But even if for some reason the measure is unsuccessful, cleanup at the site will be done, says a spokesman for the Corps.
Larry Rosenberg, chief of public relations for the Corps, says if his agency doesn't get the authority to continue work on the site, then the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will finish the job.
Dave Lederer of the EPA said he could not comment on Rosenberg's statements, but that `` we have no reason to believe this legislation will not go through.''
Lawmakers from the area say they expect the enabling legislation to be introduced around Labor Day, after Congress returns to session.
A public meeting in Norton has been scheduled for Sept. 11, by which time the legislation should have passed, said Rosenberg. The time and place of the meeting have yet to be finalized.
He said agency representatives want to inform the public first-hand about what has transpired on the project. Three weeks ago they announced they no longer had the authority to proceed after taking it on from the Department of Energy about three years ago.
Rosenberg maintained that awaiting the enabling legislation merely represents a `` pause'' in the project, which has been a Superfund site for more than two decades.
`` Work has been paused as a result of the Corps living right up to the letter of the law, but it has not stopped,'' he said.
He claims work is continuing on remediation plans and the schedule is being adjusted for work on site.
`` You might not see somebody in a hard hat on the site, but work is still going on,'' he said.
The Corps of Engineers is following a finding by consultants hired for the project that the government has no liability for waste being dumped at the 8-acre Shpack site on the Attleboro line.
Heather Graf of Norton, head of the citizens advisory committee for the project, said no one outside of the Corps of Engineers has seen the report by the consultants.
She is also skeptical about the Corps' claims that work is still being done on the cleanup plans and that legislation will be passed quickly enough to make up for the more-than-month-long hiatus.
Lederer of the EPA said the so-called potentially responsible parties are also expected to present work plans for remediation of non-radioactive wastes at the site at the Sept. 11 meeting.
`` We're hoping to get them in the field this fall,'' he said of the work to `` characterize'' the site's contaminants other than the radioactive waste.
*****************************************************************
10 Critics take aim at nuclear tax benefit in House energy bill
By Melissa B. Robinson, Associated Press, 8/10/2001 10:45
WASHINGTON (AP) If you're responsible for shutting down and
cleaning up a nuclear power plant, should you get a tax break for
it?
Public utilities can deduct the huge amounts typically hundreds
of millions of dollars they must set aside in special funds for
decommissioning.
Now, corporations are poised to get the same benefit even though
they aren't subject to the same level of regulation.
''This won't produce a single more megawatt of electricity to
meet summer reliability needs,'' said Howard Learner of the
Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, which has
lobbied against giving corporations the break.
''All it will do is transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from
consumers wallets to nuclear plant owners,'' he said.
At issue is a potential change in the U.S. Tax Code that was
vetoed in 1999 by then-President Clinton, revived by the Bush
administration and approved last week as part of the House energy
bill. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which will
consider its own energy package this fall.
All nuclear power plant owners, public and private, are required
by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to maintain
decommissioning funds as a way of ensuring that there's enough
money to safely close and clean the plants after they stop
generating power.
But when the plants change hands from regulated owners say,
public utilities to unregulated owners say, private companies the
funds don't keep their ''qualified'' tax status. That means they
are no longer tax deductible.
For electric companies, which contributed over $18.5 million to
Democratic and Republican candidates and parties in the 1999-2000
election cycle, it's a case of tax law not keeping up with
changes in the electricity marketplace.
As states increasingly deregulate their electric industries, more
private owners are getting into the nuclear power business.
Since New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. bought the Pilgrim nuclear
power station in Plymouth, Mass., from Boston Edison Co., in July
1999, eight nuclear reactors have been bought up by private
companies.
The biggest deal was closed four months ago, when Richmond,
Va.-based Dominion Inc. bought the Millstone nuclear power
complex in Waterford, Conn., for $1.3 billion. The sum was the
highest ever paid per kilowatt.
''There's absolutely no reason for any distinction to be made
here,'' said David Brown, lobbyist for Chicago-based Exelon
Corp., the largest private nuclear operator in the United States.
Now, private companies can get a tax break on their
decommissioning costs, but only by appealing to the Internal
Revenue Service.
A change in the law, said Ron Clements, a power industry
lobbyist, would help facilitate deals that might otherwise fall
through, keeping nuclear plants on-line to churn out much-needed
electricity for homes and businesses.
In cases where deals go through anyway, customers will end up
paying more for power, he said.
''Rates will go up,'' said Clements of the Edison Electric
Institute, the main trade association of private power companies.
Critics, though, say it's wrong to give a tax break to
corporations that are seeking to maximize their profits and, so,
can bear the costs of decommissioning. By contrast, public
utilities have their rates of return set by state regulators.
''Fair is fair,'' said Learner. ''It's part of the cost of doing
business.'' The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has
estimated that the change, and other tax changes related to
nuclear decommissioning, would cost the federal government $1.93
billion in revenue from 2002-2011.
*****************************************************************
11 Nuke Plant Tax Break Criticized
Las Vegas SUN
August 10, 2001
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration wants to change the tax
code to make sure all owners of nuclear power plants can write
off the cost of decommissioning.
Utilities that have rates set by government agencies already can
deduct the money they must set aside in special funds for
decommissioning, typically hundreds of millions of dollars. The
tax break is not automatically transferred, however, when a plant
is bought by a company without regulated rates.
In those cases, the Internal Revenue Service must approve a tax
break. The IRS has done that routinely since a flurry of nuclear
plant sales began two years ago. Even so, opponents who don't
want to see the tax break written into law contend it will do
nothing but guarantee more revenue for plant owners.
"This won't produce a single more megawatt of electricity to meet
summer reliability needs," said Howard Learner of the
Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center. "All it will
do is transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers'
wallets to nuclear plant owners'."
Supporters say it makes no sense for a tax break already in place
for a plant not to be automatically transferred to a new owner.
"There's absolutely no reason for any distinction to be made
here," said David Brown, lobbyist for Chicago-based Exelon Corp.,
the largest private nuclear operator in the United States.
The issue is growing in importance because more nuclear power
plants are likely to be sold as electricity is increasingly
deregulated across the country. New Orleans-based Entergy Corp.,
for example, has said it plans to spend up to $1.5 billion to
acquire as many as a dozen plants in the next five years.
Like private companies, most "public" utilities are owned by
investors. The difference is they are obligated to provide power
to everyone in their service areas. In exchange for their
monopoly status, their rates and earnings are regulated by
states.
The tax break was vetoed in 1999 by President Clinton but was
revived by the Bush administration and approved last week as part
of the House energy bill. It faces an uncertain future in the
Senate, which will consider its own energy package this fall.
Now, when nuclear power plants are sold from rate-regulated to
nonregulated owners, the decommissioning money doesn't retain the
"qualified" tax status and thus are no longer tax deductible.
The new owners still are required by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to maintain the funds to ensure that money is on hand
to close and clean the plants safely after they stop generating
power.
Electric companies, which contributed more than $18.5 million to
Democratic and Republican candidates and parties in the 1999-2000
election cycle, say it's a case of tax law not keeping up with
changes in the electricity marketplace.
Since Entergy bought the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in
Plymouth, Mass., from Boston Edison Co. in July 1999, eight
nuclear reactors have been sold from rate-regulated to
nonregulated owners.
The biggest deal was closed four months ago, when Richmond,
Va.-based Dominion Resources Inc. bought the Millstone nuclear
power complex in Waterford, Conn., for $1.3 billion.
A change in the law, said Ron Clements, a power industry
lobbyist, would help facilitate deals that might otherwise fall
through, keeping nuclear plants online to churn out much-needed
electricity for homes and businesses.
In cases where deals go through anyway, customers will end up
paying more for power, he said.
"Rates will go up," said Clements, of the Edison Electric
Institute, the main trade association of private power companies.
Critics say it's wrong to give a tax break to corporations that
want to maximize their profits and thus could bear the costs of
decommissioning. "Fair is fair," Learner said. "It's part of the
cost of doing business."
The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that
the change, and other tax changes related to nuclear
decommissioning, would cost the federal government $1.93 billion
in revenue from 2002-2011. --- On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission: http://www.nrc.gov
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
12 New Energy Stressed in China's Strategy for Next Five Years
Saturday, August 11, 2001, updated at 10:07(GMT+8)
New energy resources and renewable sources of energy will become
the key field in the China 's energy strategy in the coming five
years, sources with the State Development Planning Commission
said Friday, August 10.
According to a plan the commission has drafted for the
development of energy, China will import more advanced overseas
technologies to localize and industrialize the production of wind
power generating units.
By the year 2005, the proportion of coal in the consumption of
primary energy is expected to drop by 3.88 percentage points from
that of the year 2000, and clean energy like natural gas and
hydro- electric power will increase by 5.6 percentage points.
In the next five years, China will have an average annual growth
rate of 13.19 percent in the production of natural gas, 8. 38
percent in that of hydropower and 29.67 percent in that of
nuclear power.
The State Development Planning Commission will soon work out a
preferential price for new energy, and will adopt a quota system
for renewable sources of energy.
China will step up its efforts to establish an oil and natural
gas production base in the western part of the country, and start
a project to transport oil and natural gas from the west to the
east.
To this end, more foreign capital will be used and foreign
cooperation will be expanded.
China will also build overseas oil-gas supply bases, and quicken
the pace in establishing a national oil and natural gas reserve
system.
