***************************************************************** 08/13/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.195 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Letters: Keep it there 2 Raggio says O'Donnell's quitting won't hurt Nevada's Republicans 3 Cracks in reactor nozzles cause concern - 4 Procedures Taken for Returning BNFL's Falsified MOX Fuel 5 Carolina police may block Bush's nuclear waste 6 California's nuclear future 7 Carolina police may block Bush's nuclear waste 8 NRC to Hold Public Meeting on Inspection Programs for Steam 9 NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet August 28 - 30 in NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 EPA requests DOE to study 3 Roane sites 2 Rocketdyne's silence on beryllium risk could prove dangerous 3 Facility's rich history often unsung 4 Editorial: Pantex takes lead over tests 5 Hodges vows to block plutonium shipments 6 Success stories, pitfalls of lab's in-house research fund 7 Papers reveal nuclear sub doubts ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Letters: Keep it there Monday, August 13, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: In his letter of Aug. 9, Richard G. Telfer suggests that the casks to be used for the transport of radioactive waste are absolutely safe. Mr. Telfer states that these casks have "undergone tests far more severe than any accident would produce." He implies that comparing the transportation of nuclear waste to the recent train wreck in Baltimore is nothing more than scare tactics. Proponents contend that since there is no absolutely safe way to store radioactive material, having it in a single repository minimizes the danger. Logic assures me, that transporting any material is more inherently dangerous than storing it. If Mr. Telfer is correct and transporting is safer than storing, why not convert the transportation casks into storage casks and leave the material on the site where it was created? While I oppose storage at Yucca Mountain, I do believe the Bush administration will have radioactive material temporally stored there within the next three years. Once there, it'll stay there. For this reason Nevadans should, as Mr. Telfer suggests, try to receive something in return. But please, don't insult my intelligence by telling me transporting materials is safer than storing it on site. TERRY E. PEELE LAS VEGAS ***************************************************************** 2 Raggio says O'Donnell's quitting won't hurt Nevada's Republicans Las Vegas SUN Today: August 13, 2001 at 11:09:58 PDT Longtime state senator unhappy with leadership By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio is confident the GOP will hold the seat of Sen. Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, and retain the majority in a newly reapportioned Senate. Raggio made his comments after O'Donnell, unhappy with Raggio's leadership, announced Friday he would not run for re-election, ending an 18-year run in the Legislature. Raggio called O'Donnell's newly shaped District 9 in Clark County a "Republican district." The number of registered Republicans outnumbers Democrats 21,269 to 18,982 in the area. The Senate majority leader said he had talked to O'Donnell about the retirement, but the Las Vegas senator never voiced any complaints. Raggio said he would not comment on O'Donnell's allegations. Both Raggio and O'Donnell said possible GOP candidates to succeed him include Assembly members Barbara Cegavske and Dennis Nolan and former Assemblyman Bill Brady, who served three sessions, in 1979, 1981 and 1983. Former FBI agent George Togliatti, a Democrat, is reported to be interested in the seat. O'Donnell, 50, a Las Vegas businessman, served one term in the Assembly and will have served 16 years in the Senate when he completes his term in November next year. His rift with his own party leaders from Northern Nevada widened this year. He complained Raggio, R-Reno, and lobbyist Harvey Whittemore ran things, and he said, "I don't want to be part of that anymore. I have integrity, and I do not want it damaged." Outspoken and a lone wolf on some issues, O'Donnell drew the wrath of Republican leadership during the 2001 Legislature on such things as reapportionment and creating a legislative oversight committee for the state Transportation Department, a move opposed by GOP Gov. Kenny Guinn. At one point in the session, O'Donnell blocked a Republican reapportionment bill from moving out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee and to the floor of the Senate. He refused to vote on it, leaving a 3-3 deadlock in the committee. "I got skewered because of that, but I would do it again," he said. The Republican plan, he said, was put together in a secret meeting and that was the wrong way to do things. But he later voted to allow the bill out of committee. He conducted a mini-filibuster in the closing minutes of the session in order to kill a bill involving the Transportation Department. But he failed. He wanted a legislative committee be created to oversee the transportation agency to "give people a voice." The governor opposed it and won. "I had a difficult session," O'Donnell said. "I wanted to cure the long lines at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles). I went against the governor and that was blocked by Bill Raggio. I wanted to change the Millennium Scholarships so all students could participate and not just those who go to Nevada universities and I was blocked on that." After the Legislature, he tried to overthrow Raggio and bring the Senate leadership to Clark County. But that failed in a GOP caucus in Las Vegas. He said lawmakers "fear" Raggio because he controls a large purse strings of campaign funds. "I wanted to bring the leadership down south and clean up some of the abuses in the system," he said. He was unhappy that lobbyists played so prominent a role in the final hours of the Legislature "Things were manipulated and coerced in the back doors," he said. His plan to regulate the limousine industry in Clark County was voted down in the Republican controlled Senate. It was revived but never made it through the Legislature. He was in the minority in his belief that Yucca Mountain would be selected as a site for a nuclear dump and that the state should start working with the federal government to prepare for it to avoid any disasters. He wanted to tap some money going to counties and the school districts to hire more people to staff the windows at the Department of Motor Vehicles, but that bill was buried. "I need to step aside so somebody else can take my seat," he said. O'Donnell said he believes whoever replaces him will eventually become majority leader in the Senate. He said term limits will kick in in the next few years and his successor will gain seniority and ascend to become the leader. Some of his biggest accomplishments, he said, was getting the interchange at Spring Mountain and Interstate 15, as well as funding the Desert Inn Arterial. "That was my baby." In the 1985 session, he said, he led a drive for retention pay for teachers. Considered one of the computer gurus in the Legislature, O'Donnell said he was "very proud" of the technology advances that allowed the public to see bills amendments and listen to hearings over the Internet. And he was one of only a handful of legislators who opposed the 300 percent pension increase for legislators that was eventually repealed. For the past six years, O'Donnell has been involved in real estate development. He said he recently purchased the Bowmer and Berry's Show Case on Maryland Parkway and is converting it for medical offices. "I'm a lucky guy, but it's time to move on to do other things," he said. "I have two children in medical school and I have got to help them as much as I can. "On their deathbed nobody said, 'I wanted to spend more time in the Legislature,' " he said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Cracks in reactor nozzles cause concern - 2001-08-13 - South Florida Business Journal Ed Duggan Metal fatigue and its telltale cracks spoil more than just a smooth surface in airplanes and nuclear reactors. Cracks can be a prelude to disaster. Some cracks have been found for years in and on nozzles on pressurized water reactors. Until recently, the cracks primarily occurred as spider cracking on or near welds. None were found to penetrate the surface. That's changed. A bulletin from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is warning about potential danger in all pressurized water reactors, including all the reactors in Florida: FP's St. Lucie 1 &2, north of Palm Beach County on the ocean; FP's Turkey Point 3 &4 on the southern coast of Miami-Dade County; and Florida Progress' Crystal River 3, north of the Tampa Bay area. The problem was noticed in South Carolina last fall. More than 200 pounds of boric acid crystals were found on the floor of the V.C. Summer nuclear facility on Oct. 7 during an inspection after it had closed down for refueling. The plant is owned and operated by Southern Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and 26 miles northwest of Columbia, S.C. Boric acid is one of the chemicals