waste management services including, packaging, transportation, and disposal of the waste. The K-25/K-27 Building complex, which encompasses 4.5 million square feet under roof, was constructed in the 1940s to support the nation's uranium enrichment program and at that time was the largest building under a single roof in the world. Government estimates for all phases of the D&D effort are expected to exceed $200 million. ``This project is an exciting one for Duratek,'' said Robert E. Prince, President and CEO of Duratek. ``The K-25/K-27 Buildings represent one of the Department of Energy's largest legacy waste sites. We will be helping DOE `complete the circle' of the atomic weapons era by safely preparing these historic facilities for ultimate dismantlement.'' This is the fourth subcontract award Duratek has received from Bechtel Jacobs in the past two years. These subcontracts provide for a continuing Duratek presence at Oak Ridge through this decade. Duratek implements technologies and provides services, which protect people from radiation and the environment from radioactive material. Duratek's headquarters are located in Columbia, Maryland and the Company has major offices in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Columbia, South Carolina, Denver, Colorado and Richland, Washington. Certain statements contained in this press release may constitute ``forward-looking statements'' within the meaning of Section 21E(i)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause Duratek's actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by these statements. Such factors include the following: the Company's ability to manage its commercial waste processing operations, including obtaining commercial waste processing contracts and processing waste under such contracts in a timely and cost-effective manner; the timing and award of contracts by the U.S. Department of Energy for the cleanup of waste sites administered by it; the Company's ability to integrate acquired companies; the acceptance and implementation of the Company's waste treatment technologies in the government and commercial sectors; and other large technical support services projects. All forward-looking statements are also expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included in the Company's SEC filings, including its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and its annual report on Form 10-K. Contact: Duratek, Inc. Diane R. Brown Robert F. Shawver 410/312-5100 ***************************************************************** 6 LETTERS: DOE is off base on Yucca Mountain promises [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Monday, September 10, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: The written history of man only goes back about 5,000 years or so, and is replete with earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions. Yet the so-called scientists of the Department of Energy are willing to tell us with straight faces that nuclear waste can be stored safely in Yucca Mountain for the next 10,000 years. There is not a glimmer of truth in their pronouncements. Potentially the most dangerous aspect of this project is the actual shipment of the nuclear waste in casks to the storage site. Every day we hear of disasters, pile-ups and the like happening on our highways, and almost daily of rail accidents. While they assure us that the casks can take these poundings, what would happen if a terrorist decided to blow up one of these containers, and drove a truck loaded with explosives into the flatbed carrying the cask, or used some kind of anti-tank device to pierce it? With shipments scheduled on a daily basis for more than a decade, accidents are inevitable. RICHARD J. MUNDY LAS VEGAS Where else? To the editor: I have heard pros and cons on the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and find it very interesting. I have yet to hear any of the people who oppose the Yucca plan offer an alternative solution as to where the waste should go. At the present time there are many areas on Nevada Test Site that are still contaminated by nuclear radiation. There are also many areas like this at Hanford in Washington which could be another waste site. I also know that there is a lot of contaminated material that is waiting at many locations to be put in the nuclear waste site that is potentially more dangerous above ground than it will ever be below ground. The study to determine where to put the waste has been worked on by scientists and engineers since 1978. I worked with a fellow engineer who was one of the people who were assigned to examine all the possible places to put this waste. The technology that was required for tunnels was developed for these storage facilities and has been used at the Nevada Test Site and also at Carlsbad in New Mexico for many years. It is beyond me how a bunch of people with very little technical knowledge think they know more than the scientific community does. Many years ago I, heard someone suggest that it could be sent into outer space in a rocket. But suppose something went wrong and the rocket failed -- there would be contamination spread over a very large area. As for transportation to the site, a lot of time has been spent crashing the containers at high speeds to evaluate the containment capabilities. So again it is the lack of knowledge that prevails. Do you remember the nuclear tests that were conducted at Nevada Test Site? How do you think the nuclear material got there? Was there a problem? I wish there were another solution, but at present there isn't -- and, as I said, the waste is more dangerous where it is. Nothing will be stored at Yucca Mountain for about nine years, so maybe some other technology will be discovered to eliminate the problem. Until then, let's go ahead with what we have. BOB SCHOWERS LAS VEGAS Your vote To the editor: I don't see why everyone is so upset that the federal government is going to stash 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in Nevada. If the citizens of this state were so opposed to such a thing, they should have voted in the past presidential election for the candidate who said that he was against the plan. Instead, Nevadans voted for the candidate who promised a tax break. Well you got what you asked for -- it's tough to live with your decisions sometimes. If you are worried about the dangers, perhaps you can buy anti-radiation suits for that $600 you voted for. NICK BOXWELL LAS VEGAS It's inevitable To the editor: According to a Sept. 6 article, Sen. Harry Reid is angry about the Department of Energy's plan to go ahead with the Yucca Mountain repository. His being angry brings to mind nothing more than Barney Fife acting angry on the "Andy Griffith Show" -- and, by the way, that is all it is with Sen. Reid: acting. Of course, the senator's huffing and puffing will not save Nevada from nuclear storage. Nor will our own Andy Griffith -- in the person of our mayor, Oscar Goodman -- bring resolution to the problem with that comical promise about arresting anyone who tries to drive nuclear waste through Las Vegas. Really, mayor, neither George Bush or Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham will be driving the vehicle -- it will be an ordinary Joe truck driver, likely escorted by unelected federal officials who will brook no nonsense, especially from someone attempting to make a citizens arrest. All this alarm about something that is years in coming is politically motivated. Maybe Sen. Reid, Mayor Goodman and Gov. Kenny Guinn should be looking at some of the other deadly and toxic materials that are shipped through here every day by truck and train that are not encased in material planned to keep them safe for 10,000 years. Nuclear waste will be stored at Yucca Mountain. We had better get over it. VERNON CLAYSON LAS VEGAS Nuke tax To the editor: A couple of years ago, I submitted a proposal to create a "half life tax" on radioactive waste stored in Nevada. I again propose we tax nuclear waste $1,000 per pound per year for the half-life of the radioactive waste, due in full before the waste is allowed into the state. All revenue from this tax would be distributed to the citizens of Nevada. Based on 77,000 tons of waste, a half-life of 10,000 years and Nevada's population of 2 million, each Nevadan would receive a total of $77,000 every year if all the waste is stored in Yucca Mountain. We are only fooling ourselves if we believe our our congressional delegation can stop nuclear waste from coming to our state. No other site is being studied; no other site is being developed; and no other site has been proposed in Congress. CRAIG S. WOODY LAS VEGAS This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-10-Mon-2001/opinion/16950769.html ***************************************************************** 7 Yucca Mountain doubts abound LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: NEWS: A Yucca Mountain crew steers a train through a tunnel in the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, last month. Photo by Gary Thompson. The tunnel is being used to study whether the mountain is suitable for storing nuclear waste. Photo by Gary Thompson. William Boyle Energy Department geologist and engineer Tuesday, September 11, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Yucca Mountain doubts abound Nuclear waste plan still faces scientific, budget uncertainties By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL While scientific uncertainties with the Yucca Mountain Project are being aired this week before a presidential panel, a top official with the Department of Energy program said Monday that budget uncertainties might jeopardize the project's pace and decisions on burying nuclear waste in Nevada. Lake Barrett, acting director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said the huge difference between the House mark of $443 million for the program and the Senate's $275 million could put the Yucca Mountain Project into a tailspin. The Yucca Mountain Project consumes 85 percent of the national civilian nuclear waste program's budget. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to decide within a few months whether to recommend Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for construction of a repository to entomb the nation's most lethal nuclear waste. Most of the 77,000 tons of waste is in the form of spent nuclear fuel pellets currently stored at commercial power reactor sites. "Should the actual appropriation reflect the Senate mark, the site recommendation would be in jeopardy, because technical work addressing the board's and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's concerns would be eliminated," Barrett told the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. The panel, presidential appointees who report to Congress and the energy secretary, meets through Wednesday at the Crowne Plaza. "The schedule for other key milestones, including submittal of a license application and the receipt of waste, would also slip indefinitely while a new program is structured at a different funding level," Barrett said. He cited the Bush administration's statement to the Senate Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, which appropriates nuclear waste program money. Providing only $275 million for the program "would require an immediate suspension of scientific work and result in a loss of key scientific personnel," the statement said. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a staunch opponent of the Yucca Mountain Project, chairs the appropriations subcommittee. As for uncertainty involving the scientific study of the Yucca Mountain site, William Boyle, an Energy Department geologist and engineer, said peak doses of neptunium -- one of the longest-lived elements of the radioactive waste -- wouldn't occur until 275,000 years to 1 million years after waste is put in the mountain. Boyle said those doses would occur whether the repository is operated at a so-called "low temperature" or a "high temperature" design. Exposures to the public outside the 11-mile buffer zone would not reach 10 millirem -- or 5 millirem less than the federal radiation safety standard -- until after 400,000 years, well beyond the 10,000-year regulatory period. The scientists' assessment of the impact of volcanic activity on a repository will be discussed by the panel and project scientists Wednesday. Monday, two consultants for Nevada's Nuclear Project's Agency raised concerns about federal scientists' assessments of how metal alloys hold up in the potentially corrosive setting, 1,000 feet beneath the ridge. Preliminary results presented by one consultant, April Pulvirenti of Catholic University of America, show that cracks and pitting develop in the waste-canister material, Alloy-22. Another state consultant, Roger Staehle, from the University of Minnesota, said he had "serious problems" with the realm of operating temperatures Yucca Mountain Project scientists used in their corrosion studies -- from 180 degrees to 300 Fahrenheit -- and the chemistry involved. Staehle said scientists should consider that the repository would operate at a a minimum 300 degrees. He said the hotter temperatures should be used in the calculations in case the repository is not ventilated. The last scheduled public hearings on the government's plans for Yucca Mountain will be Wednesday night in Amargosa Valley and Thursday night in Pahrump. Nevada's senators had received no word whether Abraham would attend Yucca Mountain hearings in Nevada this week, and they were assuming he would not be there. Reid wrote to President Bush last week asking that Abraham be compelled to attend. Donrey Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault contributed to this report. webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 8 Editorial: Make nuke industry pay for its mistakes Las Vegas SUN Today: September 11, 2001 at 9:34:58 PDT There is no reason why federal taxpayers should continue to subsidize the nuclear power industry through the 44-year-old Price-Anderson Act, which expires in August and is under consideration by Congress for renewal. Under the act, owners of the nation's 106 nuclear reactors are liable only for a limited amount of the cleanup costs in case of a catastrophe. The owner of the reactor that had the accident would be liable for a maximum $200 million, and the operators of the other 105 facilities would each contribute a maximum $88 million. The total industry liability would be about $9.4 billion. For comparison, consider that the April 1986 Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union cost $200 billion to clean up. Had that mishap occurred in this country, taxpayers under Price-Anderson would have had to pay about $191 billion. Nevada taxpayers should not be forced to pay for nuclear plant accidents in other states. That burden should rest squarely on the companies that own the reactors. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 DOE calls off Yucca Mountain hearings Las Vegas SUN Today: September 11, 2001 at 10:03:45 PDT By Benjamin Grove <> and Mary Manning In light of the terrorist attacks, Department of Energy officials this morning postponed hearings scheduled for this week on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. The hearings -- Wednesday in Amargosa Valley and Thursday in Pahrump -- were to gather public comment on a DOE report that sees no major obstacles in building the nation's only high-level nuclear waste dump at the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. A similar, 8 1/2-hour hearing last week in the Las Vegas Valley turned testy and evoked criticism from Nevada officials, who said Nevada residents did not have a fair chance to speak because of limited time. As of Monday about 10 people had signed up to speak at Longstreet Casino in Amargosa Valley, less than 20 miles southwest of Yucca Mountain, DOE spokesman Allen Benson said. For those wishing to sign up before the beginning of the hearing at 5 p.m., DOE has a toll-free phone number, Benson said. The number is 1-800-967-3477. Last week's hearing was the first of three designed to give Nevadans a forum to discuss -- in most cases, blast -- a plan to bury the nation's high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The DOE plans to send President Bush a recommendation on the site by the end of the year, Lake Barrett, acting director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said Monday. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must approve the project before trucks and trains begin hauling 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste to the site. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he hopes to speak to Energy Secretary and former Michigan senator Spencer Abraham today about scheduling another public hearing in Las Vegas, possibly over two days, to allow as many residents to speak as possible. Reid also invited Abraham to the hearings in Amargosa Valley downstream from Yucca, roughly 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas; and Pahrump, about 50 miles west of Las Vegas. Abraham has not accepted. "I'm going to tell the Secretary, look Spence, come out and see for yourself the vitriolic feelings people in Nevada have," Reid said. "He's not going to get out of this with two more hearings in Pahrump and Amargosa Valley." The Nevada senator added that the DOE is "going through the motions, but they're not really listening." The DOE's Barrett said the first hearing "was not a satisfying experience for anyone involved." While Abraham has asked the DOE for more opportunities for public involvement, the department still plans to target a site recommendation for the end of the year, he said. Nevada's four lawmakers in Congress do not plan to speak from Washington via satellite television at the meetings, as they did at the North Las Vegas meeting. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said they are eager to have a hearing in Las Vegas after a number of DOE studies are released, including a final environmental impact statement and finalized data about the path of groundwater at Yucca. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., has said the DOE should hold as many as 10 hearings and lengthen the public comment period beyond Oct. 5. Gov. Kenny Guinn has requested more DOE hearings at convenient times, perhaps over several days, so as many people as possible could contribute their views. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 Yucca chief warns of staffing cuts Las Vegas SUN Today: September 11, 2001 at 10:03:45 PDT By Benjamin Grove and Mary Manning Acting Yucca Mountain project chief Lake Barrett on Monday again warned that drastic staffing cuts loom at his agency if Congress approves a slashed 2002 budget for the nuclear waste project. "We basically would have to lay off the entire Yucca Mountain staff," Barrett told the Sun during a meeting in Las Vegas of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent panel that oversees the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain project. "The budget for 2002 is very uncertain," Barrett said. About 1,500 employees work on the Yucca Mountain project, a 14-year-old plan to bury the nation's nuclear waste under the desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The DOE has studied the site for years but has not formally recommended it as a safe place to bury 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste. Roughly half of the workers are federal DOE employees; the remaining half work for private companies hired by the DOE. At issue is the Yucca budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The DOE requested $445 million for the project. The House approved about $443 million. But the Senate, in large part due to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., slashed the Yucca funding to $275 million. That would be the smallest Yucca budget since 1992. "We would have to completely restructure the program," Barrett said. Further complicating the DOE's budget plan are 17 lawsuits filed against the government by nuclear utilities. The utilities went to court after the DOE failed to take responsibility for spent nuclear fuel, piling up at 73 sites across the country, Barrett said. If the utilities win, the DOE would have to pay billions, he said. Vocal Yucca proponent Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, has referenced a report that estimated the $275 million budget would mean about 650 layoffs, which would "basically kill" the project. A "conference committee" of both House and Senate lawmakers that includes Reid will set the final Yucca budget. Reid said the final number will be a compromise and fall somewhere between $275 million and $445 million. In fact, Reid and Murkowski have negotiated a resolution that would put the Yucca budget back "to an amount closer to the House-passed version." Congress is trying to finalize its spending bills before the end of the month, which marks the completion of the current fiscal year. "I'll do my best" to keep the Yucca budget small, said Reid, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a member of the Appropriations Committee. But, Reid warned, "Lake better get his red pen out and figure out where he can make some cuts." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 Skeptical scientists concerned about missing Yucca data Las Vegas SUN Today: September 11, 2001 at 10:07:50 PDT By Mary Manning Although a top Department of Energy official insisted government experts are ready to recommend Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository this year, skeptical scientists said they still have concerns over missing data. Scientists reviewing the DOE's studies on containers to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste inside the mountain called for the use of a metal other than a stainless steel alloy recommended by the agency. The scientists spoke Monday during a meeting of the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in Las Vegas. DOE Yucca Mountain chief Lake Barrett said Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham should recommend Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, by the end of the year. At issue for scientists reviewing the project is how metals, designed to keep radiation from leaking out of about 12,000 buried containers and to protect buried wastes from ground water, will perform. Roger Staehle of the University of Minnesota, North Oaks, said there is too much scientific data missing from computer models designed and constructed by the DOE to reach any conclusion. Staehle, a consultant to Nevada officials who are opposing the repository, warned the technical review board to challenge the DOE. He advised the DOE to store spent fuel at nuclear reactor sites in dry casks for up to 100 years before putting it anywhere, Staehle told the Sun. "I'm concerned we have not faced up to realities," Staehle said. The DOE is not ready to proceed on the project, he said. Scientists from around the world said moist dust resting on the metal surface of the containers, scale deposits on the metal or crevices in the containers could lead to radiation leaks. Joseph Payer, the chief scientist reviewing DOE's containers, said the viability of C-22 -- the metal alloy preferred for burying the wastes -- has not been tested for more than 10,000 years. "I, personally, don't think we're locked in to alloy 22," Payer said. However, it would take at least 10 years to conduct detailed studies on an alternative metal, he said. "It doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement (of the project)," Paul Craig, a member of the technical review board, said. Bacteria, fungi, and chemicals in ground water could contribute to corrosion of the containers, but the DOE has not seen any problems with the metals in its own tests, Gerald Gordon of the DOE's Bechtel-SAIC company, said. Results from the DOE's studies should be ready next year, he said. Consultants for Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects showed pictures of cracks in titanium, the metal the DOE plans to use as a shield for buried waste containers from ground water inside the mountain. Placed in water from Yucca Mountain at temperatures of more than 100 degrees above boiling, pits, cracks and flaking of the titanium appeared in less than a month, said chemist April Pulvirenti of Catholic University of America said. Studies done last year by Catholic University scientists revealed similar cracks in the C-22 container metal. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 The volcano that could threaten a nuclear dump The Times MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10 2001 SCIENCE BRIEFING BY ANJANA AHUJA The American Department of Environment (DOE) has mounted one of the biggest risk-assessment exercises in scientific history. And risks don’t come much bigger than this — are the volcanoes near the Yucca Mountain, where the US wants to bury its nuclear waste, likely to erupt? The project, already 20 years in the making, is being stalled as vulcanologists in America and Britain come up with different verdicts. Yucca Mountain occupies a remote spot in Nevada, and was originally chosen because of its isolation and the lack of rain (which would percolate down into the water table). However, attention has now switched to the three volcanic plugs that speckle the mountain’s summit. One plug is a memento of an eruption 75,000 years ago, which is worryingly recent in geological terms. Nature reports that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which will grant the licence for the waste dump, thinks that the risks haven’t been taken seriously enough. Experts meet in Las Vegas on Wednesday to discuss them. The DOE calculated the risk by assuming that every segment of rock around the mountain would have an equal chance of erupting, and reckoned the total likelihood of an eruption was one in 100,000,000 per year. However, an NRC research centre in Texas used a more sophisticated model that took into account the fault characteristics of the underlying rock. The overall chance of a breach, it calculated, would really be ten times higher (one in 10,000,000 per year) — too high for comfort. Also at issue is exactly what an eruption would do to the heat-resistant, nickel-alloy waste canisters, which would be stuffed into tunnels lying 300 metres below the desert floor. Eruptions are caused by vertical walls of lava (called dykes) slicing through the surface. Some scientists believe that such a rupture would be fairly clean, breaking open only a few canisters and hurling their contents into the atmosphere. However, others, including John Trapp, an NRC geologist, say that dykes move relatively slowly, perhaps a metre per second, and lava could seep through tunnels, heating up many canisters well before any disturbance can be detected on the ground. His pessimistic view is supported by the work of Andrew Woods at Cambridge University and Inno Bokhove at Bristol University. They believe that shock waves will reverberate through the mountain, puncturing the sealed tunnels. Other research shows that the canisters may suffer heat failure. Other experts estimate that a dyke could slice into ten tunnels housing a total of 1,500 canisters of high-level waste, with catastrophic consequences. Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided ***************************************************************** 13 Daily Events Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations Center Event Reports For 09/10/2001 09/11/2001 ** EVENT NUMBERS ** 37999 38247 38272 38273 Fuel Cycle Facility Event Number: 37999 FACILITY: PADUCAH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT NOTIFICATION DATE: 05/16/2001 RXTYPE: URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY NOTIFICATION TIME: 23:53[EDT] COMMENTS: 2 DEMOCRACY CENTER EVENT DATE: 05/16/2001 6903 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE EVENT TIME: 19:00[CDT] BETHESDA, MD 20817 (301)564 3200 LAST UPDATE DATE: 09/10/2001 CITY: PADUCAH REGION: 3 COUNTY: McCRACKEN STATE: KY PERSON ORGANIZATION LICENSE#: GDP 1 AGREEMENT: Y MICHAEL PARKER R3 DOCKET: 0707001 JOHN GREEVES NMSS NADER MAMISH IRO NRC NOTIFIED BY: KEVIN BEASLEY HQ OPS OFFICER: DOUG WEAVER EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR SECTION: NBNL RESPONSE BULLETIN EVENT TEXT NRC BULLETIN 91 01 RESPONSE CRITICALITY CONTROL (4 Hour Report) During the revision to NCSE 052 and 039, it was discovered that the condenser could potentially be pressurized greater than 35.5 psia when the condenser supply and return valve are both closed without a fluorinating environment in the process gas system. NCSA CAS 002/011 allow both the supply and return valves to be closed when draining the condenser without a fluorinating environment. NCSEs 052 and 039 rely on the condenser supply valve to be closed enough to prevent the condenser from being pressurized above 35.5 psia during the time the return valve is closed and maintenance personnel relieve the pressure on the condenser. Based on recent discussions, it was discovered that closure of the supply valve may not provide sufficient isolation to prevent the condenser from being pressurized above 35.5 psia with the return valve closed because of potential seat leakage of the supply valve. The licensee has stopped all maintenance activities which could create this condition. Also, samples will be taken where this maintenance has occurred to check that the freon still complies with the water content limits. Paducah personnel notified the NRC resident inspector. ***** UPDATE RECEIVED AT 1500 EDT ON 06/21/01 FROM CALVIN PITTMAN TO LEIGH TROCINE ***** The following text is a portion of a facsimile received from Paducah personnel: "At 1900 [CDT] on [05/16/01], the Plant Shift Superintendent (PSS) was notified of a deficient Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation. NCSAs CAS 002 and CAS 011 allow both the Recirculating Cooling Water (RCW) supply and return valves to be closed when draining the R 114 condenser without a fluorinating environment. The NCS evaluations rely on the RCW supply valve to be closed enough to prevent the condenser from being pressurized above 35.5 psia during the time the RCW return valve is closed and maintenance relieves the pressure on the condenser. Based on recent discussions between NCS and maintenance personnel, it was discovered that closure of the RCW supply valve might not provide sufficient isolation to prevent the condenser from being pressurized above 35.5 psia with the return valve closed. The RCW system provides cooling water to the R 114 condenser, which removes heat from the freon system. The freon is used to remove the heat of compression from the process gas system. The R 114 pressure is maintained above the RCW pressure to form a barrier between the process gas and the RCW cooling water, thus preventing moderation from occurring should a leak in the condenser occur. If the RCW pressure is allowed to rise above 35.5 psia, the potential exists that the RCW pressure could exceed that of the R 114 pressure. At this point, an actual condition of RCW pressure greater than 35.5 psia has not been identified." "UPDATE [on 06/20/01] ATRC 01 3248: During the Engineering review to determine permanent corrective actions, additional immediate corrective actions have become necessary. It has been determined that when the condenser return valve is open, condenser pressure can also be affected when the return header alignment is changed (i.e., closure of RCW loop isolation valves, RCW building header valves, cooling tower riser valves, etc.). Controls have been implemented to ensure that changes to the RCW system do not impact our ability to maintain R 114 pressure above RCW pressure." "SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF EVENTS: The controls credited for the isolation of the condenser to ensure the pressure at the condenser does not exceed 35.5 psia do not meet the intent of the NCSE for isolation. Therefore, the NCSE analysis is deficient and double contingency is not maintained. However, the probability for a criticality is unlikely due to the number of conditions that must be met in order for a criticality to be possible." "POTENTIAL CRITICALITY PATHWAYS INVOLVED (BRIEF SCENARIO(S) OF HOW CRITICALITY COULD OCCUR): In order for a criticality to be possible, the following conditions must exist. With the condenser supply and return valves closed, the supply or return valve must be leaking to allow the condenser pressure to exceed the minimum coolant pressure of 35.5 psia. With the configuration of the supply valve closed and the return valve opened, the RCW return system must be changed (i.e. closure of loop isolation valves, RCW building header valves, cooling tower riser valves, etc.) enough that the affected condenser pressure increased greater than 35.5 psia. The process gas equipment must be at a UF6 negative and contain a UO2F2 deposit greater than a critical mass. The condenser must have a leak of sufficient rate and duration to allow enough water to overcome the down comer allowing liquid water to enter the cooler. The cooler must also have a simultaneous leak, which would allow wet coolant to leak into the process gas side of the equipment at a location, which would allow moderation of the deposit." "CONTROLLED PARAMETERS (MASS, MODERATION, GEOMETRY, CONCENTRATION, ETC.): Double contingency for this scenario is established by implementing two controls for moderation." "ESTIMATED AMOUNT, ENRICHMENT, FORM OF LICENSED MATERIAL (INCLUDE PROCESS LIMIT AND % WORST CASE CRITICAL MASS): Maximum assay of 5.5 wt. % U235" "NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY CONTROL(S) OR CONTROL SYSTEM(S) AND DESCRIPTION OF THE FAILURES OR DEFICIENCIES: The first leg of [the] double contingency is based on isolation of the RCW condenser by closing the supply valve to maintain the condenser pressure less than 35.5 psia. Based on discussions with maintenance personnel, the current leak rates of the supply valve may be greater than the amount assumed to ensure the condenser pressure does not exceed 35.5 psia when the return valve is closed. Also, when the return valve is open, the RCW return system could be changed (i.e., closure of loop isolation valve, RCW building header valves, cooling tower riser valves, etc.). Therefore, the intent of this control has not been met, and this leg of double contingency was not maintained." "The second leg of [the] double contingency is based on the independent verification of the isolation of the supply valve and when the return valve is required to be open, verification that the return valve is open. Since adequate isolation of the supply valve cannot be ensured based on verification of supply valve closure or return valve open, when required, the intent of this independent verification control was not met. Therefore, this leg of double contingency was not maintained." "Since isolation of the RCW condenser with the supply valve closed and the return valve closed or opened may not meet the intent of the isolation requirement to maintain the condenser pressure less than 35.5 psia, these controls are deficient and double contingency has not been maintained." "CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO RESTORE SAFETY SYSTEMS AND WHEN EACH WAS IMPLEMENTED: Until the NCSEs and NCSAs can be revised and additional controls established:" "Condenser Return Valve Closed" "1. All maintenance activities related to closing the condenser return valve on a system, which is at a UF6 negative, have been stopped. This does not apply to systems that are not connected to the supply line or the C 310 TOPS Boosters." "2. The coolant systems for condensers, which had the return valve closed without a fluorinating environment present, will be sampled in accordance with NCSA CAS 002 to verify the CFC 114 still complies with the water content limits." "3. The return [valves] on condensers, which currently have the return valve closed, fluorinating environment removed (at a UF6 negative), and is connected to the supply line, will be opened." "RCW Building Return System (based on ATRC 01 3248)" "4. The plant power level will be maintained below 400 MW until NCSE changes are completed and/or necessary controls are implemented or specific evolutions are evaluated by NCS and approval is given." "5. Both building RCW return header valves to a given header will not be closed." "6. At least 3 cooling tower risers for every large pump and 2 risers for every small pump will be kept in service." "7. Respective building RCW bypasses will be closed before isolating an RCW system loop." "8. For any auxiliary systems not protected by a delta P alarm (i.e., A 310 Booster, A 335 Booster, C 337 B Booster) except the C 310 TOPS Booster, any activity that requires verification that the condenser return valve is open will also verify other valves in the return path to the applicable RCW return header are also open." Paducah personnel notified the NRC resident inspector. The NRC operations officer notified the R3DO (Bruce Jorgensen) and NMSS EO (Patricia Holahan).] * * * UPDATE 1705EDT ON 8/21/01 FROM CALVIN PITTMAN TO S. SANDIN * * * The following information was provided as an update: "The plant has completed and approved a USQD [Unreviewed Safety Question Determination] to allow the plant power level to be increased to 850 MW." The NRC resident inspector has been informed. Notified R3DO(Gardner) and NMSS(Essig). * * * UPDATE 1300 9/10/2001 FRIN BEASLEY TAKEN BY STRANSKY * * * "NCSE 039/NCSA CAS 011 and NCSE 052/NCSA CAS 002 have been revised, approved, and implemented by the plant. These analyses are no longer considered deficient. The analysis incorporates additional controls associated with the cascade RCW system that are necessary for double contingency above a power level of 850 MW." The NRC resident inspector has been informed. Notified R3DO (Burgess) & NMSS (Wayne Hodges) Power Reactor Event Number: 38247 FACILITY: MILLSTONE REGION: 1 NOTIFICATION DATE: 08/29/2001 UNIT: [] [] [3] STATE: CT NOTIFICATION TIME: 11:02[EDT] RXTYPE: [1] GE 3,[2] CE,[3] W 4 LP EVENT DATE: 08/29/2001 EVENT TIME: 10:04[EDT] NRC NOTIFIED BY: MIKE GOBELI LAST UPDATE DATE: 09/10/2001 HQ OPS OFFICER: LEIGH TROCINE PERSON ORGANIZATION EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY DAVID LEW R1 10 CFR SECTION: JOHN TAPPERT NRR APRE 50.72(b)(2)(xi) OFFSITE NOTIFICATION RICHARD ROSANO/NRR IAT DDDD 73.71 UNSPECIFIED PARAGRAPH AARON DANIS/NMSS IAT GREG SMITH/REGION 1 IAT NADER MAMISH IRO UNIT SCRAM CODERX CRITINIT PWR INIT RX MODE CURR PWR CURR RX MODE 3 N Y 100 Power Operation 100 Power Operation EVENT TEXT OFFSITE NOTIFICATION REGARDING A 30 GALLON DIESEL OIL SPILL FROM A FREIGHT TRAIN WHICH DERAILED AND BREACHED THE PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY A freight train derailed and breached the protected area boundary. There were no personnel injuries as a result of this event. However, 30 gallons of diesel oil spilled from the train. The oil was contained by trap rocks and did not reach receiving waters. Security personnel have been posted as a result of the protected area boundary breach, and fire protection personnel are currently on scene cleaning up the diesel oil spill. The licensee is in the process of notifying the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection of the oil spill. The licensee also requested that local police investigate the cause of the train derailment. In addition to the initial 4 hour event report for the offsite notification, the licensee plans to call back with an update to include the reporting criterion for the breach in the protected area boundary. The licensee notified the NRC resident inspector and plans to notify applicable state and local officials. ***** UPDATE FROM MIKE GOBELI TO LEIGH TROCINE AT 1115 ON 08/29/01 ***** The licensee provided this update to include an additional 1 hour security reporting criterion to the initial 4 hour event report for the offsite notification. The licensee determined that this event was also reportable in accordance with 10 CFR 73.71(b)(1), Appendix G, I(1)(c), for a degradation or discovered vulnerability in a safeguards system that could allow unauthorized or undetected access to a protected area, controlled access area, or vital area. The NRC operations officer notified the R1DO (David Lew), NRR EO (John Tappert), IRO (Nader Mamish), NRR IAT (Richard Rosano), NMSS IAT (Aaron Danis), Region 1 IAT (Greg Smith), Region 1 (Curtis Cowgill), Headquarters OPA (Beth Hayden), and Region 1 OPA (Neil Sheehan). * * * PARTIAL RETRACTION 1350 9/10/2001 FROM SMITH TAKEN BY STRANSKY * * * The licensee has determined that this incident is not reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 73.71 (b)(1) as a one hour report. The NRC resident inspector has been informed. Notified R1DO (Barr). Other Nuclear Material Event Number: 38272 REP ORG: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NOTIFICATION DATE: 09/10/2001 LICENSEE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NOTIFICATION TIME: 16:48[EDT] CITY: PENDLETON REGION: 4 EVENT DATE: 09/06/2001 COUNTY: STATE: OR EVENT TIME: 11:00[PDT] LICENSE#: 19 00915 03 AGREEMENT: Y LAST UPDATE DATE: 09/10/2001 DOCKET: PERSON ORGANIZATION MARK SHAFFER R4 M. WAYNE HODGES NMSS NRC NOTIFIED BY: JENSEN HQ OPS OFFICER: BOB STRANSKY EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR SECTION: NONR OTHER UNSPEC REQMNT EVENT TEXT STUCK SOURCE The licensee reported that a 15 mCi Am 241 source, used for soil moisture measurements, had become stuck within a 6 foot length of tubing. Attempts to retrieve it using the attached cable were unsuccessful. The source was retrieved by digging up the tubing, cutting off the bottom portion and pushing the source back up through the tube. The source was returned to its shipping container. The dosimetry of the individual who performed the retrieval has been sent to the vendor for analysis. An inspector from NRC Region I is currently performing a site visit to the USDA office in Beltsville, MD, from where this report originated. Power Reactor Event Number: 38273 FACILITY: COOPER REGION: 4 NOTIFICATION DATE: 09/10/2001 UNIT: [1] [] [] STATE: NE NOTIFICATION TIME: 23:13[EDT] RXTYPE: [1] GE 4 EVENT DATE: 09/07/2001 EVENT TIME: 17:54[CDT] NRC NOTIFIED BY: WILLIAM GREEN LAST UPDATE DATE: 09/10/2001 HQ OPS OFFICER: BOB STRANSKY PERSON ORGANIZATION EMERGENCY CLASS: NON EMERGENCY MARK SHAFFER R4 10 CFR SECTION: AIND 50.72(b)(3)(v)(D) ACCIDENT MITIGATION UNIT SCRAM CODERX CRITINIT PWR INIT RX MODE CURR PWR CURR RX MODE 1 N Y 100 Power Operation 62 Power Operation EVENT TEXT LOSS OF OFFSITE POWER SOURCES DUE TO LIGHTNING "On 9/7/01 at 1750 CDT the Startup Transformer was de energized due to a lightning strike on the transmission system. This deenergized one of the two off site circuits. This trip resulted in the trip of 'A' Recirculation M/G set and subsequent single loop operations. Shortly after this at 1754 CDT the Emergency Transformer was declared inoperable due to degraded voltage and the plant entered the Limiting Condition for Operations for loss of both off site power circuits. Both Emergency Diesels remained available and the unit remained on line. All plant equipment responded as expected. At 1932 CDT the Emergency Transformer was returned to operable status. Two loop operations were restored at 0521 CDT on 9/8/01. The Startup Transformer was restored to operable at 1045 CDT on 9/8/01. Full power operation was restored at 2100 CDT on 9/8/01. The NRC Senior Resident Inspector has been notified. This event is reportable in accordance with NUREG 1022 Rev. 2 and 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(v). Staff review of the event and NUREG 1022 Rev. 2 on 9/10/01 identified the need to make a report under 10 CFR 50.72." ***************************************************************** 14 IAEA Daily Press Review IAEA Daily Press Review Date 2001-09-11 Number 173 1. Non-proliferation Russian Defense Minister says that Russia might accept changes to 1972 ABM Treaty, but would not agree to dilute accord's ban on national missile defense system that US plans to build. Japan considering lifting economic sanctions on India, imposed in 1998 to protest nuclear tests by New Delhi. US Democrats critical of President Bush's defence policies say that they threaten to "pull the trigger" on new arms race. US-Russian programmes designed to prevent spread of Russian nuclear weapons questioned. More on Iran rejecting US charges that it was seeking nuclear weapons: Iran reiterates that its nuclear energy installations are under full IAEA supervision. (CNN; G; IHT; JAP; NYT; WP - 9, 10/9) ABM; IAEA; India; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Japan; Russian Federation; United States of America 2. Illicit trafficking Report on smuggling of nuclear materials cites IAEA figures showing that number of confirmed cases has fallen in rest of world but risen in Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia. (NYT - 11/9) Asia; IAEA 3. Nuclear power KEDO to launch training programme for 529 North Koreans on reactor operating procedures. Various reports on Temelin NPP: EC member rejects call from European Parliament that EC holds international conference to discuss possible halt to plant. (DP; FT; R; S - 10/9) Czech Republic; Dem. P.R. of Korea; European Commission 4. Chernobyl Ukrainian-EU summit likely to address, among other issues, implementation of EU's obligations regarding closure of Chernobyl NPP. (INT - 9/9) Chernobyl; European Union; Ukraine 5. Radiation, health New generation gamma detectors to be used for monitoring background radiation near Bulgarian Kozloduy NPP. (R - 10/9) Bulgaria 6. Radwaste, fuel Report on possible reasons why UK may want to refuse permission for MOX plant at Sellafield to start operation. (FT - 11/9) United Kingdom 7. Energy, environment US National Academy of Sciences concludes that US arsenic standard for water is too lax. (NYT - 11/9) United States of America 8. UN IHT op-ed piece: "U.S. Must Revive Its Flagging Influence in the UN." (IHT - 11/9) UN; United States of America 9. Miscellaneous US firms indicted for nuclear sales to India. "Kursk" salvage teams working for second day to repair vital sawing equipment to get operation back on track. (BBC - 10/9) India; Russian Federation; United States of America ***************************************************************** 15 IAEA Daily Press Review IAEA Daily Press Review Date 2001-09-10 Number 172 1. Non-proliferation CIA claims Iran is "pursuing nuclear programme"; Iran dismises allegation. US DoD awards several American companies contract worth $5bn to dismantle Russian nuclear weapons. President Bush's administration reportedly confident it can reach agreement with Russia, China and other nations on nuclear weapons and missile defence. (BBC; DAW; R - 8/9) China; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Russian Federation; United States of America 2. Nuclear power More on European Parliament's non-binding resolution calling on Czech Government to consider abandoning Temelin NPP due to growing concerns over its safety. Russian Atomic Ministry hopes to build two new units at Lanyongang NPP in China. Russia plans floating NPP off Kamchatka. In next five to seven years Russia's NPPs will increase their share on country's common electricity market to 20 per cent by launching five new generating sets. Russian President promises closer co-operation with Iran regarding its nuclear energy programme. (BBC; FT; INT - 7/9) China; Czech Republic; European Commission; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Russian Federation 3. Miscellaneous Kursk salvage operation resumed. (BBC - 7/9) Russian Federation ***************************************************************** 16 DJ Maine Yankee Strikes Deal On Nuclear-Plant Cleanup Copyright © 2001 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. Dow Jones Newswires ( September 11, 2001 ) --> NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Utility Maine Yankee, the state of Maine and a local environmental organization said Monday they have reached an agreement on plans for removing radioactive material from the shuttered Maine Yankee nuclear plant. Decommissioning the plant began in 1997 and is scheduled to be completed in 2004. Slightly more than 50% of the work is complete, the utility said during a conference call. The groups agreed that under the utility's so-called license-termination plan, Maine Yankee will test for radioactive contamination in locations around the plant and in water and edible species outside the plant. The utility said it also will interview current and former plant workers and review the facility's operating records to help identify areas from which it must remove radioactive material. The settlement terms, which the groups have been working for a year to iron out, are stricter than the conditions required by the Nuclear Regulator Commission and the state, the groups said. This agreement doesn't outline plans for long-term storage of 700 tons of high-level nuclear waste from the plant, said Raymond Shadis, of environmental group Friends of the Coast Opposing Nuclear Pollution. The groups will work to hammer out details for ensuring the waste is stored safely, he added. Maine Yankee expects to begin moving used fuel rods from the pools in which they currently are stored to dry cask storage in several months, said Michael Meisner, the utility's chief executive officer. -By Kristen McNamara, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2061; mailto:kristen.mcnamara@dowjones.com(END) Dow Jones Newswires 10-09-01 ***************************************************************** 17 Laboratory Facility to Support Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [AScribe Newswire] Los Alamos National Laboratory: Laboratory Facility to Support Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Summary: LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Sep 10, 2001 (ASCRIBE NEWS via COMTEX) -- A new research program for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will apply advanced laboratory capabilities to studies of the chemistry of materials important for geologic repositories and will strengthen the field of repository science. Story Filed: Monday, September 10, 2001 10:38 PM EST LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Sep 10, 2001 (ASCRIBE NEWS via COMTEX) -- A new research program for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant will apply advanced laboratory capabilities to studies of the chemistry of materials important for geologic repositories and will strengthen the field of repository science. The program is a cooperative effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory Carlsbad Operations and the Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring &Research Center of New Mexico State University to develop new research and laboratory capabilities to support WIPP's scientific needs. Sandia National Laboratories' Carlsbad Programs Group will also collaborate in this program and expand their ongoing WIPP experimental program. "This project dovetails with DOE's intent to conduct more of its efforts in support of WIPP right here in Carlsbad, and make Carlsbad one of the few state-of-the-art centers for repository science in the world," said Roger Nelson, Chief Scientist for the DOE Carlsbad Field Office. WIPP, located 26 miles east of Carlsbad, New Mexico, became the nation's first operating underground repository for permanent disposal of defense-generated transuranic waste on March 26, 1999. LANL Carlsbad Operations serves as the Senior Technical Advisor for waste characterization and provides core scientific and engineering expertise to DOE's Carlsbad Field Office. The new research program focuses on actinide chemistry, or the chemical behavior and properties of those elements heavier than radium. Actinide chemistry is important to understanding the long-term performance of the WIPP repository. These mostly radioactive exotic elements attempt to become more stable