China will establish model projects to promote the application of
advanced technologies to clean coal and coal-bed methane
production, while building 40 coal cleaning plants with a total
production capacity of 100 million tons per year.
The nation's total installed power generating capacity will reach
370 million kw by 2005, and the power output will grow to 1. 73
trillion kwh.
Power grids in both urban and rural areas will be basically
transformed in the five years, when the price of electricity will
be lowered and different power producers will have to compete to
supply electricity to customers.
New energy resources and renewable sources of energy will
become the key field in the China 's energy strategy in the
coming five years, sources with the State Development Planning
Commission said Friday, August 10.
Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
13 USEC's recycling bid adds to dispute
The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Saturday, August 11, 2001
The company is in a consortium that was added as a finalist to recycle
hazardous waste. The late entry causes speculation.
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
Controversy swirling around U.S. Enrichment Corp. contract talks
and Russian uranium has spread to the company's bid to recycle
about 14 billion pounds of hazardous waste at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant.
On Monday, the Department of Energy announced that a consortium
including USEC was one of three finalists for cleaning up about
57,000 cylinders of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6) at
Paducah and closed enrichment plants in Ohio and Tennessee. DOE,
which owns the USEC-run Paducah plant, expects to name a winner
in late October.
American Conversion Services, composed of USEC and cleanup firm
CH2M Hill, made the short list despite not being initially
recommended by an Energy Department board that reviewed five
bids, according to the Friday edition of The Energy Daily, a
nuclear industry trade publication.
"Sources suggest various political factors involving USEC may be
responsible for its late addition to the list of finalists," the
article said. "One rumor is that DOE wants to give USEC some
other work to compensate for a possible Bush administration
decision to name another executive agent to serve with USEC in
implementing a U.S.-Russian nonproliferation agreement calling
for U.S. purchases of high-enriched uranium derived from Russian
nuclear warheads."
Contract talks with the Paducah plant's main labor union broke
off Wednesday after USEC refused to withdraw the Russian uranium
issue from bargaining.
USEC wants a proposed new five-year contract to expire after a
year if the company fails to meet any of three goals regarding
the Russian material. In voting last week, the union soundly
defeated the offer, and has since accused USEC of using labor
tactics to try to force a Bush administration decision.
In response to The Energy Daily story, USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth
Stuckle said the company was fairly picked as a finalist for the
cylinder work.
"DOE has very detailed and established processes for selection of
finalists," she said. "We are confident that they adhered to
these policies. We are working very diligently preparing for our
upcoming oral discussions with DOE."
Energy Department spokesman Walter Perry said the board
recommended three finalists, including the USEC consortium, whose
names were published on a DOE Web site Monday. The selections,
based on "competitive range," were approved by James Owendoff,
DOE's principal deputy assistant secretary for environmental
management, he said.
Stuckle said each finalist will meet separately with Energy
Department officials during the next few weeks. After that,
bidders can amend their proposals before a winner is picked,
Stuckle said.
USEC, which has battled financial trouble since it was privatized
in 1998, wants to remain sole agent for the $8 billion in Russian
uranium to control its flow into the United States and hold down
overall costs. The company says blending the cheaper Russian
material with the higher-cost uranium enriched by the Paducah
plant helps preserve jobs.
However, some industry analysts say having a second agent would
spur competition and benefit consumers by lowering the prices
charged to U.S. nuclear power plants that use enriched uranium.
The Bush administration is considering that and other issues in
its review.
The winning bidder for the cleanup work will build facilities at
Paducah and its closed sister plant in Ohio to convert spent UF6
into a safer material. Construction is scheduled to start by Jan.
31, 2004. Some past estimates have shown each plant would employ
100 to 200 people, depending on the level of government
involvement.
*****************************************************************
14 Homer Simpson has a good job, but fanatics are out to get him -
smh.com.au -
Saturday, August 11, 2001
By Padraic P. McGuinness
There's something about local government which seems to induce
mental states bordering on psychiatric disorders. Sutherland
Council has just displayed a textbook example of this borderline
psychosis by proposing to remove Captain Cook's likeness from its
public logo in favour of a dolphin - why not a whale? Maybe this
is evidence that the council is right about at least one thing,
namely the danger of having a nuclear reactor in the
neighbourhood.
It is clear that the existence and proposals for any nuclear
reactors for any purpose are productive of widespread hysteria,
irrationality and baseless fears. Not to mention a lot of
outright lying. Clearly nuclear reactors are bad for the mental
health of humanity and should be opposed on this ground alone.
After all, there is no other sensible reason for opposing them.
For a generation people have been happily building houses and
bringing up children nearer and nearer to Lucas Heights research
reactor in Sutherland Shire, apparently indifferent to its
supposed dangers and evil radiation, and without any visible or
detectable evidence of physical harm. Only the mental harm done
to would-be politicians and noisy nimbys can be ascribed to the
reactor.
Now that it is proposed to replace the antique which has been
grinding out vital medical isotopes for years with a new, better
and safer model, the hysteria is building. No matter how many
favourable reports by experts are produced, every piece of
non-evidence from Californian gurus to Homer Simpson is being
adduced to feed the strange anti-nuclear psychosis.
One might think that if there is a danger of global warming from
the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of
excessive use of fossil fuels, a clean substitute like nuclear
power would be welcome. But the more fanatical the dire warnings
of global warming, the more determined becomes the opposition to
nuclear power generation. The reality, of course, is that the
fanatical environmentalists are far more opposed to consumption
and human welfare than to nuclear power or global warming.
Nothing is acceptable which might make it possible for us to be
better off and more environmentally friendly.
We see frequent assertions of myths about the dangers of nuclear
power, uranium mining and so on, even in the usually sober and
responsible pages of a journal like this, without any evidence of
serious analysis. Now Colin Keay, a retired nuclear physicist and
astronomer and an active long-term member of the Australian
Skeptics, has produced a little pamphlet devoted to the rebuttal
of many of these myths. Chief among them is Chernobyl. How many
people have died as a result of this accident to one of four
reactors in this power station? As so often it is usually a
matter of a chain of exaggerations, with at one stage the
Australian Conservation Foundation claiming 250,000. In fact,
there have been 40 deaths ascribable to Chernobyl, even if one
includes the estimate of 10 childhood deaths from thyroid cancer,
which would have been completely curable with proper medication.
There is no evidence of higher than usual rates of death in the
neighbourhood since. But one estimate of the number of
unnecessary abortions performed as a result of alarmist warnings
comes to 50,000. The real killers were the anti-nuclear lobby and
its gullible victims. And it is well known that the cause of the
Chernobyl problem was a faulty reactor design, Homer Simpson-like
practices, and the failure to use containment vessels.
The "China Syndrome", popularised by the film of that name, is
pure nonsense. A reactor that managed to make its way to the
centre of the Earth would be absorbed like a drop of water into
the ocean of molten radioactive magma. But Three Mile Island, a
demonstration of the inherent safety of nuclear reactors, managed
to melt only a fraction of an inch into the base of its
containment vessel.
"There is no good way to dispose of nuclear waste." There are
several, including Synroc containment and nuclear incineration.
"High-level nuclear waste threatens human life for 250,000 years"
- or whatever other period appeals to the fevered imagination of
the doomsayers. Plutonium can be disposed of safely by dilution
with other matter and dispersal, just as radioactive ash from
coal-fired power stations is disposed of into the atmosphere with
no ill effects. "Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances
known." It is not even in the top 10. Thorium-232, found commonly
in beach sand deposits, is much more toxic.
As Keay says: "In the massive Handbook of Toxicology of Metals
plutonium does not rate a mention except in passing in the entry
for uranium." And it decays. By contrast really deadly elements,
like thallium, retain their toxicity forever. Nor is it true that
plutonium is "the most carcinogenic substance in the world". "A
single nuclear particle may initiate a cancer or mutation." It
might, but it probably won't. And it is more likely to come from
the decay of the radioactive potassium all of us have in our
bodies.
The marine transport of nuclear material could involve the
equivalent of Chernobyl - this is one of the many lies generated
by Greenpeace. The fuel being transported to Japan earlier this
year could not possibly have escaped in any catastrophic form,
and "the level of radioactivity is so low that sinking the ship
transporting it would create a very minor elevation of activity
on the seabed".
Keay lists myth after myth, and neatly disposes of them all. But
he does not account for the mental harm done by nuclear materials
- since this is, in fact, harm done by people to people, without
the intervention of any material, nuclear or otherwise.
Colin Keay's Nuclear Energy Fallacies is available from The
Enlightenment Press, PO Box 166, Waratah, 2298.
ppmcg@ozemail.com.au
*****************************************************************
15 Hodges vows to block plutonium shipments
[charlotte.com]
Published Friday, August 10, 2001
CHANGE IN U.S. POLICY
S.C. officials worryEnergy Departmentwill leave waste in state
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is revamping a Clinton-era
plan to dispose of 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium amid cost
overruns, prompting threats from South Carolina's governor to
block shipments into the state.
An Energy Department report, made public Thursday by a private
group, concludes that the cost of disposing of the plutonium will
be at least $6.6billion over 22 years, about 50percent more than
estimated two years ago.
At the same time, the Bush administration has put on hold part
of the program that called for some of the plutonium to be put in
glass logs for eventual burial at the Yucca Mountain nuclear
repository in Nevada, once that facility is approved.
That decision has brought complaints from S.C. officials, who
are concerned that the department will ship tons of plutonium
from its weapons facilities into the state for processing with no
assurance the material will ever leave the state.