used to make efficient reactor coolant operations, according to FP's Web site. At the Oconee 3 Nuclear Station owned by Duke Power Co., a similar buildup of boric acid crystals of a few cubic inches each was found under nine of the 69 nozzles atop the reactor on Feb. 18 this year. That led to 47 "crack recordable" locations. That, in turn, led to the discovery of "significant circumferential cracks" in two control rod drive nozzles, according to the bulletin. Repairs were made by Duke Power at Oconee and the unit restarted on April 24. "At V.C. Summer and Oconee, the boron water in the pressurized reactor was escaping through cracks and was solidifying as boric acid crystals as the water evaporated," said Sue Gagner, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C. The cracks have created industry scrutiny of the structural integrity of reactor head penetration nozzles, or control rod drive mechanisms. The mechanisms are used to guide control rods in and out of a reactor core. Licensees of 69 pressurized water reactors received a bulletin outlining what had been found and calling for inspections within 30 days, or a plan of action acceptable to the regulatory commission. One function of the nozzles is to maintain pressure in the reactor coolant system. Cracking of the control rod drive mechanism nozzles "represent a degradation of the primary reactor coolant system boundary, and hence, is potentially safety significant," according to the bulletin. "On the face of it, it doesn't sound catastrophic, as a primary piping failure would be," said Charles Meinhold, president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, a non-profit organization chartered by Congress in 1964. "I think we need to know a lot more about the cracks and where they are occurring. The NRC's bulletin and its requests for inspections should provide that additional information." The NRC's Gagner said, "The licensees will report back to the commission within 30 days on whether they can submit the required information [inspections] or come up with a plan that is acceptable." Unless a facility planned to be off line between now and the end of the year for maintenance or fuel replenishment, it might be impossible to conduct the necessary inspections, she said The nozzles are in a critical spot. Control rod drive shafts pass through penetration nozzles that sit at the top of a reactor vessel head. There can be anywhere from 40 to 100 nozzles per reactor, depending upon its size and design, according to the NRC. The reactor coolant water is kept under tremendous pressure ­ 2,235 pounds per square inch at Turkey Point and 2,250 pounds per square inch at St. Lucie ­ to prevent boiling, FP's Web site says. Rachel Scott, FP manager of external affairs for the Treasure Coast, said the utility will first identify the components in question and then assess the plant's ability to operate safely and how inspections can be done. "I believe the plan is to carry out inspections as we take the plants off line to refuel," Scott said. St. Lucie 2 is scheduled to be refueled in November; St. Lucie 1 in the fall of 2002. Turkey Point 3 in October and Turkey Point 4 next spring. The NRC is requesting information from licensees to determine whether current inspection practices are adequate and whether any additional regulatory response by the agency is necessary. E-mail technology writer Ed Duggan at EDuggan@bizjournals.com. [Get Copyright Clearance] Copyright 2001 American City Business Journals Inc. Click for permission to reprint (PRC# 1.1663.467883) ***************************************************************** 4 Procedures Taken for Returning BNFL's Falsified MOX Fuel www.cnic.or.jp Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 10 August, 2001 Citizens' Nuclear Information Center Japanese Nuclear Fuel Transportation Updates (1) Return shipment of BNFL's MOX fuel with falsified QC data On 9 August 2001, the Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPCO) announced that a "nuclear material transfer application" has been submitted to the U.S. government by the Japanese government for the returning of MOX (mixed plutonium-uranium oxide) fuel now stored at KEPCO's Takahama Plant in Fukui Prefecture. The MOX fuel was manufactured by the British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) for Takahama 3 reactor, and was transported to Japan in the summer of 1999. However, it was later found that the quality control data for this fuel had been falsified. Subsequently in July 2000, the governments of Japan and the U.K., BNFL, and KEPCO all agreed that the fuel would be returned to the U.K. The MOX fuel includes uranium supplied by the United States and thus under the U.S.-Japan nuclear agreement, Japanese government is required to obtain permission from the U.S. government for this shipment. Japan also has a similar agreement with Canada, and will make the necessary procedures in due course. No specific date has been set for the returning of the material, but KEPCO is hoping to ship out the MOX fuel by the end of next year. Fukui government and local citizens have been insisting that no MOX fuel can be used in the Prefecture while the falsified fuel remains there. (2) Spent Magnox Fuel from Tokai Plant The last portion of the spent fuel from Japan's first and only decommissioned Tokai Plant (GCR, 166MW) left Japan on 21 June 2001, sailed through the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea, and arrived in Sellafield, the U.K. on 2 August 2001. The Japan Atomic Power Co. (JAPCO), the owner of Tokai Plant, made no official announcement on this shipment. For a Nuclear Free World - http://www.cnic.or.jp/ 3F Kotobuki Bldg., 1-58-15 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Japan Tel: 81-3-5330-9520; Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://www.cnic.or.jp/
cnic-jp@po.iijnet.or.jp (C) Citizens' Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) ***************************************************************** 5 Carolina police may block Bush's nuclear waste Special report: George Bush's America Julian Borger in Washington Monday August 13, 2001 The Guardian A high-stakes dispute about the disposal of surplus plutonium from US nuclear warheads may be brought to a head this month by the governor of South Carolina's order to the police to consider erecting roadblocks to prevent federal nuclear shipments entering the state. Jim Hodges accused President George Bush of reneging on the previous administration's promise that any plutonium sent to South Carolina for reprocessing would be shipped out again. Mr Hodges said he had no intention of letting his state, which played a pivotal role in Mr Bush's election, become a permanent nuclear dump. "If it is necessary for me to lie down in front of the trucks, I'll do that," he said. "We're going to do whatever it takes." He sent a memo asking the state public safety director, who is in charge of the traffic police, to evaluate using "highway roadblocks or other measures" to prevent shipments crossing the state line. A confrontation could come within the next few weeks, as shipments are due to arrive from a plant in Rocky Flats, Colorado. The Savannah River nuclear processing centre in South Carolina has been chosen to deal with plutonium from nuclear warheads dismantled under an agreement with Russia in 1996. The Clinton administration planned to convert about 26 tonnes of plutonium into the plutonium-uranium fuel known as mixed oxide (Mox) for use in commercial reactors and vitrify eight tonnes of plutonium residue from Rocky Flatsfor burial elsewhere. The Bush administration has cut the $6.1bn vitrification budget and questioned plans to build a Mox manufacturing plant at Savannah River. It still plans to sharply reduce the nuclear arsenal, but it is now unclear what it will do with the warheads. South Carolina officials fear they will be dumped in their state. "We will be left holding the proverbial bag," Mr Hodges said. "We must be prepared to stand up to Washington ... My hope is the federal government will come to its senses and allow us to avoid this step, but we cannot take a chance." He told state congressmen it was clear that the energy department intended to renege on many of its commitments to the state about removing reprocessed material and cleaning up the environment. South Carolina would not be the first state to take drastic steps to avoid becoming a nuclear dump. In 1988 the then governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, had the police block shipments of the naval nuclear waste to a processing plant in his state. The energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, has promised to negotiate with South Carolina on the issue. Visiting Savannah River last week, he said: "The legacy of this facility is one of working together. That's what I want to do. I'm certain that's what the governor wants to do as well." Tension between the federal government and individual states on the nuclear waste issue is likely to increase, since the Bush administration plans to decommission a large number of nuclear weapons and resuscitate the nuclear energy programme. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 6 California's nuclear future bakersfield.com - Opinion August 13, 2001 Prime cuts for August 13, 2001 Monday August 13, 2001, 01:39:24 PM The following articles are submitted by local, state and national authors. They are selected for posting on bakersfield.com by The Bakersfield Californian's Opinion Section staff. Comments about the postings should be submitted to opinion@bakersfield.com By Sen. Tom McClintock If there is a silver lining in the energy crisis it is that most Californians - and, indeed, most Americans - have reawakened to a simple but inescapable truth: If we want clean, cheap, abundant and reliable electricity, we must make a significant commitment to nuclear power. California has only two nuclear facilities left from the era when our state was committed to a prosperous future. Yet just those two facilities today supply more than 18 percent of California's electricity, at the price of 3-cents per kilowatt-hour. At that price, an average home's electricity bill would come to $18 per month. Every year, those two plants prevent the release of 181,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 7.7 million metric tons of carbon particulates that would otherwise have been produced if the same power had been generated by conventional power plants. All told, this nation's existing nuclear plants have prevented the equivalent air pollution of half of the nation's cars and light trucks. As the energy crisis has focused public attention on the issue, a remarkable transformation is taking place. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times Poll found that 2/3 of Californians were not only opposed, but strongly opposed, to nuclear power. Last month's Field Poll found that a clear majority now favors it. An important issue in this debate is over nuclear waste. The amount of waste produced by nuclear power plants is a fraction of other types of electricity generation. And 95 percent of spent fuel can be reused, turning this fraction into an even smaller fraction. But there is no denying that what remains is radioactive and requires proper disposal. Under California law, nuclear plant construction cannot even be considered until a national repository for nuclear waste is approved. Meanwhile, the state's nuclear plants have been storing their waste in temporary containers on site since 1969. And that brings us to a desolate and remote location in the middle of the Nevada desert called "Yucca Mountain." For many years, Yucca Mountain has been recognized as the ideal site for a national waste repository. It is the most stable geological site on the continent, a solid rock formation where over 100 underground nuclear tests have been conducted. Ironically, the surrounding rock gives off greater background radiation than would the repository itself. As former Clinton Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt recently pointed out, Yucca Mountain makes sense both environmentally and geologically. The site has been analyzed for more than 20 years, at the cost of $7 billion, making it the most extensively environmentally evaluated project in history. The remaining objections to it are now strictly political. California ratepayers have already forked over $800 million in surcharges on their electricity bills to pay for the repository, which the federal government had promised to open in 1998. Three years later, the site is still not approved, stalled by the political opposition of the Luddite anti-nuclear lobby and Nevada's NIMBYs. Meanwhile, every major power plant now under consideration in California is to be powered by natural gas, a shortsighted policy assuring that Californians will be held hostage to the high costs of pollution and the ruinous volatility of natural gas prices for decades to come. California's legislature had the opportunity to adopt a resolution supporting the Yucca Mountain facility recently, but rejected it on nearly a straight party-line vote. They did so knowing full well that the alternative to Yucca Mountain is to stall California's ability to deliver clean, cheap and abundant electricity indefinitely and to continue to maintain more than 30 years of nuclear waste in temporary storage in California. Shockingly, this is the option preferred by California's leftist legislature. Of course, California's legislature is a lagging indicator of public sentiment. It's a good bet the public prefers the 3-cent power and clean air that nuclear energy promises rather than the crushing debt, high electricity bills, rolling blackouts and continued air pollution that California's current energy policy has delivered. And if the clear will of the electorate doesn't change the legislature's mind, perhaps the electorate will want to change the legislature. Tom McClintock represents the 19th State Senate District in the California Legislature. His website address is www.sen.ca.gov/mcclintock Wasteful conservation by Ben Lieberman Given the recent weather, we should all be thankful for affordable air conditioning. But an environmental advocacy group and several state governments have launched a lawsuit that could send the price of central A/C systems through the roof. If successful, these parties will force the federal Department of Energy (DOE) to enact a stringent new energy conservation standard for air conditioners, despite the agency's own determination that it's a bad deal for consumers. In one of the final acts of the Clinton administration, the outgoing president enacted a new rule requiring central air conditioners to be 30 percent more efficient than the existing standard. The agency estimates that the new rule, to take effect in 2006, will boost the cost of a new air conditioner or heat pump by $335 to $435. Others, including the National Association of Home Builders, fear even higher costs. DOE admits that only a minority of homeowners can ever hope to earn back this higher up-front cost in the form of energy savings over the life of the system. Under one set of assumptions, DOE concludes that 58 percent of homeowners will suffer net costs from owning an ultra-efficient air conditioner, with 25 experiencing net savings and the rest breaking even. Worse yet, the agency found that the new rule will disproportionately burden low-income households. As many as 69 percent will end up spending more to stay cool. The higher equipment costs may price some homeowners out of central air entirely, a particularly troublesome prospect in light of several recent studies showing that air conditioning saves lives during heat waves. Sensing an onslaught of problematic policy decisions that could blow up on their watch, the Bush administration decided to take a second look at this and several other last-minute Clinton regulations. The new team at DOE decided that an earlier proposal calling for a 20 percent efficiency increase was more reasonable, and announced plans to revise the final rule. As a consequence of this relatively minor change, administration critics are shouting "regulatory rollback" and pointing to California's electricity shortage as evidence that the 30 percent standard is necessary. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the states of California, New York, and Connecticut have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to reinstate the 30 percent standard. California's Attorney General Bill Lockyer complained that "the Bush Administration is making it harder for California in the current energy crisis by ignoring or trying to eliminate the toughened efficiency standards for residential air conditioners." NRDC's Ashok Gupta criticized the administration's decision as "staggeringly short-sighted," noting that several other states are also concerned about brownouts. In truth, the extreme 30 percent requirement will do little to solve the nation's present electricity problems. DOE believes that it will be at least a decade before the rule affects energy use, as it will take several years beyond the 2006 effective date for the new A/C units to penetrate the marketplace in significant numbers. Thus, the short-term shortfall in electricity supply should be solved by then - unless the power plant obstructionists keep nixing badly needed new capacity. Nor is it likely that the new rule will ever save as much juice as predicted. More than a dozen home appliance conservation standards are now in place as a result of a 1987 federal law. But the actual energy savings from these measures have fallen short of projections, and indeed per capita residential energy use has not declined over the past decade. One concern is that the higher price of ultra-efficient refrigerators, clothes washers, air-conditioners and other appliances causes some homeowners to forestall new purchases and hold on to their older, far less efficient models. Another is the so-called rebound effect, the tendency for people to use energy efficient products more intensively. Federal home appliance regulations may work as a feel-good crusade, but have proven not to be a realistic approach to solving energy supply problems. If the 30 percent standard is reinstated, it will reduce electricity use, but probably