by throwing off particles and energy from their overcrowded nuclei. This actinide chemistry activity can be applied to defense purposes and energy production but it increases the challenge of handling these elements. The new laboratory collaboration seeks to understand the behavior of these elements to a degree never before achieved. The research program includes repository science investigations to support WIPP, reduce costs and ensure its safe and economical use far into the future. LANL is obtaining and relocating new research technologies to Carlsbad, such as the mobile Contaminant Analysis Automation laboratory, and integrating them with the already extensive laboratory facilities at the NMSU's Carlsbad center. The CAA trailer was relocated from Los Alamos and installed over the summer and is currently undergoing system checkout and calibration. The Department of Energy Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology originally developed the CAA laboratory with Los Alamos to establish a moveable lab that can be quickly sent to a site in need of specific chemical or contaminant characterization and analysis. The CAA goal was to develop automated laboratories that could run continuously, thereby reducing the time required to analyze environmental samples. Automation lowers costs and greatly increases the quickness and precision of each sampling and analysis process relevant to research into remediation and disposal. Immediate research activities that will begin using the automated laboratory include investigations into the behavior of plutonium under many possible subsurface conditions in the presence of various materials, such as iron. Other investigations will develop new methods to package and treat radioactive materials to make them more benign and easier to handle. Still others will investigate new methods to monitor the subsurface at WIPP to increase safety and decrease costs. Both LANL and Sandia National Laboratories teams in Carlsbad intend to make use of the CAA laboratory as they conduct experiments in actinide chemistry over the next several years. NMSU will provide instrument support and facility operations as well as perform scientific investigations. Joel Webb at the NMSU Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring &Research Center and Jim Conca at LANL Carlsbad Operations both agreed that WIPP use of the moveable CAA laboratory offers many advantages over the previous strategy of conducting this research in more conventional laboratory settings. They noted that it preserves the existing CEMRC capabilities, accelerates project schedules, reduces costs and will expand the scientific studies possible for WIPP. Los Alamos National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. ((AScribe - The Public Interest Newswire / )) (C)1999-2001 Ascribe News - ***************************************************************** 18 Study: Uranium plant pollution spreading Daily news from Louisville, Kentucky and Southern Indiana from courier-journal.com Saturday, September 8, 2001 Biologist urges warnings on eating fish Energy Department disputes researcher's findings By Michael Clevenger, the Courier-Journal, James R. Carroll The Courier-Journal University of Kentucky biologist Wesley Birge showed a sunfish like those he tests to monitor pollution around the Paducah uranium plant. Birge said PCBs are so widespread that they contaminate nearly every living creature near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Photo by: Michael Clevenger LEXINGTON, Ky. -- Pollution around the Paducah uranium plant is spreading and poses a serious enough threat to human health for the state to warn people about eating fish from a stream that flows into the Ohio River, a University of Kentucky scientist says. The UK biologist, Wesley Birge, found PCB contamination at levels that he said should trigger a warning about eating fish from Big Bayou Creek, which runs through the plant site before emptying into the Ohio. He also found significant toxic-metal pollution in the creek. Birge, hired by the state to conduct environmental monitoring around the plant, will begin testing this fall to determine how much pollution is reaching the Ohio, which has not been routinely monitored for such problems. ''We think we have more contamination downstream,'' he said. The U.S. Department of Energy, which is in charge of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, disagrees with Birge's findings, which were based on fish samples taken in March, and on the need for a warning. The department says environmental data from its contractors show PCB levels in fish generally declining and no evidence suggesting that toxic-metal pollution is moving toward the Ohio. Birge agrees that PCB levels in fish are declining, but he said that they remain high enough to require a warning and that PCBs and toxic metals are spreading. His report is the state's first look at PCBs in Big Bayou Creek fish in a decade. For now, Big Bayou Creek, also known as Bayou Creek, is open for fishing, and there are no warnings about eating fish caught there. State officials say no decision has been made yet on whether to post warnings for the creek. A warning was posted for nearby Little Bayou Creek in 1989. The Paducah plant for years processed uranium for nuclear weapons and now makes fuel for nuclear power plants. It has been contaminated with radioactive material and hazardous chemicals almost from the moment it opened in the early 1950s. The Energy Department recently conceded that workers and the environment were exposed to a wide range of dangerous substances. PCBs -- chemical lubricants used in large electrical transformers and other industrial equipment until they were banned in 1979 -- can cause cancer in animals and possibly in people. Other poisonous metals found around the plant can cause a variety of illnesses, from brain damage to cancer. In recent years, under pressure from the Kentucky congressional delegation, the department has intensified cleanup efforts at the plant. Cleanup costs now total $100 million a year, and the government has started a new health-testing program for current and former plant workers. Report warns of risk Birge, a UK biologist and toxicologist who has been studying streams in the Paducah area since 1987 for the state, submitted a report on Aug. 29 to the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection's Division of Waste Management with new PCB findings. The Courier-Journal obtained a copy of the report, co-written with UK research associate David Price, through the Kentucky Open Records Act. Birge's analysis of Big Bayou Creek fish shows a ''probable health risk'' to humans that requires warning about eating fish. Birge also looked at metal contamination in Big Bayou and Little Bayou creeks around the plant. Pollution from silver, lead, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, beryllium and zinc is so marked that it's clear that the Ohio River is being affected, Birge said in an interview in his Lexington laboratory. The Ohio has not been regularly monitored for contamination from the Paducah plant. But Birge has obtained state approval to begin work this fall that should reveal how much PCB and metal pollution is reaching the river. Birge said his PCB data show that, while levels in fish generally have declined, they are still at potentially harmful levels for humans. In addition, he said, some PCBs last so long in the environment that they continue to spread. The PCBs are so widespread that they contaminate nearly every living creature near the Paducah facility, Birge said. ''The main thing is, it's in the food chain,'' he said, including invertebrates such as crawfish, as well as raccoons, rodents, beavers, hawks, bees and deer. Even in small quantities, Birge said, PCBs can affect the reproductive systems and general health of animals. PCBs also accumulate in animals and humans, research has shown. Mark Donham, an environmental activist who is a member of the citizens group that acts as a liaison between the Paducah community and the plant, said the PCB problem has not been taken seriously. ''Crops are growing around the plant,'' he said. ''Cows are growing around the plant. We don't know how far bioaccumulation is going. And nobody seems to care.'' Mark York, spokesman for the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, said no decision has been made on Birge's recommendation to post warnings about fishing on Big Bayou Creek. Three state agencies -- the Cabinet for Health Services, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Department for Environmental Protection's Division of Water -- will evaluate the data to determine a course of action, York said. There is no timetable for such deliberations. Wide contamination Last year, a Courier-Journal series found that nearly all living things near the Paducah plant are contaminated. Radioactive chemicals like plutonium, neptunium, uranium, strontium and technetium have been found at various times in deer, rabbits, raccoons and squirrels. PCBs and metals also have been found in birds, fish and other animals. For the first time last year, PCBs showed up in deer near the plant at levels almost three times that in other deer which, for comparison purposes, were examined from a different location. Those data were in a draft of the Energy Department's 2000 environmental report for Paducah. The data for this year are similar, according to Bechtel Jacobs Co., the department's contractor in charge of Paducah cleanup efforts. But Bechtel Jacobs spokesman Gregory Cook said the appearance of PCBs in deer resulted from a change in the way the animals were analyzed. ''It certainly is true that PCBs can be found in a variety of species in the environment near the plant, but it is also true that the levels we've been seeing overall have been on the decline for several years,'' Cook said. ''We should note, too, that PCBs are also found in comparative samples not associated with the plant.'' But Birge said his sampling at Big Bayou Creek suggests expanding contamination. Many sunfish and bass in the creek west of the plant are showing the same kind of contamination found for years in fish in Little Bayou Creek east of the facility, he said. Birge and his research team took fish and sediment from three places on Little Bayou Creek and nine places on Big Bayou Creek. Many of the sampling stations are near places where the plant discharges chemicals under state permits. His report on PCB contamination in Big Bayou Creek shows that 20 of 33 fish sampled had measurable PCB levels. Of those, 15 contained levels at or above what the state considers potentially harmful to humans. The state uses what is known as the Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisory Protocol to protect people from PCB-tainted fish. Restrictions on human consumption start when PCB levels are at 0.05 part per million. At that level, people would be advised to limit eating fish to once a week. The restrictions then step up to one meal of fish per month, one every two months and, finally, to a ''Do Not Eat'' warning. That final level, 2 parts per million, matches the U.S. Food and Drug Administration standard for banning consumption of PCB-contaminated fish. But the FDA does not have a standard for warning people about limiting consumption. Two Big Bayou Creek fish in Birge's study recorded PCB levels of 0.26 and 0.25 parts per million -- five times the 0.05 part per million level at which Kentucky starts warning of possible health dangers. Eight others ranged from 0.087 to 0.13 parts per million. ''These results support probable health risk . . . and support placing a fish consumption advisory on Big Bayou Creek,'' Birge's report said. Warnings posted The creek would join a growing list of places near the Paducah plant where the state has posted advisories warning people against eating their catches or to limit consumption. Little Bayou Creek was posted by the state to warn that no fish caught there should be eaten because of PCBs. Five ponds in the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area around the plant were posted with warnings not to eat fish because of mercury contamination. At nearby Metropolis Lake, fishermen are warned to limit consumption to one meal per month because of mercury and PCB contamination, and children and pregnant or nursing women are advised to limit consumption to six meals per year. Both of the Bayou creeks have generally small fish. But environmentalists say it is still risky to eat them if they have PCB contamination. ''Mothers and children shouldn't be eating those fish,'' said the Sierra Club's senior Midwest representative, Brett Hulsey, noting those groups are most at risk from consuming PCBs. ''I just don't think cancer-causing chemicals in our fish is good at any level.'' But a Texas biologist said the PCB levels that Birge has found pose ''probably a minimal risk.'' ''It's not an alarming situation,'' said Stephen Safe, a professor with Texas A University's department of veterinary physiology and pharmacology. ''It's not bad compared to the fish you'd find around Toronto harbor or Hamilton (Ontario) harbor or around Buffalo or Niagara Falls.'' The Energy Department has said PCBs around the plant come from historical contamination. But Birge said some contamination appears ongoing, not just past pollution. He said some sampled fish had levels of a certain type of PCB called Aroclor 1248, which ordinarily breaks down quickly and doesn't show up in fish. Its source is unclear. The department's report found that fish in both creeks ''continue to have elevated PCB levels . . . of biological significance,'' but added that, based on years of previous samples, PCB levels were ''on the decline'' despite an uptick in concentrations from 1999 to 2000. Cook and Tracey Brindley, environmental project manager for CDM Federal Services, a subcontractor to Bechtel Jacobs, said the data do not show that Big Bayou Creek fish have PCB levels requiring a fish-consumption warning. All of the numbers show PCB levels at ''an order of magnitude lower than FDA action levels,'' said Brindley, whose study of Big Bayou Creek was based on a much smaller sample than that used by Birge. The department's composite sample of six spotted bass from one Big Bayou Creek location last year contained a PCB level of 0.14 part per million, in the same range of Birge's 15 fish with levels at or above the state's 0.05 standard. In 1999, the department's composite sample of six Big Bayou Creek fish had a PCB level of 0.12 part per million. The department's 16 composite readings on PCBs in fish taken last year at three locations on Little Bayou Creek ranged from 0.06 to 1.02. Birge obtained somewhat higher results in 18 fish taken from three locations on Little Bayou Creek, with PCB levels ranging from 0.11 to 1.56. As for deer, the PCBs in eight of the animals that the department took from the wildlife area last year showed PCBs in fat in average concentrations that were almost three times as high as in two deer taken from another wildlife area that were used for comparison. The department's report said the Paducah-area deer were the only ones during the past 11 years to reveal PCB contamination. But Brindley said that for the 2000 report, fat was taken from the stomachs and rumps of the deer for analysis. Previously, samples had come only from the rump, where there is meat that could be eaten. Deer killed and analyzed the same way this year showed similar results. Bechtel Jacobs and its sampling subcontractor did not see the results as indicating a change in deer contamination, Cook and Brindley said. However, ''it's something to continue to watch,'' Brindley said. Asked whether previous sampling techniques involving only deer rump were faulty for not picking up PCBs, Cook said: ''That is an issue for debate. We aren't saying there are no PCBs in deer. We aren't seeing it at hazardous levels.'' The highest contamination reading in the deer this year was 0.15 part per million. The FDA warning level for PCBs in fat from red meat is 3 parts per million. Differing findings Birge and the Energy Department's subcontractor disagree about whether toxic metals are moving toward the Ohio. The UK scientist said his sampling of water, sediment and fish indicates levels of many metals in the creeks either haven't changed or are rising. His farthest downstream sampling station on Big Bayou Creek is near where it joins Little Bayou Creek to flow about a half-mile to the Ohio. Levels of heavy metals there are so high that it's obvious that the river is getting them, too, he said. A paper Birge and Price prepared last year showed metal residues generally were higher in stoneroller minnows collected in 1997 than in fish collected nine years earlier. ''Whole body residues of (lead), an important contaminant affecting aquatic life and human health, were about 50 to 100 times higher than found in 1988,'' the paper said. ''This is particularly important due to the fact that (lead) has a rather low potential for bioconcentration in fish.'' Downstream monitoring stations also recorded higher levels of metals than were found at points where metals were known to have been discharged from plant operations. ''These and other findings indicated a progressive downstream spread of metal pollution,'' the report said. ''We suspect that the Ohio River receives quite a bit of contamination from Big Bayou Creek,'' Birge said. But Cook and Brindley said they aren't seeing what Birge is seeing. ''We do not find any detects of lead out of four quarters (of sampling) in 2000,'' Brindley said, ''nor zinc, nickel, chromium, cadmium or copper.'' They didn't speculate on why the findings were different. ''We want to be very careful not to say Dr. Birge is wrong,'' Cook said. ''We just aren't seeing (his results) in our data.'' Birge also said he did not want to get into a conflict with the Energy Department and its subcontractors. But he said there's ''some discrepancy in where they choose to collect their organisms, and they are not hitting enough sites. ''Let's get the facts on the table. If we do, we can resolve the problems.'' Copyright 2001 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 19 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Monday, September 10, 2001 ADAMS - Items of Interest Recent Released Documents Added - Monday, September 10, 2001 These documents and others may be retrieved at the NRC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item ID: 012500159 Accession Number: ML012490418 Document Date: 7/11/01 Title: 07/11/2001 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Certificate Amendment Request: Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.6.3.5. Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS/FCSS/FSPB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500157 Accession Number: ML012490025 Document Date: 7/17/01 Title: 07/17/2001 Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Additional Site Exploration. Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS/FCSS/FSPB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500017 Accession Number: ML012130276 Document Date: 8/29/01 Title: 08/29/01 letters to Congress re NRC's Reduction of the Frequency of the Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations & Implementation of a pilot Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) Program Author Affiliation: NRC/OCA Document/Report Number: CORR-01-0121 _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500155 Accession Number: ML012480185 Document Date: 9/6/01 Title: 09/21/2001 Notice of Meeting with AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen), Re Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek) Handling of Heavy Loads Over Irradiated Fuel. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500158 Accession Number: ML012490047 Document Date: 12/15/00 Title: 12/15/2000 Opportunities for Hearings-Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility. Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS/FCSS/FSPB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500029 Accession Number: ML012360215 Document Date: 8/20/01 Title: Comment (427) submitted by Julian C. Holmes opposing NRC proposed rule PR 1, 2, 50, 51, 52, 54, 60, 70, 73, 76 & 110 regarding Changes to Adjudicatory Process. Author Affiliation: - No Known Affiliation Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500052 Accession Number: ML012410120 Document Date: 8/21/01 Title: GE Nuclear Energy - Response to July 26, 2001 NRC Staff Request for Additional Information on General Electric Nuclear Energy Licensing Topical Report NEDE-32906P. Author Affiliation: GE Nuclear Energy Document/Report Number: NEDE-32906P _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500154 Accession Number: ML011580440 Document Date: 5/30/01 Title: Letter from Univ. of Wyoming to Dwight D. Chamberlain regarding the recalculated dose estimates for inactive radioactive waste burial site. Author Affiliation: Univ of Wyoming Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500059 Accession Number: ML012410185 Document Date: 7/19/01 Title: NRC Form 327 Special Nuclear Material & Source Material Physical Inventory Summary Report. Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS/FCSS/FCLB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500058 Accession Number: ML012410183 Document Date: 1/31/92 Title: NUREG/BR-0096, Rev 0, "Instructions & Guidance for Completing Physical Inventory Summary Reports." Author Affiliation: NRC/NMSS Document/Report Number: NUREG/BR-0096 R00 _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012500092 Accession Number: ML012420399 Document Date: 8/24/01 Title: Public Meeting Summary (Performance Review) Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-II Document/Report Number: ***************************************************************** 20 Public Urged to Attend September 12th and 13th Yucca Mountain Hearings KENNY C. GUINN Governor STATE OF NEVADA [State Seal] OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Telephone: (775) 687-3744 • Fax: (775) 687-5277 E-mail: nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us ROBERT R. LOUX Executive Director September 10, 2001 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, the State agency responsible for overseeing the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository project, is urging Nye and Clark County residents and other interested persons to attend U.S. Department of Energy public hearings on September 12th and 13th. The hearings will be held at the following locations: Wednesday, September 12th: 5:00 pm – 9:00 pm Longstreet Inn and Casino Highway 373 Amargosa Valley, Nevada Thursday, September 13th: 5:00 pm – 9:00 pm Bob Rudd Community Center 150 North Highway 160 Pahrump, Nevada The hearings are intended to afford the public opportunities to comment on the Secretary of Energy´s plans to formally recommend Yucca Mountain for development as the nation´s only disposal site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. DOE has been studying the Yucca Mountain site for almost two decades. The project has been the source of bitter controversy since its inception, with proponents arguing that the site can safely isolate radioactive waste from the environment for thousands of years and opponents contending that the facility will leak and expose people to unacceptable levels of radiation. If Yucca Mountain is recommended for development as a repository and if the Congress overrides Nevada´s expected veto, upwards of 70,000 tons of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and defense nuclear facilities could begin moving to the Nevada site by 2010 under DOE´s current schedule. In excess of 90,000 shipments of this material could pass through Nye County and the Pahrump/Amargosa Valley area in route to Yucca Mountain over a 35 year period. The September 12th and 13th hearings will be the final opportunities for the public to have input into the Energy Department´s decision whether to officially recommend Yucca Mountain as a repository. Members of the public are urged to attend and provide DOE with their views on the recommendation decision. For more information, contact the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects at 1-800-366-0990 or the U.S. Department of Energy at 1-800-967-3477. State of Nevada Office of the Governor Agency for Nuclear Projects 1802 North Carson Suite 252 Carson City, NV 89701 (775) 687-3744 voice (775) 687-5277 fax nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us- e-mail * ***************************************************************** 21 ADAMS: Items of Interest - Tuesday, September 11, 2001 State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects ADAMS - Items of Interest Recent Released Documents Added - Tuesday, September 11, 2001 These documents and others may be retrieved at the NRC PERR web site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item ID: 012530207 Accession Number: ML012360084 Document Date: 9/7/01 Title: 08/21/2001 - Meeting with the General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Re the GENE licensing topical report NEDC-32721P and staff response dated June 21, 2001. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530304 Accession Number: ML012500150 Document Date: 9/6/01 Title: 09/18/2001 Meeting with NWI Land Management to discuss Work Plan for Breckinridge Site. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-III Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530028 Accession Number: ML012500306 Document Date: 9/6/01 Title: 09/20/2001 Meeting with NEI, BWROG, et al., Re Potential Changes to 10 CFR 50.46 (LOCA-LOOP Requirement). Author Affiliation: NRC/RES/DRAA Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530303 Accession Number: ML012530031 Document Date: 9/6/01 Title: 09/25/01, Forthcoming Meeting Between The BWR Owners Group And The NRC Staff RE: To Discuss Issues With NRC Management That Are Key To The Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD1 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530301 Accession Number: ML012500389 Document Date: 9/7/01 Title: 09/25/2001 Notice of Meeting with Duke Energy Corporation to Discuss Environmental Scoping Process for the McGuire Units 1 & 2 License Renewal Application, TAC NOS. MB2021 AND MB2022). Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DRIP Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530208 Accession Number: ML012500239 Document Date: 9/7/01 Title: 09/26/2001 Closed Mtg Davis Besse/Perry EA 01-082,01-083,01-091 Re: Predecisional Enforcement Conference. Author Affiliation: NRC/RGN-III/DRS/PSB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530298 Accession Number: ML012410406 Document Date: 9/6/01 Title: 10/17/2001-Forthcoming Meeting With The Joint Owners Group (JOG) Re the current status of the JOG program on motor-operated valve periodic verification. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530113 Accession Number: ML012360308 Document Date: 8/14/01 Title: Comment (391) submitted by Jay Voss opposing Proposed Rules PR-1, 2, 50, 51, 52, 54, 60, 70, 73, 76, and 110 regarding Changes to Adjudicatory Process. Author Affiliation: - No Known Affiliation Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530092 Accession Number: ML012420260 Document Date: 6/25/01 Title: Duke Cogema Stone & Webster, Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility Criticality Validation Report - Part 1. Author Affiliation: Duke Cogema & Stone Webster Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530218 Accession Number: ML012360487 Document Date: 8/30/01 Title: G20010339/LTR-01-0403 - Sen. John Ensign ltr. re: Using Humboldt Bay, NV as possible nuclear power plant site (M. Gallian and T. Gray) Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530307 Accession Number: ML012490193 Document Date: 8/30/01 Title: Minutes of the July 11, 2001, Public Meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) & Other Stakeholders on Implementation of the Safeguards Performance Assessment (SPA) Program. Author Affiliation: NRC/NRR/DIPM/IOLB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530047 Accession Number: ML012420040 Document Date: 8/28/01 Title: NRC Public Meeting Feedback Author Affiliation: NRC Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530066 Accession Number: ML012420085 Document Date: 8/28/01 Title: Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Plant, Submittal of Environmental Compliance Status Report Related Information. Author Affiliation: United States Enrichment Corp Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530369 Accession Number: ML012530173 Document Date: 9/10/01 Title: Public Meeting Notice for Severe Accident RCS Relief Valves/Flanged Connections. Author Affiliation: NRC/RES/DET/MEB Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530043 Accession Number: ML012410429 Document Date: 9/7/00 Title: Public Meeting of the NRC Process for Handiling Discrimination Matters Author Affiliation: NRC/OE Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530328 Accession Number: ML012470067 Document Date: 7/26/61 Title: Radiation Safety Check for Gettysburg College. Author Affiliation: AEC Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530001 Accession Number: ML011800039 Document Date: Title: SECY-01-0127 - Draft Final Rule- 10 CFR Part 63, "Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada" Author Affiliation: Document/Report Number: _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530109 Accession Number: ML012500189 Document Date: 9/7/01 Title: SRM-M010907 - Affirmation Session: I - SECY-01-0127 - Draft Final Rule: 10 CFR Part 63, "Disposal of High-level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain Nevada." Author Affiliation: NRC/SECY Document/Report Number: SRM-M010907 _________________________________________________________________ Item ID: 012530308 Accession Number: ML012500437 Document Date: 9/7/01 Title: SRM-SECY-01-0160 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes--Evaluations and Results of the April 18, 2001 Meeting. Author Affiliation: NRC/SECY Document/Report Number: SRM-SECY-01-0160 ***************************************************************** 22 DOE Extends Public Comment Period on Scrap Metals Policy energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: September 10, 2001 [Print Friendly Version] ---> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Energy (DOE) has extended the public comment period (by 60 days) for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on the disposition of scrap metals across its complex. The PEIS is being prepared as part of the department's initiative announced in late January 2001, to provide for an open discussion on the disposition of scrap metals resulting from environmental recommendations and cleanup activities. Specifically, the PEIS will address policy options for managing those metals located in radiological areas on DOE sites, and any other scrap metals at DOE sites that might have some potential for residual surface radioactivity. The department held six public scoping meetings in July and August 2001. During these meetings, DOE received requests for additional meetings, as well as an extension of the scoping period. In response, the department has extended the scoping period by 60 days to November 9, 2001, and has scheduled four additional public meetings. These include: October 8, 2001, 8-10 p.m. Ken Edwards Community Center 1527 Fourth Street Santa Monica, California 90401 October 9, 2001, 8-10 p.m. Simi Valley City Hall 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, California 93063 October 16, 2001, 2-5 p.m. and 8-10 p.m. Zuhrah Shrine Center 2540 Park Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 October 18, 2001, 2-5 p.m., and 8-10 p.m. American Conference Centers 780 Third Avenue, C2 New York, NY 10017 The schedule for completion of the PEIS has also been extended. Completion of the draft PEIS has been extended 60 days from January 2002 to March 2002. The final PEIS has been extended 30 days from July 2002 to August 2002. Additional information can be found in the DOE Notice of Intent to prepare this PEIS, published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2001. Media Contact: Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806 Release No. R-01-154 ***************************************************************** 23 Congress threatens to take White House to court - 9/10/2001 - ENN.com Monday, September 10, 2001 By Susan Cornwell, Reuters WASHINGTON — The Congress' investigative arm said Friday it was preparing for a possible court battle with the White House over its refusal to divulge details of the drafting of the administration's energy policy. Critics, including Democratic congressmen, suspect industry influence on the Bush administration's energy policy, which was developed in a series of closed-door meetings before it was announced May 17. But the White House has refused to cooperate with a probe by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm. "We are finalizing discussions with key congressional leaders and are preparing for possible litigation," Comptroller General David Walker, head of the GAO, said in a statement. "This is a very significant matter with significant potential implications for the GAO, Congress, and the American people," he declared. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer replied that the Bush administration was "standing on principle," and the information sought by the GAO was not a matter of public purview. The administration's energy policy task force was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. The policy it developed called for stimulating production of coal, oil, and nuclear power as well as conservation measures. Two Democratic congressmen asked the GAO last spring to investigate the energy task force's proceedings, saying Congress and the public had a right under the law to know how the energy policy was developed. BEHIND CLOSED DOORS Reps. John Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California questioned whether White House closed-door meetings with energy executives violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires public meetings when outside experts are involved in shaping government policy. The GAO requested records of the task force's meetings, including names of energy industry executives that consulted with the White House. Cheney's office provided some information about the task force's finances, but spurned a Sept. 6 deadline for handing over more details, saying the GAO had no right to demand them. "The administration stands on principle on this matter," Fleischer declared Friday. "It is not a matter of public purview for each and every meeting, of each and every minute, of the president and the vice president each and every day to be reported publicly." The energy proposals were made after meetings with business and environmental experts, Fleischer said. The administration had "absolutely nothing" to hide, but the government was entitled to some private deliberations, he added. The GAO statement said that the information it received from the White House "is clearly inadequate." It also said several principles were at stake, "including the right of Congress to oversee the executive branch and the need for transparency and accountability in connection with the development and execution of federal government policies." Under the law, the GAO may bring a civil action in a U.S. district court to require agencies — including the White House — to produce records, a GAO spokesman said. Another congressional clash with the Bush administration is brewing in the Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform, which has subpoenaed Justice Department records on the FBI's handling of mob informants in New England as well as alleged Democratic abuses in the 1996 presidential campaign. Copyright 2001, Reuters ***************************************************************** 24 Struggles for money consume scientists Published Tuesday, September 11, 2001 + Although they grow more adept at obtaining funds, they lament the time and energy taken from actual research Andrei Arzhannikov is a thin, helpful man with a brown goatee and an earnest manner. At one point he chased a rapidly moving van several blocks through Akademgorodok's April slush when it left without his visitors. But Arzhannikov's real enthusiasm is for science. Arzhannikov heads a research group at the well-known Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics. With 3,000 people, it is the largest research center of the 450-institute strong Russian Academy of Sciences. In addition, Arzhannikov leads the physics department at nearby Novosibirsk State University. As he ducked under the metal tube of his electron accelerator, nestled in the ground room of a cavernous lab building, Arzhannikov explained how short, high-pressure bursts of electrons can help scientists understand how materials change from solid to plasma. Unlike many laboratories in Russia, this electron accelerator and other nearby equipment has the cluttered, cared-for feel of a research center in any Western laboratory. In the past 10 years, "life in our country completely changed," he said. Students don't have the opportunities they once had; even many high-level scientists have left. His mentor, a Russian physicist, now works at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Sitting at a large round table with a wooden engraving of institute namesake Andrei Budker on the wall, Arzhannikov said his facility has managed to raise money by selling accelerators and accelerator parts. Through deft leadership that equalizes enterprise and research, it has managed to funnel a large part of that money into basic science research. Even then, Budker's scientists spend much of their time trying to raise research money from Russian and Western agencies and writing status reports on those grants. That's something Russian scientists never had to worry about in a system that doled out money without an application process. "We spend a lot of power to collect money, to organize the grants," Arzhannikov said with a sigh. "The time for thinking decreases year by year." --Andrea Widener ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 25 NRC Urges Increased Security Press Release - 2001 - 109 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA No. 01-109 September 11, 2001 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, purely as a precaution, has recommended that all nuclear power plants, non-power reactors, nuclear fuel facilities and gaseous diffusion plants go to the highest level of security. Details of the heightened security are classified. While there has been no credible general or specific threats to any of these facilities, the recommendation was considered prudent, given the acts of terrorism in New York City and, in Washington, D.C. ***************************************************************** 26 TVA saves millions by cutting energy use Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:41 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2001 KNOXVILLE (AP) -- The Tennessee Valley Authority's energy conservation is paying off -- with savings of $6.5 million to $8 million a year. A TVA report shows that the federal utility has been ahead of federal standards for lower energy use for the past five years and is likely to meet 2005 targets. "My sense would be that TVA would be a leader in this area just because of natural expertise here," said TVA Inspector General Richard Chambers, whose office prepared the report. "There's certainly no other federal entity that is in the energy production business to the extent that TVA is." Sens. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., requested the report. The senators each are his party's senior leaders on the Governmental Affairs Committee. The federal standards, issued in 1985, call for federal office buildings to cut energy use by 30 percent by 2005 and by 35 percent by 2010, compared to 1985 levels. By last fiscal year, TVA's reduction was at 27 percent with savings of about $2.5 million to $3.5 million a year. Industrial facilities must make reductions of 20 percent by 2005 and 25 percent by 2010, compared to 1990 levels. By last year, TVA's facilities achieved a 21 percent cut in energy use at savings of $4 million to $4.5 million a year. Steve Brothers, manager of TVA's internal energy management program, said the federal utility did not need government motivation to lower energy use. "From a business standpoint, it makes good sense to do this," he said. "I don't think we would have had to have this legislation to push us to do it." TVA has added more efficient lighting, updated heating and air conditioning systems, improved motors and ventilation, added energy management systems and installed sensor systems that turn off lights when a room is unoccupied. Brothers said the 2010 goal will be difficult to meet. TVA officials are considering equipping cubicles with sensors that would turn off lights, radios, computer monitors and printers if an employee is away for an extended period of time. "We're going to have to have some interesting technology development and some other things to get there," Brothers said. On the Net: Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov ***************************************************************** 27 Sierra Club speaker to discuss nuclear reactor fuel environment The Know [charlotte.com] Published Sunday, September 9, 2001 Environmentalist Mary Olson of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service speaks at a Sierra Club meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Wesley Foundation, 406 Stewart St. in Rock Hill. Olson, who lives in Asheville, will discuss opposition to using mixed-oxide "MOX" fuel in the nuclear reactors at the Catawba Nuclear Station on Lake Wylie. The U.S. Department of Energy plans to use MOX fuel to replace the conventional nuclear fuel, uranium. Details: (803) 548-0678. jennifer talhelm Board to review progress on high school rock hill schools After two weeks of public hearings on elementary student reassignment, the Rock Hill school board will discuss other topics at its Monday work session - including progress on the district's third high school. Construction is planned for a site near Saluda Trail Middle School, but it hasn't begun because negotiations to buy land, in addition to what the district owns, have stalled. The landowner has been ill. The board will review progress on other building projects, discuss questions about the boundary between the Rock Hill and York districts, and hear a presentation on the Student Intervention Program, which gives children academic help. The meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. in the district office, 660 N. Anderson Road. The meeting is open to the public, but includes no period for public comment. Amy French York County Road Report Here is a York County road report for this week: Construction sites S.C. 161 (Celanese Road) from Grayson Drive east to Ebinwood Road. Gold Hill Road from Tega Cay to S.C. 160. Gold Hill Road from S.C. 160 to Interstate 77. S.C. 160 (Tom Hall Street) from Grace Street to Mimosa Lane. Gold Hill Road closed from Deerfield Drive to Forest Way for Steele Creek bridge replacement. S.C. 5 from Herlong Avenue to Cherry Road. Sierra Club speaker to discuss nuclear reactor fuel ENVIRONMENT -- Environmentalist Mary Olson of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service speaks at a Sierra Club meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday at the Wesley Foundation, 406 Stewart St. in Rock Hill. Olson, who lives in Asheville, will discuss opposition to using mixed-oxide "MOX" fuel in the nuclear reactors at the Catawba Nuclear Station on Lake Wylie. The U.S. Department of Energy plans to use MOX fuel to replace the conventional nuclear fuel, uranium. Details: (803) 548-0678. jennifer talhelm ***************************************************************** 28 Trial Over, But Scandal Is Still Taking Its Toll Monday, September 10, 2001 BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Two men with common interests strike up a friendship only to see it collapse over money. While it may be an old story, the scenario rarely has such a profound impact as it did when former regulator Larry Anderson and landfill owner Khosrow Semnani parted ways. Last week, Anderson beat federal charges that he extorted money from Semnani and abused the public trust. The former director of Utah's Radiation Control Division now awaits sentencing on four related tax convictions. At 64 and facing up to 13 years in jail, Anderson fears he will die there. (Although a one- to two-year sentence is more likely.) Plus, there are tax penalties and interest payments ahead, a federal forfeiture case and Semnani's lawsuit demanding $600,000 he gave to Anderson. As for Semnani, he has surrendered control of the business he built under Anderson's oversight even though he still owns Envirocare of Utah, one of just three commercial radioactive waste sites in the nation. And in the middle of seeking political approval to dispose of "hotter" waste, Semnani finds his reputation sullied by a criminal record. Semnani pleaded guilty in 1998 to a misdemeanor tax charge, paid a $100,000 fine and agreed to testify against Anderson in the extortion trial. He has been struggling to restore his standing as a friend to the state's most powerful figures, including two governors and many state legislators. Back in 1987, the two men came together over the idea of a radioactive-waste landfill in Utah's west desert. Today Envirocare generates an estimated $150 million to $180 million annually. Each man insisted the idea originated with himself. Semnani said he brought to bear his experience in the waste industry and degrees in physics and chemistry. Anderson said he had scribbled down the $500 million idea on 20 to 25 pages of a long, yellow pad over two years. Together they nurtured Envirocare's startup. They worked closely to get Envirocare the nation's first and only exception to a federal law that requires all radioactive-waste landfills to be on government-owned land. And, they put together a deal allowing Semnani to purchase state land surrounding the Vitro tailings site in Tooele County at about $40 an acre -- an undisputable bargain for property that already had passed environmental reviews worth more than $1 million. Between 1988 and 1992, as a state regulator, Anderson signed off on 11 of 12 regulatory exemptions requested for Semnani's facility. Each gave Envirocare greater flexibility to accept more and more kinds of waste and to get more and more lucrative disposal contracts. Despite their success as a team, both men felt uncomfortable about the relationship, they said at the trial. Anderson testified Semnani insisted upon keeping everything secret. He said Semnani wanted no paper trail of an agreement that called for a $100,000 payment upon licensing and 5 percent of Envirocare receipts. So, Anderson said, he took the money in $100 bills folded inside magazines, third-person deposits into a Swiss bank account, contractual deals sealed with handshakes, and the like. "I was willing to get almost anything toward the debt he owed me," testified Anderson, who set up a trust to file a quit claim deed Semnani had given him for a Park Meadows golf-course condominium. "At that point, I just hoped he would pay something." (In testimony that jurors never heard during the Anderson trial, one longtime friend recalled how the former regulator asked for a $10,000 "finder's fee" after hooking up the friend with the $80,000 contract to prepare Envirocare's initial license application. "I said, 'No, Larry. It's unethical'," recalled Ed Johnson, a radiation consultant who then cut off his friendship with Anderson.) Semnani also testified he dreaded discovery, embarrassed that he had been "taken for a ride by Mr. Anderson." "I just wanted him to keep from going crazy and filing a lawsuit," Semnani said. But at trial, defense attorney Jerry Mooney derided suggestions that the businessman felt intimidated by Anderson. "This is a very powerful person, a person who lends money to governors [and] senators," he said of Semnani. "And he's afraid of a midlevel regulator." The relationship ultimately netted Anderson a condo he sold for $480,000, about $30,000 in gold coins and more than $100,000 in cash. But after he retired from the state with a $26,000 pension in May 1994, and he lost leverage with the businessman, the payments began to dry up. By early 1995, the relationship had disintegrated to the point that the two taped conversations without telling one another. Each threatened the other with exposure, Semnani claiming it was extortion and Anderson suggesting it was bribery. A year later, Anderson sued Semnani for $7.6 million for the business plan and contract -- both of which Anderson said had disappeared in Semnani's hands nine years earlier. Two years ago, a state court threw out Anderson's lawsuit on grounds that the contract was illegal because Anderson had a conflict of interest. But Semnani's counterclaim, that Anderson shook him down, is still pending. Last spring, Anderson rejected a plea deal to serve a year in federal prison camp and give up the illegally obtained assets, including a golf-course condominium in Mesquite, Nev., a golf club membership and a golf cart. He fought the six original federal charges as an indigent, with a court-appointed attorney. U.S. Attorney for Utah Paul M. Warner said last week Anderson is ruined, both financially and in reputation, although he was found not guilty of the two corruption charges he faced going into the trial. "He didn't get off," the prosecutor maintained. "If anything, this is a severe blow to Mr. Anderson." Semnani testified that fallout from the case still plagues him today. Recalling his decision to stop paying Anderson, Semnani, his eyes downcast, said: "Everything came -- disassembled." Semnani has limited his exposure on Utah's Capitol Hill in recent years, despite more than $130,000 in direct political contributions in the five years since the scandal erupted. Rather than leading Envirocare's lobbying campaign himself, he has put company President Charles Judd at the forefront. The Tribune left messages with four majority-party lawmakers to comment for this story, but none returned the calls. Audits by four state and federal agencies have concluded Envirocare meets health and safety standards. Nonetheless, the scandal has been brandished by Envirocare's opponents. Waste-industry competitors, effectively locked out of Utah by a state law enacted during Anderson's tenure at Radiation Control, have used the once-cozy relationship between the two as the basis for at least three lawsuits. A lobbyist for one competitor said after the Anderson verdict: "Inside and outside of the state, they are saying, 'This doesn't smell right'. " The flap also dogs Envirocare's latest plans -- to expand its business lines to accept "hotter" radioactive waste -- embodied in two separate requests for permit changes that already are under attack. Activists say the process that created Envirocare was corrupt, but not unusual in the state. "In Utah, there is a liberalism about conflict-of-interest," said Anne Sward Hansen, one of the opponents. "It's the whole system I don't trust." Last spring, Hansen set the tone for public testimony on one of the permit changes by baldly asking Anderson's replacement if he was taking bribes. The answer was an adamant no. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 29 Former reporter for Daily News saved by schedule NEW YORK -- "Every day I rode the train into town and I walked to work under the foot of the north tower. Every day I looked up and admired the towers. It was a personal love of mine, the huge buildings. The bases of each covered two blocks. The center comprised four city blocks. It was the most amazing place in the world to work."