"When South Carolina agreed to accept plutonium DOE agreed that
there would a clear exit strategy," S.C. Gov. Jim Hodges said
recently.
Hodges, a Democrat, said the shifting nature of the government's
plutonium disposition strategy suggests that the Energy
Department "plans to renege on many of its prior commitments" to
the state.
Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis said that Energy Secretary
Spencer Abraham is eager to resolve the dispute.
In 1999, the Clinton administration announced a dual strategy
for getting rid of the excess plutonium from Cold War-era
warheads and plutonium found at weapons facilities. Under the
plan, part would be converted into fuel for burning in civilian
power reactors, and the rest would be put in glass containers and
buried in Nevada.
But earlier this year, the Bush administration stopped funding
the immobilization program and announced the entire plutonium
disposal plan was being reviewed.
Abraham suggested that the immobilization track would be resumed
later, but S.C. officials fear that might never happen.
*****************************************************************
16 Vietnam takes first step towards nuclear power plant
Radio Australia News - 12/08/01:
Vietnam Prime Minister Phan Van Khai has ordered a
pre-feasibility study for the construction of the communist
state's first nuclear power station.
The information ministry's Van Hoa (Culture) newspaper said the
study was to be completed by the end of year,
Even though Vietnam is a producer of both oil and gas, the
communist authorities have long wanted to develop a nuclear
energy programme. The pre-feasibility study is the first concrete
step.
Vietnam already has a research reactor in the central highland
town of Dalat which was originally built by the Americans when
the town was still ruled by the US-backed Saigon regime.
(12/08/01, 11:00:24 AEST)
This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence France-Presse
(AFP) and Reuters which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. |
*****************************************************************
17 Army Corps reviewing plan for next phase of Superfund cleanup
Saturday, August 11, 2001
By TOM DAVIS
Staff Writer
MAYWOOD -- Michael Nolan was tired of the federal government
dictating the terms of its cleanup of Maywood Chemical Superfund
sites, so he took his case to the public.
Nolan was one of about 10 people on Thursday who attended the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' display of the agency's plans to
spend more than $21 million to clean up 10 contaminated
properties.
While the corps provided photo displays and piles of
documentation in the Maywood Library basement, the Lenox Avenue
resident set up his own table, and provided his own literature.
Since 1984, the corps has cleaned up 64 of 88 soil and
groundwater sites in Maywood, Lodi, and Rochelle Park
contaminated by chemicals used by Maywood Chemical Co. But Nolan
wants the corps to clean up the rest.
"Why the hell don't they just clean [it] all up? They're playing
games," said Nolan, who distributed hats that said U.A.O. It
stands for "up and out."
The federal agency is now seeking public approval to tackle the
next phase in the cleanup of one of North Jersey's largest
Superfund sites.
The corps will continue soliciting comment through Aug. 24.
Allen Roos, a project administrator, said his agency will review
the material by October or November and determine whether to
proceed.
The company relied on thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive
metal, to make parts for gas lanterns on its West Hunter Avenue
property until 1956. During the 1950s, the government refined
thorium for use as nuclear energy.
Roos said the affected properties include a Sears distribution
center and a Gulf station on Route 17, but the Army Corps
believes the project will not affect the operations of either
business. The agency will evaluate the site to determine how to
proceed, he said.
Peggy Palter, a Sears spokeswoman, said it's too early to
determine whether the distribution center will have to close
while the Army Corps is excavating contaminated soil from the
site.
Roos said the federal agency hopes to remove soil that could be
impacted by the state Department of Transportation's replacement
of the Essex Street Bridge over Route 17 in Maywood and Lodi,
which is supposed to begin by spring.
Roos acknowledged the federal government next year is supposed
to complete its cleanup of 17,000 cubic yards of thorium-laced
soil at the radioactive W.R. Grace industrial site in Wayne.
But he said the Wayne site is only 6.5 acres, while the Maywood
sites total more than four times that size. "Nobody's doing
anything slow on purpose," Roos said.
Some Maywood officials and residents objected to the Army Corps
using the Maywood Chemical Co. property as an interim disposal
site, where contaminated soil will be stored and then shipped on
a railroad car to a permanent location in Utah.
Roos said the corps will store soil at the site for two or three
days at a time, laying the material on tarp-covered lining to
prevent surface contamination.
But that wasn't good enough for Councilman Thomas Gaffney, a
state Assembly candidate, who believes the corps should
concentrate on cleaning the Maywood Chemical site first.
"If they're bringing dirt into our town, they should pay us for
it," he said.
Staff Writer Tom Davis' e-mail address is davist@northjersey.com
Copyright © 2001 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
*****************************************************************
18 Wildlife refuge does not shortchange cleanup
Denver Post.com
rocky flats cleanup
By Mark Udall and Wayne Allard
--> Sunday, August 12, 2001 - Coloradans have debated about Rocky
Flats almost since 1952, when it became a site for production of
nuclear weapons. But now that the site is being cleaned up and
readied for closure, we are facing new challenges and a new
opportunity.
The challenges are to ensure the site is thoroughly and safely
cleaned up, compensation is made for adverse effects on workers'
health, the site's legacy of service to the nation is
memorialized, and the high plains prairie landscape preserved.
The opportunity is to lay the foundation for a future for Rocky
Flats that will instill lasting benefits for the environment and
for Colorado.
Following the decision to shut down the site, the public began to
consider its ultimate future. It was agreed that the site should
remain open to preserve its relatively untouched prairie
ecosystem and to stem the tide of burgeoning growth and
development spreading outside its borders. We picked up on this
consensus and have introduced legislation to preserve it as a
national wildlife refuge.
Unfortunately, this vision has created still further controversy
from those who say that such a designation will result in
lessening the cleanup requirements. We agree that the site must
be thoroughly cleaned up. That is why we will continue to require
that all environmental laws be followed and that the standards
guiding the cleanup not be lessened because of the site becoming
a wildlife refuge.
Much of the cleanup work remains to be done. But the decisions we
make today can determine the extent of that cleanup. We shared
the concerns of many when it was determined in 1999 that - at
least for the interim - the amount of radioactive contamination
that may remain at the site could be higher than other similarly
contaminated sites across the country. That's why we were keenly
interested in the results of a restudy of these cleanup levels by
the local communities to determine what level makes sense for
this site.
These levels, the so-called "soil action levels," require that
cleanup actions be taken if contamination is found in the soil at
or above the amount set by these levels. In establishing these
levels, it is necessary to consider the ultimate use of the land
so that we have a better understanding of the remaining risks.
Our legislation provides that the wildlife refuge designation
cannot be used to justify a lower cleanup requirement than would
otherwise apply (weakening the "soil action levels"), but such
designation can be used to help set these levels. We believe that
using a future wildlife refuge scenario as the basis for cleanup
requirements may actually force a more thorough cleanup than
would otherwise be the case. A wildlife refuge will involve
employees working for long hours in the habitat and soil. This
could require more cleanup than would simple open space.
Furthermore, the wildlife refuge designation would not preclude
further cleanup beyond protection for refuge workers if such
action were feasible and would result in greater protection of
water resources and other considerations.
Some have argued that we should go further and clean up the site
to a level required for home sites. We have the following
concerns with that approach:
If we agree that Rocky Flats should remain open space or a
wildlife refuge, then it does not make sense to require that the
site be cleaned to a level of use that it will likely never see.
Once the site becomes a wildlife refuge, this protective status
would remain because no national wildlife refuge has been
eliminated by Congress.
We think that requiring that Rocky Flats be treated as if it
could be covered with homes and shopping centers - or a
family-occupied ranch - would bring renewed pressure to develop
the site. After all, it would be reasonable for development
supporters to demand that spending tax dollars to clean it up to
this level should result in a commensurate return on this
investment - a return that could be realized through development.
That could be the end of Rocky Flats as an intact whole
characterized by open space and wildlife habitat.
It's important to emphasize that the soil action levels are but
one factor in determining the full cleanup approach. Other
factors include surface water protection, stewardship obligations
and further risk reduction opportunities that go beyond minimum
requirements. So, even though the soil action levels are
important, they alone do not govern how clean Rocky Flats
ultimately will be.
We do not have a preconceived view on exactly what level of
cleanup should be required. That is still being evaluated, with
public input. However, we will continue to ensure that the
cleanup level protects the public and the environment, is
consistent with collective wishes for the site's ultimate use and
is fiscally responsible. We believe that our wildlife refuge
legislation accomplishes these goals and deserves the support of
all who want to see Rocky Flats remain undeveloped.
Mark Udall is a Democratic U.S. representative and Wayne Allard
is a Republican U.S. senator, both reprensenting Colorado.
All contents Copyright 2001 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
19 S. Carolina in position to be picky
Rocky Mountain News: State
By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer
South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges says he'll "lie down in front of
the trucks" to halt plutonium shipments from Rocky Flats to a
storage site in the Palmetto State.
Shipments of the most deadly material at Rocky Flats, scheduled
to begin after Oct. 1, are a major step in cleaning up the
defunct nuclear weapons plant 18 miles northwest of downtown
Denver. The plutonium will go to the U.S. Energy Department's
Savannah River Site near Aiken, S.C.
But Hodges on Thursday ordered the South Carolina Department of
Public Safety to "evaluate options for highway roadblocks or
other measures" to halt the shipments.