less than predicted, and almost certainly not enough to justify the substantial costs or avert any electricity shortages. Now that's a waste of energy. Ben Lieberman is a senior policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-profit public policy organization in Washington, DC. Crisis is Not Electrical By Oscar Wright There's an old Chinese proverb which states that 'unless you change direction, you are likely to arrive at where you are headed.' Over the past four decades, California has been headed down a path beneath her once great dignity, potential and world status. In trying to explain the State's slippage into this undeniable social abyss, current political logic is either deliberately misleading or lacking the ingredients of commonsense. Recent news that our state has leap-frogged over France to become the 5th largest economic power in the world, is cause for both jubilation and curious bewilderment. With regards to the latter, the question could be asked 'how can a state possess the economic firepower of a canon, but only produce the flicker of a candle, in an embarrassing attempt to keep its lights on? Using the jargon of today's youth, what's up with that? Other dichotomies manifest themselves in the field of education. The question could be asked, 'how can a state spend more money on education than all the other 49 states, and yet ranks 33rd among all states in per pupil spending? (National Education Association 1999-2000). What's missing in this equation? On another related issue, have you walked down the marbled corridors of our majestic state capitol lately? If it's raining outside, one thing is certain. You won't slip in water puddles caused by leaky roofs and bad plumbing. Unfortunately, that's not the case in many of our classrooms today. Our inadequate school facilities are still turning the corner of the 19th century, much less the 21st century. When most Californians think of the major problems facing our state, six distinct issues come to mind: the energy crisis, failing schools, racial and ethnic tensions, transportation gridlock, political distrust and, most recently, a worsening state budget. I believe all these issues and more have a common denominator. Certainly their magnitude and depth of complexity require our full engagement, but their very existence and longevity mask a far more serious dilemma: the lack of visionary leadership. Visionary leaders see the future and act on it before it occurs! True visionary leadership consists of seeing what everyone else has seen, thinking what everyone else has thought, and doing what no one else has dared. True visionary leaders would have foreseen the exploding demographic changes in our state years ago and initiated measures to mitigate its impact on our institutions and way of life. True visionary leaders would have recognized that for businesses to be competitive in the 21st century, domestic and global, our workforce must emanate from a world-class educational system. True visionary leaders are not 'unlicensed contractors' plodding, plastering and hoping you will overlook and accept their shoddy craftsmanship. These men and women are culture builders, competent architects of our common good. The old maxim 'for lack of a vision, the people perish' has been given a new twist in our state capitol these days. The new California version is 'for lack of a vision, our politicians finger-point.' Yes! We've had our share of disasters, natural and man-made, but they all pale against the great depression of the 30's. President Roosevelt did more sitting in his wheel chair than most leaders of today do standing, with far less of a crisis. While it is true that we vote for our governing leaders, a case can also be made that special interest gave us the choices. This is why campaign reform is such a potent issue for immediate action these days. California will never be the state it once was; but it can be better. First, we must raise the threshold on the qualifications of the men and women who will take us to the next level of 21st century governance. Second, our institutions both private and public, must be overhauled with a new compelling sense of direction and vision befitting our status as the 5th largest world power. Third, we must do a better job of research coordinaton and implementation. Too many great works of innovation are languishing on the shelves of policy institutes and think tanks without any semblance of serious review and integration. We certainly don't need more piecemeal 'gimmicks' disguised as reform, but a real 'game plan' for the future that speaks to our potential greatness as a global-state. Just yesterday, people flocked to California for the opportunities. Today, large numbers flee our state because of the obstacles. No! Our energy crisis in not electrical, our crisis was elected. Oscar Wright is a management consultant on visionary leadership, speaker and author. He can be reached at calvison21@aol.com Copyright © 2001, The Bakersfield Californian | Email the Webmaster ***************************************************************** 7 Carolina police may block Bush's nuclear waste Special report: George Bush's America Julian Borger in Washington Monday August 13, 2001 The Guardian A high-stakes dispute about the disposal of surplus plutonium from US nuclear warheads may be brought to a head this month by the governor of South Carolina's order to the police to consider erecting roadblocks to prevent federal nuclear shipments entering the state. Jim Hodges accused President George Bush of reneging on the previous administration's promise that any plutonium sent to South Carolina for reprocessing would be shipped out again. Mr Hodges said he had no intention of letting his state, which played a pivotal role in Mr Bush's election, become a permanent nuclear dump. "If it is necessary for me to lie down in front of the trucks, I'll do that," he said. "We're going to do whatever it takes." He sent a memo asking the state public safety director, who is in charge of the traffic police, to evaluate using "highway roadblocks or other measures" to prevent shipments crossing the state line. A confrontation could come within the next few weeks, as shipments are due to arrive from a plant in Rocky Flats, Colorado. The Savannah River nuclear processing centre in South Carolina has been chosen to deal with plutonium from nuclear warheads dismantled under an agreement with Russia in 1996. The Clinton administration planned to convert about 26 tonnes of plutonium into the plutonium-uranium fuel known as mixed oxide (Mox) for use in commercial reactors and vitrify eight tonnes of plutonium residue from Rocky Flatsfor burial elsewhere. The Bush administration has cut the $6.1bn vitrification budget and questioned plans to build a Mox manufacturing plant at Savannah River. It still plans to sharply reduce the nuclear arsenal, but it is now unclear what it will do with the warheads. South Carolina officials fear they will be dumped in their state. "We will be left holding the proverbial bag," Mr Hodges said. "We must be prepared to stand up to Washington ... My hope is the federal government will come to its senses and allow us to avoid this step, but we cannot take a chance." He told state congressmen it was clear that the energy department intended to renege on many of its commitments to the state about removing reprocessed material and cleaning up the environment. South Carolina would not be the first state to take drastic steps to avoid becoming a nuclear dump. In 1988 the then governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, had the police block shipments of the naval nuclear waste to a processing plant in his state. The energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, has promised to negotiate with South Carolina on the issue. Visiting Savannah River last week, he said: "The legacy of this facility is one of working together. That's what I want to do. I'm certain that's what the governor wants to do as well." Tension between the federal government and individual states on the nuclear waste issue is likely to increase, since the Bush administration plans to decommission a large number of nuclear weapons and resuscitate the nuclear energy programme. ***************************************************************** 8 NRC to Hold Public Meeting on Inspection Programs for Steam Generators at Salem Nuclear Plant Press Release - Region I - 2001-051 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-01-051 August 10, 2001 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the public on Thursday, August 16, to discuss the NRC's regulatory oversight of PSEG's programs for steam generator inspections at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station in Hancock's Bridge, N.J. The meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. in the Renaissance Room at the Hampton Inn, 429 N. Broadway, in Pennsville, N.J. The meeting is open for public participation. The agenda includes presentations by the NRC on the agency's oversight at Salem and the NRC's inspection of licensee in-service inspection programs and NRC steam generator inspections at Salem. During