Wall Street Journal employee and previous Mohave Valley Daily News reporter David Garvin was not at work at the Journal, directly across Liberty street from the World Trade Center at the time of the Tuesday morning attacks by terrorists in hijacked U.S. airline planes. The Journal offices are in the World Financial Center.

"I was just getting ready to leave for work when my wife called me and told me to get to the television. I watched the towers fall. Having spent so much time around the buildings, like giant mountains, watching them come down is just terrifying," confided Garvin.

"I work a production schedule, noon to eight. There are many schedule variations for the 50,000 or so people that work at the Trade Center. I would guess that at 8:50 a.m. about 60 percent of those would have been at work," stated Garvin in a Tuesday interview with the Daily News. Garvin is a type styles administrator.

"I have a desk with personal family photos on it and personal property in the building across the street. No one in my company can tell me even if the building is standing, if I will have an office there. We have no information on our people that were in our building.

"Our company is doing everything possible to set up operations and get the Wall Street Journal out tomorrow. We are working out of our Princeton, N. J. office. That's where I am."

Garvin, besides stating concern for the large number of people affected directly by the attack on the World Trade Center was also concerned about the impact on the workings of the city for a long time to come.

"The Trade Center was a major junction of the New York subway system. It was the terminus of the PATH train. That is the train system that brings everyone from New Jersey into Manhattan. Two major train lines are centered under the Trade Center. If those are destroyed it will have major impact on the city for a long time.

"When I do go back to work in the city, its going to be devastating to look at where those buildings were. Now there is just a hole in the sky .

"Everyone in New York is taking this probably the same way. It's personal. I'm personally offended," said Gavin.

"I have to say that since the '93 garage bombing, the city knows that this can happen and maybe it's a matter of time as to when it would happen as it did today. New York and New Yorkers know they are a target. In a way it goes with living here," Garvin continued.

Garvin described emergency services in Princeton as very busy. "I think that even as far out as Princeton we are receiving medical emergency cases. The ambulances are running heavy here.

"There are police at every major intersection in town to make sure that main routes continue to move. All road construction has been suspended to make sure the roads are open.

"We are in a state of emergency, statewide here," said Garvin. "But, everyone is working professionally. There is no panic. People are doing what they have to do. The whole area seems to be responding this way. We have work to do."

Garvin was instrumental in supplying the Daily News with photos and other information directly from New York sources.