"We must be prepared to stand up to Washington," he said in a
memo to public safety director Boykin Rose. "We cannot allow the
federal government to jeopardize the health and safety of our
citizens by shipping plutonium on our roads."
Hodges is willing to allow the plutonium into South Carolina
temporarily, but he wants assurances from the Energy Department
that it will be shipped elsewhere for permanent disposal.
Otherwise, "we will be left holding the proverbial bag," he said
in the memo. He told state newspapers that he's ready to lie down
in the road if he doesn't get the assurances.
At issue are pure, weapons-grade plutonium and plutonium oxide,
the most dangerous materials that must be removed to complete the
Rocky Flats cleanup by the 2006 target date.
Hodges' revolt against the shipments has spread to the state's
congressional delegation.
In the House, two lawmakers -- a Democrat and a Republican -- who
sit on the Armed Services Committee have tacked an amendment to a
defense appropriations bill barring the plutonium shipments
unless the Energy Department comes up with a plan by February to
eventually remove it.
In the Senate, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina has introduced a
similar amendment, but without the deadline.
Joe Davis, a spokesman for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, said
the shipments will not be delayed.
"As soon as the shipments are ready, we're going forward," Davis
said. He said that message has been delivered to Hodges.
Davis said he doubts the Energy Department will have to deal with
Hodges lying under a truck wheel.
"I don't think it will get to that," Davis said. He said recent
discussions between Abraham and Hodges have been positive.
But Cortney Owings, Hodges' press secretary, said state officials
found Abraham "quite evasive."
"We didn't really get anywhere," Owings said. "Nothing was
resolved." She said Hodges expects a response from the pubic
safety department early this week on which roads to block.
State attorneys are looking at whether it is legal for a governor
to block federal shipments, Owings said.
Blocking the shipments could pose a practical problem: the times
and routes of shipments containing plutonium are a closely
guarded federal secret.
Colorado's congressional leaders are following the South Carolina
controversy. Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat whose district includes
Rocky Flats, and Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican, have urged
Abraham to resolve the issue with South Carolina.
Under an agreement between South Carolina officials and the
Clinton adminstration, plutonium from Rocky Flats and other
weapons facilities was to be turned into fuel for nuclear
reactors in other nations or embedded in glass for burial in
Nevada.
But the Bush administration has backed away from those steps, and
South Carolina officials fear they'll be stuck with plutonium no
one else wants. Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Rep. Lindsey
Graham, R-S.C., said that Nevada is now balking at taking the
plutonium, while the plan to ship it overseas is drawing safety
concerns.
"It could be like musical chairs, and we're the ones without a
chair," Bishop said.
Contact Berny Morson at (303) 892-5072 or
morsonb@RockyMountainNews.com. August 11, 2001
2001 © The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
20 S. Carolina in position to be picky
Rocky Mountain News: Local
By Berny Morson, News Staff Writer
New realities of economics and politics are behind the opposition
in South Carolina to plutonium shipments from Colorado, experts
said Friday. With a strong, diversified economy, South Carolina
can be choosey about the kind of activity it allows, said Blease
Graham, a political scientist at the University of South
Carolina.
The old political leadership was happy to attract businesses that
other states shunned -- including hazardous waste dumps, Graham
said.
For many people, operations such as the Energy Department's
Savannah River Site near Aiken, where the Rocky Flats plutonium
will be stored, were "a reasonable alternative to stoop labor in
a cotton field." The plant manufactured some of the plutonium
that was shaped into bombs at Rocky Flats. But people are now
more aware of the health risks from such activities, Graham said.
They also are seeing more coverage of environmental issues in the
local media. Newspapers are covering the problem of uranium in
drinking water, and last year, television stations showed
pictures of dead fish after a chemical spill.
"I think there is a broad sensitivity to a responsible handling
of waste so as not to create an environmental crisis," Graham
said.
Partly because of public interest in Savannah River, legislators
last year revived the long-dormant Governor's Nuclear Advisory
Council, said John Stucker, a longtime South Carolina University
political science professor who heads the council.
"With legislators, these people do not focus on something like
this halfway across the state and totally outside their districts
unless their (constituents) have some concerns and they obviously
do," Stucker said.
August 11, 2001
2001 © The E.W. Scripps Co. CONTINENTAL HOMES San Isabel model
*****************************************************************
21 Five theories that can't be excluded
The Times
SATURDAY AUGUST 11 2001
FROM GILES WHITTELL IN MOSCOW
RUSSIA’S decision to cut off the Kursk’s front section and
leave it on the floor of the Barents Sea until next year leaves
the cause of the disaster a mystery. At least five theories are
still impossible to rule out.
Experts in and outside Russia believe that the best explanation
is a fuel leak from a torpedo in one of the submarine’s launch
tubes, leading to the first of two explosions just before a
test-firing exercise.
According to that version, backed by British evidence from the
loss of HMS Sidon in 1955, hydrogen peroxide propellant leaked
onto reactive alloys in the torpedo casing, creating a fireball
that travelled back to the Kursk’s main torpedo stacks, where it
detonated a much bigger blast that sent the vessel down.
The leak could have been caused by overheating, had the torpedo
motor been accidentally started before being immersed in water.
Russian naval officers and former submariners have, however, been
reluctant to endorse the idea of such slipshod practice aboard
the pride of the Northern Fleet. They have offered more dramatic
explanations.
In March a Russian admiral close to the official investigation
into the tragedy was quoted anonymously as saying that he was 100
per cent certain that a cruise missile fired from the Peter the
Great nuclear-powered cruiser, the largest ship in the area, went
astray and disintegrated close enough to the Kursk to destabilise
it and trigger both explosions. The Kursk was at periscope depth
before it sank.
A third version put forward this week by Aleksandr Leskov, a
former Soviet nuclear submarine captain who has set up his own
investigation into the sinking, blames another warship, the
Admiral Kuznetsov, whose captain was sacked days after the
disaster.
The Kuznetsov rammed the Kursk between the first and second
compartments, Mr Leskov said, destroying the bulkhead between
them and causing uncontrollable flooding. That view won the
backing of Vice-Admiral Yevgeni Chernov, a former commander of
the Northern Fleet’s submarines, who last week condemned the plan
to cut off the Kursk’s bow and hinted that the true reason was to
hide the real cause of the tragedy.
Serving naval commanders have denied any cover-up and insisted,
despite widespread scepticism, that the front section will be
raised next year, even as some of them cling to two explanations
ridiculed in the West: a collision with a Nato submarine from the
Royal Navy or US Navy, and the detonation of a submerged Second
World War anti-ship mine.
Such a mine would be “a mosquito bite to a nuclear sub”, Mr
Leskov said.
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
1 Tellis's book tells India's N-tale
rediff.com US edition:
August 10, 2001
Aziz Haniffa in Washington
After the US state department and the Central Intelligence Agency
were caught napping by India's May 1998 Pokhran nuclear tests and
became the butt of jokes by late-night talk show hosts like Jay
Leno, the Pentagon decided it was never going to allow anything
like that happen to it.
So it commissioned one of the foremost strategic experts in the
country, Ashley Tellis -- then a senior policy analyst with the
Rand Corporation -- to dig into everything about India's nuclear
programme.
They were particularly keen to have an idea of India's possible
postures, so that the United States could be better prepared on
how to react at each stage of the game in New Delhi's strategic
agenda.
Tellis last week resigned from Rand to take up appointment as
senior policy adviser to the US ambassador to India, Professor
Robert Blackwill.
His report for the Pentagon, titled 'India's Emerging Nuclear
Posture. Between Recessed Deterrent &Ready Arsenal', released in
May, is considered a seminal work on the subject.
Tellis said his mandate was to look ahead at India's nuclear
posture ten to 15 years down the road vis-a-vis "detailed
technical assessments in terms of fissile material output; what
kinds of weapons designs they have; how far they've moved in the
area of command and control, and so on."
The Pentagon was "not interested in how the Indians got to where
they are. What they were interested in is where they are likely
to go, and what is the impact of that going to be, first, on the
region, but then, more importantly, on US security interests."
"So what they asked me to do was," he said, "in a sense, just
assume the history of India's nuclear programme as a given and go
into the factors that have gone into the making of the Indian
programme, what are the factors that affect their strategic
choices, what are their choices in terms of nuclear architecture,
what are the things that face the Indian government as it sets
out to choose."
Asked why the study was commissioned only on India and not
Pakistan, or both simultaneously, a senior Pentagon source
replied: "because the general assessment was that India matters
in a way that Pakistan does not. That was the first thing.
"The second thing is that over the next 10-15 years, there is
going to be a much deeper strategic relationship with India than
there will be with Pakistan.
"So it is very important for the US government to appreciate what
were the motivations that led India to do the things that it did
and where it is likely to go, because you can't make judgements
about whether it threatens our interests unless we know what they
are doing and what their outer boundaries and their ambitions
are.
"This study's mandate was to sketch out for us what India's
ambitions and capabilities are so that we get a fair sense of
what is likely to happen."
Tellis said he had been working on the study for over two years
and that the project was commissioned immediately following India
and Pakistan's tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998.
He said the Pentagon was also specifically interested in the
technical aspects "because that in a sense will define the nature
of the strategic dialogue that we have with India.
"Because what we understood are the principles. Where the
uncertainties are is essentially what they are trying to do in
practice."
As a result, "the technical assessments were actually critical to
establishing credibility in some sense".