the public forum, representatives from Unplug Salem and other speakers will make presentations. ***************************************************************** 9 NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet August 28 - 30 in Rockville, Maryland Press Release - 2001 - 101 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA No. 01-101 August 10, 2001 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has scheduled a meeting on August 28-30 in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss, among other issues, an update by the NRC staff on its earlier meeting with Department of Energy officials on total system performance assessment and integration regarding the disposal of high-level waste at the proposed repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency's Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. A complete agenda is attached. For additional information or schedule changes, contact Howard Larson at 301-415-6805. ACNW meeting notices, transcripts and letters are available, at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW/on the internet. ACNW Full Agenda Tuesday, August 28 8:30 - 10:15 A.M.: Opening Statement/Planning and Procedures (Open) - The Chairman will open the meeting with brief remarks. The Committee will then review items under consideration at this meeting and consider topics proposed for future ACNW meetings. 10:30 - 12:00 P.M.: Status of Sufficiency Review (Open) - The Committee will receive an information briefing from the NRC staff on the status of their sufficiency comments. 1:30 - 4:00 P.M.: DOE's Supplemental Science and Performance Analysis (SSPA) (Open) - The Committee will hear a status report from DOE on its SSPA. 4:15 - 7:00 P.M.: Discussion of Proposed ACNW Reports (Open) - The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on Sufficiency Comments, Research Plan for Radionuclide Transport: Prioritization Methods, Greater-Than-Class C Waste and Sealed Sources, Yucca Mountain Igneous Activity Analyses and Comments on Regulatory Conservatism. Wednesday, August 29 8:30 - 8:40 A.M.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open) - The ACNW Chairman will make remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:40 - 10:15 A.M.: Preparations for October Visit to Nevada (Open) - The Committee will finalize topics, agenda and public outreach sessions for the trip to Nevada, as well as plans for a visit prior to the October meeting by Members to the Envirocare Facility in Utah. 10:30 - 12:30 P.M.: Update: Total System Performance Assessment and Integration (TSPA&I) (Open) - The Committee will hear a presentation by the NRC staff on the TSPAI technical exchange and management meeting with DOE held August 6-9, 2001. 2:00 - 4:00 P.M.: Research Working Group (Open) - The Committee will hear a briefing by and hold discussions with DOE representatives on its current pre-closure plans and activities for the proposed HLW repository at Yucca Mountain. 4:00 - 4:30 P.M.: Research Working Group (Open) - The Committee will discuss plans for the subject working group which is to be held during the 131st ACNW Meeting. 4:45 - 7:00 P.M.: Preparation of ACNW Reports (Open) - The Committee will discuss proposed reports. Thursday, August 30 8:30 - 8:35 A.M.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW Chairman (Open) - The ACNW Chairman will make remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:35 - 10:00 A.M.: Briefing by Deputy Director, NMSS (Open) - Ms. Federline will address the Committee on items of mutual interest. 10:00 A.M. - 2:45 P.M.: Discussion of Proposed ACNW Reports (Open) - The Committee will continue its discussion of proposed ACNW reports. 2:45 - 3:00 P.M.: Miscellaneous (Open) - The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. ### ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 EPA requests DOE to study 3 Roane sites Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:24 p.m. on Monday, August 13, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Environmental Protection Agency has requested that the Department of Energy look into possible off-site contaminations in three Roane County communities that border the Oak Ridge K-25 site. EPA's request stems from concerns voiced recently by the Coalition for a Healthy Environment. The coalition serves as a support and research group pertaining to the illnesses of workers at Department of Energy facilities and the citizens of Oak Ridge and the surrounding areas. In a letter to DOE officials, Constance Jones, with the Federal Facilities Branch of EPA's Waste Management Branch, states that coalition members have "alleged that airborne releases from the TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) incinerator and groundwater contamination from disposal activities may be the cause of illnesses being experienced" by residents in the Sugar Grove Valley, Dickey Valley and Dyllis communities. "The great concern is the belief by residents of these communities that DOE has not adequately assessed areas of off-site contamination," Jones' letter states. The Oak Ridger was unable to reach Jones for comment this morning. Earlier, Janine Voner, outreach coordinator for the coalition, told The Oak Ridger that it was likely people living near K-25 were exposed to contaminants. As evidence, she pointed out a report DOE issued in October 2000 stating that employees were exposed to hazardous materials while working at K-25. EPA's request is that DOE detail a plan to address the possible contaminations in the three communities. However, DOE is not to implement the plan without coordination and written concurrence from EPA and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. K-25, which is a Superfund, or contaminated, site, falls under EPA's scope for investigation. K-25, where uranium-235 was separated from uranium-238 through a gaseous diffusion process, occupies 4,689 acres (7.6 square miles) or 14 percent of the Oak Ridge Reservation and is located in the Roane County portion of Oak Ridge. DOE spokesman Steven Wyatt did not provide comment this morning when questioned about EPA's request. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 2 Rocketdyne's silence on beryllium risk could prove dangerous Monday, August 13, 2001 By Beth Barrett Staff Writer Rocketdyne exposed dozens of workers, far more than previously known, at its Canoga Park plant to potentially dangerous beryllium for years without their knowledge and later opposed requests to monitor health impacts. The company has consistently minimized the extent of the exposure and the seriousness of the problem. But two dozen former Rocketdyne employees -- representing a larger group of workers that handled an alloy containing a low percentage of beryllium -- have now come forward and told the Daily News they were given little safety training or equipment and denied basic tests when health questions arose. The Daily News began looking into the use of beryllium after a June 11 federal register listed one of Rocketdyne's predecessor companies, Atomics International, as a beryllium user. A series of articles since then has documented that use of the metal was far more extensive than the company initially acknowledged. The former employees said they worked in a machine shop for years, grinding, sanding and deburring parts made out of an aluminum alloy that contained from 1 percent to 3 percent beryllium, a metal used in rocket and nuclear programs that can cause lung disease if the dust is inhaled. Some said they ate lunch in the machine shop in Building 37 at 6633 Canoga Ave. and took chips and dust home in their work clothes, potentially introducing it into their homes and the community. "They are exposed," said Dr. Tom Hales, a senior medical epidemiologist with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, who visited the Canoga Park plant in 1987. While he said the team found no overexposures based on regulatory standards, it concluded that an epidemiological study of the workers was warranted. Dr. Lee S. Newman, an expert on beryllium disease at National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, in 1993 evaluated one former Rocketdyne worker and last week reviewed federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration surface and air samples taken in 1987. Based on that, he said the workers' exposures to the small amounts of beryllium dust was enough to potentially endanger their health. "They are at risk of beryllium sensitivity and beryllium disease, it's as simple as that." Statistically, Newman said, between one and three of the 60 people identified by the Daily News as working in Building 37 would be expected to develop the disease or sensitivity to it. For that reason, he said, it's critical the workers be placed in a beryllium screening program where they would get a routine blood test for sensitivity to the metal. "This is a plant where beryllium medical surveillance should occur," Newman said, noting the published scientific literature is clear that some workers exposed to alloys containing comparable amounts of beryllium to those worked on at Rocketdyne have come down with the disease. Officials with