mohavedailynews.com ***************************************************************** 30 NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Mcguire Nuclear Station License Renewal Press Release Region II - 2001 - 38 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA No. II-01-038 September 7, 2001 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold public meetings on Tuesday, September 25, in Huntersville, North Carolina on the environmental review related to the application of Duke Energy Corporation to renew the operating licenses for both units of the McGuire Nuclear Station located 20 miles north of Charlotte. Members of the public are invited to attend and comment on environmental issues the NRC should consider in its review of the proposed license renewal. The meetings will be held at the auditorium on the North Campus of the Central Piedmont Community College, located at 11920 Verhoeff Road, Huntersville, North Carolina. There will be two similar sessions, one in the afternoon at 1:30 and one in the evening at 7:00. In addition, the NRC staff will host informal discussions one hour prior to each meeting. NRC staff members will be available to answer questions and provide additional information about the process during those informal sessions, but no comment submittals on environmental issues will be accepted then. For planning purposes, those who wish to attend or present oral comments at the meetings may register by contacting James Wilson of the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension 1108, or by e-mail at McGuireEIS@nrc.govno later than September 20. Interested persons may also register to speak before the start of each session. Individual comment time may be limited by the time available. The meetings will include an overview and NRC staff presentation on the environmental process related to license renewal, after which members of the public will be given the opportunity to present their comments on what environmental issues the NRC should consider during its review. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating licenses for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, will expire on June 12, 2021, and March 3, 2023 respectively. Duke submitted its application for license renewal in June. As part of its application, Duke submitted an environmental report. That report is available for public review in the NRC Public Document Room at NRC headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. In addition, the J. Murrey Atkins Library at the University of North Carolina - Charlotte has agreed to make the report available for public inspection. The application is also available on the NRC Web page at www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/LR/Duke/index.html. An existing NRC document, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," (NUREG-1437), assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. The NRC staff is gathering information at the September meeting for a supplement to the generic environmental impact statement that will be specific to the McGuire Station. It will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of conclusions and significant issues and will send a copy to interested persons who participated in the scoping process. The summary will also be available for public review at the J. Murrey Atkins Library at the University of North Carolina - Charlotte and will be accessible electronically through the NRC Public Electronic Reading Room found at www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Assistance in using the electronic reading room is available by calling the NRC Public Document Room at 301-415-4737. The NRC staff will then prepare a draft environmental impact statement supplement for public comment and will hold a public meeting to solicit comments. After consideration of comments received on the draft, the NRC will prepare a final EIS supplement. Members of the public may also submit written comments on the scope of the McGuire-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement. Comments should be submitted by October 21, either by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T-6-D-59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 or by Internet to: McGuireEIS@nrc.gov.### ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Hanford plutonium cleanup talks set for November This story was published Sat, Sep 8, 2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer SEATTLE -- Tri-Party Agreement talks are expected to begin in November on the cleanup and demolition of Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant. "We're anxious to begin negotiations," Mike Wilson, nuclear programs manager for the state Department of Ecology, told the Hanford Advisory Board on Friday in Seattle. Right now, the Department of Energy and Fluor Hanford are converting 4.4 tons of plutonium -- mixed within more than 19 tons of scrap -- into safer forms at the PFP. Some of that neutralized plutonium is supposed to be sent to DOE's Savannah River, S.C., site between 2010 and 2014 to be glassified or converted into mixed oxide reactor fuel. Other forms of the neutralized plutonium are supposed to be permanently stored in central Hanford or in an underground storage site in New Mexico. The plutonium at the PFP is in several forms, and several processes are under way to convert that material into a safe forms. That neutralization is on track to be finished by the Tri-Party Agreement deadline of mid-2004, said Pete Knollmeyer, DOE's assistant manager for Hanford's central plateau. The Tri-Party Agreement is the legal pact among the state, DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The agreement calls for the PFP to be cleaned out, its buildings demolished and its 200 West Area site be in a yet-to-be-defined "end state" by 2016. DOE calculates that this project will cost almost $1.2 billion through 2016, with Knollmeyer believing that figure can be trimmed. The PFP's tentative 2002 budget is almost $85 million. DOE predicts that the PFP's annual budget will be slightly lower but somewhat steady for the next several years. Knollmeyer said the upcoming talks will cover: -- Removing less than 100 kilograms of plutonium dust and residue from the ducts and other areas in the PFP. -- How and when the Cold War plutonium refining equipment will be flushed and cleaned out. -- How and when the equipment will be dismantled and removed. -- Setting the schedule for tearing down the 48 facilities within the PFP complex. -- What will the PFP site look like after the buildings are demolished, including final cleanup standards. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 2 Russian TV shows pictures of Kursk sub future home BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 9, 2001 [Presenter Yevgeniy Kiselev] The operation to raise the Kursk sub has been halted again today because the saw used to separate the bow section has again broken down. The work has already fallen behind schedule... In the meantime, in the village Roslyakovo on the coast, where the Kursk sub will be taken after it is raised from the bed of the Barents Sea, the locals have undergone special training if there is a nuclear threat although experts of the Emergencies Ministry are certain that the Kursk is safe and there is practically no probability of an emergency arising. Our correspondent has visited the enterprise which recycles old submarines. Here is a report by Tokmenev. [Correspondent] Here is a small hold of the ship which can be visited by just a few members of the crew at a time. There are Danger signs all along the route, right from the cabin with a heavy metal door at the very bottom of the ship. They do not usually reveal what is stored here. But one can guess. This special container coated in stainless steel for the moment holds nothing but soon the ship's special issue will have an entry: "fuel from the sunken Kursk". The vessel does not even look like a military ship but that is precisely how it is described in all the catalogues of potentially dangerous sites. Aboard this ship, there are containers with the recycled nuclear fuel from several nuclear subs. [Ruslan Yegorov, the Imandra's captain] This door is always locked. We have our guards there. This is the entrance to our top-security premises. [Correspondent] In this cabin all the controls are automatic and there is also a Geiger counter monitoring radiation. The first alarm signal will be fed here if something happens. Here, by way of these special monitoring devices, - for instance, this military system is similar to them - which are also installed on all nuclear submarines, one can monitor the whole process, including every rod while the two reactors, stored in the Imandra's bunker, will contain several hundred of them, about three metres in length. It will take a year before they are transferred from here. Until then they will be cooling down while remaining a source of special risk. But the first stage, the members of the crew say, is still the most complicated one, when the lid is removed from the reactor and the transfer begins. It lasts only a few hours. These rare shots show how it happens. The heart is being taken out of one nuclear submarine of the Northern Fleet. True, the crew are now working not with the reactors of the damaged submarine but that is how it will be with the Kursk. The transfer container will approach the hull; the manipulator will in turn open up each fuel cell and will transfer its contents into storage. After that, all this will be stored under water in the hold. The head of the special group, Aleksey, who is in charge of all this says that the order cannot be described as ordinary. [Aleksey Yegorov, captioned as head of the reactor group] I do not think there will be any problems. From a moral point of view, it is not nice that many people died there and the crew perished. [Correspondent] The Imandra crew are trying not to think of the danger. This crew has already had the experience of four submarines. Every day they measure radiation, inspect all the equipment used in transfer. In fact, the captain himself does not try to hide that despite all this, they must be well prepared for any emergency that may arise in connection with the Kursk. [Ruslan Yegorov, the Imandra's captain] It is unlikely to be damaged from the outside because these reactors are tested for solidity and other factors. Nothing will happen to it. No-one knows of course what it is going on inside... Source: TV6, Moscow, in Russian 1700 gmt 9 Sep 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All Material Subject to ***************************************************************** 3 ORNL's broadest reorganization on the horizon KnoxNews: Columnists Monday, Sep 10 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer Some people like to answer a question with a question. Politicians come to mind. But others do it, too. In fact, I ran into that repeatedly last week when I asked scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory what they thought about the reorganization plan unveiled by lab management. "How cynical do you want to be?" was a popular response. Indeed, there are a number of conspiracy theories making the rounds, including one that UT-Battelle -- the ORNL contractor for the past year and a half -- created chaos in order to minimize opposition while it exploits the federal lab's intellectual properties. Another view: UT-Battelle is using the lab reorganization as a unique opportunity to get rid of unwanted managers. The official line, of course, is that realigning the laboratory's organizational structure was needed in order to cut costs and make operations more efficient. Come to think of it, that's probably the explanation given for every reorganization ever attempted, but it may be true in this case. We'll see. Time answers most things. Anyway, this represents the broadest organizational change since ORNL (then called Clinton Laboratories or X-10) was built during World War II. Yawn, right? Well, maybe for those of us who think institutional masochism has little entertainment value, but not if you're one of the laboratory employees faced with uncertainty, vulnerability or both. "We are announcing a fundamental change in the laboratory's division structure and a realignment of programs among the new divisions," Lab Director Bill Madia said in his memo to staff. Madia said the "most dramatic change" was the elimination of an entire layer of management, involving 62 section heads. There also will be three fewer research divisions, and there's a whole lot of melding, extracting and reforming of the lab's other organizational units -- even those that remain more or less intact. The new chart goes into effect Oct. 1, and not all of the staff changes have actually been decided -- at least not officially. Asked whether those people holding eliminated positions will be demoted, promoted or laid off, Jeff Smith, the lab's deputy director for operations, indicated there'll probably be some of each. "At this point, we have not defined the specific impacts," Smith said. "We will be doing that over the next month or so." Smith said some of the section heads probably will return to full-time research. Others will be candidates for new management positions waiting to be filled, and still others will leave the laboratory, he said. One observer predicted that at least a couple of division directors will be dropped from the payroll, as well as five to 10 section heads. There could be more. Keep in mind that one of the reasons for the restructure was to save money. Some nervous employees are anxious to see how "humanely" the lab enacts the changes in the weeks ahead. Tom Wilbanks, who chairs the lab's Corporate Fellows Council, an elite group of research scientists and engineers, served on the Organizational Review Task Force that provided input for the decisions made by top management. "At this point we're all exhausted," he said. "It was an assignment that everybody took very seriously." Wilbanks said he didn't agree with every aspect of the reorganization. He said he argued for other approaches, as did other members of the team. But Wilbanks generally backs the plan, thinks it was vitally needed. In fact, he intends to act as a cheerleader of sorts to drum up support among lab researchers. He said it's important to rally behind top management as it makes tough but good decisions for the betterment of the laboratory. "In general, there's not a lot of trust in what management says," he said, particularly referring to the mid-manager ranks. Speaking of employee views, there were reports that division management in a couple of the divisions to be eliminated were trashed and skewered by employees in a recent staff survey. Madia declined to discuss specifics, but he said staff surveys played a significant role in the decision-making for ORNL reorganization. One of the main views reflected in the survey was that the lab had too many managers, he said. The lab director said one of his main decisions was whether to dissolve the larger division structure and keep the smaller sections intact or do the reverse. He said he made the choice to keep the divisions because they offered "fewer blocks of bigger muscle" that could be applied to research projects. Interestingly, some section heads whose jobs may be most at risk thought the reorganization was a good idea, although they didn't necessarily support elimination of their place in the management scheme. Under the old setup at ORNL, the section heads typically absorbed administrative tasks and paperwork, resolved internal squabbles, and did whatever else they could to deflect or minimize distractions for researchers. "It will be interesting to see how the laboratory is able to transfer that function," one section head said. "I think we're probably underappreciated." 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/. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 4 Nuclear Booty: More Smugglers Use Asia Route New York Times International September 11, 2001 By DOUGLAS FRANTZ ISTANBUL, Sept. 10 — The police in Batumi, a Black Sea port in Georgia, heard a rumor in July that someone wanted to sell several pounds of high-grade uranium for $100,000. The most tantalizing aspect of the tip was that one of the sellers was reportedly a Georgia Army officer. All sorts of scoundrels have tried nuclear smuggling in recent years. Many are amateurs; most of what they try to peddle proves useless for making bombs. But the possible involvement of an army officer gave the Batumi case a measure of deadly seriousness, beyond its status as another example of how the smuggling of nuclear material has shifted to Central Asia. On the morning of July 20, the local antiterrorist squad burst into a small hotel room near the port, just outside the Turkish border. They arrested four men, including an army captain named Shota Geladze. On the floor of the room, in a glass jar wrapped in plastic, sat nearly four pounds of enriched uranium 235, according to Revaz Chantladze, one of the police officers. The quantity was less than is usually required for a small atomic bomb. Subsequent analysis yielded differing opinions. A Western diplomat said the uranium probably had no value for bomb-making, but Georgian officials called it the third seizure in two years of uranium with potential weapons use. Staton R. Winter for The New York Times Yasar Ozal, director of Turkey's nuclear research center. The appearance of a relatively large quantity of uranium on the black market in Georgia underscored American concerns that such trafficking has shifted from Europe to the Caucasus, Central Asia and Turkey. Washington has responded by sending millions of dollars' worth of detection equipment to several countries in the region. The Americans are also providing training for border guards to learn to spot illegal shipments of nuclear material, and they helped to improve security at nuclear plants and airports. The region is the gateway from Russia, which has huge stocks of nuclear material, to countries that are in the market for weapons material. Two of them, Iran and Iraq, are trying to develop nuclear weapons; a third, Pakistan, is expanding its nuclear arsenal. Few smuggling incidents involve material that could be used to make bombs, and intelligence officials say they know of no successful attempt at smuggling weapons-grade material. But they concede that the scope of smuggling remains uncertain. The rising number of incidents and the strong belief that only a fraction of shipments are intercepted have raised the level of anxiety here. The worries are heightened by the slackness of border controls and the economic instability that has left customs officers vulnerable to bribes. "The nuclear material tends to come from Russia, but once it gets outside, the region is pretty wide open," Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington, said during a trip to the region to brief customs officials on suspected buyers. The International Atomic Energy Agency provided new figures on Friday showing that the number of confirmed cases of nuclear smuggling had fallen in the rest of the world but had risen in Turkey, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Only four of the 104 cases from 1993 to 1995 occurred in this region, the agency reported, but from 1996 to last month, 16 of the 72 cases worldwide occurred in the region. The data covered only three weapons-related elements — uranium, plutonium and thorium — and only incidents confirmed by the international agency. Intelligence authorities said smugglers are seeking new routes out of Russia and find their paths easier across the southern flank. "There has, since the mid-1990's, been a shift of smuggling to the Middle East and Asia," Alex Schmid, head of antiterrorism for the United Nations, told a conference recently. In the last eight years, there have been 104 attempts to smuggle nuclear material into Turkey, according to an internal report by the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority. Most cases, like those elsewhere, involved tiny amounts of radioactive material with no weapons uses. But officials at the authority said a handful were potentially more serious. In September 1998, eight people were arrested for trying to smuggle nuclear material from Russia through Turkey to an unknown destination. The police seized about 10 pounds of uranium 235 and a tenth of an ounce of a plutonium mixture. Yasar Ozal, director of Turkey's nuclear research center, said the plutonium and uranium were not weapons-grade material, but appeared to be fuel pellets. Nonetheless, he said, the appearance of plutonium on the black market was alarming. In another case, a Turk was arrested at the Bulgarian border carrying a small amount of enriched uranium 235 in May 1999. Authorities said that the quality was high and that the material might have been a sample that he was trying to use to drum up a larger sale. But Ismail Caliskan, director of Turkey's police unit fighting smuggling and organized crime, said the danger from nuclear smuggling had been exaggerated. Almost every incident, he said, involved amateur criminals trying to sell radioactive material with no weapons value. The only buyers, he said, are undercover policemen. Turkey illustrates the difficulty of monitoring borders. The country is slightly larger than Texas and has 120 border posts, including crossings to Iraq and Syria in the south, Bulgaria in the northwest and Georgia, Armenia and Iran in the east. A senior customs official said only two border posts have systems to detect radioactive material, both donated by the United States. He asked that the locations not be identified, but said neither is at Habur, a busy crossing between Turkey and Iraq. Locations without detection devices rely on visual inspections, something that can be difficult. A kilo of plutonium (2.2 pounds) is so dense it can be concealed in a container the size of a soft-drink can. Some American detection equipment went to Uzbekistan, which has hundreds of miles of border in remote deserts and mountainous terrain. Border guards at three locations received van-sized detection units and 30 hand-held detectors far more powerful than Geiger counters. Early last month, guards at a remote Uzbek post on the border with Turkmenistan stopped a sealed truck en route to Iran when one of the American-supplied devices went off, according to American officials. The officials said they did not know what type of material the truck carried. They said the truck had come from Kazakhstan and passed undetected through the checkpoint at Gisht Kuprik on the Kazak border before being stopped in Alat. Another American device, on the border between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, about 20 miles from Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, detected radioactive material in March 2000 in a truckload of scrap metal. Uzbek authorities said the truck was coming from Kazakhstan, bound for Pakistan with 10 briefcase-sized containers of radioactive material. The Uzbeks sent it back to Kazakhstan for analysis of the material and a criminal investigation. A Western diplomat said that when the Uzbeks stopped the vehicle, a second truck loaded with scrap turned and went back to Kazakhstan. What followed remains a bit of a mystery and an illustration of how regional rivalries can make it tougher to stop trafficking: The Uzbeks complained that the radioactive material disappeared in Kazakhstan and that no arrests were made. The Kazakhstan government has a good record on trying to curb nuclear-related smuggling. It worked closely with the United States to protect its Soviet-era nuclear facilities, and 1,300 pounds of weapons-grade uranium was removed from the country in 1994 by American officials. But Western officials said they, too, were left in the dark about the outcome of the inquiry into the material on the scrap-metal truck. In Kazakhstan's first official explanation, Altynbek Sarsenbayev, assistant to the president for national security, denied that there were any briefcase-size containers. He said the problem arose because the scrap metal was contaminated with low- level radioactivity. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy ***************************************************************** 5 Kursk hitches pose tough questions BBC News | EUROPE | Monday, 10 September, 2001, 14:10 GMT 15:10 UK [Oscar class submarine] Cruise missiles and nuclear reactors remain on board Salvage teams at the site of the Kursk disaster were working for a second day on Monday to repair vital sawing equipment to get the operation back on track. The hitches come amid fresh questions over the safety of the operation - and with speculation continuing that the operation is running out of time before the winter sets in. The giant saw under repair is being used to cut away the submarine's badly-damaged bow section. The saw's cables or chains have broken several times during the operation. [Norwegian diver when Kursk sank] Conditions on the seabed have been hazardous throughout Sources in the Russian Northern Fleet headquarters have told the Itar-Tass news agency that the current breakdown is the most serious yet, and is proving difficult to repair. But officials involved in the project have told BBC News Online that the current delay should not prove fatal. "Overall the cutting is going very well," said John Large of the UK Nuclear Co-ordinating Group. "But it gets more and more difficult the lower you get, as silt, boulders and other debris can get pulled into the machinery, so you can have problems. [Kursk-type sub] The salvage operation is fraught with problems "Providing there are no major new hitches, I think the operation can still succeed before winter." Lifting could be attempted after 20 September, said Mr Large, once cables have been attached to the 26 holes already drilled into the submarine's hull. But if fresh problems emerge, the project could face being hit by budget problems, other industry sources told BBC News Online. As summer turns to autumn, the number of working days will be substantially reduced, leaving the vastly-expensive operation with zero productivity on stormy days. "I don't want to scare anyone, but in such a worst-case situation we would get more than just a Chernobyl on the bottom of the Barents Sea, but something two or even three times worse Russian expert Yury Senatsky It could eventually mean a "commercial" decision to pull the teams out, the sources say. A spokesman for the Meteorological Office in London said more windy and unsettled weather could be expected in the Barents Sea over the next 10 days. Fresh questions over safety are also being raised. Experts fear that moving the Kursk could either destabilise its two nuclear reactors, or even trigger explosions by some of the two-dozen cruise missiles on board. One source said there were serious doubts over whether Russian contingency plans for a major nuclear emergency situation were fully in place, with only weeks to go. In a nightmare scenario for the salvage teams: + The cruise missiles could be triggered by movement or radio waves. + The giant barge hauling the Kursk to the surface could itself be pulled under. + The reactors could start leaking when moved, forcing the Kursk to be laid again on the sea bed. + A Chernobyl-style concrete bunker could have to be built over the Kursk on the sea bed, or other material pumped into the reactors to stop the leaks. Sources say the chances of such drastic outcomes are remote, but must be planned for in case the worst happens - and the Russians have yet to provide detailed emergency plans. Some Russian experts have said the cruise missiles remain a particular cause for concern. Retired Rear Admiral Yuri Senatsky, a former USSR rescue specialist, said the missiles were not equipped for storage under water. "In the worst-case scenario - that is, if the 'dry-storage' missiles are now full of sea water - then in what condition are their detonators one year after the fact?" he said in a recent interview with the Russian newspaper, Tribuna. 'Torn to shreds' "It is not out of the question that they have corroded to the point that they could go off by themselves from the slightest shock. If the missiles begin to explode one right after another under water, the reactor will be torn to shreds, and no pressure hull will help. "I don't want to scare anyone, but in such a worst-case situation we would get more than just a Chernobyl on the bottom of the Barents Sea, but something two or even three times worse." President Putin has continued to insist that operation will succeed before winter. In another sign of progress, the Giant 4 barge which will be used in the lifting has arrived in the Norwegian port of Kirkenes on its way to the Kursk site. ***************************************************************** 6 Where I Stand -- Brian Greenspun: Attn: Mr. Abraham Las Vegas SUN Today: September 11, 2001 at 9:34:58 PDT Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun. AN OPEN LETTER to Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy. Like you, sir, I was not present at the recent debacle you created to serve as a public hearing for those wishing to comment on the Department of Energy's plan to shove high-level nuclear waste down Nevada's throat. Actually, I was there at the place -- the barbed-wire laden, security guard heavy, top-secret looking, scary-to-the-public facility -- that you chose to hold the hearing. I chose, however, to leave around 10 o'clock when it was obvious to me that the number I was given to speak would not be called until well after 1 a.m. In truth, my name was called at 1:20 a.m. I left knowing that I could submit a written response. This, by the way, is that response that I trust you will insert into the record and give the same weight to that the law requires you give to the other comments made at the hearing. Unlike you, however, there were hundreds of Nevadans who did show up to tell your representatives what they really thought about the DOE's plan to send what we all know will be unlimited tons of high-level radioactive waste to Las Vegas on its way to Yucca Mountain, which is just a few miles from the Fremont Street Experience. And what representatives they were. I don't remember their names but I am quite certain it doesn't matter. Those three people were sent to Las Vegas to grin and bear the hearing, make no comment, show no emotion and to maintain at all times a "what the heck am I doing here" look upon their faces. They succeeded on all fronts. Had you been there, Mr. Secretary, you would have had to come to the same conclusion that any discussion held that night was exactly like talking to a wall. And that is what I would like to talk about today. Nevadans have long known that trying to talk sense to the DOE was very much akin to speaking to walls. We have spoken of our concerns for health, safety and economic security, and we have heard nothing in return to help assuage our fears. We have talked about the laws that apply to siting the nuclear dump and the number of ways the DOE has avoided them and just plain ignored them, and we get nothing in return to help explain the subterfuge. We have talked for years about earthquakes, volcanoes and other natural disasters that could and will occur during the lifetime of Yucca Mountain, and we hear nothing in return from the DOE to explain why we are needlessly concerned. In short, Mr. Abraham, we are talking to a wall that you have helped build and maintain which, by your actions last week, has reached new heights of disdain for the citizens of Nevada. Since I have spent a good deal of my life butting up against walls, I am well suited to this particular task. Unlike others in the media who are willing to throw up their arms and admit defeat, I still believe that in a democracy it is undemocratic to impose a federal will upon an unwilling state. I still believe that reason and good sense can overcome the bureaucratic mantra that says once we have spent the money we have to go forward no matter how wrong we learn we have been. The opposite is true in America. The beauty of a democracy is the ability to change course when the facts and the will demand such action. This is one of those times. Just three weeks ago the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper not unfriendly to your administration, ran a story under the headline, "Scientists Tout Method for Reprocessing Nuclear Waste." What followed was a lengthy story about the probability of transmutation and recycling of radioactive waste. Not the possibility, mind you, the probability. That means that given the time and the financial resources necessary, it is likely that an answer to the nuclear waste issue can be found. The latest form of recycling high-level waste is known as pyroprocessing. It extracts plutonium from nuclear waste that gets around most objections that prior administrations had regarding nuclear security and it does so by allowing the end product to be reused in the production of energy, which has a moneymaking component attached to it. In short, this could be the answer that scientists have been searching for decades and, but for a few dollars and some time, could find that solution. So, in the face of mounting evidence that science in the 21st century can and will solve the waste problem in a most efficient and geologically responsible fashion, what does the DOE do? Nothing. Unless you count stonewalling by stonefaced, uncaring bureaucrats determined to sit through the heat of the "public" hearings without listening to a word that was uttered, as doing something. Why is it, Mr. Abraham, that you seem intent on pushing through a flawed political plan that was devised decades ago and that was based on science derived from caveman days -- burying the mess -- when you have at your disposal the wherewithal to chase a few scientific theories that hold the promise of a solution that works for everyone and not against anyone? Is it about money? Could it be that you believe that once a few billion dollars have been spent chasing down a rabbit hole that it is incumbent upon you and President George W. Bush to keep throwing tax dollars down that same hole even when you know it is the wrong way to go? I hope that isn't your position because your administration has already told us that we have billions and trillions of dollars to spend doing what is right for America. Certainly, an acknowledgment that we have made a mistake that cost a few billion dollars but which will be rectified in the name of good public policy and doing what is the American thing to do will inure to the President's benefit and show him to be a man of good conscience and good sense. And that's where you can help him be as good as he can be. You can take the heat for reversing what has been a bad plan from the get-go. You can recommend to President Bush that he spend the billions necessary to promote a good, sufficient scientific answer to this problem and abandon this dump theory long before President Bush needs to deal with it. You can make your own mark by ordering safe and secure dry-cask storage at the sites where the waste currently sits, while committing the funds necessary to challenge science to pursue what it already knows will be the right answer. By doing so, you will avoid making George Bush an albatross around the necks of Nevada's political leadership; you will avoid a states rights confrontation that we haven't seen since Civil War days; you will avoid putting upon the heads and hearts of Nevada's parents the guilt of staying in a place they will know will kill their children or grandchildren; you will avoid a street brawl that will most surely happen in the U.S. Congress when Nevada's senior Sen. Harry Reid will pull out every stop to protect the state he loves; and you can earn a place in the history books for helping to solve appropriately a problem that no one else has yet been willing to tackle. There is, shall we say, a whole lot riding on the way you carry out your constitutional responsibilities to this nation. If you think you want to do it the right way, Mr. Secretary, you can start by showing Nevadans that you give a damn about what they think. How about a real public hearing? One that has not only questions but answers that people can understand. One that benefits the public and doesn't manipulate them through clever lobbying agents. Just say the word and get on a plane. We'll find a hall big enough and public enough to handle the democracy that will result. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 U.S.-Russia Nuclear Programs Questioned (washingtonpost.com) By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 11, 2001; Page A23 Nearly three dozen U.S.-Russian programs designed to prevent the spread of Russian nuclear weapons and materials have foundered because of disorganization and a loss of trust between the two countries, according to an official who was instrumental in creating them. The programs, which have cost the United States more than $5 billion to date, have "often lacked coordination not only with Russia but also within" the U.S. government, said Siegfried S. Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "Nothing really terrible has happened," Hecker said, but a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's nuclear complex "is largely intact, vastly oversized and overstaffed." With the election last year of President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB official, and the resurgence of Moscow's security services, access to once-secret nuclear facilities has tightened, according to Hecker. "Today, the window of opportunity appears to be closing, both because Russia does not need our money as desperately and because the security services have begun to close up the complex," he said in a lengthy article published recently in The Nonproliferation Review, a journal of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Hecker, currently a consultant at Los Alamos, established early contact with Russian nuclear scientists after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was among the architects of the U.S. effort to avert the spread of Russian nuclear weapons. His comments come as the National Security Council is nearing completion of a review of the U.S.-Russian nonproliferation programs ordered by President Bush in March. The administration already has signaled doubts about the effectiveness of the effort by cutting the budget proposed by the Clinton administration by $100 million. The programs, which will cost $872 million this year, have also been criticized by some lawmakers on Capitol Hill and by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The nonproliferation effort began in the early 1990s to keep Russian nuclear materials from spreading, and to stop nuclear scientists from selling their knowledge to other countries. That was quickly complemented by the Nunn-Lugar program, which partially funded the destruction of Russian nuclear bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear submarines, as required by arms control treaties. Overall, the effort gave rise to about 30 U.S.-Russian programs, managed by the Defense, Energy and State departments, aimed at tightening security at Russian nuclear facilities and providing money as an incentive to keep Russia's weapons scientists and engineers from moving abroad. Speaking Friday at a meeting sponsored by the Monterey Institute of International Studies and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hecker said that although he remains a supporter of the programs' nonproliferation goals, a major overhaul is warranted. "What is needed is a coherent, comprehensive, integrated strategy," he said. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union built nearly 20,000 nuclear warheads. Today, although the Russian strategic force is declining, many thousands of warheads remain deployed at dozens of locations and more than 60 storage sites. In addition, 1,000 metric tons of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium and between 125 and 200 metric tons of plutonium are spread throughout the country at various facilities. Russia maintains a large network of production facilities for uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors that continues to produce weapons-grade plutonium, as well as a network of three dozen nuclear weapons labs and dozens of specialized defense institutes. Hecker warned that the primary joint program for protection, control and accounting for nuclear materials and warheads at many of these facilities "has all but come to a standstill." He blamed not only increased Russian security, but also U.S. bureaucratic demands that have "lost sight that these are Russian nuclear materials in the Russian nuclear complex." He said a multinational effort to provide Russian scientists and engineers with civilian job opportunities has been a success, but an Energy Department initiative that teamed Russian institutes with Western businesses has floundered, in part because of Russian security concerns. The Energy Department's nuclear cities program, aimed at helping Russian scientists in regions once closed to the West, has also run into trouble. Newly aggressive Russian guards have made it difficult for American businessmen to gain access to scientists with whom they are attempting to arrange deals. In addition, funding limitations on the U.S. side -- including a sharp cut by the Bush administration in the Clinton-proposed $30 million budget for next year -- have made it less attractive to the Russian government. Two programs to reduce nuclear materials have had mixed success. One to turn highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium into fuel has been successful, and there is competition within the U.S. to get it expanded. The other, to burn plutonium or immobilize it so it cannot be used for weapons, has never gotten started, in part because the Russian plan for burning would cost $2 billion or more. In addition, the Russians continue to produce plutonium from reactors they use for energy generation and see plutonium as part of their broader plan to encourage nuclear power. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 8 Halliburton unit in $5 billion program to destroy Soviet arms - 2001-09-10 - Dallas Business Journal Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL) unit Kellogg Brown &Root is one of five engineering and management companies awarded a $5 billion contract by the U.S. Department of Defense to eliminate nuclear arms and other weapons from former Soviet states. The contract covers five years initially with one five-year option based on performance, Halliburton said Monday. Other companies involved in the defense program are Raytheon Co. (NYSE: RTN), Bechtel National Inc., Parsons Delaware Inc. and Washington Group International Inc. KBR's team includes Devonport Management Ltd., Black &Veatch International, Byelocorp Scientific Inc., Duke Engineering &Services, EAI Corp., Edlow International Co., Harding ESE Inc., Pratt &Whitney Space Propulsion and Russian Operations and SRS Technologies. To perform the tasks related to the contract, KBR will set up a project office in Moscow. It opened a corporate office in Moscow in 1991, where it currently is executing a $283 million project to eliminate liquid-fueled Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles and their silos. It also recently completed a four-year U.S. defense contract to dismantle ICBMs in Kazakhstan and return the land to the government for agricultural use. Company Web site: Copyright 2001 American City Business Journals ***************************************************************** 9 RUSSIA WILL PROLONG PRODUCTION OF WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM [A&G Information Services] Story Filed: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:31 PM EST ST.PETERSBURG, RUSSIA, SEP 9, 2001 (A News via COMTEX) -- Russia will discontinue production on the last three reactors by December 31, 2006, i.e. several years later than initially planned. This amendment is introduced to the already altered variant of Russian-American treaty of 1997, which is planned to be signed in the nearest future. It was previously planned that two reactors in the town of Seversk (Tomsk region) will stop plutonium production in 2002 and 2003. The third one in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk region) should have stopped functioning in 2004. Now the production will be stopped on December 31, 2005 in Seversk and on December 31, 2006 in Zheleznogorsk. URL: http://www.aginform.com Copyright (C) 2001, A Information Services, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 10 Cancer mortality study a focus of health group's meeting Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Oak Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee's public health assessment work group recently evaluated a 1994 cancer morality study that pertained to the Oak Ridge area. On Tuesday, the full subcommittee is scheduled to discuss the evaluation, which was done to teach the groups' members how to examine scientific documents. Lucy Peipins, assistant director for science for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, will lead the discussion. Joseph Mangano's study indicated that the death rate from cancer among whites in the 94 counties surrounding the Oak Ridge area rose 34.1 percent between 1950-52 and 1987-89, compared to a 5.1-percent increase for the nation. Mangano was a member of the New York City-based Radiation and Public Health Project, a not-for-profit group dedicated to epidemiological research on the effects of low-level radiation on human beings. His study was published in the International Journal of Health Services. Tuesday's subcommittee meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to run from 12:30 to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday in the Oak Ridge Mall's Crown Conference Center. The discussion of Mangano's report is expected to start around 5:15 p.m. Also on Tuesday, Charles Miller, chief of the Environmental Dosimetry Section at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, will present information about the development of a public information program to provide cumulative radionuclide dose and risk information for people living in the United States. The program is being considered for possible implementation near the Department of Energy's Hanford site in Richland, Wash. Miller's talk is scheduled to take place between 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday. The second part of the subcommittee's two-day meeting will convene at 8 a.m. on Wednesday and last until 5:30 p.m. in the Crown Conference Center. Robert Jackson, with the Department of Health and Human Services' Health Resources Services Administration, will discuss the needs and strategies for establishing community health centers. The Health Resources Services Administration is the federal agency with responsibility for assuring that underserved people get the health care they need, officials said. Jackson's talk is scheduled to begin at 8:10 a.m. Wednesday. Members of the public will have an opportunity to present their concerns during public comment periods from 3:30 to 3:45 p.m. and from 4:45 to 5 p.m. on Tuesday. Public comment sessions on Wednesday are 9 to 9:30 a.m. and 3:45 to 4 p.m. Following individual presentations, additional opportunities for public comment may be provided during the subcommittee meeting as time permits. The Health Effects Subcommittee consists of citizens primarily from the Oak Ridge area, who are working with community members and advocacy groups to offer advice and recommendations to federal agencies regarding health concerns in Oak Ridge. Subcommittee members are appointed by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal public health agency involved in hazardous waste issues. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 11 Use of secret decrees are illegal Nikitin back in Supreme Court: - Use of secret decrees are illegal On the eve of the one year anniversary of his final acquittal on espionage charges Aleksandr Nikitin again stands face to face with 'the Forces of Darkness' in Court. This time around it his however him who has gone on the offensive. Jon Gauslaa, 2001-09-11 17:26 Aleksandr Nikitin suffered an almost five year long prosecution for state treason in the form of espionage based on secret military decrees before he was finally acquitted by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court on September 13, 2000. At a pressconference at Moscow's House of Journalists today he explained why he has filed an application to the Supreme Court about the illegal use of the secret decrees as normative acts in criminal cases. The system must come to an end - I was prosecuted for having violated secret decrees, and although I was acquitted, there are other cases going on in Russia today in which individuals are prosecuted for having violated such laws, said the former submarine officer turned environmentalist and human rights advocate. You are probably all aware of the case against journalist Grigory Pasko in Vladivostok, but we also have the cases against academics Igor Sutyagin, Vladimir Soyfer and Vladimir Schurov, he said. Allthough each of these cases have their own peculiarities, they have one thing in common: The one who is accused is charged with having disclosed information that pertain to state secrets according to secret normative acts issued by various ministries. But how can a person know that he discloses state secrets when even the laws that classifies the information as secret, are secret? The use of secret decrees as normative acts is a remnant of the machine that once imprisoned millions of Russians without trial, and this remnant of the forces of darkness are still alive in Russia today, continued Nikitin. - Any thinking indivudual who deals with science or journalism, or who collects various openly avvailable information and analyses it, risks the same kind of prosecution as I went through. The system where each department makes its own top-secret lists over state secrets, which later can be used as basis for filing criminal charges, must come to an end, said Nikitin. Total arbitrariness Nikitin's legal representatives, Yuri Schmidt and Michael Matinov, who also were members of the team that succesfully defended him in the criminal case, explained the legal background for the application. - We have chosen to focus on decree 055 from the Ministry of Defence which was issued in August 1996, as this were the main legislative basis for the prosecution against Aleksandr, said Michael Matinov. The scope of our case is however, much wider. - The Ministry of Defence is not the only Ministry who issues secret decrees. Although Article 15 (3) of the Constitution clearly forbids use of secret legislation as basis for filing criminal charges against individuals, such prosecutions are still taking place. The system is characterised by total arbitrariness, Matinov said. – The fact that the citizens are deprived from the right to know what kinds of information that pertains to state secrets fills them with fear. Beyond the law The subject of the application, Decree 055:96 has alone more than 700 general an unconcrete provisions stating that information belonging to this or that cathegory pertains to state secrets. Several of these provisions go way beyond the limits for classifying information as state secrets which are set up in the Law on State Secrets, said Yuri Schmidt, and gave several examples from the Nikitin case, in which his points of view in the end were proven right by the Courts. That took however for years of legal ’hand to hand combat’ with the system. – When I started to work on Aleksandr’s case back in 1996 I was informed that he was accused of having released state secrets in Bellona’s report about the radioactive waste in Russia’s Northern Fleet, and when I asked the investigator about the legislative basis for this allegation, the investigator answered: "that is also a state secret", so we had to climb many hills to win that case. When being asked how the application could affect the whole system, when only one concrete decree was attacked, Schmidt said that he believed that if they could take away one stone from the construction, the whole builing would collapse in the end. He also fortified that they were not attacking Russia’s right to have state secrets, but only the system for classifying information as secret. – The scope of Russian state secrets should be limited to information of real significance for Russia’s defence capacity as it is in other countries he said. The situation we have today, where almost any item of information can be considered as state secrets by some anonymous ministerial ’experts’, and where the opinion of these experts can form the basis for years of prosecution of individuals is simply tragical and must be terminated. Strong legal foundation When being asked if the attorneys had any predictions regarding the outcome of the case, Schmidt said that he did not dare to predict anything. - I am a cautios person, who don't like to make predictions. I do however believe that we have a strong legal foundation for our case, he said and refered to Article 15 (3) of the Russian Foundation, the Federal Law on State Secrets and various human rights treaties. And in contrast to the criminal case against Aleksandr this is not a case in which I will take it as a personal defeat if we do not win totally, he said. – Our aim at the present time is first and foremost to put some focus to the issue, and put the system under debate. If we can manage that and also get some real changes in the system, we will have achieved much no matter what will happen in the nearest days in the Court, he said. The Russian Supreme Court will start its initial examining of the application on September 12. If the hearing is not going to be postponed for one reason or another, it is reason to believe that it will take a couple of days for the parties of the case to present their arguments. The Court will then withdraw, and it may take some more days before its decission will be announced. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway Menu system java script courtesy of Peter Belesis at the Dynamic HTML lab. ***************************************************************** 12 EPA unveils sampling plan for Scarboro Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:11 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Environmental Protection Agency will be taking soil, water and sediment samples from around 10 locations in the Scarboro neighborhood during the week of Sept. 24 in order to fill in some information gaps from a previous study. EPA unveiled its plan during a public meeting Monday night at the Scarboro Community Center. The purpose of this upcoming sampling effort is to validate and verify a percentage of the results from a 1998 Department of Energy study conducted by DOE and Florida A University, according to Kevin Simmons, one of the EPA employees who will be taking the samples. EPA hopes its findings answer some questions the agency had about the report. Released in 1998, the DOE and Florida A study indicated the Scarboro neighborhood contained elevated levels of contaminants in the soil. Scarboro sits just across Pine Ridge from the Y-12 National Security Complex, a nuclear weapons production facility. The results showed consistently higher than normal levels of uranium 235 -- enriched uranium -- and uranium 238 in soil samples taken throughout the area that summer. The results also showed traces of mercury in some soil samples, and one randomly selected sample showed a high presence of lead, zinc and pesticides in the soil. During the week of Sept. 24, Jon Johnston, chief of the Federal Facilities Branch for EPA's Region 4, said EPA will resample 20 percent of the 48 locations identified in the 1998 study. He said the agency will analyze the samples for a variety of contaminants, including several DOE did not look for earlier. EPA chose their sample sites based on information gathered during a Feb. 23, 1999, meeting in Scarboro; the May 1998 study; and reconnaissance work done by EPA officials more than two years ago. EPA plans to take soil samples from the following areas: 280 S. Benedict Ave.; 117/119 Spellman Ave.; 190/194 Hampton Road; 192 S. Benedict Ave.; and the South Hills Golf Club and near the Scarboro Community Center. Sediment will be collected from 211 S. Benedict Ave. and 201/203 S. Dillard Ave., and surface water samples will be taken from 211 S. Benedict Ave. and the South Hills Golf Club. In actuality, Johnston said EPA's sampling should have been done about two years ago. He said he couldn't offer a good reason why it wasn't conducted. Johnston said it could take up to four months before a report is issued. He added that the results of the sampling effort could play a role in future EPA studies in Scarboro. Some community members felt EPA should be doing more in Scarboro. Scarboro residents Fannie Ball and R.L. Ayres said they have talked with numerous residents in the neighborhood who feel more areas should be sampled. However, EPA officials said that was not the focus of this effort. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 13 EPA schedules another Scarboro meeting Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:12 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Despite an erroneous meeting announcement released by the Environmental Protection Agency, a crowd of almost 50 people turned out Monday night to learn about the agency's upcoming sampling project in the Scarboro neighborhood. EPA officials were surprised Monday night to learn their agency issued two meeting announcements in the past week-- one correctly stating the organization would hold a meeting Monday night in the Scarboro Community Center and the other erroneously indicating the meeting would be tonight. Several Scarboro residents pointed out the mistake to EPA officials Monday night. Jon Johnston, chief of the Federal Facilities Branch for EPA's Region 4, apologized for the "erroneous mailing" to those attending Monday night's meeting. "Evidently, we confused a lot of people," Johnston said. To remedy the problem, EPA has decided to go ahead and hold a meeting from 6 to 8 tonight in the Scarboro Community Center. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 14 Department of Energy Seeks Public Comment on Program to Assist Nuclear Workers energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: September 10, 2001 [Print Friendly Version] ---> WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Energy (DOE) is asking the public to comment on proposed procedures that it will use to help workers under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The Act was designed to help workers who became ill from exposure to radiation and other serious hazards while working to build the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal over the past 50 years. The Act established two programs, each with different eligibility criteria and different benefits. The first, managed by the Department of Labor (DOL), provides benefits only to workers with certain cancers and lung diseases. Benefits are a lump sum payment of $150,000 and coverage of future medical costs associated with the disease. The second is managed by DOE and focuses on workers not covered by the DOL program, such as workers with disease caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals. While the legislation did not provide federal benefits for these workers, the Act directs the department to help DOE contract workers with an occupational illness to apply for state workers' compensation benefits. Benefits will differ from state to state. For the DOE program, the legislation calls for worker medical records to be reviewed by an independent panel of physicians. If the physician's panel finds the worker's illness meets compensation criteria based on employment activities at an Energy Department facility, the DOE must assist the applicant in filing the claim. In addition, DOE may, to the extent permitted by law, direct a DOE contractor not to contest the claim or award, unless significant new evidence justifies a review. DOE is asking for comment on the proposed rule no later than October 9, 2001. A public meeting will be held on September 24, 2001 at 9:00 a.m in the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.. Public comments or requests to speak at the public meeting can be sent to: Ms. Loretta Young, Office of Advocacy, EH-8, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,Washington, D.C. 20585, subject line, " PHYSICIAN RULE COMMENTS." Those interested can call 202/586-2819, fax 202-586-6010, or email loretta.young@eh.doe.govfor further information. Specific information on the rule can be obtained from the Federal Register. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and additional information on the program can be found on the DOE Office of Advocacy website at http://www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy. Media Contact: Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806 Release No. R-01-153 ***************************************************************** 15 Nuclear cities face uncertainty ContraCostaTimes.com Published Monday, September 10, 2001 + Their poverty has prompted proliferation fears; foreign programs to boost their economies have had spotty success By Andrea Widener CONTRA COSTA TIMES Still encircled by tall fences 10 years after the Cold War ended, Russia's 10 nuclear weapons cities have brand new names but an uncertain future. These closed cities in Russia's most remote regions were once the heart of the nuclear weapons industry, with an elite status that made them sealed enclaves of science and culture. Now the cities' 760,000 residents are underpaid -- at times, unpaid -- and must rely on backyard gardens for food because store shelves are often bare. Along with their counterparts in missile, biological and chemical weapons cities, these homes of nuclear know-how present the most daunting challenge facing governments and nuclear watchdog groups. Fears that scientists and other weapons workers, desperate to support their families, will take their knowledge and bomb-making materials to countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, have fueled efforts to employ scientists and economically strengthen these cities, with spotty success. The one U.S. program specifically designed to help the secret cities' transition from weapons work to mainstream industry has faced years of precarious funding and support. "In Russia, there is a complicated situation," said Alexander Pikayev, who studies nonproliferation issues at the Carnegie Moscow Center. "There is no money to support (weapons scientists) to continue their activities. There is no money to convert them to civilian proposals." Life behind the fence Until recent years, Russia's nuclear cities didn't appear on maps. They were known only by post box numbers in nearby towns, such as Tomsk-7 or Arzamas-16. Residents were not allowed to leave to visit their families or travel. No foreigners were permitted inside. The cities and their research institutions were swept up in the stirrings of democracy and capitalism that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union. They changed their names, held their first city elections and encouraged entrepreneurship. They allowed Westerners inside the fences for the first time. Several established close ties with U.S. laboratory towns, which have much in common with their Russian counterparts. Snezhinsk is home to a laboratory like its sister city of Livermore, site of Lawrence Livermore Lab. The end of the Cold War was also a time of pain. Gone were the perks and comfortable salaries of old. Russia's budget for its nuclear weapons facilities is one-seventh of what it was 10 years ago. Its average weapons assembly worker earns $56 per month. "There is a lot of resentment of the difficult economic times," said Eileen Vergino, deputy director of the Livermore lab's Center for Global Security Research and a sister cities leader who has visited Snezhinsk a dozen times. Dire conditions at these cities and throughout Russia's nuclear complex panicked many international observers. "We were literally worried about these people picking up stakes and going to bad places," explained Laura Holgate, who heads Russian nuclear programs for the Nuclear Threat Initiative, formed by Ted Turner to fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the early 1990s, the United States and Europe set up stopgap programs to keep scientists from taking their knowledge to rogue states, and there have only been a few isolated cases of that happening. But the larger issue remains: Russia has too many nuclear sector employees -- at 75,000 more than twice as many as the United States -- and no money to convert them to peacetime work. Using resources As the United States did a decade ago, Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) plans to convert its nuclear program from active weapons production to maintenance. It expects to shut three of six assembly plants by 2005. In all, half the nuclear work force -- 35,000 people -- will be out of work. For closed cities, especially those where plants are shuttered, this means massive unemployment. MinAtom has plans to help these cities by, for example, encouraging industry to develop software products or medical devices, said Alexander Antonov, head of the agency's department of conversion. "The main idea is to use the incredible intellectual resources that are in the closed cities," said Antonov from MinAtom's Moscow offices. "We have to organize a favorable environment for them to work." But MinAtom has little money. Because of this, Russians say they welcomed working with the United States on the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the only program specifically designed to help conversion of nuclear cities. This Department of Energy initiative aims to strengthen city governments, help weapons institutes turn to industrial work, and encourage entrepreneurship among Russia's well-trained, but market-illiterate, citizens. In three cities -- Sarov, Snezhinsk and Zheleznogorsk -- the initiative has opened business development and computing centers, funded training on proposal writing and career changes, and sponsored city leadership training. In its most touted success, the initiative moved a mile-long concrete fence inside the closed city of Sarov, opening up former weapons disassembly buildings to industrial development. Already, a kidney dialysis equipment maker has moved into this area. But the program has fallen short of its goals during its three years, directly creating 370 jobs instead of thousands and drawing criticism in the United States and Russia. The General Accounting Office has called the program ineffective, and a recent National Security Council review recommended dropping some elements and merging the rest with other initiatives. The two major sticking points are money and access. Funding for the Nuclear Cities Initiative has gone up and down constantly since it began in 1998, peaking at $30 million a year. President Bush's budget for 2002 bottomed out at $6 million, although Congress will likely give the program more. That is much less than the $550 million program managers had expected over a five- to seven-year period. Russians say sporadic funding tests their commitment to continue working with the United States. Worse, very little money -- they say only $1 million total, although initiative officials dispute that -- has gone to cities and instead goes to U.S. labs and the Department of Energy, which runs the initiative. Initiative officials say start-up years are hard and require more money for management. Now that the program is established, more money will go to create jobs in cities. "In my opinion, we have not given it time to work." said Ken Baker, head of Russia nonproliferation programs at Energy. "The main thing is that we're in there. We're in Russian closed cities. It cannot be oversold right now." The stickiest problem may be access. After a decade of relative openness, a new federal security service -- the successor to the KGB -- and the cities are again clamping down. Foreign visitors must have approval to enter a closed city 45 days before their trip, a point critics say scares potential business investors. Even that notice doesn't get them in every time -- GAO investigators didn't get into any closed cities, and neither did this reporter. U.S. lab researchers who have been visiting for nearly a decade are now having problems. "We have to figure out how to do this differently," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, a strong supporter of nonproliferation programs who has visited Snezhinsk. Many, including Tauscher, argue that opening the cities to business is essential to their turnaround. But the cities don't necessarily want to open. Staying closed has protected them from some of the widespread corruption and instability that has gripped the rest of Russia. "They are safer and more stable in some ways," said Oleg Bukharin, a researcher at Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. MinAtom officials don't think access is a problem. Researchers enter these cities every day, Antonov said, and they are far more open than during the Cold War. They say having too many visitors turns into a form of "nuclear tourism" rather than meaningful visits. Despite access fights, Baker said an overarching agreement should be completed soon, although that settlement has been weeks away for five months. The agreement would allow businesses and lab researchers into the cities to work on the serious threat that remains. Until these programs begin to work, officials in Russia and the United States alike agree the threat of closed cities' researchers continuing to work on weapons, either for Russia or rogue countries, hasn't waned. "We are there trying to do not just a job for Russia and the United States but for the world," said Energy's Baker. "It is like a low-cost insurance policy for national security." ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 16 'Science cities' see their salvation in brain power ContraCostaTimes.com Published Monday, September 10, 2001 By Andrea Widener CONTRA COSTA TIMES OBNINSK, Russia -- Anton Yanovsky said the word "Naukograd" with a reverence that in other places is reserved for religion. For him, it means much more than "Science City." It means tax breaks for local business. It means extra money and independence for city government. It means recognition of knowledge harbored here. And it means a plan to pull Obninsk, a young city of research institutes and apartments, out of its economic slump, a decline gripping much of Russia since the Soviet Union fell apart a decade ago. Science and nuclear cities such as this one 60 miles southwest of Moscow were once helpless dependents of the Soviet state, which controlled everything from schools to street signs to salaries through the institutes and factories that were the primary employers. In the past decade, the federal government has all but orphaned these cities. It left behind newborn city governments wobbling under the weight of debilitated apartment buildings and obligatory pension payments. Along the way, city officials and citizens have had to totter through the messiness of an infant democracy. They've had to learn to listen, to compromise, to deal with election upheaval, such as a spring vote that may change the direction of Obninsk's city government. Unlike other Russian towns, science cities have a secret they hope will help them grow like the celebrated mushrooms in nearby birch forests: brain power. Entrepreneurs and U.S. development experts are convinced Russia's science and math education system, combined with a glut of low-paid lab scientists, can turn these cities into miniature versions of Silicon Valley. Obninsk was the first of a handful of science cities given special tax breaks and a small amount of funding as a naukograd. Others, such as the centuries-old military city of Krasnoarmeisk and the high-end science haven Akademgorodok, are using grants from nonprofit groups or U.S. government assistance to turn their fate around. "We don't have diamonds; we don't have coal deposits," said Yanovsky, a young physicist turned deputy director of this city's Science and International Relations Department. "The question was what kind of industry could be developed." An open Obninsk Think of it as the ultimate company town. "In reality, it was built as an institute, and around the institute a city developed," Yanovsky explained from his shared office in Obninsk, a city founded in 1954 where medium-rise apartment buildings are nearly indistinguishable from offices and labs. During the city's early days, its 110,000 citizens were shut off from the outside world by tall fences and strict visitation rules. This was the Soviet version of security, replicated in dozens of other cities with nuclear and military knowledge. Many cities, including 10 formerly secret nuclear weapons sites, remain closed. Obninsk has been open to visitors and its residents have been free to travel for almost 20 years, but the past decade brought new challenges as city government took responsibility for things such as health care and potholes, once the responsibility of the prominent research institutes here. Yanovsky and many others worked for years to get the official "science city" designation in 2000. It gives the city five years to attract businesses and create new ones, relying in large part on a wealth of underpaid and underemployed workers at its 12 federal research institutes. The designation spurred a large influx of grants from the U.S.-sponsored Eurasia Foundation, which is interested in creating the underpinning of civic organizations noticeably lacking in post-Soviet Russia. One grant funded Yanovsky's economic development plan; another put the city budget on the Web; a third set up a business park. "It was not funding of academic institutions. It was funding for adaptation," explained Eurasia's Irina Pilman, who manages the 15 Obninsk grants -- an experiment in focusing on one city. This project still leaves the city far from its goals. It wants to start businesses, privatize hundreds of apartments and increase incoming revenue. "We are just in the beginning of this," said Victor Latynov, a former city official who uses a grant to train entrepreneurs. New responsibilities The mayor's office in Krasnoarmeisk is in a sturdy 1870s brick building with tall windows and rare wood floors, itself almost a century older than Obninsk. But the two cities face many similar difficulties. This 27,000-person town northwest of Moscow was a 14th-century village with a strong local textile industry, whose main factory is still marked by tall metal gates. That industry drew the military during World War II and hence closed the city to visitors. Before long two-thirds of its residents worked for the factory and four military research institutes designing artillery. They owned schools, gardens, 96 percent of apartments and the cultural center. Krasnoarmeisk elected its first city government in 1991, just two years before it was handed responsibility for crumbling apartments and offices, heat and water, education and health care, and no money to do anything about them. In 1994, the population paid only 6 percent of its utilities, and the city was responsible for everything else, said Vitaly Pashentsev, the city's straightforward mayor. Pashentsev, a man with salt-and-pepper hair whose eyes crinkle as he talks, said he and fellow city officials have been learning democracy the hard way. Financial fixes needed to turn these problems around have been a hard sell to citizens, who don't understand why they should pay rent or utilities. The city wants residents to pay 80 percent of their utilities this year. With the help of a foundation created by billionaire American investor George Soros, these officials have taken their message to local talk radio, town meetings and focus groups. Soros' money paid a consultant to turn what residents say into a strategic plan. And they've had some success. Last year, a new perfume plant was built here. Through sometimes painful negotiations, the institute has given up several buildings and land for scientific development. Science business In cities big and small, one of the most promising hopes for economic development is Russia's massive science infrastructure. The economic downturn that orphaned fledgling cities also left thousands of scientists looking for jobs. In, Akademgorodok on the Siberian plains 1,800 miles from Moscow, Alexey Alexeev can tell you minute-by-minute movements of the Nasdaq, and how each dip might affect his computer software company. Alexeev, a small man with straight blond hair and a neat suit, has hired dozens of former scientists at Siberian Information Technologies to write computer programs for Western companies. He charges about $40 an hour, a pittance for U.S. programmers used to making $120 or $130, but a fortune for Russians often earning $80 a month. Besides the lure of low prices, Alexeev hopes Western business will be interested in the pedigree of these scientists, especially in math and physics. He says Russian programmers are better equipped than those in India, a predominant computer outsourcing powerhouse, to tackle complex problems. People don't think of Russia, said Serguei Simonov, who runs a technology park and collaborates with Virtual Pro of San Ramon to draw computer business to Russia. "Siberia is not only a frozen area," he said, flinging his arms for emphasis and nearly losing his metal-framed glasses. "In fact, it is a big (site) for intellectual resources." Back in Moscow, the U.S. Department of Energy is joining with the Kurchatov Institute to retrain the institute's nuclear weapons scientists to work in industry. Ten years ago, this federal institute employed 12,000 people. Now only 5,000 people work there, most earning less than $100 a month. To stem a potential exodus of scientists, the department's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention is linking 17 computer modeling experts with a Philadelphia-based phone company. The biggest challenge, said Boris Stavisski, director of the institute's business park project, isn't the science but teaching programmers how to work for Western companies. "The technical risk is very low," said Victor Alessi, a former Energy official who now works for the U.S. Industry Coalition, a group encouraging business investment in weapons scientists' technologies. "But it still has the problem that doing business in Russia is not easy." Nearly nonexistent Russian patent and contract laws, along with an economy in shambles, have kept most Western businesses away. Those problems, along with marketplace naiveté, have kept many Russian entrepreneurs from success. "(Western) companies need to be wary, but they need to understand that there is a lot more going on in Russia than what you hear in the press," said Virtual Pro's Martti Vallila, who began working with Russian software companies in 1993. "There are steps being taken to create stability." Yanovsky, the author of Obninsk's economic development plan, is optimistic that stability will be part of the city's future. When Yanovsky remembers the naukograd plan and all the hard work that went into it, he remembers the funders with a toast that has become a tradition: "To the American taxpayer." ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 17 Statistics ContraCostaTimes.com Published Monday, September 10, 2001 + ABOUT OBNINSK Residents: 110,000 Average monthly salary, Obninsk Institute of Physics and Power Engineering scientists: $40 Percent of those scientists who have dachas: 90 Percent with cars: 76 Percent with phones: 100 Percent of residents who say life is worse than it was a decade ago: 67 Percent of city taxes paid in goods and services: 80 + SURVEY OF RUSSIAN RESIDENTS ON WHAT WILL BE THE KEY FACTOR IN ECONOMIC GROWTH Obedience to laws by everybody, executives and ordinary people alike: 63 percent Achievement of political stability: 44 percent Rational exploitation of natural resources: 31 percent Formation of conditions for individual initiative and entrepreneurship: 27 percent Introduction of state of the art technologies: 22 percent Development of Russian science: 17 percent Development of education: 14 percent Aid from the West: 3 percent Sources: "Nuclear Perestroika, Technobusiness in Russia's Atomic Cities," "Russian Science and Technology at a Glance, 2000" ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 18 Initiatives ContraCostaTimes.com Published Monday, September 10, 2001 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY + Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention This program aims to employ weapons scientists by developing research technologies for industry. Once coordinating basic research, today it focuses on commercialization of well-developed technologies. Accomplishments: Provided employment to about 8,000 former Soviet weapons scientists. Commercialized six projects, with 13 expected next year. Began programs at 20 former biological weapons facilities. Money spent: $130 million through 2001 On the Web: www.nn.doe.gov/ipp.shtml + Nuclear Cities Initiative Designed to assist the conversion of the Russian weapons complex to civil uses, the program focuses on job creation and training for former weapons scientists. It's operating in three of the 10 closed nuclear cities to attract businesses and upgrade crumbling infrastructure, while working with the Russian government on a conversion plan. Accomplishments: Created 370 jobs and assisted in creating 173 more. It has moved a concrete fence, freeing 500,000 square feet of former weapons plant buildings for industrial use. Money spent: $42 million through 2001 On the Web: www.nn.doe.gov/nci.shtml U.S.-FUNDED NONPROFIT GROUPS + Civilian Research and Development Foundation A nonprofit group created in 1991, it promotes scientific and technical collaboration between the United States and former Soviet countries. Through government and nonprofit grants, it supports research projects to give scientists alternatives to leaving Russia, help weapons researchers switch to civilian work and create economic opportunity. Accomplishments: Created "Centers of Excellence" at a dozen Russian universities. Assisted companies and gave grants in many countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Armenia and Moldova. On the Web: www.crdf.org + U.S. Industry Coalition This nonprofit group helps U.S. companies identify and develop technologies from Russian weapons programs, specifically those created through the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention. Accomplishments: A half dozen projects in commercial development. Received $20 million funding from Credit Suisse First Boston to help supplement projects. On the Web: www.usic.net + The Eurasia Foundation Seeks to advance democracy and private enterprise in 12 former Soviet countries by awarding grants to individuals and developing nonprofit groups. Accomplishments: It has awarded 4,700 grants that promote private enterprise, public administration and bureaucracy reduction, and media and nonprofit organizations. Money spent: $95 million in federal and private funds through 1999 On the Web: www.eurasia.org OTHER NONPROFIT GROUPS + Soros Foundation's Open Society Institute Created by billionaire investor George Soros in 1993, the private grant-making foundation supports education, social and legal reform. Special initiatives in former Soviet countries focus on children and youth, health and medicine, and English language learning and science. Accomplishments: The Small Towns of Russia program has helped 35 small cities create plans to develop economic and social infrastructure in their cities, then share those results with the communities. Money spent: n/a On the Web: www.soros.org ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 19 RUSSIAN PROGRAMS Russian Foundati ... ContraCostaTimes.com Published Tuesday, September 11, 2001 RUSSIAN PROGRAMS + Russian Foundation for Basic Research A Russian government-funded initiative to create competitive grant-based science in Russia, a marked contrast from Soviet-era funding. It gives grants to proposals from individual researchers in natural sciences and the humanities. Accomplishments: More than 20,000 research projects have been competitively funded since 1995. Money spent: n/a On the Web: www.rfbr.ru OTHER NONPROFIT GROUPS + Soros Foundation's Open Society Institute Created by billionaire investor George Soros in 1993, this private grant-making foundation supports education, social and legal reform. Special initiatives in former Soviet countries focus on children and youth, health and medicine, and English language learning and science. Accomplishments: The International Soros Science Education Program has given salary supplements to thousands of undergraduate and graduate science students, high school teachers, and professors. It also funds a high school science Olympiad, publishes a science education journal and presents lectures on science topics throughout Russia. Money spent: More than $70 million. On the Web: www.soros.org ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 20 Russia struggles to revive its past renown in science Published Tuesday, September 11, 2001 + Scientists' salaries plummeted after the Soviet Union's collapse; many left for the West or abandoned the field By Andrea Widener CONTRA COSTA TIMES DUBNA, Russia -- As he walks darkened hallways toward an acclaimed particle accelerator, Yuri Lobanov remembers the early 1960s, when he arrived at this science city. That's when science was a high priority for the Soviets, a point of pride in a decades-long competition with the United States. The space race and Cold War were in full swing, and money flowed. Patriotism and prosperity attracted the best students to work in what was considered the highest calling. This lab, part of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, was built as a communist counterpart to Western scientific partnerships. "It was a place of culture," says Lobanov, as he walks into a control room for an accelerator whose exciting results in recent years include creating new elements on the periodic table, but whose sturdy black dials and silver switches now have the distinct feel of a 1950s science fiction movie. "It was like an island." Ten years after the Cold War's end, Russian science scrimps for every ruble. Researchers get by with old equipment and dim hallway lights to save electricity. Once among the most pampered members of society, scientists have seen their salaries plummet below those of Russian secretaries because of massive decreases in federal funds for science. Some of the most talented, especially young, promising students, have left science or left Russia to seek better-paying jobs. "If you're a hotshot engineer at an institute, 98 percent would say they would like to go abroad," says Glenn Schweitzer of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, author of "Swords into Market Shares," which is about Russia's economic and scientific prospects. There is, however, a hint of change. A decade-long decline in college science majors is reversing. Officials at the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences are considering plans to put more money toward young scientists' careers and encourage older ones to retire. Scientists in Dubna, a quiet city of tall trees and low brick buildings 75 miles north of Moscow, are lucky. The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research has a 40-year tradition of collaboration with international researchers, something stifled in many institutes in a formerly closed Russia. Those connections give researchers a chance for grants to supplement average $100-a-month salaries. Scientists at the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions, for example, have created previously unseen elements in intense competition with German and American groups. They have a longstanding partnership with Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientists that brings money and prestige to both. "We can't come back to the former organization of our science," says Vladimir Fortov, a vice president of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "It is impossible because the economic system and the social system is quite different." A dismal decade The second-floor classroom is humid and filled with healthy houseplants, a sharp contrast to the still-wintry April air of Akademgorodok in southwest Siberia. Ten high school students, boys with short haircuts and blazers and girls in ponytails and skirts, scribble notes as the gray-suited teacher writes the familiar "Aa+Aa = aa" of a basic genetics lesson. His deep voice holds their attention. They giggle as Gregory Dymshits ribs them about chicken heredity and their grandparents' eye color. Granted, these aren't typical students. They're attending an elite physics and math boarding school for Siberia's best students in this science city created by Stalin to rival intellectual centers in Moscow and St. Petersburg. And Dymshits isn't a typical teacher. He's a professional genetics researcher who has taught high school for 35 years. Ten years ago, he was chosen as one of Russia's best high school science teachers. That entitled him to a salary supplement from the International Soros Science Education Program, a fund set up by billionaire U.S. investor George Soros to keep Russian and other regional secondary schoolteachers, college professors and graduate students in science during a time when many were leaving to feed their families. That exodus was a big change for a country where science was among the most respected professions and a common career choice for smart young people. Communists saw science as a vital competitive tool and a way to prove the Marxist ideal. They rewarded its practitioners with well-paying jobs and hard-to-get apartments and cars. That commitment was mirrored in a Russian education system that emphasized science, especially physics and math. The result: a massive science infrastructure that at one time employed as many scientists as the United States, although this country's population is smaller by nearly 100 million. After the financial and political fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, salaries for these elite professionals fell from the equivalent of a U.S. scientist's salary to nearly nothing. Now a full professor at Moscow State University, Russia's top institution of higher education, earns $100 a month, and those at other schools earn $50 or less. High school science teachers are paid less than $30. Scientists once earned twice the average salary, which is now about $60 to $80 per month. That shocking dip created an equally disturbing departure from science. The most talented researchers, with good reputations and Western contacts, could leave for research jobs elsewhere. Many did, especially young people. Others left for business, which seemed a quick way to discover the joys of capitalism. Most Russia experts assumed the downturn would be just a blip while the economy recovered. An initial influx of Western philanthropy, most notably from Soros, who donated $70 million from 1994 to 1997, aimed to support the best scientists and science teachers for a short time by paying salaries and buying scientific journals. But in recent years, that support has begun to wane as few signs of an economic recovery have emerged. The Soros science program has halted programs to pay high-profile retired scientists and has severely cut back on salary supplements. "We can't stop it, but definitely, we helped a lot, " says Lydia Ryabova, a friendly former engineer who runs the funding programs for Soros professors. Federal and local Russian governments have not picked up financial support for Soros programs, as some had hoped. The government now spends less than half of what it spent on research 10 years ago, about 1.06 percent of its gross domestic product, or $2 billion -- even less than New Zealand or the Czech Republic. Few Russian businesses are motivated or financially strong enough to fund research. Remaining scientists often stayed because of family commitment, patriotism or a lack of opportunity abroad. Many work part-time jobs, as translators, computer teachers or drivers for visiting reporters, so they can continue in science. Others, such as physicist Alexander Bukin, spend months each year researching or teaching in Europe or the United States, earning enough to live the rest of the year. Each year for 13 years, Bukin has traveled from Akademgorodok almost 6,000 miles to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, where he works on high-energy physics experiments. It is difficult to leave family to come where you feel uncomfortable with the language, he says, sitting in the SLAC lobby in June with fellow Russians, including a first-time scientific visitor and a UC Berkeley student. "Many people choose to stay ... and not go abroad," Bukin says as he ducks down, uncomfortable with his perfectly passable English. "It is a quite personal decision." One of those who don't want to leave is 17-year-old science student Alexander Kurgan who is in Dymshits' biology class. Kurgan, from the Ural Mountains, understands that salaries might be better elsewhere, and many fellow students want to leave. But Kurgan, whose father is a policeman and whose mother works in a state insurance company in a town 750 miles away, is patriotic and wants to work here after he has his degree in physics, or maybe computers. "The future depends on us," he says. Saving science Keeping Kurgan and those like him will be a determining factor in whether science can survive and thrive in Russia. Some think Russian science just needs money to quickly recover. That's a partial solution, but the "youth problem" is the most serious issue, says Schweitzer of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "It used to be that being a professor was it. ... It is so much tied to financial status now," he says. "I think (the challenge) is convincing the young people that if they go into science they have a chance of making a living." Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin did little to acknowledge this or other science problems, but Vladimir Putin has mentioned science in several speeches, an encouraging sign for those hoping for restoration of money to science. In his large, picture-filled office overlooking the Moscow skyline, the Russian Academy of Sciences' Fortov says he will ask Putin to give more money to young scientists. His plan would allocate 10 percent of Russia's science budget to 10,000 promising young researchers, money they can use to buy equipment and hire graduate and post-doctoral students. "If the talented will be inside the country, we will find a solution," says Fortov, a large, serious man with a picture of himself and U.S. physicist Edward Teller in their younger days on the wall. "If they leave the country, nothing will help us." Russia has already implemented a competitive grant-based funding system, called the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. This, more than the overarching funding of the past, may allow the country to prioritize funding on research with the highest potential for success. Others think Russian business itself may one day save science. Two young businessmen, including the governor of an Eastern province, have promised millions to research. The young, dark-haired executive director of Soros' science education programs in Russia, Vladimir Zarnitsyn, says that won't happen until the tax code changes; money for science from philanthropists is taxed upwards of 40 percent. Zarnitsyn received his doctorate in physics from one of Moscow's most prestigious scientific colleges and has seen most classmates leave Russia or science. That, combined with what he sees as governmental failure to address the problem, leaves him less optimistic about the future. Pushing ahead Back in Dubna, Flerov lab scientists have lofty plans to build a new accelerator, announced with a colorful diagram to those entering the sturdy brick building's front door. They hope to explore the nature of an atom's nucleus with this new machine, continuing their international collaborations despite problems. "I could not say that the salary and the general resources strictly determine the results," says Yuri Oganessian, the Flerov lab director. "If you are a painter or a writer, if we pay you 10 times more it does not become 10 times better." The most successful part of Russian science is small labs such as his that raise their own funding, both from Russia and abroad, and produce good science, Oganessian says. "The scientific level is not made by the big institutions," he says. "The small groups are really the diamonds." Filename: russci.v07 Output by: alw at 07/21/01 12:10 PM Section: Page: 8 ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 21 THE STATE OF SCIENCE Russian d ... Published Tuesday, September 11, 2001 THE STATE OF SCIENCE + Russian doctoral and post-doctoral science degrees awarded: 1989: 33,734 1995: 14,313 1999: 15,204 + Research and development (R) personnel per 10,000 employees: 1992: 213 1995: 160 1999: 137 + Percent of gross domestic product spent on R: 1990: 2.03 1995: 1.79 1999: 1.06 + Source of Russian R dollars, 1999: Government: 49.9 percent Funds from abroad: 16.9 percent Business sector: 15.7 percent Internal institute funds: 10.4 percent + Most respected Russian professions in 1999 (ranked by percent of respondents): Businessman: 50 Politician: 21 Physician: 18 Skilled worker: 17 Journalist: 15 Tradesman: 14 Artist, actor, writer: 13 Teacher: 9 Farmer: 9 Scientist: 5 Military: 4 Engineer: 2 Don't know: 21 Source: "Russian Science and Technology at a Glance, 2000" ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 22 One emigre's optimistic view Published Tuesday, September 11, 2001 + Alexandre Telnov, who left to study here six years ago, says Russia's strong science education system will help it recover Alexandre Telnov knows plenty of Russian scientists working in the United States. In fact, it took just a few minutes for this ardent young man with straight, pale blond hair and lots to say to find two Russian colleagues at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. He pulled them aside to chat about the state of Russian science. All three are from Akademgorodok, a southwestern Siberian city packed with research institutes and high-level scientists. Telnov left his hometown six years ago to study high energy physics at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, nearly 6,000 miles away. When he first left, people would ask, "How can you go study in California where it is sunny all of the time?" Telnov remembered. But Telnov, who goes by the nickname Sasha, came for more than just the weather. He decided studying in the United States would allow him to do more serious research more quickly. And it shows. Although his round cheeks make him look younger, Telnov seems older than his 26 years, and he has the responsibilities of someone older. He said he's already had the opportunity to take on responsibility in the massive Babar project, a Stanford Linear Accelerator Center project looking at subatomic particles. That's something that wouldn't be possible in Russia, both because there aren't big international projects there and because Russian education focuses on theory rather than practice. Telnov has a whole host of issues with both Russian and Western science, and he ticked them off the hand-written list he pulled from his pocket. Respect for both Russian science and the prestigious Academy of Sciences has fallen. Few businesses are jumping up to sponsor research. Russia is unlikely to host a major international research project anytime soon, because a host country usually pays at least half the costs. Taken together, these problems have driven scientists out of Russia. "I don't think these people are lost forever to Russia as scientists," Telnov said. He said science in Russia can recover because its students have a strong base in science-- stronger than what he hears about the U.S. system -- and a more open peer-review process. "I tend to be optimistic about the future of Russia," he said. "Even though we have a not-so-good government that is mismanaging the country, I think eventually Russia will begin a normal development." And Telnov still hasn't decided whether or not he will return to Russia. -- Andrea Widener ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 23 Experts: Signatures were falsified Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. Experts: Signatures were falsified (Vladivostok, Far East:) On september 6, the Pacific Fleet Court announced the conclusion of the handwriting experts that were summoned to Court on September 3. Their conclusion was favourable for Pasko's defence. Grigory Pasko at sea outside Vladivostok Photo: Vlad Nikiforov Jon Gauslaa, 2001-09-10 19:46 The handwriting experts were called in to evaluate whether two signatures in the protocol from the search of Pasko's flat in November 1997 were falsified or not. At the first Pasko-trial in 1999 two of the witnesses that apparently had signed the search protocol claimed that their signatures had been falsified. This time, one of them said that the signature in the protocol was his and thus, an expert evaluation of their handwriting had to be carried out. Falsified signatures After both witnesses had given their signatures in Court, the experts compared these signatures with the ones in the protocol, and their conclusion was clear: The signatures in the protocol of the search and the signatures that were given in court, are not made by the same persons. - This confirms that the signatures in the protocol were falsified, said defender Ivan Pavlov. We will use the expert-conclusion as one of our arguments for substantiating that the protocol from the search must be disqualified as evidence and that the search was carried out illegally. Pasko and his lawyers waiting for the court to start Photo: Vlad Nikiforov SVR appears at the stage The Court has recently also evaluated various documents attached to the case file in which the Russian Intelligence Service (SVR) gives a general analysis over how Japanese intelligence services work. The documents also mention that several of the persons involved in the Pasko-case as witnesses or in other ways have connection with these services. - This is only allegations, said Ivan Pavlov. We drew the Court's attention to the fact that loose and unsubstantiated allegations hinting that this or that person works for foreign intelligence, by no means can be considered as evidence in a criminal case. The attorney also said that the defence had pointed out that there were no traces in the case files of requests from the FSB to the SVR asking for the said materials. - It is a mystery how these documents got into the case files, and we hope that the Court will give an adequate evalution of this, he said. Pasko and his lawyer Ivan Pavlov Photo: Vlad Nikiforov Trial to continue well into October On September 10, some of the investigators that took part in the search of Pasko's flat and the two witnesses whose signatures were falisified, will be questioned in Court. - After this we will have finished most of the witness-interrogations and the evalution of the case documents, said Ivan Pavlov. The expert evaluation of whether there are state secrets or not in the materials that allegedly were confiscated at Pasko's flat, and the audio-expertise of the tappings of Pasko's telephone do however still remain. The latter seem to be dragging out and thus, we will probably not see a verdict before the end of October, he said. Journalist Grigory Pasko was arrested on November 21, 1997 on charges of espionage on behalf of the Japanese TV-station 'NHK'. He was acquitted of espionage in July 1999, but found guilty of abuse of office and freed under a general amnesty. Seeking a full acquittal, Pasko appealed the verdict, but so did the prosecution, insisting he was a spy. The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court cancelled the verdict in November 2000, and sent the case back to Vladivostok for a re-trial. After a number of postponements the re-trial started on July 11, 2001. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************