He acknowledged that he had carte blanche in funding for research
and travelling and said, "It was a very high-priority project
because what we've been doing for the last 2-3 years at Rand is
really this massive review of Asia for DOD (department of
defence)."
Tellis predicted that "you will see this actually in the
decisions that the new administration is going to make with
respect to Asia".
Asked how he was able to gather so much technical information on
India's nuclear programme, he replied, "The thing that people
don't realise is that there is an enormous amount of material on
India -- even technical material -- but you have to know where to
look, and you have to be very careful about how you piece it
together.
"So the trick was to gather together what is out there and then
make reasoned judgements."
"The other thing that helped me very greatly," he added, "was
that the Indian government gave me quite unprecedented access to
talk to people in the DRDO [Defence Research and Development
Organisation], in the military and in the civil service."
He said he believed why he was granted such tremendous access was
because "they apparently thought here is someone who is seriously
interested in understanding what we [in India] are trying to do
and therefore it is in our interests to help think through the
story".
"So a great deal I think," Tellis said, "was coloured by the fact
that they saw me as a kind of serious scholar. I mean that I was
not out to do a hatchet job, one way or the other.
"Not only were they extremely supportive, they were extremely
candid too." RELATED REPORTS:
*****************************************************************
2 Whereabouts Of U.'s Uranium Still Unknown
Saturday, August 11, 2001
BY GLEN WARCHOL
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
A two-pound shipment of recycled uranium, possibly
contaminated with "hot" nuclear isotopes such as plutonium, was
shipped to the University of Utah in 1970.
Thirty years later, neither the university, the state, nor
the U.S. Department of Energy, which says the danger of such
contamination is low, can account for it.
The U.'s kilogram (2.2 pounds) of radioactive material,
mentioned in an inventory from the DOE's Rocky Flats Plant in
Colorado, was a tiny part of the thousands of tons of recycled
uranium shipped around the world beginning in the 1950s.
The sketchy records on the shipments make it difficult for
officials to determine if the uranium is a serious threat.
"We haven't been in contact with the university yet, but we
are planning to do that," said Bill Sinclair, director of the
state Division of Radiation Control. "My suspicion is that they
haven't received anything that would be harmful. But we'll check
it out."
Sinclair said the uranium is "probably not very dangerous in
terms of radiation exposure," depending on the level of
contamination of other isotopes.
This week, U. officials were hard pressed to find a paper
trail on the old radioactive shipment or its purpose.
Faculty and staff, including David M. Slaughter, director of
the Center for Excellence in Nuclear Technology, scoured records
and picked the brains of colleagues for leads. As of Friday, they
had no success.
No one was much interested in accounting for the recycled
uranium shipments until 1999 when workers at the DOE's Paducah,
Ky., uranium processing plant filed a lawsuit alleging illnesses
from exposure to the plutonium and other contaminants in the
uranium. The government acknowledged that federal plants in
Paducah; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn., had concentrated
the impurities in the uranium during recycling -- significantly
increasing health risks.
In June, a report in USA Today found that the recycled
uranium had circulated much further than the 13 government
facilities first believed. More than 250,000 tons of recycled
uranium had moved between hundreds of government plants, private
manufacturers and university labs, the newspaper found.
Misplacing a tiny amount of uranium does not concern local
nuclear watchdog groups as much as the poor accounting does.
"We are not pushing any 'sky is falling' buttons -- at the
same time we'd like to know what happened to it," said Steve
Erickson, a spokesman for Downwinders. "Unfortunately, in this
business of bomb making there has been bad accounting.
"These materials are far more far-flung than people are led
to believe and that leads one to be very skeptical and cautious
of what the government says."
Because the uranium required to build nuclear weapons was
costly, the government turned to recycling. The contamination of
other, more radioactive, isotopes, including plutonium, neptunium
and technetium was not thought to be significant.
"It's one more of those radioactive problems that afflict
us," said Erickson. "It's entirely possible that this is one
mystery that won't be solved."
glenwarchol@sltrib.com
© Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on
*****************************************************************
3 INEEL workers: Many will take chance
IdahoStatesman.com
Saturday, August 11, 2001
Employee says longtime workers hope to keep jobs
The Associated Press
IDAHO FALLS -- Some workers at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory who already have jobs lined up predict
that their colleagues will be reluctant to accept voluntary
separation deals to cut the work force.
Delverne Seaman, 28, has a position ahead with an economic
development group and is happy to accept $9,000 in cash to walk
away from his job purchasing office supplies and machine parts.
He predicts longtime workers with children, debts and other ties
will probably take their chances of being laid off by Bechtel
BWXT Idaho.
"I think some of them are hoping they won't be the ones who are
laid off, that maybe they'll be the lucky ones," he said.
Bechtel plans to cut about 1,200 people whose skills are no
longer needed at the site. It hopes to entice about 400 to take
the voluntary separation deal, spokeswoman Teri Ehresman said.
The next phase of the restructuring will be involuntary layoffs,
probably in November.
The maximum from that would probably be $6,000 plus severance
pay, she said. When Bechtel offered early retirement deals
earlier this year, many of the 445 takers waited until the last
minute.
Unlike five years ago, when almost 600 Lockheed Martin employees
accepted voluntary separation, this restructuring seems slower
and more agonizing, said Ken Feliciano, 53.
Lockheed Martin offered employees six months salary, relocation
money and as much as $10,000 in tuition support.
This time around, Feliciano said, the incentives did not seem to
warrant the risk for many to abandon their jobs. "The pot they've
offered for the voluntary is just not sweet enough," he said.
Employees are asking what is really driving the downsizing, he
said. Early on, Bechtel reported the lab was experiencing budget
problems and funding shortages.
But congressional representatives have disputed that idea,
particularly after early successes in lobbying for more nuclear
cleanup money. They said there have been longstanding plans to
reshape the INEEL's work force and recruit workers with different
skills.
*****************************************************************
4 Talks with Paducah plant workers to resume this month
Messenger-Inquirer: News
11 August 2001
Associated Press
PADUCAH -- Contract negotiations are expected to resume this
month between U.S. Enrichment Corp. and a union representing
hourly workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Bargainers broke off negotiations Wednesday night after about 12
hours of meetings and deliberations.
David Fuller, president of Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and
Energy Workers Local 5-550, said there was some talk of resuming
bargaining next week, but nothing was finalized.
USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle said discussions were expected
to resume the week of Aug. 20 because a union negotiator is
unavailable next week.
USEC wants a proposed five-year contract with the union to expire
after a year if goals are not met regarding federal action aiding
the company's purchase of Russian uranium.
The objectives heavily depend on whether the Bush administration
allows USEC to remain sole agent for the uranium and get lower
prices.
The union voted against the offer Aug. 2, opposing the contract
language and considering wage-benefit provisions substandard.
The union represents about 700 of 1,500 workers at the plant,
which enriches uranium for use in nuclear fuel. Fuller said
members have no plans to strike, but could do so with a day's
notice to the company. Their old contract expired July 31.
*****************************************************************
5 Workers file lawsuit over exposure to toxic beryllium dust
By KIT WAGAR - The Kansas City Star
Date: 08/11/01 22:15
Two workers who were exposed to beryllium dust at a Kansas City
nuclear weapon parts plant have filed lawsuits accusing three
beryllium producers of a wide-ranging conspiracy to cover up the
dangers of handling the toxic metal.
The workers -- Amy Mills of Independence and Rhonda Fisher of Oak
Grove -- also are accusing three current and former executives at
the Honeywell International plant on Bannister Road of shirking
their duty to warn employees of the dangers.
The lawsuits, filed July 30 in Jackson County Circuit Court, are
the first involving the plant, which is owned by the U.S.
Department of Energy and operated by Honeywell.
The lawsuits seek compensatory and punitive damages from three
beryllium producers -- Brush Wellman Inc. of Cleveland, Cabot
Corp. of Boston and NGK Metals Corp. of Reading, Pa.
The suits seek similar damages from three Honeywell executives:
David Douglass, president of the Kansas City plant; Karen Clegg,
the former president of the plant who is now president of
Honeywell's defense and space business in Washington; and Chris
Gentile, former director of the plant's environmental safety and
health division.
Honeywell is not named in the lawsuit because workers'
compensation laws make employers immune from civil lawsuits, said
Grant Davis, the attorney for both women.
The three corporate defendants said that they had not been served
with the lawsuits and that as a matter of policy did not comment
on pending litigation. Honeywell spokeswoman Sharon Tiley said
company policy prohibits employees from commenting on pending
lawsuits.
Davis said that until recently, workers were never given basic
safety equipment or cautioned about the dangers of beryllium and
the toxic dust created when the metal is drilled or sanded. He
said that the industry had evidence that the allowable exposure
rate was too high but that workers were told it was safe.
"In this case, just the opposite was true," Davis said. "The
workers weren't afraid, because they weren't told at all about
the dangers."
Fisher, a machinist, has worked at the plant since 1979. Mills, a
laborer, has worked there since 1986.
Both women have chronic beryllium disease, an incurable and often
fatal ailment that has been linked to cancer. The illness, the
result of inhaling beryllium dust or fumes, causes breathing to
grow increasingly difficult as the metal eats away lung tissue.
Brush Wellman spokesman Patrick Carpenter said accusations about
inadequate labeling of the products and failure to warn of the
danger were not new.
He pointed to a Colorado lawsuit that used similar allegations to
try to hold the company responsible for chronic beryllium disease
among workers at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. In June,
a jury found that Brush Wellman, which supplied beryllium to
Rocky Flats, was not liable for the workers' illnesses.