Rocketdyne, a division of Rockwell International purchased by The Boeing Co. in 1996, last week denied the machine shop employees are at risk and said they aren't classified as beryllium workers under the company's current screening program. "We don't think it was a hazard today, let alone then," said Steve Lafflam, director of safety, health and environmental affairs since 1985. "We don't have any data on all of our monitoring through that shop that indicates we exceeded any permissible exposure levels." Lafflam said, in general, only workers who handled the metal in much higher concentrations -- primarily those who worked in a tightly controlled beryllium shop where workers were trained and monitored -- are considered among the company's approximately 80 former beryllium workers. While company officials said they will consider case-by-case requests for beryllium screening from former or current workers, they made it clear not everyone will be eligible. "Do we test a secretary who walked through the shop to the vending machine?" Lafflam asked. Nearly went undetected Workers said that it wasn't until 1987 that the company improved safety procedures. The actions were taken after workers said they discovered a manufacturer's label on a piece of the alloy warning beryllium dust or fumes could cause potentially fatal lung disease or cancer, company documents and numerous interviews reveal. Lafflam acknowledged some labels were "missing" but said Rocketdyne had no regulatory obligation to label the materials. After concerns were raised, both labeling and training were improved, he said. In recent questioning, the company has downplayed the matter. At first, company officials said the work with the metal was minimal and confined to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills. When confronted with evidence of an operational beryllium shop in Canoga Park, the company acknowledged its existence but said only a handful of employees worked there at a time. About half of the 60 people identified as working in the machine shop have come forward with health concerns. They said they have known about their potential beryllium exposure risks for years but either have been unable to win medical surveillance from the company or have felt any challenge would be futile. Now, with the Department of Energy offering support to employees of companies that performed DOE work involving beryllium, former nuclear and other non-DOE workers are seeking screening, Alcoa, in a November 1987 letter to McCarron, the former shop steward, said the labels were carefully drawn up to fully disclose the health risks, as well as to describe the personal, health and environmental safeguards that needed to be followed. Those precautions, "should be observed by everyone who works with these products," the letter from Alcoa's then manager of product safety, Raymond W. Sauer, said. Sauer could not be reached. But the former Rocketdyne workers said they worked for years without knowledge of those warnings. Lafflam said all high-concentration beryllium was labeled in the beryllium shop, but there was no regulatory requirement Rocketdyne label the aluminum alloys containing low levels of beryllium. He said there was nothing to suggest the labels were missing, because someone intentionally removed them. The workers said they felt they were misled. "There was no informed consent in the workplace," McCarron said. Beryllium sampling A spot sampling by OSHA of air and surfaces in late 1987 did not show levels high enough to create a health hazard, Rozas wrote in the memo, a response to a grievance filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 9927. Newman, the pulmonologist, said the fact beryllium was measured at all was cause for concern. "They (the samples) tell me the processes they performed in that area produced detectable airborne beryllium at levels at which we've seen beryllium disease occur." Hales, the NIOSH senior medical epidemiologist, added that because small amounts of beryllium were detected, "those people should be screened." The OSHA citations issued between mid-November and December 1987 included several for not disclosing to workers they were working on alloys that contained beryllium. The company was never fined. Typical was one issued in Building 37: "Alcoa aluminum castings for pylon B-1 bomber and MX missiles was not labeled indicating the percentages of beryllium which it contained which was from 0.04% to 0.3%. The bulk samples indicated 0.04% and 0.2% on or about Nov. 10, 1987." Another citation involved employees grinding and sanding beryllium-containing parts and handling chemicals known to cause respiratory problems without proper instruction. "No training was done," the federal investigators concluded. Beryllium is a light metal, which is mixed into other metals to give them strength, flexibility and other special traits that Rocketdyne used in its nuclear reactor research program at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, for rocket engines and solid fuel, and for many others parts, according to employees and documents. Beryllium dust has been known for decades to cause beryllium disease, a potentially fatal lung disease -- something Rocketdyne said it was aware of and took precautions against. Recently, scientists faced with scores of beryllium cases at defense plants across the country found evidence that workers exposed for long periods to alloys containing small amounts of beryllium appear to be at risk of getting the disease. Dr. Ron Balkissoon, a pulmonologist at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver, has found several workers who developed evidence of "full-blown beryllium disease" after being exposed to copper alloys that contained less than 2 percent beryllium. The unprotected Rocketdyne machinists were working on alloy containing up to 3 percent beryllium. "Our current feeling is that we don't know of any truly safe level (of beryllium), or any safe beryllium alloy below which one can be assured they won't develop beryllium sensitivity and-or beryllium disease." "If there's been extended exposure even to lower alloy components, there is the theoretical risk they've had enough exposure for their immune systems to begin reacting to it," he said. Screening for beryllium sensitivity through a blood test is critical to identify which workers need further medical monitoring, Balkissoon said. The body's immune system reacts to beryllium, which the test detects -- a possible indicator the person may have, or may someday develop the disease. "The value of screening is that you identify them in a surveillance program to be followed every two or so years to see if there is any deterioration in the lungs," Balkissoon said. Steroid treatments can slow the disease's progression. Newman, the doctor who evaluated McCarron on Dec. 9, 1993, recommended he be placed in medical monitoring. Newman said that while McCarron showed no signs of beryllium disease he should be medically monitored because of the eight years he worked around beryllium dust. "As a beryllium-exposed individual, it would be ... prudent for him to be part of ongoing beryllium screening programs," Newman said. "In his case, it would be reasonable for him to have a repeat blood beryllium lymphocyte transformation test and chest X-ray on the order of every two (to) three years to monitor for evidence of development and sensitization." Van Nuys workers' compensation Judge Linda J. Morgan agreed, and on April 13, 1995, ordered Rocketdyne's parent to provide McCarron with continuing medical treatment. The judge also heard from other former employees who testified that safeguards were lax, even in the shop where workers machined almost pure beryllium metal. Company officials dispute that, saying those workers were always rigorously trained and medically monitored. One machine maintenance worker testified that in 1985 he was given only a mask to enter the beryllium shop, where beryllium powder was visible. The company issued a respirator -- but no filters for it -- in 1989. The filters came a year later, he said. Another said he unknowingly welded on wire made out of the alloy, known as "tens 50," seven to eight times before realizing it contained beryllium. Rocketdyne challenged the use of Newman's report. A state appeals board found the report unconvincing since it did not substantiate that McCarron had sustained an industrial injury. Lafflam said the company denied McCarron's claim because he did not have a disease -- not because they were fighting medical screening. McCarron, now 57, sees it differently. "All I wanted was periodic screening for beryllium disease every two or three years." Workers' concerns Scott Promen, 44, of Tarzana said as a security guard and firefighter for Rocketdyne he used to sleep in a room adjoining the beryllium shop, which he claimed was not tightly sealed or always protected with dust-catching devices. Promen said his lungs are failing and he wheezes frequently. "I didn't know there was anything dangerous. This stuff about special precautions they took, they didn't. They said, it's safe, go ahead, it's fine. I'm an unfortunate person that got screwed by Rocketdyne." Promen said he tried to get the company to test him. "They said, we're not paying for that," Promen said. Lafflam said the room was sealed, and therefore workers on the outside were protected. Girard Gilkison, 64 of Simi Valley said when he and other maintenance men went into the beryllium shop to repair machinery, they had to beg just for rubber gloves. "I said, that's a dangerous room. They said, it's only beryllium. I knew it was poisonous. I tried to tell them about beryllium. They said, keep your mouth shut and do your job." Several former employees said it took years for the company to install air locks, ventilation systems and changing rooms to seal off the beryllium room. James S. Allen Jr. of Oracle, Ariz., a former beryllium room machine inspector, said he felt safe in the room because it was well ventilated and machines were flooded to keep dust from kicking up. "Maybe early on there weren't safeguards in the beryllium room," said Allen, now 71. Paul Entz, 67 of Roseville said he has no health effects but some of his co-workers in the shop were seriously afflicted. Entz, who worked for the company from 1953 until 1991 and who was on the safety team at one point, rated the company's overall response to the problem as good. When several people got sick, the company began to provide training, protective gear and require medical tests. "Once they became aware of the situation it was pretty well controlled." Los Angeles Newspaper Group Newspaper ***************************************************************** 3 Facility's rich history often unsung Monday, August 13, 2001 By Jim Skeen Staff Writer EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE -- For more than 50 years, Edwards Air Force Base's rocket laboratory has helped develop rocket engines for launching nuclear warheads as well as putting men on the moon. Established in 1947 on rocky Luehman Ridge overlooking Rogers Dry Lake, the rocket laboratory has developed engines for such rockets as the Atlas, which powered the Mercury space flights; the Minuteman missile; and the Saturn that powered the Apollo moon missions. "This is a vital part of American air power and space power," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Doug Pearson, Edwards' commander. The lab, like the rest of the U.S. military, weathered a series of defense cutbacks during the 1990s. More troubling for military rocket people was the rising belief in Pentagon circles that private industry should take the lead in rocket propulsion development. "It was thought the commercial sector would take over propulsion development," said Wesley Cox, a former Air Force colonel who led the rocket lab until his retirement on Aug. 2. "That didn't materialize to the extent they thought." Now there is a growing interest in the military for a quick, low-cost way to put satellites or other things into space. The Bush administration wants to build a space-based missile defense system and there is interest in a "space bomber," an aerospace craft capable of reaching anywhere in the world in 30 minutes. What this push for space access means for the laboratory remains to be seen. The laboratory's new commander, Lt. Col. Joseph Boyle, said one of his first tasks will be to start visiting potential customers, such as the Air Force Space Command and the Ballistic Defense Missile Organization, and find out exactly what technologies they are interested in seeing developed. "I want to understand what those folks need," Boyle said. "I want to reconnect with our customers." The rocket lab has been known by a variety of official titles over the years, the latest being Air Force Research Laboratory -- Propulsion Directorate. However, to longtime Antelope Valley residents and rocket enthusiasts, the facilities are known as the "the rocket site," "the rocket lab" or simply "the rock." While the exploits of the aircraft testing at Edwards -- like Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier in 1947, W.J. "Pete" Knight setting an X-15 speed record in 1967, or tests of the B-2 stealth bomber and other planes -- are well-documented, the achievements of the rocket lab are little known outside the rocket world. Former Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall once referred to the rocket lab as "the quiet part of the Edwards saga." Among the lab's little-known historic events were the first launches of the Minuteman missile. The missiles were actually launched only to short altitudes and were brought crashing back to Earth by nylon tethers. The rocket site covers more than 65 square miles and has facilities that its officials say would cost more than $3.1 billion if the government had to build them over again. It contains two-thirds of the nation's rocket test stands strong enough to hold high-thrust engines. "Ninety percent or more of a rocket is the propulsion system and propellant," said lab spokesman Ranney Adams. "Ten percent, if you're lucky, goes to the payload. Anything we can do to increase the payload is of great benefit for the nation." The lab recently assisted Boeing's Rocketdyne division test its 14,500-pound RS-68 rocket. The engine, capable of generating 650,000 pounds of thrust, will be used on Delta IV rockets to take satellites into space. One lab project is to improve a space propulsion system called a Hall thruster, which converts electric energy into thrust for moving objects in outer space. The thruster was introduced in the 1960s and later advanced by the former Soviet Union. The problem with it is the wear-and-tear on certain components. "The Air Force has payloads it wants to get into a high orbit," said William Hargus, a scientist at the laboratory. "The Hall thrusters would be part of a satellite upper stage." Another project is the development of a small thruster for use on microsatellites, satellites weighing less than 220 pounds. The thruster is expected to see use in 2003 in an experiment called Technology Satellite of the 21st Century, or TechSat 21 for short. The experiment is aimed proving small satellites flying in formations can replace large, single satellites. Such microsatellites would be cheaper to launch into space, be able to readily change missions, and more durable than today's larger satellites. The rocket site has about 600 workers at any given time, about 250 of whom are military and Defense Department civilians. The others work for private companies. One of the issues for the laboratory, like the rest of the Air Force, is attracting engineers. About 30 percent of the lab's engineering and scientific slots are open. "That's a major challenge right now -- finding engineers and convincing them that this a great place to be," Boyle said. Los Angeles Newspaper Group Newspaper ***************************************************************** 4 Editorial: Pantex takes lead over tests 08/12/01 Amarillo Globe-News: Opinion: 2001 Amarillo Globe-News No, the news wasn't good when U.S. Department of Energy and Pantex officials disclosed what many residents near the huge weapons-assembly plant had feared.

Some cancer-causing agents have leaked into the area's water supply.

The overriding issue now is how Pantex, DOE and Amarillo utility officials plan to minimize - and possibly eliminate - the effects of the chemical leakage into the aquifer.

The test wells monitored by the city show that benzene - a known carcinogen - has leaked into water. The source of the benzene reportedly goes back to the World War II era, when Pantex was using certain solvents in the production of high-explosive ordnance.

Weapons production, storage and disassembly, of course, have traveled light years since then at Pantex. The nuclear age has brought about a whole new set of challenges.

So, what should be the community's response to these test results?

One response ought to be encouragement. The new management at Pantex, BWXT, is showing a refreshing spirit of candor and openness. BWXT has sought to get ahead of the story by disclosing the levels of benzene found in the monitoring wells. BWXT managers have leveled with the public during their brief time running the plant, and for that they deserve praise.

The city also is stepping up its monitoring efforts, pledging to increase its testing schedule to once per month rather than once per quarter. Amarillo water production superintendent Emmett Autrey called attention to the "heightened potential" for water contamination. The city's stepped-up vigilance also is welcome.

And what should authorities do to eliminate the problem?

Dan Glenn, manger of the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration office in Amarillo, and Dennis Ruddy, BWXT Pantex manager, say the "volatile organic compounds" that comprise the solvents can be "aerated" out of the water system by mixing the water with air. This process, they wrote in an Other Opinion page essay published Aug. 5, can remove the compounds from the water "very easily."

Let us hope so.

It is easy to criticize the folks at Pantex for the sins of their predecessors. However, such criticism will do nothing to eliminate the problem.

What must occur is for the people at the helm now to respond.

Pantex, DOE and city officials all have pledged to knuckle down to solve this vexing situation. They must waste no opportunity to deliver on that solemn pledge. ***************************************************************** 5 Hodges vows to block plutonium shipments [charlotte.com] August 10, 2001 CHANGE IN U.S. POLICY Hodges vows to block plutonium shipments 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. ***************************************************************** 6 Success stories, pitfalls of lab's in-house research fund KnoxNews: Columnists By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer SECOND OF TWO ARTICLES When good things happen in the federal research world, there's usually a scramble to take credit. Cynical? Probably. Last week, I took a look at the roots of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's discretionary research fund -- known officially as LDRD or Laboratory Directed Research and Development. It is a special money account set aside for lab managers to fund innovative research concepts by staff scientists and engineers. The joy of this fund (and perhaps its great success, too) is tied to the fact that the lab can underwrite high-risk, high-potential research projects without having to get up-front approval from Congress or the U.S. Department of Energy. In preparing last week's piece, I talked to several officials who gave credit to Herman Postma, former director of ORNL, and longtime lab executive, Truman Anderson, for birthing the LDRD fund and making it a success that quickly became the envy of other national laboratories. Postma, in an interview, told a couple of anecdotes and suggested the startup of the fund, with DOE's blessing, came in the early 1980s -- perhaps 1980 or '81. "It was new and wonderful," Postma recalled. Not surprisingly, soon after the publication, I started getting phone calls from other lab types, Oak Ridge historians and the local intelligentsia, telling me they were aware of discretionary funds at ORNL that existed well before the time given in my column -- perhaps even back to the 1960s. Joe Lenhard, retired research chief at DOE's Oak Ridge office and one-time boss and longtime nemesis of Postma, phoned with his account of things. According to Lenhard, the director's discretionary fund at ORNL was the brainchild of Bob Hart, the former DOE manager in Oak Ridge. Lenhard said Hart got Washington's approval for the fund as a way to help curb the Oak Ridge lab's wayward spending of federal money -- which reportedly had become way too discretionary. So, instead of trying to eliminate ORNL's desire to set its own agenda with federal funds, Hart opted to try to control it and limit it to one special account (at the time, roughly 1 percent of the overall research budget). The startup was about 1974, Lenhard said. Having printed that account, I'll probably hear from a few others in the days ahead. In the meantime, let's get back to the fund and how it works. Lee Riedinger, ORNL's deputy director for science and technology, said the LDRD fund (with a current balance of about $14.5 million) provides two types of grants to lab researchers. Most of the fund's account provides two-year grants for projects of special promise -- especially those with the potential to develop new expertise or broaden the lab's capabilities in strategic areas of research. These awards, which must pass review by a committee of lab scientists and top managers, typically offer researchers up to $350,000 a year to explore new ideas and test concepts not yet receiving wide acceptance. About $3 million of the LDRD fund is reserved for so-called "seed money" -- which provides an exciting opportunity for scientists with great ideas that just won't wait for the next budget cycle. Under this program, scientists have a chance once a month to present proposals and get up to $100,000 to pursue a new research angle. There are very few strings here. The main thing is that it has to be a great idea, something that impresses one's scientific peers. "If you use it wisely, you can rather quickly get something started," Riedinger said. "You don't have to have an elaborate proposal or sell it over many months or years to a federal agency." In fact, there are reports of scientists acquiring funds for new research in a matter of a few weeks or even shorter. Some of the laboratory's big-name researchers have produced big-time projects that started with LDRD funding. Among them are C.T. Liu (work on intermetallic alloys such as nickel aluminides), Steve Pennycook (theoretical work on the Z-contrast microscope) and Mike Ramsey (the award-winning microchip known as "Laboratory on a Chip"). But Mark Reeves, who managed the ORNL fund for two years in the early 1990s, said he was impressed because the lab committees that reviewed proposals were solely interested in the quality of the ideas, not the stature of individual researchers. "I've seen them shoot down Corporate Fellows and help people who just walked in off the street," Reeves said. "The only question is: 'Is this good science?' " For all its success, the LDRD has potential pitfalls. Because of the attractiveness of the no-strings money and its near-term availability, there is always a temptation to abuse the system. "We have to be very careful," Riedinger said. "It is dangerous to play fast and loose with this money." It is illegal to use the LDRD account to supplement program funds or to mix and match other funds to circumvent the intent of DOE or Congress. There is always scrutiny of federal funding, and maybe more where there's so much leeway. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California was the subject of a recent audit by DOE's inspector general. The report found that of 45 Livermore projects evaluated over a three-year period, 26 of them involved research in which the contractual authority to do the work was "questionable." In other words, the projects did not go through one of the approved mechanisms for doing research, not even Livermore's LDRD fund. The auditors estimated that Livermore may be spending $11.2 million a year on unauthorized research projects. Riedinger insisted that ORNL is playing by the book. "We are clean as a whistle," the lab's deputy director said. "The lab has been very clean on this issue." Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 7 Papers reveal nuclear sub doubts BBC News | UK | 13 August, 2001, [Devonport Dockyard ] Officials advised against Devonport nuclear refits Britain's main nuclear submarine dockyard was originally ruled out for the role during secret discussions on safety, it has emerged. Papers released by the Public Records Office show the safety rating for Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth was substantially worse than those of Rosyth, Chatham and Belfast. On 1 October 1964, the Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee said it "could not recommend Devonport as an acceptable site for a refitting yard for nuclear submarines". But another report said a nuclear accident was near-impossible and would be "a major disaster" in any of the dockyards considered. Portsmouth, Barrow and Birkenhead were also ruled out by Sir Solly Zuckerman's committee to consider sites for nuclear refits. [Devonport Dockyard ] Only mutiny would jeopardise safety, said papers In July 1965, the Director General of Dockyards and Warships said the committee's recommendation made "any sensible planning" impossible. Calculations were "so imprecise that there seems to be plenty of scope for a reassessment", he said. "There is no need to stress how damaging to future developments the present recommendation is. "It should be a great pity if current and transitory ideas on safety should force us into some other expedient." Political decision He recommended "a more subtle approach to the problem". The same year, P T Heath, chairman of the Naval Nuclear Technical Safety Panel, wrote: "If refitting is to be carried out at these dockyards it can only be on the basis that there is not going to be an accident." [HMS Torbay ] Devonport missed a reactor fault on HMS Torbay He added: "A decision of this nature would be political rather than technical." At one stage, officials contemplated refitting submarines at Devonport in a covered dry dock, built to contain any nuclear leak. But the idea was turned down because it would be too difficult to maintain equipment such as door seals and ventilation valves. Safety ratings were based on the size of the population close to the dockyards. Major disaster They showed a release of 5-10 curies of radiation at Devonport would exceed exposure limits for children, compared with 200 at Rosyth in Scotland. But one of the released sets of minutes - headed Secret - says that in either case, the figure was "completely swamped by the amount that would in all probability be released in the event of an accident". [Submarine leaving Devonport ] Devonport has a long queue of submarine refits "No matter where the accident occurred, it would constitute a major disaster." Another report said "nothing short of a large scale mutiny or armed intervention" would compromise safety controls if Devonport was chosen. Devonport Dockyard is now the Royal Navy's main base for refitting nuclear submarines. Rosyth Dockyard in Scotland has lost its share of the work. Reactor fault People in Plymouth and south east Cornwall are currently campaigning against plans to increase leaks of radioactive tritium from submarines at Devonport into the River Tamar. Extremely tight controls are operated by engineers doing nuclear refits. But last week it emerged that a failure to detect a fault in a reactor during a refit of HMS Torbay in Devonport meant it would have to be stripped down and reassembled. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************