"This is not something we need to hide from," Carpenter said. "We
have a record of communicating the hazards of respirable
beryllium, and we have for more than 50 years."
The plant has used beryllium-copper alloys in the manufacture of
triggers and other precision parts for nuclear weapons since
1949, when it was operated by Bendix Corp.
The Jackson County lawsuits accuse the beryllium producers of
covering up the known dangers of minute amounts of beryllium dust
to protect their profits.
The suits contend that the industry colluded to defeat lawsuits
against individual producers, funded false expert testimony to
federal safety regulators and fought European regulators'
attempts to require warning labels.
The companies even conspired with the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission to conceal the risks, then established a maximum
exposure limit that the companies knew would be harmful to
workers, the suits allege. The companies knew that the exposure
limit of 2 micrograms per cubic liter of air over eight hours was
far too high, the lawsuits say.
Davis said the companies' actions were similar to the steps taken
by cigarette makers to hide the harmful effects of tobacco.
"What is different is that smokers knowingly smoked cigarettes
with warning labels on them," Davis said. "These workers were
never told. They didn't have a clue that they were breathing
something that would eat up their lungs to the point that they
would suffocate."
Carpenter, however, said Brush Wellman has included warning
labels on the proper handling of beryllium products since the
late 1940s.
The use of beryllium at Honeywell's Kansas City plant because an
issue in 1999, when the Department of Energy listed it as one of
26 facilities where workers may have been exposed to toxic
levels.
The Energy Department that year ordered all its nuclear weapon
plants to develop a program to prevent chronic beryllium disease.
The program included a 90 percent reduction in the maximum
allowable exposure level, to 0.2 micrograms per cubic liter of
air. And the department began testing current and former
employees for evidence of the disease.
Tiley said four current workers have been diagnosed with chronic
beryllium disease. Ten others have developed beryllium
sensitivity, which can be a precursor to the disease. Tiley said
20 former workers were found to have sensitivity. After the
testing began, Honeywell officials discovered that excessive
levels of beryllium dust had contaminated about 5 percent of the
complex, which now encompasses about 3.1 million square feet.
Tiley said all but one of the 16 contaminated areas had been
cleaned up. The last area will be finished by Sept. 1.
Chronic beryllium disease
Workers who inhale beryllium dust or fumes are at risk of
developing the illness, which causes breathing to grow
increasingly difficult as the metal eats away lung tissue.
Incurable and often fatal, it has been linked to cancer.
All content © 2001 The Kansas City Star
*****************************************************************
6 Condon backs Hodges plan to block plutonium stance
By LEE BANDY Staff Writer
S.C. Attorney General Charlie Condon pledged Friday to work with
Gov. Jim Hodges to block shipments of the nation’s surplus
plutonium to the Savannah River Site near Aiken.
“We are all South Carolinians, and South Carolina must speak
with one voice,” he said in a prepared statement.
The Bush administration has put on hold part of the federal
program that called for some of the nation’s plutonium to be
buried at the Yucca Mount nuclear repository in Nevada, once that
facility is approved.
Hodges is concerned the decision will mean the U.S. Energy
Department will ship tons of plutonium from its weapons
facilities into the state for processing.
Hodges has asked his public safety director to evaluate options
for sealing the state’s borders to block the shipments.
Condon, a Republican candidate for governor, offered the
services of his office to Hodges, a Democrat. He said he planned
to meet with the governor next week to coordinate the state’s
efforts and to work to arrange a meeting with President George W.
Bush “to make South Carolina’s position crystal clear to the
federal government.”
Condon served as a state co-chairman of Bush’s presidential
primary campaign last year.
The attorney general said the federal government should not
“bully” the Palmetto State.
“The South Carolina state line must be our line in the sand.
South Carolinians will say to the federal government: Don’t dump
on me.”
Sid Gaulden, spokesman for the S.C. Department of Public Safety,
said director Boykin Rose is reviewing the governor’s request to
determine what action can be taken to block plutonium shipments.
The energy department is revamping a Clinton-era plan to dispose
of 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium.
&Permissions © Copyright 2001 The State-Record Company
*****************************************************************
7 Piketon to get $3M in economic assistance -
2001-08-10 - Business First of Columbus
Workers out of a job at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in
Piketon will get technology training and advice on starting a
business thanks to new state and federal grants.
The U.S. Commerce Department says it will grant $1.92 million for
the construction of a 28,600-square-foot technology training and
business incubation center in Piketon. The center is expected to
open in 2003 and will be open to the public.
In addition, the center will receive $900,000 in matching grants
from the Ohio State University and $270,000 from the Appalachian
Regional Commission.
Hundreds of workers in the southern Ohio city were expected to
lose their jobs when the United States Enrichment Corp. began
shutting down most operations at the uranium-enrichment plant
this summer.
Some jobs at the plant have been preserved thanks to U.S. Energy
Department grants this year, including $125.7 million to maintain
the plant on "stand-by" status and another $5 million to fund
removal of uranium deposit canisters at the plant.
2001 American City Business Journals Inc. Click for permission to
*****************************************************************
8 declassified documents from the 1960's reveal serious safety
concerns over Devonport Naval base
BBC Online - Devon - News -
Sunday 12 August 2001
[HMS Torbay in drydock]
The nuclear powered submarine HMS Torbay during a refit at Devonport
Declassified documents from the 1960's have revealed that high
ranking Government safety experts had serious doubts about
putting a nuclear base in Plymouth.
After 30 years of secrecy documents recording the debate in
Whitehall over whether it would be safe to have a nuclear base in
Plymouth, have been released for public inspection
The files have revealed that in 1964 Government safety experts
thought it would be too hazardous to repair nuclear submarines in
Devonport.
[One of the formerly secret documents]
Declassified documents: now available for inspection at the
Public Records Office at Kew
The matter was discussed at the time by the Nuclear Powered
Warships Safety Committee, which concluded that Devonport was an
unacceptable site based on their hazard assessments.
They gave Rosyth a rating of one as the most acceptable and
Devonport a rating of twenty seven.
Many years later those who argued in favour of creating base for
repairing and refitting nuclear powered submarines in Devonport
won the day.
Nuclear Consultant John Large believes the files suggest
officials wanted to change the way safety was measured in order
to put the South West dockyard back in contention.
"Time and time again they were told that it was unacceptable,"
said Mr Large.
"At some time after the closure of this file in 1969, there seems
to have been a political expedient injected into the equation.
The recommendation and almost stalwart stand of the Navy's own
nuclear regulator is entirely overridden and the decision was
made to convert Devonport into a nuclear refit dockyard."
But Devonport's MP David Jamieson believes public safety was not
compromised and that Devonport was later considered acceptable
because it was decided that the original calculations had been
incorrect.
[Dry dock at Devonport]
One of the dry docks at Devonport Dockyard
In a statement, the Royal Navy has said that its track record on
safety speaks for itself. "In more than 40 years of the navy
nuclear propulsion programme there has never been an accident
involving a nuclear powered submarine that has resulted in the
release of radioactive material to the environment.
"Nuclear submarines are refitted to the highest of safety
standards. Refuelling and refitting have taken place safely at
Devonport for over 20 years and during that time there has been
substantial investment to meet stringent safety requirements. It
is entirely understandable that some debate took place within MOD
departments," the Navy said.
*****************************************************************
9 Pressure grows for expanded survivor benefits
The Hawk Eye Newspaper
August 12, 2001
Iowa Time: 12:04 AM
By Dennis J. Carroll
The Hawk Eye
• More survivors of former munitions plant workers would be
included if move successful.
Even as former nuclear weapons workers begin receiving
compensation payments, a government watchdog group and others are
pressuring Congress and the Labor Department to expand the
benefits program to include more family survivors.
Family members themselves and Iowa's Sen. Tom Harkin are among
those calling for the program to be more inclusive.
The move by the Government Accountability Project would be
particularly helpful for families of workers at plants such as
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown.
At such former Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Commission
facilities, many workers suffered lifelong sicknesses from their
exposure to radiation and other hazardous materials, but often
did not die until later in life, when their children were well
into adulthood.
Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act, survivors of workers do not qualify for the $150,000
lump sum payment unless the family member was under 18 when the
worker died.
"It's a gross misinterpretation of the legislation," said
Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Government
Accountability Project.
The GAP has been instrumental in the enactment of protections for
government whistleblowers and energy workers.
Miller said the Labor Department has misinterpreted previous
rules and regulations that apply to government compensation
benefits.
He said the rules that are being used as a guideline for the
compensation regulations apply to benefits paid out monthly, not
those paid in lump sums.
"It's a misreading of the law," Miller said.
One of the most emotional pleas for compensation expansion comes
from Mary Carter-Plummer of Fairview Heights, Ill., whose parents
worked at the IAAP in Middletown. Her father also worked for the
Atomic Energy Commission at the Pantex nuclear weapons factory
near Amarillo, Texas.
In a recent letter to Shelby Hallmark, acting director of the
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Carter-Plummer said her
parents, Tom and Lorene Needham, both died of cancer that she
believes was caused by their exposure to radiation at the two
plants.
"My parents were both very proud to serve the United States by
working at the munitions facility ... and never once questioned
that their safety or lives were at risk," Carter-Plummer wrote.
She said that as her parents' health worsened, she spent much of
her time caring for them.
"When they were diagnosed with terminal cancer and could no
longer care for themselves properly," Carter-Plummer said, "I
spent all my free time with them. I spent countless nights in the
hospital and at their home caring for them until they passed
away."
She said the Energy Department, although it has acknowledged the
federal government's responsibly for workers' illnesses, "is
putting limitations on the consequences."
Harkin has also urged the Labor Department to expand the
coverage to include many more worker survivors.
"Applying (the age 18) restriction at the time of the worker's
death means that even children who were raised by a parent unable
to work due to compensable illness would receive nothing if the
parent survived until the children were independent," Harkin
said.
Harkin, as did GAP, noted that the rule was taken from the
Federal Employees Compensation Act, but said the act is not
relevant to the nuclear workers issue.
Harkin also echoed concerns expressed by GAP that under the
appeals process claims that are denied must be appealed to the
same office that made the initial ruling.
He also noted that workers may not challenge decisions on whether
they were exposed to enough of a particular hazardous material to
qualify for compensation.
Under the program as many as 750,000 former nuclear weapons
workers around the country may be eligible for the $150,000
payment and medical costs incurred after July 31, the effective
date of the legislation.
However, the covered illnesses are restricted to chronic
beryllium disease, silicosis and cancers caused by exposure to
radiation.
The regulations do appear to cover dependent survivor children
who were between 18 and 23 and were attending school full time
when the worker died.
In Paducah, Ky., last week, Clara Harding, whose husband, Joe,
died in 1980 after working 18 years at the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, became the first worker or survvior to receive
the $150,000 payment.
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free
*****************************************************************
10 Redemption - Government delivers on promises
The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Sunday, August 12, 2001
REDEMPTION
Government delivers on promises
Two years ago, the credibility of the federal government on
issues related to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was near
zero.
Plant workers and Paducah area residents began losing faith in
the government's promises after more than a decade of delays in
starting the cleanup of contamination at the plant site. Then,
what little faith remained was nearly destroyed by revelations
that, during the Cold War, workers at the uranium enrichment
facility were exposed without their knowledge to highly
radioactive substances such as plutonium.
A sense of betrayal began to replace the once-common view of the
federal government as a beneficent provider of high-quality jobs.
To make matters worse, federal officials, after finally admitting
the abuse of trust that occurred at the Paducah plant and other
nuclear installations, promised prompt remedial action but failed
to deliver it.
But in the past year the federal government has turned several of
its key promises to the people of Paducah into real and
meaningful action. In the process, the federal bureaucracy and
our elected officials in Washington have done much to restore the
government's credibility with the people of our region.
In this space we have often criticized government inaction on
workers' health concerns and the contaminated mess surrounding
the gaseous diffusion plant.
Fairness now demands that we acknowledge the good work done by
our representatives and the federal officials in charge of
workers' compensation and several cleanup initiatives.
The turnaround started with the removal of "drum mountain," the
most visible sign of federal officials' indifference to Paducah's
environmental problems.
This huge pile of contaminated drums was leveled in a matter of
weeks by cleanup workers. Credit for the operation must go to
Kentucky's congressional delegation, which pressed the Department
of Energy for action, and to Gov.
Patton, who supported the delegation's efforts. Local leaders
also urged the government to follow through on its promises.
The cleanup is far from over — it may take another decade or more
to complete — but federal officials have proven they can do more
than study chemical contamination.
On the human issue of workers' health, the government has
demonstrated both compassion and efficiency, developing and
implementing — in less than five months — a generous program to
compensate sick nuclear workers and their families.
At an appearance in Paducah last week to deliver the compensation
program's first check to Clara Harding, the widow of a former
plant worker who died of cancer, U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao
was entirely justified in saying, "Today, we also celebrate a bit
of redemption for the government that once turned its back on
these workers, and has now turned around to offer a helping
hand."
That helping hand was extended in large part because of the work
of Chao's husband, U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who used his
considerable influence on Capitol Hill to steer the compensation
program through to passage, despite powerful opposition.
McConnell ensured that workers in Paducah and several other
communities would not have to fight through bureaucratic red tape
to receive benefits. These workers are part of a "special cohort"
that has to clear only a few hurdles to establish eligibility for
the $150,000 lump-sum payments and coverage of future medical
costs.
In addition to McConnell, First District Congressman Ed Whitfield
worked tirelessly for the compensation program, and U.S. Sen. Jim
Bunning provided important assistance.
On the administrative side, Chao has shown great energy and
managerial competence. In a period of about four months she has
put in place a program that eventually will distribute more than
$2 billion in benefits to sick workers and their families.
The attention Chao has lavished on Paducah plant workers and
their families during several recent visits has made a positive
impression, too. However, the critical point is that she has come
to deliver aid, not just sound bites.
As a result, the government has indeed found a "bit of
redemption" for its callous treatment of workers who helped the
nation win the Cold War.
But federal officials have also raised expectations much higher,
and there's still a long way to go before the government's debt
to this community is paid in full.
*****************************************************************
11 Bush's new 'Star Wars' base a radioactive danger
© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
13 August 2001 06:11 GMT+1
By Steve Boggan in northern Greenland
11 August 2001
The US Air Force base that will be twinned with Fylingdales in
north Yorkshire in George Bush's "Star Wars" plans is a potential
radioactive hazard with sealed missile silos containing
unidentified waste and an abandoned tip where rubbish was simply
pushed into the pristine waters of the Arctic.
The Independent and Greenpeace have uncovered mountains of
abandoned waste and claims that workers at the Thule base in
northern Greenland became ill after a B-52 crashed with four
hydrogen bombs on board in 1968.
There is evidence, too, of environmental pollution on a grand
scale at other disused US bases in Greenland: at Marraq, where a
Greenpeace team found tens of thousands of rotting barrels, and
at Kulusuk on the east coast, where huge quantities of industrial
scrap have been left to rust.
Thule is one of a number of forward radar bases that will be
needed if President Bush's ballistic missile defence shield is to
be effective. All but Thule and Fylingdales are in territory
controlled by America. To use these two bases, the US must first
obtain permission from the UK and Denmark, which governs
Greenland, but opposition to the plans is mounting in both
countries.
This week, The Independent revealed how 150 Inuit people were
forcibly moved from their homes in 1953 to make way for the Thule
surface-to-air missiles and how a legal challenge to reclaim
their land will be heard by the Supreme Court in Denmark in
autumn next year.
In the meantime, the primary concern of the Inuit, who were moved
more than 100 miles (160km) north of their sacred hunting grounds
on the Dundas peninsula, next to the Thule base, is that if they
are given the right to return, their land will be toxic. "I am
worried that the nuclear pollution might endanger all living
species," said Vittus Qujaakitsoq, secretary to the Minister for
Industry in Greenland and a prospective Social Democrat candidate
for the Danish parliament. "We have been finding deformed animals
in the area, mainly seals with no fur, and deformities of the
entrails, guts and organs. These are the animals the people must
hunt, so we want to know for sure whether the area is safe."
Mr Qujaakitsoq said Greenlanders had been given assurances the
area was safe after the B-52 crash, in which between 500g (1lb)
and 1.8kg (4lb) of plutonium went missing in the waters of Bylot
Sound, but they had been given no hard evidence.
Among allegations made to The Independent by a number of sources
are that:
• A whole H-bomb – serial number 78252 – was lost in the January
1968 crash.
• The amount of plutonium involved was higher than that admitted
by the US – up to 12kg.
• Barrels filled with contaminated ice and snow after the crash
were removed to America – but some were allowed to thaw in the
spring and leaked into local soil.
• Toxic sump oil was used on roads "to keep dust levels down in
summer".
Some of the claims are impossible to evaluate because of a
refusal by the US and Danish governments to reveal details of US
environmental impact reports totalling about 4,000 pages. As
recently as two weeks ago, an attempt by a Greenpeace toxics
campaigner, Jacob Hartmann, to gain access to a key US report,
The Thule Environmental Survey, was rejected by the Danish
Foreign Ministry, which said the US authorities were "resisting
publication".
It is clear, however, that the Danish Environment Ministry is not
happy with the American findings. On 9 June, it asked the Danish
Finance Ministry for £400,000 to commission its own report,
saying US surface-to-air missile silos had been filled with waste
and concreted over, and alleging that the American report had
concentrated on one dump only, ignoring a second dump, landfill
sites and the impact of waste on groundwater and marine life.
One former worker at the base, John Pederson, told The
Independent: "We used to just push waste out over the edge [into
the sea]. Other workers told me they had seen radioactive waste
from the B-52 crash allowed to thaw in the summer and just leak
into the ground. I wanted to speak out because I am worried about
the Eskimos [sic]. They eat the animals that live in the water
round here."
Asked whether he had ever seen how chemicals were disposed of, he
said no, but added: "All the waste oil was put on the roads
because they got very dusty in the summer."
After the 1968 crash, some of the 1,000-plus employees who helped
in the clean-up established the Thule Workers' Association when
they found the incidence of cancer among their number was higher
than the Danish national average.
"Mostly, the Danish workers were driving vehicles and forklift
trucks containing contaminated snow, ice and equipment blown up
in the crash," said Jens Zinglersen, the association chairman.
"Today, you would see people in some kind of space suit doing
that. In those days, there was no such protection, not even
masks, so radioactive material was simply breathed in."
The workers have been given small sums of compensation, but the
Danish government has not admitted that the workers' illnesses –
which Mr Zinglersen says includes "strange skin cancers" – were
caused by radiation. He said after the crash: "Snow and ice was
scraped up but the rest of the ice that remained there was
covered in heavy carbonate sand, which sank to the bottom of the
sea when the ice melted in the spring. And, in the fire, a lot of
equipment melted into the ice – that all sank too."
Mr Zinglersen said he was more critical of the Danish government
than the American authorities. "At least the Americans have
provided us with thousands of pages of evidence," he said. "From
this, we believe one bomb has never been found and is now on the
bottom of the sea. They have found a bit of the casing, but not
all the stages. We believe, from the evidence, that the missile
was marked MK 28 and had the serial number 78252."
In 1997, a sampling expedition conducted by a Greenland Home Rule
ship, the Adolf Jensen, found that "hot particles are still
present after 29 years: high anomalies signifying hot particles
have been identified not only in the 10-15cm [4in-6in] peak
layer, but also in the upper biota-reworked sediment layer". When
asked by The Independent why the Thule survey was being kept
secret, Ole Samsing, head of N7, the Danish government department
that represents Greenland's foreign interests, said: "Because the
owner of the report does not want it to be released by a third
party."
Asked who the "owner" was, Mr Samsing replied: "The US
government." He said it was considered sensitive during relations
between the two governments over the return of a small part of
the base – the table-top Dundas mountain and peninsula – which is
symbolic to the Inuit but relatively useless in practical terms.
Mr Samsing said no surveys had been conducted by the Danish
government since the Eighties. But three Greenpeace activists who
broke into the base this week, Vincent Custers, Olivier Devaux
and Lawrence Turk, said they saw evidence of waste, including a
number of oil and chemical drums abandoned in a river.
The US Air Force said that it was unable to comment on The
Independent's findings at short notice.
*****************************************************************
12 MI6 called up to safeguard nuclear subs
THE SUNDAY TIMES: NEWS
August 12 2001 BRITAIN
Jonathon Carr-Brown and James Clark
BRITISH security services are mounting covert operations in a bid
to protect Britain's nuclear deterrent from advances in Russian
anti-submarine technology.
The Russians have stolen a march on the Royal Navy and its Nato
allies in the field of submarine detection, undermining the
effectivness of Britain's Trident nuclear fleet.
The navy is so concerned by the threat to national security posed
by Russia's technical superiority that it is understood to be
pressing MI6 to increase its high-level security operations.
At least one recent operation targeted a senior Russian naval
commander known to be an expert in anti-submarine warfare (ASW).
He was befriended in a European capital by a fluent
Russian-speaking female agent working under diplomatic cover
after a "chance encounter" was set up.
The operation lasted for several weeks with questions to ask the
Russian being fed to her daily by MI6. The mission was called off
only after the Russian introduced the agent to his wife.
The anxiety of Britain and Nato at Russia's tactical advantage in
ASW is underlined by a British intelligence assessment produced
earlier this year. It says: "Though Britain has had a fine
reputation for ASW operations, it has fallen behind the latest
developments in submarine technology."
Despite financial difficulties, says the report, the Russians
have persisted with developing the Akula (Shark) Type-971
hunter-killer submarine and other advanced designs with
sophisticated noise-suppression systems.
The report claims that western analysts have severely
underestimated the amount of underwater stealth technology that
Russia has acquired through its own spying operations.
"Therefore, it would be a reasonable assumption that the Russians
can indeed detect and track even the most advanced Royal Navy or
Nato submarines for much of the time," it says. "It is highly
unlikely that we would be able to detect, track and then destroy
the next generation of extra-quiet, fast and deep-diving Russian
submarines with any certainty."
A former Russian nuclear submarine commander who now works as a
military analyst said: "Russia is way ahead when it comes to
experience and technology in tracking down nuclear submarines. It
has better systems and equipment in the field of sonar and
thermal imaging. It also has better satellite tracking systems."
Russia has caught up through a series of spying coups. In 1986 it
was revealed that John Walker, a US naval communications expert,
had been supplying Russia with military messages for up to 17
years.
In 1994 the CIA agent Aldrich Ames was convicted of passing
secrets to the Russians, and there is suspicion that information
passed to the Chinese by Peter Lee, a member of the US Radar
Ocean Imaging Programme, has filtered back to the Russian navy
via spies.
In 1996 MI6 stole ASW secrets from a French naval base. A French
civilian engineer was paid thousands of pounds to betray a
breakthrough in ASW based on a remote sensing device thought to
be capable of tracking submarines from a satellite.
Increasingly quiet submarines and the need to track them in
shallow waters are rendering sonar tracking methods ineffective.
The Akula has a hull with three noise-absorbing coatings, a low
acoustic signature, and is described in the report as "definitely
a problem".
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided
*****************************************************************
13 Governor asks Condon to drop lawsuit
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA -- The governor has asked the South Carolina attorney
general to drop his lawsuit challenging budget vetoes that
increased funding for state colleges.
In June, Hodges vetoed about $40 million in college and
university budget cuts.
That threw the budget out of balance. To help rebalance the
budget, Hodges vetoed a sales tax break on groceries and asked
the schools to return $28.5 million given to them out of a fund
set aside to clean up the Barnwell low-level nuclear waste dump.
Condon, a Republican candidate for governor, says Hodges
overstepped his authority by appropriating money and directing
college officials to transfer money allocated by the General
Assembly to the state's general fund.
Condon asked the state Supreme Court to review Hodges' budget
actions and those of Comptroller General Jim Lander and State
Treasurer Grady Patterson on July 23. Responses to Condon's
complaint are due Monday.
Condon said Friday it was his duty ''to bring to the Supreme
Court's attention any separation of powers violation by the
governor.''
''This is a direct threat to the tuition reductions that occurred
as a result of my budget vetoes,'' Hodges wrote.
''If you are successful, your actions could reverse the vetoes
that restored money to our state's colleges and universities.
This is not the time to be raising tuition on our state's
families."
Condon and other Republicans have criticized that assertion. They
say it doesn't make sense that sending more money to colleges by
returning the Barnwell money to their budgets would increase
tuition.
*****************************************************************
14 US admits losing nuke
The Australian:
12 August 2001
news.com.au
Sunday Herald Sun
A NUCLEAR bomb, 100 times more powerful than the one dropped on
Hiroshima, is lying 10km off the east coast of the United States.
Until now one of the most closely guarded secrets in US military
history, its existence has been confirmed in newly declassified
documents which reveal how it was dumped in the sea after a
mid-air collision more than 40 years ago.
Pentagon officials, though admitting they do not know the bomb's
exact location, insist it is safe.
They have rejected demands for it to be recovered, saying it is
too dangerous to be touched.
The 3450kg hydrogen bomb, known as a Mark 15 weapon, has been
lying off the coast of Georgia since February 5, 1958, when it
was jettisoned from a B-47 Stratojet bomber after the plane was
struck by a fighter jet during a training exercise at 36,000ft.
One of the bomber's wings was damaged and an engine dislodged.
The pilot, Maj Howard Richardson, was ordered to drop the 3.5m
bomb before attempting to land.
He did so near Tybee Island, close to the mouth of the Savannah
River.
Despite a 10-week search, the bomb was never found.
In a top-secret memo to the chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), a Pentagon official wrote: "A B-47 aircraft
with a (word censored) nuclear weapon aboard was damaged in a
collision with an F-86 aircraft near Sylvania.
"The B-47 aircraft attempted three times unsuccessfully to land
with the weapon.
"The weapon was then jettisoned visually over water off the
mouth of the Savannah River. No detonation was observed."
Documents reveal the search was called off when another hydrogen
bomb was accidentally dropped near Florence, South Carolina.
A TNT explosive trigger detonated on impact, but the actual
nuclear device did not explode.
Troops looking for the bomb off the coast were then ordered to
Florence to conduct a clean-up operation. They never returned to
Tybee Island.
"The search for this weapon was discontinued on 4-16-'58 and the
weapon is considered irretrievably lost," one of the declassified
documents states.
The military suspected the bomb plunged into water 6m deep,
coming to rest beneath about 5m of sand.
The bomb's existence was only made public when a salvage
company, run by former CIA officer Bert Soleau, offered to find
it.
Now Georgians are demanding action, but the military is standing
firm, saying recovery could take five years and cost $23 million.
Officials claim the bomb is safe because, though it contained
180kg of TNT to trigger the atomic explosion, a vital link
between the TNT and the nuclear device had been removed. Without
the link -- in this case a capsule containing plutonium --
detonation was impossible.
This has been challenged by former servicemen and residents, who
have discovered documents stating it was armed.
Derek Duke, a former US Air Force pilot from Savannah, cites a
1966 memo to the Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy by
W.J. Howard, then assistant to the secretary of defence, stating
that the bomb was a "complete weapon".
Howard H. Nixon, a former crew chief who loaded nuclear weapons
on to planes at Georgia's Hunter Army Airfield from 1957 to 1959,
said the bombs were always armed.
"Never in my air force career did I install a Mark 15 weapon
without installing the plutonium capsule," he said.
The capsule debate has failed to convince Mr Duke. "It's a
nuclear bomb," he said.
"It's like if I take the battery out of your car, then I try to
convince you it's not a car."
Tybee Islanders agree. Mayor Walter Parker said: "It's in the
best interest of everybody that it be found to determine what
condition the weapon is in."
Resident Ken Wade was more blunt: "There is no doubt we've got a
nuclear bomb right here in our neighbourhood."
© 2001 The Australian
*****************************************************************
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: