*****************************************************************
12/13/01 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 9.294
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                    NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS
 
 1  Low Radiation Doses May Pose High Risk
 2  Nuclear waste shippers may face fee  
 3  Dominion made to fix cracks in reactors in Va. 
 4  Improvement Urged In N-Plant Security 
 5  Hydrogen explosion most likely occurred at Hamaoka plant
 6  Two nuclear agencies to be merged - 
 7  Legislators want China figured into waste plan
 8  Nuclear industry foiled by energy review favouring renewable sources
 9  Blow to nuclear lobby in green energy plan
10  Nuclear power could be on way out - leaked energy review
11  UK: Nuclear is least popular source of power - survey
12  The Temelin Agreement 
13  LEADER: A dim light on energy policy 
14  LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: No to more nuclear power 
15  Energy policy lights way to greener power
16  Ministers seal the fate of nuclear power stations 
17  Nuclear waste returns to Switzerland 
18  Ukraine had no alternative to Chernobyl closure - president 
19  Ukraine can complete reactors with Russian help - President 
20  Ukrainian president urges cabinet decision on reactors 
21  Legislators want China figured into waste plan
22  Blow to nuclear lobby in green energy plan
23  NRC, Entergy to Discuss Performance Issues at Indian Point 2
24  NRC Seeks Public Comment on Use of Alternate Dispute Resolution 
25  House members seeking hearings on plan to transfer EPA ombudsman
26  Energy secretary says he hasn't made nuclear dump decision yet
27  Energy secretary makes surprise visit to Yucca Mountain hearing
28  Nuclear facilities' vulnerability makes more Americans nervous
29  DOE Tackles Fate of Moab Radioactive Tailings
30  State to charge shippers of nuclear waste
31  Chernobyl head sacked over misused funds
32  Senate committee approves nominee for Yucca project 
33  New "Dependent" Counsel Regulations Are Dangerously Restrictive
34  Panel clears Chu for Yucca post
35  B.C. Chamber quits U.S. group
36  Abraham: No Yucca decision
37  UK nuclear groups say energy review not anti-nuke
38  Rep. Barton’s Electricity Deregulation Bill Hurts Consumers 
39  "Nukes Now!"
40  Town ends talk of nuke plant
41  State opposes change in OR waste program
42  Environmental report says deer's radiation hike not problematic - 
43  BNFL Faces Safety Charges
44  Sellafield Anti-Terrorist Review
45  Calder Hall Faces Indefinite Shutdown
46  UK-based consortium seeks partners to build 1 bln usd uranium 
47  £400m Drypac Mothballed
48  'No Risk' Over Mystery Leak at Sellafield
49  Speak Out on Nuclear Waste
50  Winston & Strawn Bows Out; Leaked GAO Report Creates Furor
51  Documents Are a Mess; Key Issues Unresolved: Former OCRWM Head
52  No boating in power plant zones
53  Improvement Urged In N-Plant Security
54  AU: Anti-nuclear group attacks Govt uranium report
55  Opinion: Midlands Voices: Green Party misleads about Fort Calhoun
56  Vermont closing roads to `superloads' 

                    NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS
 
 1  Tritium Facility - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
 2  Bush's Nuclear Brinksmanship     
 3  F.B.I. Faulted in Nuclear Secrets Investigation 
 4  Nuclear experts briefed bin Laden?
 5  Plan would leave toxin at Rocky Flats 
 6  Iraqi Defector Warns Congress of Saddam's Weapons
 7  Bush Has Some Leeway in Treaty Pullout
 8  Panel Passes Iraq Resolution
 9  Energy Dept. May Recycle Nuke Metal
10  Hanford budget OK for cleanup
11  Hanford budget rumors force senator's $1.8 billion request
12  Critics say Colorado nuclear plant cleanup will leave soil contaminated
13  Chronology of Nuclear Standoff
14  FBI Probe of Scientist Wen Ho Lee Found Flawed
15  Subcritical experiment at test site today
16  Aid expanded for ex-test site workers
17  Nuclear experts briefed bin Laden?
18  Report suggests 2 solutions for revising Hanford cleanup plan
19  Test Site workers can get benefits for silicosis
20  Next priority is terrorist nukes, says Bush 
21  CROET, absent a quorum, OKs lease transfers 
22  Letter: DOE must ban any release of contaminated materials - 
23  DOE memo shows desire to recycle scrap metals 

****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 Low Radiation Doses May Pose High Risk

Environment News Service: 

NEW YORK, New York, December 12, 2001

(ENS) - Low doses of radiation from natural sources can trigger 
widespread mutations in living cells at much lower doses than the 
amount scientists previously believed could do such damage. New 
research from Columbia University suggests that public health 
officials may need to reconsider what levels of radiation in 
nature should be deemed safe." By Cat Lazaroff

 NEW YORK, New York, December 12, 2001 (ENS) - Low doses of 
radiation from natural sources can trigger widespread mutations 
in living cells at much lower doses than the amount scientists 
previously believed could do such damage. New research from 
Columbia University suggests that public health officials may 
need to reconsider what levels of radiation in nature should be 
deemed safe. 

Led by professor of radiation oncology and public health Dr. Tom 
Hei, the study found that a radiation dose that strikes as few as 
one in 10 cells has almost the same mutagenic, or mutation 
causing, effect as a dose that strikes every cell. The added 
damage occurs, the researchers say, because of what is called the 
bystander effect, in which injured cells send abnormal signals to 
neighboring cells. 

[Hei] Dr. Tom Hei, professor of radiation oncology and public 
health at Columbia University (Photo courtesy Columbia 
University) "If you only hit 10 percent of the cells, your damage 
is comparable to what would happen if every cell in the 
population is hit," said Hei. "There's a huge 'bystander' 
response." 

The bystander effect appears to be caused by alpha particles, a 
common type of radiation that comes from sources such as nuclear 
explosions, plutonium and radon, a naturally occurring gas that 
seeps into many homes. Alpha particles consist of the nuclei, or 
cores, of helium atoms. 

Alpha particles are not found in other types of low level 
radiation, such as the non-ionizing radiation emitted as 
electromagnetic fields (EMFs) by electrical appliances, high 
voltage cables, mobile phones and other sources. The risks of 
exposure to low radiation levels are poorly understood and have 
been the subject of controversy for decades. 

In the current study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, 
the researchers beamed a single alpha particle through the nuclei 
of randomly selected cells growing in petri dishes. The radiation 
was equivalent to a dose below 20 centiGrays, a unit used in 
radiation measurement. 

Mine workers and nuclear workers are occasionally exposed to 
radiation doses similar to those used in the study, but people in 
radon contaminated homes are rarely exposed to these levels. 

[lab] In the United States, the EPA's mobile field staff inform 
the public on how to minimize exposure to natural radiation 
sources (Photo courtesy United States Environmental Protection 
Agency) In the study, the researchers found that when they beamed 
alpha particles at only one in 10 cells, the results were almost 
the same as if they had beamed them at all the cells. 

Almost all the cells showed mutations in their genetic material, 
or DNA. Mutations in DNA can lead to cancer in tissues within the 
body and to birth defects in future generations if the 
alterations occur in sperm and egg cells or to a developing 
fetus. 

The investigators were able to prevent the widespread damage if 
they blocked the signaling network that exists between cells. By 
using chemicals that obstruct key cell to cell pathways, called 
gap junctions, the scientists could restrict the damage to the 10 
percent of cells that had directly received alpha particles. 

The results, Hei says, suggest that signaling networks are 
responsible for spreading the damage. But the signaling mechanism 
is unknown and requires further research, he said. 

The findings raise questions about how to measure radiation 
exposure risk. Historically, public health officials have assumed 
radiation carries a risk proportional to the dose, in what is 
called a linear relationship. Lower doses were believed to bring 
accordingly lower risk. 

[house] To reduce the risk of radon exposure, the EPA recommends 
all new houses include 

A) a gas permeable layer beneath the floor; 

B) plastic sheeting above that layer; 

C) caulking around basement openings; 

D) a vent pipe to send radon gas out the roof; and 

E) a junction box for an electric venting fan (Photo courtesy 
EPA) 

But the findings suggest a linear relationship might not be 
operating, the Columbia researchers say. Instead, the study 
suggests that at low doses, the risk rises steeply in proportion 
to the dose. At higher doses, the risk rises more gently in 
relation to the dose. 

The study is "another piece of hard evidence to suggest we may 
need to reassess" acceptable radiation levels, says Dr. Howard 
Liber, associate professor of radiobiology at Harvard School of 
Public Health. Liber is a member of the National Council on 
Radiation Protection and Measurements, a nonprofit group that 
advises the government about radiation safety. 

The study is not the first to find a bystander effect, but is the 
first to identify the effect for mutations, Liber said. Other 
studies have found a bystander effect in the expression of 
certain genes, such as p53, and in what is called sister 
chromatid exchange, the exchange of DNA in cells in the body. 
"The uniqueness of our study is the precision of the targeting of 
cells," Hei explained. "We show which cell is hit and by what 
dose of radiation, a major improvement over previous studies." 

Although the findings raise concerns, Drs. Hei and Liber say they 
should not cause alarm. The findings do not show that a huge new 
population of people is at risk. Rather, they show the cancer 
risk at low doses may be significantly higher than once thought, 
and help clarify how radiation makes people sick. Hei says the 
study should also help remind people to get their homes tested 
for radon - a colorless, odorless gas that comes from the natural 
breakdown of uranium underground. The gas can dissolve and 
accumulate in ground water, and is found in underground water 
sources in some parts of the United States. 

The primary source of human exposure to radon is breathing radon 
in indoor air of homes, as radon gas can enter from soil under 
house foundations. Most of the risk from radon in drinking water 
- nearly 90 percent - comes from breathing radon released to 
indoor air from household water uses. 

[map] The EPA has mapped the risk from radon gas in different 
areas of the U.S. Homes in red zone are at highest risk, while 
homes in yellow zone have reduced - but not zero - risk (Map 
courtesy EPA) In general, homes in northern, mid-continent 
states, including Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, have the 
highest potential for radon contamination. Homes in southeastern 
states, including Louisiana, Alabama and Florida, are at lower 
risk. 

Radon causes thousands of deaths every year, and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends that all homes 
be tested for the gas. The Columbia University study appears in 
the December 4 issue of the journal

"Proceedings of the National Academy of Science." 

Email the Environment Editor [news@ens-news.com] 
*****************************************************************
 2  Nuclear waste shippers may face fee  

Omaha.com
      
December 13, 2001

DES MOINES (AP) - Iowa may become one of the first states in the 
country to charge a fee to ship nuclear waste across the state. 

The Legislative Administrative Rules Review Committee Tuesday 
reviewed a rule that would charge between $50 and $1,750 to ship 
radioactive waste over the state's highways and railroads 
beginning July 1. The panel reviews state rules before they go 
into effect. 

The fees would apply to high-level waste such as spent fuel rods 
from nuclear power plants and low-level waste such as 
contaminated soil. The size of the fee would depend on the type 
of material being shipped, and whether it's taken by highway or 
railway. 

Truckers and railroaders had raised concerns about the size of 
the fees. They said no other state imposes a fee for the movement 
of low-level waste. 

Donald Flater, chief of the State Bureau of Radiological Health, 
told the panel of lawmakers Tuesday that an agreement was reached 
with haulers after the fee was reduced for low-level waste from 
$250 to $50 per load. Flater said the events of Sept. 11, by 
heightening awareness on the dangers of radioactive materials, 
helped persuade those involved to reach an agreement. 

An estimated 4,000 shipments of radioactive waste are taken 
across Iowa each year. Fees will have to be paid by the shipper, 
or individual who owns the waste, rather than truckers or 
railroaders who transport it. The money would be used to train 
emergency crews for accidents involving radioactive materials. 

©2001 Omaha World-Herald.
*****************************************************************
 3  Dominion made to fix cracks in reactors in Va. 

TheDay.com: 

Millstone plants not susceptible to problems 

By Paul Choiniere - More Articles 

Published on 12/13/2001 

Dominion Energy, owner of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in 
Waterford, has been forced to repair tiny cracks in the atomic 
reactors at two of its nuclear plants in Virginia. The two 
operating reactors at Millstone are not as susceptible to the 
problem, according to the company and federal officials.

While not posing an immediate safety problem, the cracking could 
prove to be an economic headache for the nuclear industry. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission has identified 13 reactors that 
appear particularly susceptible to the problem. Monitoring the 
problem will require frequent inspections, costly repairs and 
unplanned reactor shutdowns.

Richard Zuercher, a spokesman for Dominion Energy, said all four 
nuclear plants in Virginia have been inspected. Cracks were found 
in the North Anna 2 and Surry 1 reactors. The reactors at their 
two sister plants — North Anna 1 and Surry 2 — have not yet had 
cracking, though inspections will continue, Zuercher said. 
Repairs have been completed at Surry 1 and it is back in service. 
The repairs at North Anna 2 should take several more days, 
Zuercher said. 

The cracking was found in tubes through which control rods are 
inserted into the reactors. There are 65 tubes in each of the 
Virginia reactors, but cracks were found in only a few. The 
control rods are used to stop or slow the atomic reaction 
process. The problem was first noted at nuclear plants in France 
in the early 1990s. That country replaced all the reactor heads 
over a period of several years.

Peter Hyde, a spokesman for Millstone, said that while the 
reactors there are not as likely to experience the problem, 
because they are of a different design, they will be checked 
during refueling outages, which happen about every 18 months. 
Dominion subsidiary Dominion Nuclear Connecticut operates 
Millstone.

It is believed that the extremely high temperatures and pressure 
changes to which reactors are exposed cause the hairline cracks.

Locally, the anti-nuclear group Connecticut Coalition Against 
Millstone said that Dominion should abandon its plan to extend 
the license of its Virginia plants by another 20 years.

Joseph Besade, a Waterford resident and member of the coalition, 
said he is concerned that there will be added pressure to keep 
Millstone up and operating, even if there are problems, in order 
to offset financial losses associated with the cracking at the 
Virginia plants.

The latest problems are another reason “to shut them all down 
now,” Besade said.   

© 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. 
*****************************************************************
 4  Improvement Urged In N-Plant Security 

Newsday.com - 

By Kathleen Kerr
STAFF WRITER
December 13, 2001

A state examination of anti-terrorist plans for Westchester's 
Indian Point nuclear plant has concluded that security 
improvements - like special FBI training for some personnel - are 
necessary, a spokesman for the operating company said yesterday.

State Public Security Director James Kallstrom, charged with 
defending New York against terrorism, was expected to announce 
today that overall security at Indian Point is adequate, 
according to Larry Gottlieb, spokesman for Entergy Corp.

The plant, located on the Hudson River in Buchanan, provides 
about 20 percent of New York City's electricity.

Kallstrom's office would not comment. Gottlieb said yesterday 
that the company expected an "extremely robust" report.

In recent weeks, community activists, anti-nuclear groups and 
lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), have 
clamored for better protections for people living within a 
50-mile radius of Indian Point, including New York City 
residents. One concern is that deaths and severe illnesses could 
occur if a terrorist attack were to damage the plant and release 
a radiation plume.

Since Sept. 11, Gottlieb said, Entergy has spent about $3 million 
to hire an unspecified number of new security workers and to 
construct barriers to help ward off attacks. Gottlieb said the 
number of security workers must remain secret to avoid giving 
information to possible attackers.

Some of the improvements covered by the $3 million were initiated 
by Entergy, and some came as a result of Kallstrom's inquiries, 
Gottlieb said.

"They want a closer tie between us and the FBI in terms of 
training for security personnel and more advanced tactics," 
Gottlieb said.

Gottlieb said an armed Navy boat patrols adjacent to the plant 
and that air defense can be summoned quickly.

Kallstrom is expected to release one version of his report to the 
news media today, Gottlieb said. 

Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 5  Hydrogen explosion most likely occurred at Hamaoka plant

KYODO NEWS 
                         
NAGOYA, Dec. 13, Kyodo - Chubu Electric Power Co. believes a 
steam pipe at its Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture 
most likely ruptured as a result of a hydrogen explosion, and 
plans to submit a report on its investigations to the 
government's nuclear body Thursday, company sources said. 

The utility believes there is a strong likelihood that hydrogen 
accumulated in the pipe that ruptured Nov. 7 because it detected 
an above-normal concentration of hydrogen in similar pipes at 
both the plant's No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, the sources said. 

The company will investigate the details of how the hydrogen 
accumulated and how it ignited based on experiments and other 
means. 

Announcing the results of its investigations last Thursday, Chubu 
Electric Power said it had not expected a situation whereby 
hydrogen would build up within reactor pipes. 

The firm and the Nuclear Safety and Industrial Agency said last 
week that a ''ductile fraction'' caused the rupture as 
characteristic dimples were detected in a cross-section of the 
pipe. 

A ductile fraction has never occurred before at Japanese nuclear 
plants, according to the company. 

The ruptured carbon steel pipe had a diameter of 15 centimeters 
and was 1.1 cm thick. 

Steam containing a small amount of radioactive material leaked 
from a pressure-injection system at the plant's 540,000-kilowatt 
No. 1 reactor Nov. 7. Three days later, about 60 milliliters of 
radioactive water per hour was found to be leaking inside the 
reactor. 

2001 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945.
*****************************************************************
 6  Two nuclear agencies to be merged - 

Japan Today 

Thursday, December 13, 2001 at 09:30 JST

TOKYO 



Nobuteru Ishihara, state minister in charge of administrative 
reform, and Koji Omi, minister in charge of science and 
technology policy, agreed Wednesday to merge two governmental 
nuclear bodies into an independent administrative entity.

Omi, who had earlier objected to any change in the structure of 
the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), agreed to 
merge it with the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute in a 
meeting with Ishihara at the Cabinet Office, government officials 
said. 



(Kyodo News)
*****************************************************************
 7  Legislators want China figured into waste plan

The Taipei Times Online: 

December 12th, 2001
       
ENVIRONMENT: Lawmakers believe that constructing a repository for 
Taiwan's nuclear waste on a tiny island near China's coast could 
heighten cross-strait tensions

By Chiu Yu-tzu STAFF REPORTER

DPP legislators yesterday urged the government to take into 
account possible pressure from China when it reconsiders a 
project to build a radioactive waste repository on Hsiaochiu 
Islet (¤pËúÀ¬) in Kinmen County.

"In addition to environmental factors, the government should 
consider political factors affecting the project," said DPP 
legislator Parris Chang (±i¦°¦¨), at a press conference 
yesterday.

Chang added that China had once offered to build a repository for 
Taiwan's nuclear waste in China, and added that it might be 
preferable for Taiwan to send its waste to another country, such 
as Russia.

Newly elected DPP legislator Chiu Zang (ªô¹ü), said she had heard 
rumors that Chinese fishermen were concerned about possible 
damage to fish stocks and might demand compensation from Taiwan. 

The Taiwan Power Company (Taipower, ¥x¹q) selected the 0.6km2 
islet, part of Kinmen's Wuchiu township (¯QËú¶m), as the possible 
site of a final repository for radioactive waste in 1998.

Since then, the idea has been mired in controversy regarding its 
implications for national defense, ecological and environmental 
protection, and compensation for residents.

In January, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for 
the project was sent to the Environmental Protection 
Administration (EPA). Members of the EPA's EIA committee, 
however, said that crucial information was missing from the 
report. In particular, they said that, although the islet was 
close to China's Fujian Province, Taipower had not discussed 
China's possible reaction to the facility's construction.

In May, the EPA demanded that Taipower must supply further 
information, such as possible ways to communicate with China on 
the issue, an assessment of the risk of radioactive pollution, 
further environmental data, measures to be adopted in the event 
of an emergency, and a cost-benefit analysis.

The governments of Taiwan and China have had no bilateral contact 
since China broke off talks after then-president Lee Teng-hui 
described Taiwan-China relations as "state-to-state" in nature in 
July 1999. 

The EPA has demanded that all requested information must be 
received by Dec. 18, when the third meeting for the primary 
evaluation (ªì¼f) of the EIA report is to convene. If EIA 
committee members believe that the information is complete, 
Taipower will be required to submit a complete EIA report to the 
committee. Taipower officials said that it was not easy for the 
company to ensure an interactive dialogue with China on the 
issue.

"What we can do is to publicize the plan to build the repository 
at international academic conferences, whose participants come 
from both sides," Shen Chien-tyng (¨H«Ø®x), deputy director of 
Taipower's Nuclear Backend Management Department 
(®Ö¯à«áºÝÀç¹B³B), said yesterday.

Shen said that Taipower had not considered seeking the assistance 
of other organizations, such as the Straits Exchange Foundation 
(SEF) and the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC).

Meanwhile, Taipower officials said that there was no urgency to 
find repositories for high-level spent nuclear fuel.

"We store all spent fuel properly in factory sites. Once the 
international community comes up with acceptable solutions, we 
will adopt those methods," Huang Huei-yu (¶À´f¤©), the division 
head of Taipower's public affairs department, told the Taipei 
Times yesterday.


This story has been viewed 425 times.

URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/12/12/story/0000115422] 

Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 8  Nuclear industry foiled by energy review favouring renewable sources

Independent News

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
13 December 2001

A big increase in nuclear power as an energy source for Britain 
is expected to be ruled out by the Government's forthcoming 
Energy Review. 

The magazine New Scientist claims today to have seen a final 
draft of the review, which will go to Tony Blair for approval in 
the next few days. And there is no sign in the document of a 
reported plan to build 15 new nuclear power stations. 

Instead, the review is likely to say that the best way to cut 
carbon pollution and tackle global warming is to replace oil and 
coal-fired power stations with renewable energy sources such as 
wind, wave and solar power. If this is confirmed by Mr Blair ­ 
who isknown to be a big supporter of nuclear power ­ it will 
represent a defeat for the Minister for Industry and Energy, 
Brian Wilson, who chaired the review. 

Mr Wilson, an openly committed nuclear supporter who has the 
Hunterston atomic power station in his Ayrshire constituency, was 
known to be hoping for a substantially enhanced nuclear 
contribution to Britain's energy supplies. 

But others involved in the review, including Michael Meacher, the 
Environment minister, and Peter Hain, the Foreign Office 
minister, are known to be much more sceptical about the benefits 
of nuclear power. 

The review draft, as seen by New Scientist, does not close the 
door on atomic power, but says that it has substantial problems 
of waste disposal, safety, economic efficiency and public 
acceptability. The technology has "an uncertain role", since 
"concerns about radioactive waste, accidents, terrorism and 
proliferation may limit or preclude its use". It also wants the 
cost of insuring against accidents and disposing of radioactive 
waste to be borne by the nuclear power stations. 

The report is enthusiastic about the potential of renewable 
energy, which it says is the most flexible way to reduce carbon 
emissions. It suggests producing at least 20 per cent of 
electricity from renewable sources by 2020, compared with the 
current target of 10 per cent by 2010. That could be achieved by 
expanding the number of wind turbines on and offshore, and by 
introducing wave power and underwater tidal generators. 

The report also urges the development of combined heat and power, 
which uses the heat from electricity generation rather than 
wasting it, and suggests a target for a 20 per cent improvement 
in domestic energy efficiency by 2010. The report will be a 
disappointment to the nuclear industry, which had been hoping for 
a kick-start. 

Also in Environment Anti-roads lobby hails rejection of new 
routes Nuclear industry foiled by energy review favouring 
renewable sources Builders praise planning controls reform but 
conservationists object Stores call for limits on chicken growth 
rates Hyenas have the last laugh on rabies are resistant to 
rabies symptoms

© 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd 
*****************************************************************
 9  Blow to nuclear lobby in green energy plan

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

ed note that they produced an extended report on the british 
industry

Rebecca Allison
Thursday December 13, 2001
The Guardian 

Britain could phase out nuclear, coal and oil-fired power 
stations to become one of the world's greenest energy producers 
in coming decades, according to a leaked draft of the 
government's energy review. 

The document published in New Scientist magazine today says the 
best way to cut carbon pollution and tackle global warming is to 
replace oil and coal-fired power stations with renewable energy 
sources. 

The draft report by the cabinet's performance and innovation unit 
attempts to determine the best energy strategy for Britain for 
the next 50 years. If the government accepts its recommendations, 
Britain is likely to become one of the world's most 
environmentally friendly energy producers. 

The study, which was widely expected to embrace the nuclear 
industry's plans for up to 15 new nuclear stations, will be a 
blow to the industry's hopes of a revival. 

Pro-nuclear lobbyists have been arguing that Britain's projected 
imminent reliance on gas imports requires a switch to nuclear 
production to ensure long-term energy security in the UK, as well 
as to meet ambitious targets to cut carbon emissions. 

They have insisted that new reactors are needed by 2040 to fill 
the gap left by the phasing-out of nuclear stations, including 
the seven Magnox stations which are to be closed within the 
decade and provide 7% of UK energy needs. 

The report, to be published within the next month, is expected to 
show that the energy equation is far more complex than a simple 
switch to nuclear energy. 

Instead, it relegates nuclear power to an also-ran that could be 
totally phased out by 2050 if renewable sources deliver as 
expected, according to the New Scientist. 

It favours renewable energy, which it says is the most flexible 
way to reduce the gas emissions from oil and coal-fired 
generation which are blamed for contributing to global warming. 

It also expresses concerns about the disposal of radioactive 
waste, the risk of accidents and terrorist attacks. Nuclear power 
is simply too dangerous and expensive, it concludes. 

The draft report pushes for production of at least 20% of 
electricity from renewable sources such as wave and wind power by 
2020, 10% more than the official target for 2010. 

These renewable energy schemes must be made more acceptable to 
local communities, it adds. 

Bryony Worthington, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, 
said: "This is exciting news and, if this is what the final 
energy review says, a victory for commonsense. 

"Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and unpopular and should 
have no role to play in our future energy needs. There is now a 
golden opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in 
developing clean, green renewable energy for the 21st century." 

The energy minister, Brian Wilson, this week gave the go-ahead 
for the building of the biggest wind farm in the UK and promised 
to ease planning rules to "unlock" 100 renewable schemes. 

The £35m wind farm of 39 turbines will be built at Cefn Croes, 
near Aberystwyth in Ceredigion, west Wales, and will supply more 
than 40,000 homes. 

The minister said the development would put Wales at the 
forefront of a new drive to ensure that Britain meets its target 
of generating 10% of its electricity from green sources by 2010. 

He would be introducing new rules to relocate alternative power 
schemes that had been proposed but failed to obtain planning 
permission. 

"These new rules will unlock around 100 renewable energy 
projects, currently blocked by planning restraints, to drive 
forward a significant expansion in the production of green 
energy." 

*****************************************************************
 10  Nuclear power could be on way out - leaked energy review
       
Ananova - 

Nuclear power may have had its day, according to a draft British 
government energy review leaked to a leading scientific journal.

The document published in New Scientist magazine says the best 
way to cut carbon pollution and tackle global warming is to 
replace oil and coal-fired power stations with renewable energy 
sources.

Nuclear power is simply too dangerous and expensive, says the 
report. The review attempts to lay out Britain's energy strategy 
for the next 50 years. If the Government accepts its 
recommendations, Britain will become 

one of the world's most environmentally friendly energy 
producers. The study had been widely expected to embrace the 
nuclear industry's plans for up to 15 new nuclear stations.

Instead, it relegates nuclear power to an also-can that could be 
totally phased out by 2050 if renewable sources deliver as 
expected.

Bryony Worthington, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, 
said: "This is exciting news and, if this is what the final 
energy review says, a victory for commonsense.

"Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and unpopular and should 
have no role to play in our future energy needs. There is now a 
golden opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in 
developing clean, green renewable energy for the 21st century."

Energy Minister Brian Wilson earlier this week gave the go-ahead 
for the building of the biggest wind farm in the UK.

The £35 million wind farm of 39 turbines will be built at Cefn 
Croes, near Aberystwyth in Ceredigion, west Wales, and will 
supply more than 40,000 homes.

Story filed: 04:12 Thursday 13th December 2001

Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd 
*****************************************************************
 11  UK: Nuclear is least popular source of power - survey

Ananova - 

Nuclear power stations are the least popular means of generating 
electricity, according to a new survey.

A total of 68% of those interviewed said they did not think that 
nuclear power stations should be built in Britain in the next 10 
years.

A high proportion in the poll carried out by BMRB International 
for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said they also 
wanted to see fewer fossil fuel plants in future.

Nearly four in 10 of those interviewed (38%), thought that 
coal-fired power stations should not be built in Britain in the 
next decade.

The surveys aimed to discover how much the public knows about the 
links between fossil fuels and climate change.

Almost all of the interviewees had heard of climate change and 
three quarters of them, 74%, were concerned about its effects.

More than half the public interviewed (55%) had heard the term 
"renewable energy" and there was high approval for solar, wave, 
tidal and hydro-electric power. Only 3% were against building 
on-shore wind farms in Britain.

Power stations harnessing some form of renewable energy proved to 
be far more popular than those using fossil fuels on nuclear 
energy.

The results are published as the Cabinet Office Performance and 
Innovation Unit produces its draft final Energy Review which will 
be sent to the Prime Minister at the end of the month.

A total of 2,100 people were interviewed face-to-face for the 
nationwide survey.

Story filed: 00:17 Thursday 13th December 2001

Copyright © 2001 Ananova Ltd 
*****************************************************************
 12  The Temelin Agreement 

Austria Today  

CONCLUSIONS OF THE MELK PROCESS AND FOLLOW-UP

Preamble 

With the aim of further developing good-neighbourly relations 
between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Austria, a 
"Protocol on the Negotiations between the Czech and the Austrian 
Governments, led by Prime Minister Zeman and Federal Chancellor 
Schüssel with the Participation of Commissioner Verheugen" was 
signed in Melk on 12 December 2000, further referred to as the 
´Melk Protocol´. 

The signatories of the ´Melk Protocol´ found it appropriate to 
meet in Brussels on 29 November 2001 to define a follow-up to the 
process set forth in the Protocol mentioned above. 

The signatories agree that the process started in Melk has led to 
an improvement in the exchange of information on the Temelín 
Nuclear Power Plant thus creating prerequisites for more 
confidence between the Czech Republic and Austria within an 
intensive dialogue on nuclear energy. 

The signatories agree on the usefulness to open expert talks on 
amending the existing bilateral Agreement on the Exchange of 
Information on Nuclear Safety, concluded between the two states 
in 1989 so as to correspond to the achieved level of confidence 
and the needs of the signatories, including a reliable 
Info-Hotline. 

Respecting the sovereign right to select their own energy policy, 
the two countries share their interest in a high level of nuclear 
safety of nuclear installations. The Czech side recognises the 
specific interest of the Republic of Austria as a neighbouring 
state in a high level of safety of Czech nuclear power plants. 

The Czech Republic is exclusively committed to the provisions of 
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and Joint 
Protocol to the application of the Vienna Convention and the 
Paris Convention. The Republic of Austria is fully committed to 
the Austrian Nuclear Liability Act of 1999. 

Chapter I - Info-Hotline The Info-Hotline was installed 
immediately after the negotiations in Melk and its functionality 
is positively assessed by the signatories. The Czech side has 
been providing information also on putting into operation the 
non-nuclear part of the first unit as well as information on the 
second unit of the Temelín NPP. The Czech Republic and Austria 
agree that the Info-Hotline constitutes a useful measure, also 
with regard to nuclear and non-nuclear testing of both units, 
that its functionality will be regularly assessed within the 
bilateral Agreement on Information Exchange and that, if needed, 
measures will be taken to increase its effectiveness. 

Chapter II - Early Warning System An automatic monitoring device 
in Ceske Budejovice provided by Austria was installed on April 
24, 2001 and the supply of data on radiation levels from the 
monitoring network continues without any problem. The signatories 
agree that this measure fully meets its purpose and will remain 
in operation. 

With a view to establishing a regional network in the long-term, 
which could be included into ECURIE, the possibilities of 
exchanging data with other national monitoring networks will be 
explored. 

Chapter III - Energy Partnership The Czech Energy Agency has been 
co-operating with the Austrian Energy Agency in the fields of 
energy efficiency and reconstruction of tenement houses, 
exploitation of renewable energy sources and the use of 
co-generation units. The signatories will make further efforts to 
intensify this co-operation. 

Chapter IV - Safety Issues The Czech and the Austrian side 
appreciate the role played by the European Commission in 
establishing and facilitating a "trialogue", launched to find a 
better mutual understanding on the issue of the Temelin NPP 
related to nuclear safety. 

During the process, twenty-nine issues of Austrian concern have 
been identified. All of them were documented and addressed. The 
expert mission under the Melk Protocol regarded nine issues as 
closed, meeting the purpose of the Melk process. Due to the 
nature of the respective topics, the expert mission found another 
ten issues suitable to be followed-up in the framework of the 
pertinent Czech-Austrian Bilateral Agreement. Finally, the Melk 
process helped to narrow gaps in the understanding of remaining 
ten issues. 

Even if it was not possible to reach an agreement on all the 
technical issues at stake, all participants agreed that the aim 
foreseen in Melk, namely to facilitate the dialogue between the 
Czech and Austrian governments, has been achieved. In order to 
enable an effective use of the Melk process achievements in the 
area of nuclear safety, the Annex I to this Protocol contains 
details on: 

Process and documentation of the "trialogue" Specific actions to 
be taken as a follow-up to the "trialogue" in the framework of 
pertinent Czech-Austrian Bilateral Agreement. The signatories are 
fully aware of the AQG/WPNS Report on Nuclear Safety in the 
Context of Enlargement, in particular the recommendations 
pertaining to the NPP Temelín contained therein. The signatories 
agree that the peer review procedure foreseen by the EU to 
monitor the implementation of the recommendations should serve as 
another important tool to handle remaining nuclear safety issues. 
Furthermore, the Czech Republic and Austria agree to intensify 
bilateral co-operation on emergency preparedness. 

Chapter V - Environmental Impact Assessment With the ´Melk 
Protocol´ the signatories agreed on a comprehensive and 
full-scope environmental impact assessment of the Temelín NPP 
guided by the Council Directive on the assessment of the effects 
of certain public and private projects on the environment 
(Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Council Directive 
97/11/EC), in particular with regard to the participation of 
neighbouring countries. 

To this end, a four-member Commission on the Assessment of 
Environmental Impact of the Temelín NPP was set up on the basis 
of a resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic. The 
Commission on the Assessment of Environmental Impact of the 
Temelín NPP presented a report and recommended in its Position 
the implementation of twenty-one concrete measures (Annex II). 
The signatories agree that the implementation of the said 
measures will be regularly monitored jointly by Czech and 
Austrian experts within the bilateral Agreement on the Exchange 
of Information. Furthermore, the Czech Republic and Austria agree 
to intensify bilateral co-operation on emergency preparedness. 

Chapter VI - Commercial Operation Unit 1 and 2 of the Temelín NPP 
will only be put into commercial operation following the 
successful termination of commissioning and trial run. During 
these stages all tests prescribed by the programmes approved by 
the State Office for Nuclear Safety and required by the Czech 
legislation have to be performed and all relevant criteria 
corresponding to the state-of-the-art safety criteria prevailing 
in the Member States of the European Union have to be fulfilled, 
including this Protocol. In any case the implementation of those 
safety measures enumerated in Annex I, which are conditional for 
the safe operation of the NPP Temelín in line with Czech 
legislation, is a prerequisite of commercial operation. 

Chapter VII - Free Movement of Goods and Publicity in the Media 
The signatories positively assess the efforts to maintain and 
respect free movement of goods and persons. The signatories agree 
also in this respect to continue to honour their pertinent 
commitment of the "Melk Protocol". 

Chapter VIII - Enlargement Based on the understanding that the 
Czech Republic will inform the Accession Conference 
comprehensively of the technical and procedural substance as well 
as of the binding character of this document and based on the 
understanding that the common position of the EU on the Energy 
Chapter will adequately reflect the information to the Accession 
Conference mentioned above, the Republic of Austria will agree to 
contribute constructively to start the next steps for the Energy 
Chapter as foreseen in the "road map" of Nice in order to start 
the implementation of the Protocol. 

Closing provisions 

The signatories shall - irrespective of the ownership of the NPP 
Temelín - guarantee the implementation of the conclusions of this 
Protocol in accordance with domestic legal regulations of the 
Czech Republic and international agreements. 

The signatories state that the implementation of specific steps 
of this "Conclusions of the Melk Process and follow-up" will be 
monitored by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign 
Affairs of the Czech Republic and the Minister of Agriculture and 
Forestry, Environment and Water Management of the Republic of 
Austria. 

A "road map" regarding the monitoring on technical level in the 
framework of the pertinent Czech-Austrian Bilateral Agreement as 
foreseen in this Protocol will be elaborated and agreed by the 
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 
Czech Republic and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, 
Environment and Water Management of the Republic of Austria by 10 
December 2001 at the latest. 

In accordance with the importance attached by the EU to nuclear 
safety, as underlined by the European Council in Cologne and 
Helsinki, both sides will actively support and promote a high 
level of nuclear safety in the enlarged EU. 

Austria and the Czech Republic agree on the common objective to 
include the bilateral obligations contained in these 
"Conclusions" in a Protocol to the Accession Act. Brussels, 29 
November 2001 

Annex I 

According to the Chapter IV of the Protocol, the parties 
established "an expert mission with trilateral participation" 
which was dispatched first to Vienna, on 2 February 2001, to 
identify the Austrian main issues of concern. During a subsequent 
mission to Prague and the Temelin NPP, on 15 and 16 March 2001, 
the same expert mission heard the explanations given by 
representatives of the Czech Republic on these issues of concern. 
Five issues of major concern to Austria were selected and 
discussed in depth. Two additional workshops were organised by 
the Czech side in February and in April to accommodate specific 
technical issues. An IAEA Operational Safety Review Team mission 
lasting for three weeks in February 2001 reviewed the operational 
safety of the plant. The conclusions were presented to the 
trilateral expert mission. A final joint meeting took place in 
Brussels, on 14 and 15 May 2001, in order to find solutions to 
the identified problems, on the basis of the state-of-the art 
relevant in the Member States of the European Union. A final 
discussion between heads of delegation took place in Brussels on 
30 May 2001, at the request of the Austrian side. 

This process is documented in a Working Paper Summarising the 
outcome of the Expert Mission with Trilateral Participation 
Established Under the Melk Protocol (July 2001). It has been 
drafted under the sole responsibility of European Commission 
experts involved in the process. It summarises the work of the 
tripartite mission. For each of the twenty-nine issues of 
concerns identified, this paper provides a summary of the 
discussions that have taken place. To limit the size of this 
paper recording the positions of the parties, these have been 
summarised. The summaries therefore do not always present the 
full scope of the concerns expressed or the details of the 
information provided. To enable an effective "trialogue" 
follow-up in the framework of pertinent Czech-Austrian Bilateral 
Agreement, a seven-item structure given below will be adopted. 
Individual items are linked to: Specific objectives set in 
licensing case for NPP Temelin units; Description of present 
status and future actions foreseen by the licensee and SUJB 
respectively. Each item under discussion will be followed 
according to the work plan agreed at the Annual Meeting organised 
under the Czech-Austrian Bilateral Agreement. 

Having in mind the peer review procedure foreseen by the EU to 
monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the AQG/WPNS 
Report on Nuclear Safety in the Context of Enlargement the Czech 
and Austrian side understand that the first two items below in 
particular would be subject to this peer review procedure. 

Item No.1 High Energy Pipe Lines at the 28.8 m Level Objective: 

Ensure that the safety case demonstrating appropriate protection 
against high energy pipe breaks and consequential failures of the 
steam and feed water lines, complies with requirements and 
practices widely applied within the EU and that an appropriate 
combination of measures are in place. Present Status and Specific 
Actions Planned: 

The issue of protection against high energy pipe breaks and 
consequential failures of the steam and feed water lines is 
included in the existing licensing case of Temelin unit No.1. To 
solve the difference in opinions of experts with regard to this 
issue, the Regulatory Authority initiated revisit of the safety 
case documentation in order to re-evaluate its compliance with 
requirements and practices widely applied in the EU. Alternative 
methods of assessment are being applied for this purpose as well 
as data collected during unit No. 1 commissioning tests. The 
result of these efforts will be made available to the Regulatory 
Authority till the end of September 2002 for final decision. 
Depending on the result, schedule for implementation of 
additional safety measures may be included into the above - 
mentioned regulatory submittal The signatories understand that 
additional safety measures for both units will be considered by 
the Regulatory Authority and if needed included into the above 
mentioned regulatory decision in order to meet the objective of 
this item. 

Item No.2 Qualification of Valves (AQG/WPNS country specific 
recommendation) Objective: Demonstration of reliable function of 
key steam safety and relief valves under dynamic load with mixed 
steam-water flow. Present Status and Specific Actions Planned: 

Demonstration of reliable function of key steam safety and relief 
valves is included in original licensing case of Temelin unit No. 
1. To solve the difference in opinions of experts with regard to 
this issue, the Regulatory Authority initiated revisit of the 
qualification documentation in order to re-evaluate validity of 
Temelin key steam safety valves qualification. The result of 
these efforts will be made available to the Regulatory Authority 
till the June 2002 for final decision. Depending on the result, 
schedule for implementation of additional safety measures may be 
included into the above-mentioned regulatory submittal1. The 
signatories understand that additional safety measures for both 
units will be considered by Regulatory Authority and if needed 
included into the above - mentioned regulatory decision in order 
to meet the objective of this item. 

Item No.3 Reactor Pressure Vessel Integrity and Pressurised 
Thermal Shock Objective: The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) 
integrity under pressurised thermal shock (PTS) conditions shall 
be maintained with a sufficient safety margin against brittle 
fracture throughout the NPPs service life. Present Status and 
Specific Actions Planned: The NPP Temelin is commissioned and 
operated respecting pressure-thermal (PT) curves calculations 
developed according to Westinghouse methodology. These 
calculations will be expanded with set of the further PTS 
analysis for both units using a step by step approach with full 
respect of the IAEA Guidelines for the PTS analysis. The PTS 
analysis will be finished in accordance with approved project 
work plan for this item. 

Item No. 4 Integrity of Primary Loop Components - Non Destructive 
Testing (NDT) Objective: Selected safety classified primary 
circuit components shall be inspected using certified NDT methods 
to maintain their safety function. Present Status and Specific 
Actions Planned: The NDT qualification programme is being applied 
in accordance with the European Network for Inspection 
Qualification (ENIQ), recommendations from the European 
regulators (document EUR 16802) and IAEA principles. The 
qualification of inspection procedures using test blocs will be 
conducted not later than its first application within the 
in-service inspection programme. 

Item No. 5 Qualification of Safety Classified Components 
Objective: All safety systems shall be qualified for their 
dedicated safety function. Present Status and Specific Actions 
Planned: The seismic qualification is completed. The EMC (Electro 
Magnetic Compatibility) qualification is completed. Respective 
documentation is completed and filed. In the case of 
environmental qualification, all processes (tests and/or 
analyses) required by licensing procedure have been performed. 
Qualification of I&C and electrical supplies, which represent the 
majority of the equipment relevant for qualification, is 
documented and filed in a standard format. In a limited number of 
the cases (where the equipment was procured in the beginning of 
the nineties), regulatory authority requested a transfer of 
qualification documentation to standard format till the end of 
2001. 

This submittal will be a subject to regulatory review and 
approval taking into account requirements for accessibility of 
documentation according to state-of-the-art standards. 

Item No. 6 Site Seismicity Objective: Siting of the installation 
shall take into account seismic as one of the possible external 
hazards. Present Status and Specific Actions Planned: The NPP 
Temelin underwent a thorough siting procedure in relation to 
possible seismic hazards. The Czech standard for this procedure 
is based on IAEA recommendations. A set of written documentation 
was released prior and in course of the "trialogue" giving 
evidence of this process. Due to the complexity of this issue and 
in order to foster mutual understanding, a topical workshop will 
be organised in the frame of the bilateral co-operation. 

Item No. 7 Severe Accidents Related Issues Objective: Effective 
prevention and mitigation of consequences of beyond design basis 
accidents (severe accidents). 

Present Status and specific Actions Planned: A set of preventive 
and mitigative measures is, at present, applied in NPP Temelin 
with respect to beyond design basis accidents. These include 
software and hardware measures, among others, e.g. Symptom Based 
Emergency Operating Procedures, Technical Support Centre, Post 
Accident Monitoring System, Emergency Preparedness. 

For the purpose of emergency preparedness, the PSA was employed 
with the aim to identify and group events with different 
initiating occurrences, but with similar end-effects. On the 
basis of this assessment the relative risk was estimated for 
specific events in order to select those which will serve for the 
determination of emergency response activities (pre-planned, 
reactive). Severe Accidents Management Guidelines (SAMG) as a 
state-of the-art tool will complete the whole system of 
mitigation measures with respect to the beyond design basis 
accident management. The project for SAMG development is 
scheduled to be finished by end 2002 to be followed by 
validation. To foster mutual understanding two lines of 
activities will be followed within the framework of the bilateral 
agreement: 

a) A Working Group on comparison of calculations regarding the 
radiological consequences of BDBA with a view to harmonise the 
basis for emergency preparedness will be established. 

b) The exchange of information related to SAMG will include 
discussion on the analytical basis as well as on corresponding 
software and hardware measures." 

Annex II 

With the target to minimise stress feelings mainly of the 
Austrian public, the Commission recommends (besides standard 
monitoring of the Temelín NPP Radiation Inspection Laboratory, 
standard monitoring within the national grid of the Czech 
Hydrometeorological Institute, respectively others) to ensure 
independent super-standard monitoring of the nuclear power plant 
operation wastes. 

The optimal solution for super-standard measures is 
implementation of research task financed from the funds for 
science and research within the framework of the Czech Republic 
Governmental Council. 

1. To establish a system for continuous informing of wide public 
both on current values of the factors affecting the environment 
as a consequence of the Temelín NPP operation (on-line outlets) 
and on development of time sequence of selected parameters of the 
environmental impacts monitoring (continuously updated diagrams, 
photos of the Earth remote examination, bio-monitoring results, 
and so on) as well as on other important facts (for instance 
earthquake in Alps indicated on seismological stations in South 
Bohemia, ...). All of these data would be shown on the Internet 
pages of the Temelín NPP, on publicly available monitors in T#n 
nad Vltavou and in Ceské Bud jovice, and in the Temelín NPP 
information centre. 

2. To ensure continuous measurement of gaseous radioactive ~ 
outlets within the framework of the operating network of the 
investor of the Temelín NPP. 

3. To continuously improve and modernise the existing radiation ~ 
monitoring network operated by the state authorities of the Czech 
Republic. 

4. To regularly inform the public in the Czech Republic, Austria 
and the Federative Republic of Germany on all measurements. 

5. To permanently monitor the impacts of the Temelín NPP cooling 
towers on climate even in wider region (through the existing 
meteorological stations network of the Czech Hydrometeorological 
Institute). 

6. To ensure independent and continuous monitoring of the Temelín 
NPP operation impacts in the following fields: - Assurance of 
supply and quality of drinking water from the point of view of 
the nuclear power plant as well as nuclear power plant impacts on 
the water resources in the Temelín NPP surroundings; - Assurance 
of supply and quality of technological water from the point of 
view of the nuclear power plant; - Impacts of emissions on water 
system and risk of radioactive pollution of the recipient as a 
consequence of tritium water and other water effluents, including 
assessment of temperature impacts, accumulation and synergic 
impacts of harmful substances (including eutrofisation) in Orlík 
water reservoir; - Impacts of emissions on atmosphere, 
verification of thermal pollution and evaporation of water on 
cooling towers; - Impacts on agricultural activities and forest 
economy. 

7. To order elaboration of soil map of the nuclear power plant 
surroundings in a digital form for surface generalisation of the 
impacts on pedosphere (soil sphere) from the point of view of 
further dynamic development. 

8. To ensure conditions for seismic monitoring (including 
establishment of the monitoring centre located within the Temelín 
NPP area, eventually in the Information Centre). The basic 
objective of this centre will be to inform the public, state 
organisational units and local municipal governments on 
earthquake impacts on the locality and on the surroundings of the 
Temelín NPP. 

9. To guarantee continuous maintenance and restoration of all 
technical equipment and devices of the nuclear power plant in 
such a way to correspond with the up-to-date status of the 
technique development as well as with the knowledge in the field 
of seismic engineering." 

10. To ensure determination of radioactive substances in surface 
water, underground water and drinking water resources as well as 
in the food basket elements within the programme of the Radiation 
Monitoring Network of the Czech Republic. 

11. To create conditions for implementation of the health 
condition monitoring study of about 30,000 of inhabitants in the 
surroundings of the Temelín NPP by means of epidemiological and 
radiobiological methods (for instance using chromosome analysis). 

12. To establish a concept of continuous sociological examination 
of the population within wider surroundings of the Temelín NPP, 
to create conditions for implementation of the proposed 
programmes and related measures in the field of informatics and 
cultural - educational activities. 

13. To discuss revitalisation of the area abound the Temelín NPP 
as a compensation for impacts on the Temelín NPP area 
surroundings during its construction, to discuss reverse 
revitalisation in damaged sectors of river basin including 
initiation of discussion on revitalisation system in the effected 
area of Stropnice river basin. 

14. To ensure maintenance (mitigation of undesirable succession) 
on sub-xerophythe locations of the former military area of 
Litoradlice and on areas of valuable marshes around new retention 
reservoir in Strouha river basin. 

15. To ensure monitoring of radionuclide accumulation in 
biological materials - bryophyte, forest soil and pine bark and 
to maintain monitoring of radionuclides in fish. 

16. To monitor impacts of waste and rain waters by means of 
separate chemical and biological monitoring - In Bysov in Strouha 
river basin; · Monitoring of oxygen and temperature of selected 
sectors of Vltava · Season occurrence of plankton in Hnevkovice, 
Korensko and Orlík reservoirs, and in selected model pond 
reservoirs in the surroundings of the Temelin NPP, while 
maintaining, eventually extending monitoring of changes in 
chlorophyll concentration in Orlík water reservoir with emphasise 
on plankton share assessment with one sampling point under 
Korensko · To extend monitoring of changes in water ecosystems by 
monitoring of changes in zooplankton composition because of its 
sensitiveness on changes in water temperature and subsequent 
changes in water ecosystem trophic structure. 

17. To establish long-term monitoring (even retrospective) of 
changes in landscape character by means of multispectral 
satellite data analysis, especially suitable for monitoring of 
humidity and temperature changes of landscape related to changes 
in vegetation structure and functions. We recommend annual 
assessment of satellite data and related creation of ground key 
for satellite data including definition of key biotopes 
comprising forests on satellite photos and to ensure regular 
generalisation in this context in five-year intervals. With 
respect to the range of individual photos it is possible to 
ensure objective assessment of changes, which could exceed the 
borders with Austria and the Federative Republic of Germany. 

18. To create conditions for financial security of care for 
residuals of preserved intangible cultural values in the 
surroundings of the Temelín NPP (including prospects for about 65 
cultural monuments) from the side of the Temelín NPP operator as 
a compensation for affection of the landscape historical 
structure during construction. 

19. To decide on further use of spent fuel or to ensure definite 
storage in permanent underground storage within 65 years in 
accordance with the concept on spent fuel disposal approved by 
the Czech Republic Government. 

20. To eliminate high conservativeness of design accident 
calculations and to transfer to assessment of best estimate type; 
to compare inland calculation diagrams with the foreign ones. 

21. To improve eventual accident occurrence indication system 
including its assessment; to train emergency preparedness for 
this purpose and eventually to update emergency plans (conditions 
for fast information, ability to perform actions and coordination 
of emergency measures" 
*****************************************************************
 13  LEADER: A dim light on energy policy 

Financial Times; Dec 13, 2001

Downing Street's performance and innovation unit (PIU) has mapped 
out what it calls "a radical agenda" for a future low-carbon 
economy. But its review of UK energy policy to the year 2050, due 
to go to the prime minister by year's end, does not quite live up 
to its billing. It is timid in failing to put nuclear power on a 
par with renewable energy.

This is the UK's first energy review worthy of the name since the 
1997 Kyoto Protocol. It covers the next 50 years, because in 
addition to tackling issues of energy security and dilemmas of 
energy pricing, it is intended as the government's response to 
last year's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which 
called for a 60 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050.

The PIU was right to back away from this figure, which is much 
tougher than anything agreed internationally. The UK accounts for 
1 per cent of the world's population, 2 per cent of its carbon 
emissions and 3 per cent of its energy use. The planet's fate 
hardly hangs on the UK. Excessive zeal would create costs 
damaging to the country's international competitiveness.

It was inevitable, and right, that the review should give a boost 
to energy sources such as wind power, which put no carbon into 
the atmosphere. The PIU is radical in calling on the government 
to build on its current target for 10 per cent of electricity to 
be generated by renewable sources by 2010. It proposes to raise 
this to 20 per cent by 2020. But this may be little more than an 
aspiration. The PIU admits that the 2010 goal is "by no means in 
the bag".

The PIU deserves credit for estimating the extra cost of 
renewables. But even if the public proves ready to pay more and 
to accept the whirring of thousands of huge windmills, their use 
is limited. They do not work on calm days.

Nuclear power, by contrast, is a steady baseload supplier. It 
also offers, says the PIU, "a zero carbon source of electricity 
on a scale which, for each plant, is larger than that of any 
other option". But since the government no longer builds new 
reactors, it can only improve the framework for the private 
sector to do so. The PIU rightly suggests planning should be made 
easier. It also tiptoes towards giving nuclear energy the same 
exemption from the Climate Change Levy as renewables. The 
government should go further and allow new nuclear capacity to be 
included in the targets it sets for renewables and perhaps create 
a carbon tax to benefit both.

The government plans to use the PIU review to open a wide debate 
with a white paper next year. But such debate needs bold ideas to 
prime it. The PIU review, a report to government rather than by 
it, should have been more courageous in presenting them.

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-1998
*****************************************************************
 14  LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: No to more nuclear power 

Financial Times; Dec 13, 2001
By DANIEL MITTLER

From Mr Daniel Mittler.

Sir, The Garrad Hassan study into the potential for renewable 
energy in Scotland is to be fully welcomed ("Scotland has enough 
renewable resources, study says", December 11). The shock wave 
this study has generated shows how little serious effort had been 
made to discover the real potential of green alternatives in the 
energy sector. Those who argued for the potential of renewables 
were written off as dreamers, even if they argued for capacities 
as low as 7,800MW, as an assessment did in 1993.

I am certain that a study into energy efficiency would generate 
similar results and show that even the use of much of the energy 
we currently produce could easily be avoided.

The Scottish Executive should now follow the good advice of The 
Scotman newspaper that "this new evidence should be thoroughly 
examined before any rush back to nuclear power is contemplated". 
There can be only one conclusion: that it would be unnecessary 
and plain mad to create new nuclear capacity in Scotland. Brian 
Wilson, energy minister, please take note.

Daniel Mittler, International Campaigner, Friends of the Earth 
Germany, 10179 Berlin, Germany

Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 1995-1998
*****************************************************************
 15  Energy policy lights way to greener power
By David Buchan

Published: December 12 2001 21:35 | Last Updated: December 12 2001 
21:44
 
When Tony Blair saw the lights going out all over California he 
was suddenly presented with a painful question: could the same 
happen here? 

With Britain increasingly dependent on gas imports from unstable 
regions such as the former Soviet Union and North Africa, Mr 
Blair ordered the Cabinet Office to launch an urgent inquiry into 
future energy needs. 

The report's conclusions were reassuring. Britain should not 
worry about an over-dependence on gas: there was plenty of it, 
and security of supply was not an issue for the foreseeable 
future. 

Instead it has come up with far-reaching proposals on how to meet 
the other big question - meeting Britain's commitment to cut 
greenhouse gases. To that end, the report has more than just a 
tinge of green. 

It proposes a substantial increase in investment in wind farms 
and other renewable energy projects, greater energy efficiency 
and more investment in energy efficient combined heat and power 
projects. 

The findings by the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation 
unit will disappoint nuclear and coal industries, which had 
sought financial backing to replace ageing reactors and prevent 
greater volumes of imported gas being burnt in British power 
stations and homes. 

Proposals that the government should decide the fuel mix for 
electricity generation were "rejected on the grounds that it 
would be an excessive and major distortion in the market", says 
the latest draft of the report. 

It rules out subsidies to replace ageing nuclear power stations. 
More than three-quarters of nuclear capacity, 9GW, is due to 
close by 2020. 

"The electricity industry has had to cope with this scale of 
replacement and can do so again," says the PIU. "A wide range of 
technologies is available - gas-fired stations; renewable power; 
CHP [combined heat and power plants]; coal-fired stations; energy 
from waste resources; coal mine methane." 

The future of the coal industry, whose political strength has 
helped it score well in energy reviews, remains dim, it makes 
clear, unless a way can be found to bury the plentiful carbon 
dioxide it produces. 

Inevitably, the PIU review will disappoint those who hoped for a 
detailed map for energy policy over the next 50 years. But the 
green energy sector will rejoice at recommendations to remove the 
institutional barriers to its progress. 

These include heavy financial penalties imposed by the new 
electricity trading system on small and intermittent (typically 
wind) generators; the difficulty and cost which renewable 
producers have in getting linked to the grid; and planning 
obstacles which all generators face. 

If the government takes these up it may find itself clashing with 
Ofgem, the energy regulator, which recently said that its primary 
remit is to ensure consumers get the cheapest possible energy. 

The PIU wants to make it easier for CHP and renewable energy 
schemes to win planning permission. Local authorities should be 
required to accept regional targets for green energy schemes, it 
says. Building regulations should be strengthened to encourage 
"low carbon buildings" to meet stringent demand reduction targets 
of 1 per cent a year for households. 

On transport pollution it says the government may have to return 
to its previous support for congestion charging if development of 
new fuel technologies based on hydrogen fail to deliver. But it 
sees no alternative to using kerosene to fuel aircraft and says 
taxation may be needed to control growing demand and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. 

The review proposes that carbon taxes might eventually be imposed 
on all areas of the economy, including households, provided 
government measures succeed in substantially reducing by 2010 the 
numbers of people trapped in "fuel poverty". 

It also wants companies to include energy use and greenhouse gas 
emissions in annual reports.
*****************************************************************
 16  Ministers seal the fate of nuclear power stations 

The Times - UK Abstracts; Dec 13, 2001


According to the energy review conducted by the UK Cabinet 
Office's Performance and Innovation Unit, additional subsidies or 
tax breaks may no longer be provided to new nuclear power 
stations. The review, which was leaked to the media yesterday, 
has instead proposed the expansion of renewable energy targets, 
which would see 20% of UK electricity generated from such sources 
as wind or wave power by 2020. As a result of these proposals, 
nuclear power stations will have to shoulder the full cost of 
disposing and reprocessing waste and decommissioning reactors. 
This could mean that by 2020, nuclear power will cost up to three 
times more than electricity from gas-fired power stations or 
renewable sources, effectively pricing it out of the energy 
market. The review will be published in January.


Abstracted from: The Times


Copyright: Financial Times Information
*****************************************************************
 17  Nuclear waste returns to Switzerland 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 12, 2001


Text of report in English by Swiss Radio International's 

Swissinfo web site on 12 December

Switzerland is for the first time having to live with its own 
nuclear waste, after the first transport of reprocessed fuel 
arrived back in the country.

The 11 tons of nuclear waste arrived in Wuerenlingen in Canton 
Aargau on Wednesday [12 December] by rail from the French 
reprocessing plant in La Hague.

It is the first of at least three transports expected over the 
next year from 760 tons of waste that Switzerland has sent to 
French plant since 1975.

Peter Jenni, a spokesman for the Association for Swiss nuclear 
power stations, said about 40 Greenpeace activists were waiting 
at the site in Wuerenlingen when the transport arrived. He added 
that it had been a peaceful protest.

Nuclear waste problem

Greenpeace said in a statement that its activists were dressed in 
black to mark the "death of the illusion that Switzerland did not 
have a nuclear waste problem". However, spokesman Andreas Kunz 
said the organization did not object to the nuclear waste coming 
back to Switzerland. "In fact, it's the opposite. It is about 
time Switzerland took on responsibility for its own nuclear 
waste," he said.

The reprocessing plant in La Hague reprocesses fuel rods from 
Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. 
Switzerland is its third biggest customer.

Anton Treier of the department for the safety of nuclear plants 
confirmed that the contamination level of the waste was "clearly 
below the legal limits". The spent fuel rods are encased in glass 
and will be stored in Wuerenlingen for about four decades, during 
which time it is expected to lose enough of its radioactivity to 
be transported to a "geological warehouse", possibly in the heart 
of a mountain.

Source: Swissinfo web site, Bern, in English 1546 gmt 12 Dec 01 
/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter 
*****************************************************************
 18  Ukraine had no alternative to Chernobyl closure - president 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 12, 2001


[Presenter Oksana Marchenko] Nuclear energy issues were in the 
centre of [Ukrainian President] Leonid Kuchma's visit to the 
Chernobyl nuclear power plant today...

[Correspondent] Speaking of the events that happened a year ago 
[Chernobyl closure], it becomes obvious that closing the plant 
was the only way.

[Leonid Kuchma] There was no other way out. Moreover, the world 
was well aware of this. We were forced to close down the last 
reactor, because we headed towards this on our own and we did not 
invest any funds in this [to prevent the closure]. You know that 
each reactor requires appropriate measures to be taken in order 
to maintain its combat readiness from time to time, figuratively 
speaking. Therefore, everyone knew that we would shut down this 
reactor. The Ukrainian budget did not see the funds [promised to 
Ukraine to compensate for the station's shutdown], which were 
estimated at hundreds of millions dollars, so we do not need to 
say anything different on this [matter].

Source: Ukrainian Television First Programme, Kiev, in Ukrainian 
1900 gmt 12 Dec 01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter All 
*****************************************************************
 19  Ukraine can complete reactors with Russian help - President 
Kuchma 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 12, 2001


Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS Kiev, 
12 December: With Russian assistance Ukraine will be able to 
finish the construction of two nuclear power reactors, one in 
Rivne and the other in Khmelnytskyy, on its own, if the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD] delays financing, 
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma said on Wednesday [12 
December].

As he addressed a conference in Slavutych, President Kuchma 
recalled that under the Ottawa memorandum on closing the 
Chernobyl nuclear power plant the West pledged to help Ukraine 
finish the construction of two units at the Rivne and 
Khmelnytskyy nuclear plants and address social problems. 

"Ukraine has closed down Chernobyl only to remain with big 
problems," Kuchma said.

During a visit to Moscow on 29 November, Kuchma said Ukraine was 
inviting Russia to participate in finishing the construction of 
the nuclear power plants because the terms offered by the EBRD 
were unacceptable. A short while later Kuchma said that Ukraine 
was prepared for talks with the EBRD, adding that construction 
estimates should be recalculated.

According to the EBRD, completing the construction of the two 
reactors will require 1.48bn dollars, while Ukrainian and Russian 
analysts argue that half of the sum will be enough. Russian Prime 
Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has declared that Russia is prepared to 
extend a 400m-500m-dollar loan to Ukraine to complete the 
construction of the two nuclear reactors.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1352 gmt 12 Dec 
01 /BBC Monitoring/ © BBC. World Reporter
*****************************************************************
 20  Ukrainian president urges cabinet decision on reactors 

BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Dec 12, 2001



Slavutych, 12 December: 

Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma called on the government to 
finally decide how to complete two reactors at the Rivne and 
Khmelnytskyy nuclear power plants at a sitting in Slavutych 
today.


[Passage omitted: background information]


Source: UNIAN news agency, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1148 gmt 12 Dec 01 

/BBC Monitoring/ © BBC.


World Reporter All Material Subject to Copyright

*****************************************************************
 21  Legislators want China figured into waste plan

The Taipei Times Online: 2001-12-12
 
ENVIRONMENT: Lawmakers believe that constructing a repository for 
Taiwan's nuclear waste on a tiny island near China's coast could 
heighten cross-strait tensions

By Chiu Yu-tzu STAFF REPORTER

DPP legislators yesterday urged the government to take into 
account possible pressure from China when it reconsiders a 
project to build a radioactive waste repository on Hsiaochiu 
Islet (¤pËúÀ¬) in Kinmen County.

 "In addition to environmental factors, the government should 
consider political factors affecting the project," said DPP 
legislator Parris Chang (±i¦°¦¨), at a press conference 
yesterday.

 Chang added that China had once offered to build a repository 
for Taiwan's nuclear waste in China, and added that it might be 
preferable for Taiwan to send its waste to another country, such 
as Russia.

 Newly elected DPP legislator Chiu Zang (ªô¹ü), said she had 
heard rumors that Chinese fishermen were concerned about possible 
damage to fish stocks and might demand compensation from Taiwan. 
The Taiwan Power Company (Taipower, ¥x¹q) selected the 0.6km2 
islet, part of Kinmen's Wuchiu township (¯QËú¶m), as the possible 
site of a final repository for radioactive waste in 1998.

 Since then, the idea has been mired in controversy regarding its 
implications for national defense, ecological and environmental 
protection, and compensation for residents.

 In January, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report for 
the project was sent to the Environmental Protection 
Administration (EPA). Members of the EPA's EIA committee, 
however, said that crucial information was missing from the 
report. In particular, they said that, although the islet was 
close to China's Fujian Province, Taipower had not discussed 
China's possible reaction to the facility's construction.

 In May, the EPA demanded that Taipower must supply further 
information, such as possible ways to communicate with China on 
the issue, an assessment of the risk of radioactive pollution, 
further environmental data, measures to be adopted in the event 
of an emergency, and a cost-benefit analysis.

 The governments of Taiwan and China have had no bilateral 
contact since China broke off talks after then-president Lee 
Teng-hui described Taiwan-China relations as "state-to-state" in 
nature in July 1999. The EPA has demanded that all requested 
information must be received by Dec. 18, when the third meeting 
for the primary evaluation (ªì¼f) of the EIA report is to 
convene. If EIA committee members believe that the information is 
complete, Taipower will be required to submit a complete EIA 
report to the committee.

 Taipower officials said that it was not easy for the company to 
ensure an interactive dialogue with China on the issue.

 "What we can do is to publicize the plan to build the repository 
at international academic conferences, whose participants come 
from both sides," Shen Chien-tyng (¨H«Ø®x), deputy director of 
Taipower's Nuclear Backend Management Department 
(®Ö¯à«áºÝÀç¹B³B), said yesterday.

 Shen said that Taipower had not considered seeking the 
assistance of other organizations, such as the Straits Exchange 
Foundation (SEF) and the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC).

 Meanwhile, Taipower officials said that there was no urgency to 
find repositories for high-level spent nuclear fuel.

 "We store all spent fuel properly in factory sites. Once the 
international community comes up with acceptable solutions, we 
will adopt those methods," Huang Huei-yu (¶À´f¤©), the division 
head of Taipower's public affairs department, told the Taipei 
Times yesterday.

 
This story has been viewed 424 times.
 
URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2001/12/12/story/0000115422] 

Copyright © 1999-2001 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 22  Blow to nuclear lobby in green energy plan

 Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | 

Blow to nuclear lobby in green energy plan 
		 	
Rebecca Allison
Thursday December 13, 2001
 [http://www.guardian.co.uk]  		
 		
Britain could phase out nuclear, coal and oil-fired power 
stations to become one of the world's greenest energy producers 
in coming decades, according to a leaked draft of the 
government's energy review. 

The document published in New Scientist magazine today says the 
best way to cut carbon pollution and tackle global warming is to 
replace oil and coal-fired power stations with renewable energy 
sources. 

The draft report by the cabinet's performance and innovation unit 
attempts to determine the best energy strategy for Britain for 
the next 50 years. If the government accepts its recommendations, 
Britain is likely to become one of the world's most 
environmentally friendly energy producers. 

The study, which was widely expected to embrace the nuclear 
industry's plans for up to 15 new nuclear stations, will be a 
blow to the industry's hopes of a revival. 

Pro-nuclear lobbyists have been arguing that Britain's projected 
imminent reliance on gas imports requires a switch to nuclear 
production to ensure long-term energy security in the UK, as well 
as to meet ambitious targets to cut carbon emissions. 

They have insisted that new reactors are needed by 2040 to fill 
the gap left by the phasing-out of nuclear stations, including 
the seven Magnox stations which are to be closed within the 
decade and provide 7% of UK energy needs. 

The report, to be published within the next month, is expected to 
show that the energy equation is far more complex than a simple 
switch to nuclear energy. Instead, it relegates nuclear power to 
an also-ran that could be totally phased out by 2050 if renewable 
sources deliver as expected, according to the New Scientist. 

It favours renewable energy, which it says is the most flexible 
way to reduce the gas emissions from oil and coal-fired 
generation which are blamed for contributing to global warming. 

It also expresses concerns about the disposal of radioactive 
waste, the risk of accidents and terrorist attacks. Nuclear power 
is simply too dangerous and expensive, it concludes. 

The draft report pushes for production of at least 20% of 
electricity from renewable sources such as wave and wind power by 
2020, 10% more than the official target for 2010. 

These renewable energy schemes must be made more acceptable to 
local communities, it adds. 

Bryony Worthington, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, 
said: "This is exciting news and, if this is what the final 
energy review says, a victory for commonsense. 

"Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and unpopular and should 
have no role to play in our future energy needs. There is now a 
golden opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in 
developing clean, green renewable energy for the 21st century." 

The energy minister, Brian Wilson, this week gave the go-ahead 
for the building of the biggest wind farm in the UK and promised 
to ease planning rules to "unlock" 100 renewable schemes. 

The £35m wind farm of 39 turbines will be built at Cefn Croes, 
near Aberystwyth in Ceredigion, west Wales, and will supply more 
than 40,000 homes. The minister said the development would put 
Wales at the forefront of a new drive to ensure that Britain 
meets its target of generating 10% of its electricity from green 
sources by 2010. 

He would be introducing new rules to relocate alternative power 
schemes that had been proposed but failed to obtain planning 
permission. 

"These new rules will unlock around 100 renewable energy 
projects, currently blocked by planning restraints, to drive 
forward a significant expansion in the production of green 
energy." 
	
Useful links [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] 
[http://www.cnduk.org/] [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] 
[http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] 
[http://www.uilondon.org/] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001
*****************************************************************
 23  NRC, Entergy to Discuss Performance Issues at Indian Point 2
 
 NRC: Press Release Region I - 2001 - 70 - 

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 Web Site: 

  No. 01-070     December 12, 2001   
  
  CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] 
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331/ e-mail: nas@nrc.gov [nas@nrc.gov]   
  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with 
representatives of Entergy Nuclear Operations on Thursday, 
December 20, to discuss performance improvement efforts at the 
Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. Entergy operates the 
facility, which is located in Westchester County, N.Y.
 	 	 
The Regulatory Performance Meeting is scheduled to begin at 2 
p.m. at the Verplanck Firehouse, at Broadway and 8th Street in 
Verplanck, N.Y. The session will be open to the public for 
observation, with NRC staff available afterwards to answer 
questions from interested members of the public.
 
Specific areas of performance to be discussed will be equipment 
reliability, design and configuration control, human performance, 
and problem identification and resolution.
 
Indian Point 2 is currently designated by the NRC as a plant with 
"multiple degraded cornerstones." (Cornerstones are measures of 
performance.) This designation is associated principally with 
performance problems identified during an August 1999 reactor 
trip with electrical distribution system complications and a 
February 2000 steam generator tube failure event. As a 
consequence of that designation, Indian Point 2 is subject to 
additional NRC scrutiny.
   
*****************************************************************
 24  NRC Seeks Public Comment on Use of Alternate Dispute Resolution 
in its Enforcement Policy
 
 NRC: Press Release - 2001 - 134 - 

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov [opa@nrc.gov] Web Site: 
what-we-do/public-affairs.html   

  No. 01-134     December 13, 2001   
  
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on 
the possible use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in its 
enforcement policy.
 	 	 
ADR can involve the use of a neutral third party to resolve 
conflicts that can include facilitated discussion, mediation, 
fact-finding, mini-trials and arbitration. The Environmental 
Protection Agency, the U.S. Navy and the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission have used these techniques effectively. The 
NRC is considering using ADR in its enforcement policy.
 	 	 
In considering the possible use of ADR, the agency has identified 
a number of issues that must be evaluated. These include the 
point at which it would be appropriate to use ADR in the 
enforcement process and the possible implications for the 
confidentiality of settlement discussions in a process that has 
generally been conducted openly.
 	 	 
In order for the staff to evaluate whether, and how ADR should be 
used, the staff has prepared a list of questions it is seeking 
public comment on. The list of questions will be published in an 
upcoming edition of the Federal Register and may be examined at 
the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North building, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 	 	 
Written comments may be sent to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, Mail Stop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may also be 
submitted to Mr. Lesar via e-mail at:MTL@NRC.GOV. All comments 
should be submitted within 45 days of publication of the Federal 
Register notice.
*****************************************************************
 25  House members seeking hearings on plan to transfer EPA ombudsman

Denver Post.com
 
By               [msoraghan@denverpost.com]     
Denver Post Washington Bureau

--> Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - WASHINGTON - Lawmakers are 
criticizing the Bush administration's reshuffling of a watchdog 
agency within the Environmental Protection Agency that has 
repeatedly embarrassed the EPA. 

A bipartisan group of House members has asked EPA Administrator 
Christie Todd Whitman to postpone her transfer of EPA national 
ombudsman Robert Martin until congressional hearings can be held. 

U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Mark Udall, D-Boulder, 
both signed the House letter calling for hearings. The letter 
says they are concerned the restructuring will not give Martin 
the independence he needs, such as the ability to choose his own 
cases. 

But Whitman isn't budging. An EPA official said Tuesday that the 
agency is moving forward with the plan, moving Martin as of Jan. 
1. 

And Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., is rethinking his support of 
Whitman's plan, saying he can't get answers to his questions. 

Martin has repeatedly embarrassed the agency by investigating its 
decisions about cleaning up heavily polluted Superfund sites. 

In Denver, his investigation forced the EPA to reverse its 
decision to leave radioactive waste at the Shattuck Superfund 
site in the middle of a residential neighborhood. 

Residents in the Overland neighborhood want Martin to continue to 
monitor removal of the waste. 

Martin has had a long-running feud with EPA managers over his 
independence. Whitman said late last month that she'd found a way 
to give him that independence by moving him out of the Superfund 
program and into the inspector general's office. 

But Martin quickly denounced her plan as a ruse to dismantle his 
office because he's not being given control over his staff or his 
budget.
 	 
 All contents Copyright 2001 The Denver Post or other copyright 
*****************************************************************
 26  Energy secretary says he hasn't made nuclear dump decision yet
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
December 12, 2001 
 
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham hasn't decided 
yet whether to recommend to President Bush that the nation's 
radioactive waste be buried 90 miles from Las Vegas, he said 
Wednesday night. 

Abraham, who spoke to reporters after making a surprise 
appearance at the final Nevada public hearing on the proposed 
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, would not say when he 
will make his recommendation. Aides have said they expect it this 
winter. 

"At the end of the day," Abraham told the media, "I want the 
people of the state of Nevada to know I won't recommend to go 
forward if I don't reach the conclusion that this can be done 
safely and meet the rigid standards for this project." 

Earlier, he had listened silently in a cavernous Las Vegas 
auditorium to emotional comments for and against the project. A 
crowd of about 60 left 300 empty seats. 

"Something like this terrifies me," said Poxie Cazimero, 46, 
choking back sobs and dabbing her eyes as she said she feared a 
nuclear waste site a 90-minute drive from the home she bought 
this year in Las Vegas. 

"All I can say is, don't put it here," the former Hawaii resident 
said. 

"We have a national energy crisis and a national security 
crisis," said Bill Phillips, 52, a retired Environmental 
Protection Agency health physicist who urged the energy secretary 
to support the Yucca Mountain site, which is the only location 
being studied for a nuclear waste repository. 

Phillips, a southern Nevada native, said that unlike consultants, 
environmentalists, nuclear energy lobbyists and government 
officials who have spoken regularly at hearings, he was speaking 
for himself and his family. 

"We need to get this stuff here and get it underground," he said. 

At a news conference, Abraham pledged a "thorough and 
comprehensive review" of 18 years of scientific studies and more 
than 1,000 personal and written comments submitted during 66 site 
suitability hearings. The written comment period ends Friday. 

Hearings were also held simultaneously Wednesday in Amargosa 
Valley, a rural Nevada town near Yucca Mountain, and in Caliente, 
a hamlet in the southeastern part of the state. 

Along with whether the mountain at the western edge of the Nevada 
Test Site can safely contain 77,000 tons of radioactive waste, 
Abraham said he'll take into account what he called "compelling 
national interest." 

Nuclear waste is currently stored in casks at 103 commercial 
reactors and a handful of industrial and military sites around 
the nation. 

At Yucca Mountain, nuclear fuel pellets would be entombed in 
casks about 1,000 feet below the volcanic ridge some 20 miles 
from the California line. The Energy Department wants to begin 
accepting nuclear shipments in 2010. The project is expected to 
cost about $58 billion. The site would be monitored for decades 
and remain radioactive for 10,000 years or more. 

Abraham said he has not been to the Yucca Mountain site and had 
to go back to Washington late Wednesday. But he said he intends 
to visit the site before making his recommendation to Bush. 

Energy Department spokesman Allan Benson said late Wednesday in 
Las Vegas that 593 people had commented during 360 hours of 
public hearings in every county in Nevada and in Inyo County, 
Calif. 

Abraham's first appearance in Nevada as a Bush cabinet member 
came at a crucial time for the project. 

Nevada's state and federal lawmakers strongly oppose the proposal 
and are fighting it on political, environmental and legal fronts. 

The proposal has been shaken in recent weeks by a congressional 
General Accounting Office report urging Abraham to postpone his 
decision and by the withdrawal of a key law firm that had been 
working to get the Energy Department an operating license for the 
project. 

Nevada lawmakers and business interests have $5.5 million to 
mount a legal and public relations campaign against what they see 
as the proposal's Achilles heel - transporting nuclear waste to 
Nevada. 

The Energy Department says it can't study transportation issues 
until a disposal site is picked. 

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman used Abraham's appearance to repeat 
a threat he made at the first Las Vegas public hearing on Sept. 
5. He said he'll arrest any trucker hauling nuclear waste through 
his town to Yucca Mountain. 

"Take me at my word," the mayor said. "This will happen. We'll 
take them to c 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 27  Energy secretary makes surprise visit to Yucca Mountain hearing
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
December 12, 2001 
 
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham made a surprise 
appearance at Wednesday's final public hearing in Nevada on a 
proposal to bury the nation's radioactive waste 90 miles from Las 
Vegas. 

Abraham arrived in Las Vegas about midafternoon for the 66th 
hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. 

U.S. Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., issued 
statements saying they were glad Abraham finally was attending a 
public meeting on the project - even at the last-minute. 

"I'm sorry I couldn't be there with him," Reid said. 

Energy Department spokesman Allan Benson in Las Vegas said 535 
people have commented during 345 hours of public hearings in 
every county in Nevada and in Inyo County, Calif. 

Hearings also were being held Wednesday in Amargosa Valley, a 
rural Nevada town near Yucca Mountain, and in Caliente, a hamlet 
in the southeastern part of the state. 

Abraham's first appearance in Nevada as a Bush cabinet member 
comes at a crucial time for the project. 

The energy secretary is expected this winter to recommend to 
President Bush whether the volcanic mountain at the western edge 
of the Nevada Test Site is suitable for entombing 77,000 tons of 
the nation's nuclear waste. It is the only site under study. 

Nevada's state and federal lawmakers strongly oppose the proposal 
and are fighting it on political, environmental and legal fronts. 

The Energy Department has been shaken in recent weeks by a 
congressional General Accounting Office report urging Abraham to 
postpone his decision and by the withdrawal of a key law firm 
that had been working to get the department an operating license 
for the project. 

State lawmakers and business interests are poised with more than 
$5 million to mount a legal and public relations campaign against 
what they see as the proposal's Achilles heel - transporting 
nuclear waste to Nevada from 103 commercial reactors and a 
handful of industrial and military sites around the nation. 

Waste is stored in casks at most sites. The Energy Department 
says it can't study transportation issues until a disposal site 
is picked. 

The proposal has extra urgency with the emergence of nuclear 
energy as a key part of the Bush national energy plan. 

The Energy Department and its consultants plan to entomb spent 
nuclear fuel pellets in casks about 1,000 feet below the volcanic 
ridge at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site some 20 miles 
from the California state line. 

The Energy Department wants to open the Yucca Mountain dump in 
2010 and spend 17 years moving the nuclear waste into place. The 
project is expected to cost about $58 billion. The site would be 
monitored for decades and remain radioactive for 10,000 years or 
more. 

The draft General Accounting Office report, released two weeks 
ago, said at least 293 technical issues remained unresolved at 
the site, and reported that the general contractor for the 
project, Bechtel SAIC Co., didn't think they would be resolved 
until 2006. 

The government has spent more than $7 billion and almost 20 years 
studying the site. If Abraham recommends it and Bush gives the 
go-ahead, Nevada lawmakers have said they'll challenge the 
decision and take the fight to Congress. 

Nevada's four-member congressional delegation, headed by Reid, 
the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, has complained that 
the project stems from congressional vote taken in the early 
1980s, when the state had few people and little political clout. 

Since then, the state has become home to almost 2 million people, 
including about 1.5 million in the Las Vegas area. 

Environmentalists and state officials have said they fear 
radioactivity would leak from the site to an underground aquifer 
some 1,000 feet below the storage tunnels. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 28  Nuclear facilities' vulnerability makes more Americans nervous
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 12, 2001
 
By The Associated Press
 
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. -- Diana Sidebotham attended her first public 
hearing as a critic of nuclear power when the Vermont Yankee 
plant's license application was pending in 1971.
 
Some 30 years and scores of such forums later, Sidebotham went to 
yet another one last week at a Brattleboro high school and 
encountered the biggest crowd she had ever seen at such an event 
-- more than 500 people.
 
Worries about nuclear power -- in particular, fears of a 
terrorist attack on a plant -- have taken on new urgency since 
Sept. 11.
 
"Now that a major disaster has occurred, people are beginning to 
understand that we are vulnerable," Sidebotham said.
 
The new fear is that terrorists will crash a jetliner into a 
nuclear plant, scattering radiation in a Chernobyl-like disaster.
 
Around the country since Sept. 11:
 
-- The Federal Aviation Administration ordered no-fly zones 
around the nation's nuclear plants for two weeks in October. When 
a student pilot flew a small plane into airspace near a former 
nuclear plant in Colorado, two F-16s were scrambled and escorted 
the aircraft to a landing.
 
-- National Guardsmen were posted in recent weeks at nuclear 
plants in several states, and many installations have added 
private security guards.
 
-- Governors are clamoring for the federal government to open a 
long-delayed high-level waste-disposal site and take spent fuel 
now stored in pools considered more vulnerable to attacks than 
the reactors themselves.
 
-- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is co-sponsoring legislation that 
would make nuclear plant security a federal responsibility.
 
-- A panel that advises Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland 
recommended the nation consider arming nuclear plants with air 
defense systems.
 
-- Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a doctor, reversed his earlier 
position and said he wants the state to stockpile potassium 
iodide, a drug that can protect against one form of radiation.
 
Defenders of nuclear power have given assurances about security 
at the nation's 103 reactors.
 
"There has been no credible threat against any nuclear facility 
in this country, and if there was, we would be equipped to deal 
with it," Nils Diaz, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, said last month in Florida.
 
A 1982 Argonne National Laboratory study said it would be 
possible for a large jetliner to breach a reactor containment 
vessel and spread radiation. There are also fears that a jet 
hitting the open-topped pools of highly radioactive waste could 
also cause a major release of radiation.
 
At last week's meeting in Brattleboro, Hubert Miller, an NRC 
regional administrator, said nuclear plants were not designed 
with an attack by a large passenger jet in mind. But he said the 
containment vessels that surround reactors are among the 
strongest buildings in the country.
 
He repeatedly told the crowd that security at Vermont Yankee is 
"robust." 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 29  DOE Tackles Fate of Moab Radioactive Tailings

The Salt Lake Tribune -- 

     Thursday, December 13, 2001   

BY LISA CHURCH
SPECIAL TO THE TRIBUNE 

    MOAB -- Should they be capped or moved? 

    The perennial question surrounding 10.5 million tons of 
radioactive mill tailings on the banks of the Colorado River 
north of Moab is now being tackled by the U.S. Department of 
Energy, which outlined what can be done to reclaim the site 
during a meeting of area residents. 

    On Oct. 25, the Department of Energy (DOE) took over the 
130-acre site where uranium mined in the area of southeastern 
Utah was processed for nuclear weapons by Atlas Corp. from 1962 
to 1984. After the company filed for bankruptcy in 1998, the site 
fell under the control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and 
a court-appointed trustee began work stabilizing the site until 
Congress turned it over to the DOE. 

    The preliminary plan, presented to about 45 Grand County 
residents attending Tuesday's meeting, will now be reviewed by 
the National Academy of Sciences, which will then recommend 
whether the DOE should cap the tailings in place or relocate 
them. The Academy's recommendations are not binding, but the DOE 
must submit an explanation to Congress if it does not follow 
Academy recommendations. 

    Last month, the DOE began work to reduce toxins leaking into 
the Colorado River from the pile. Previous studies indicate toxic 
materials, especially ammonia, are killing endangered fish in the 
river, a source of water for 25 million people downstream in 
Arizona, Nevada and Southern California. 

    Don Metzler, who heads the groundwater cleanup effort, said 
the DOE is exploring ways to create a barrier between the river 
and water leaking from the tailings. 

    The agency is also studying whether leakage from the tailings 
has contaminated water sources on adjacent land, including the 
Scott M. Matheson Wetlands Preserve. 

    While the Academy conducts its review, the DOE will monitor 
air and water quality at the site, said Ray Plieness, deputy 
director of the agency's office in Grand Junction, Colo. Plieness 
said the agency also plans to extend dust control measures to 
areas not treated by PricewaterhouseCoopers, former trustees of 
the site. 

    "Our schedule for ensuring we're protecting human health and 
the environment is right now," Plieness said. "It is our number 
one priority." 

    Officials would not speculate about what the final solution 
will be. The preliminary plan, however, identifies three possible 
off-site disposal locations. They are an area northwest of Moab, 
a landfill operated by East Carbon Development Corp. in Carbon 
County about 100 miles northwest of the town and the Envirocare 
disposal site in Tooele County. 

    The estimated cost of moving the tailings could top $363 
million while capping the tailings in place will cost about $137 
million. Regardless of which plan is finally approved, the 
cleanup effort will take at least nine years. 

    On Wednesday, Grand County Councilwoman Joette Langianese 
said she hopes the final plan considers human factor in the cost 
of the project. 

    "With the world situation as it is now, if there is going to 
be a discrepancy between what the DOE recommends and what 
Congress is willing to approve, I'm worried it will come down to 
the money,'' said Langianese. "It's far cheaper to cap the pile 
in place, but I don't think it's the best solution." 
   
  © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on 
*****************************************************************
 30  State to charge shippers of nuclear waste

DesMoinesRegister.com | News
 		 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 			 		 
By  [okamotol@news.dmreg.com

Register Staff Writer
12/12/2001

 Iowa is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the 
nation to charge a fee for transporting nuclear waste between its 
borders.

A rule that would charge between $50 and $1,750 to ship 
radioactive waste across the state is expected to take effect 
July 1, following its review Tuesday by the Legislature's 
Administrative Rules Review Committee. The panel reviews state 
rules before they go into effect.

The fees would apply to so-called high-level waste such as spent 
fuel rods from nuclear power plants and low-level waste such as 
contaminated soil. The size of the fee would depend on the type 
of material being shipped, and whether it's taken by highway or 
railway.

Truckers and railroaders were among those who initially raised 
concerns about the size of the fees last summer. They said no 
other state imposes a fee for the movement of low-level waste.

Donald Flater, chief of the state Bureau of Radiological Health, 
told the panel of lawmakers Tuesday that an agreement was reached 
with haulers after the fee was reduced for low-level waste from 
$250 to $50 per load.

Flater said the events of Sept. 11, by heightening awareness on 
the dangers of radioactive materials, helped persuade those 
involved to reach an agreement.

Military analysts have long speculated that Osama bin Laden's 
terrorist network al-Qaida could easily obtain enough radioactive 
materials to construct what's called a "dirty bomb."

"People will start thinking about . . . where are they going to 
get the radioactivity from?" Flater said. "They could get it from 
some of the shipments."

An estimated 4,000 shipments of radioactive waste are taken 
across Iowa each year. Fees will have to be paid by the shipper, 
or individual who owns the waste, rather than truckers or 
railroaders who transport it. The money would be used to train 
emergency crews for accidents involving radioactive materials.

John Bromley, a spokesman for Union Pacific Railroad, could not 
confirm Tuesday that an agreement had been reached. He said the 
railroad had forwarded the information to its shippers and had 
not yet heard back.

In other news, lawmakers were told Tuesday that a proposed rule 
to make it easier for the public to obtain information about the 
owners of horses and greyhounds that win prize money at Iowa 
tracks would be a "massive bookkeeping effort."

Lorraine May, an attorney for Bluffs Run in Council Bluffs, said 
dogs are frequently owned by five to 20 people, or a corporation.

"What this rule requires us to do is weekly monitor hundreds of 
owners of racing animals," she said. "There is simply no logical 
way that that can be done."
 
The issue stemmed from Gilbert Cranberg of Des Moines, a former 
Register editorial page editor, asking for a breakdown of purses 
won in 1999 by Iowa horse owners at Prairie Meadows Racetrack and 
Casino in Altoona. He was told it would cost him $25 an hour, or 
about $400. The Freedom of Information Council then requested a 
rule to make the information more easily available.

"It seems that we ought to be able to get people the information 
they need without a lot of administrative nightmare," said Sen. 
Jack Kibbie, an Emmetsburg Democrat.

Karyl Jones of the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission said the 
commission would try to revise the rule in January so it works 
for everyone involved.           
     
Copyright © 2001, The Des Moines Register. Use of this site 
*****************************************************************
 31  Chernobyl head sacked over misused funds

BBC News | EUROPE | 
 			 
 12 December, 2001, 

Chernobyl was the scene of the worst nuclear accident

Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has said that the director of 
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has been sacked for mismanaging 
funds intended to pay for the dismantling of the plant. 

Tolstonogov let things happen which were outside his remit which 
is why he's to go
   	 		
   	 	 President Kuchma 	 	 	   

Speaking on a visit to Chernobyl, Mr Kuchma said the director, 
Vitaly Tolstonogov, had made serious errors which could not be 
overlooked. He said the police and the security service were 
investigating. Chernobyl - the scene of the world's worst nuclear 
accident - was shut down almost a year ago in return for more 
than £2bn of western aid. 

Energy needs 

Most of the money is to go towards dismantling Chernobyl's faulty 
Soviet-design reactors and the construction of two new plants to 
provide electricity for the country. 
	 		 			
Mr Tolstonogov is said to have made "serious errors" over the 
funds
 		 		 		  
Mr Kuchma said half of Ukraine's energy needs came from nuclear 
power and the country had no alternative but to continue with 
this form of energy. 

Mr Kuchma spoke during a visit marking the one-year anniversary 
of the closure of Chernobyl on 15 December 2000. 

President Kuchma - whose visit included the nearby town of 
Slavutych, home to former plant workers and their families - 
praised efforts to help them adjust to its closure, but 
acknowledged that more needed to be done to reduce ensuing 
unemployment. 

"Although there is positive progress, it's not enough for those 
who wish to work," he said. 

Radioactive cloud 

The Chernobyl plant was the scene of the world's worst civilian 
nuclear accident in April 1986 - when its number four reactor 
exploded, sending a radioactive cloud across much of Europe. 

The exact number of dead has never been given, but about 30 
people were killed immediately, while another 15,000 were killed 
and 50,000 left handicapped in the emergency clean-up after 
accident. 

It is estimated that five million people were exposed to 
radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. 

Chernobyl's number two reactor was shut down after a fire in 
1991, and reactor number one was halted in 1996. The final 
working reactor, number three, was closed down last year. 
	         
*****************************************************************
 32  Senate committee approves nominee for Yucca project 

Thursday, December 13, 2001
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 

By STEVE TETREAULT 
DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- Margaret Chu, nominated to head the federal office 
overseeing the Yucca Mountain Project, was approved by the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday. 

Chu, a chemist and government manager, was recommended for 
confirmation in a voice vote during a brief committee meeting. 
Her nomination now goes to the Senate floor. 

Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said an attempt will be made to 
get Chu confirmed before the Senate leaves for Christmas later 
this week or next week. 

He said he was not aware of any opposition to Chu at this point. 
She would oversee the Energy Department program that is studying 
Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a potential 
repository for spent nuclear fuel. 

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not decided whether to support Chu 
or whether he might try to stall her nomination. The Senate 
majority whip, Reid earlier this year stalled several Bush 
administration nominees for a month in a Yucca Mountain-related 
protest. 

Sen John Ensign, R-Nev., also has not formed a position, a 
spokeswoman said. 

Reid said his support depends on whether Chu would back an 
independent review of all scientific research conducted to date 
at Yucca Mountain. He posed that question to her in a Dec. 5 
letter. 

The question stems from accusations by Nevada lawmakers that 
Yucca Mountain work may have been compromised by the involvement 
of attorneys from Winston &Strawn, a Chicago law firm that 
withdrew from the program on Nov. 29 amid allegations of conflict 
of interest. 

Chu separately visited Reid and Ensign last week for 
get-acquainted sessions. 

Chu promised a response, but it had not been received by 
Wednesday. 

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2001
*****************************************************************
 33  New "Dependent" Counsel Regulations Are Dangerously Restrictive

Public Citizen | Press Room - 

Dec. 12, 2001

Getting Its Foot in the Back Door: Energy Department Could Ignore 
Process and Quietly Resume "Recycling" of Potentially Radioactive 
Metals Public Would Be Asked to Trust That Metals from "Hot 
Areas" Are Radiation-Free

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In what public interest groups deem a 
betrayal, certain U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials are 
pushing a proposal that would allow the "unrestricted release" – 
including recycling – of potentially radioactive metals from DOE 
nuclear sites. The plan directly violates the spirit of previous 
DOE policy and would quietly reverse DOE’s July 2000 decision to 
suspend the release of potentially radioactive metals. The plan 
was outlined in a draft memo from the department’s Field 
Management Council (FMC) that Public Citizen and the Nuclear 
Information and Resource Service (NIRS) recently acquired.

The DOE is currently conducting an environmental review of how to 
handle radioactive scrap metal from DOE sites (the process is 
called a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on 
the Disposition of [Radioactively Contaminated] Scrap Metals). 
This process includes a planned public comment period and 
hearings on the various alternatives for the disposition of 
potentially radioactively contaminated metals generated by DOE 
nuclear activities. The metals at issue can be sold and used to 
make a wide variety of retail goods and industrial materials.

The FMC proposal would essentially bypass the current 
environmental review process by pre-selecting one of the 
alternatives under consideration by the DOE. Should the proposal 
be approved by Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, there would 
be no public review, participation, comment or notification. 
Amazingly, the memo states that "this action will not bias the 
analysis" of the ongoing review.

References to "scrap metals that may have originally contained 
small, but acceptable quantities of residual radioactivity" and 
"the Oak Ridge complex’s initiative to recycle metals with 
acceptable level[s] of residual radioactivity" indicate that the 
DOE is again aiming to unload thousands of tons of radioactively 
contaminated waste and materials upon American businesses and 
consumers.

The PEIS process itself has not been without problems. In early 
2000 the DOE hired Science Applications International Corporation 
(SAIC) to perform the environmental review. SAIC had previously 
been terminated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 
substantial conflict of interest because it had a financial 
interest in a quarter-billion dollar contract to recycle 
radioactive metal from the DOE’s Oak Ridge, Tenn., complex, and 
at the same time was creating a report for the NRC to use as a 
guide for releasing and recycling radioactive materials from its 
own facilities. After Public Citizen, NIRS and other public 
interest groups met with DOE officials in July and pointed out 
SAIC’s questionable record, DOE revoked its contract with SAIC to 
perform the environmental review.

"This latest back-door maneuver makes it crystal clear that DOE’s 
ultimate goal is to release and disperse radioactive materials," 
said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass 
Energy and Environment Program. "The PEIS process has revealed 
strong public, environmental and metal industry opposition to 
radioactive recycling. So now DOE is plotting another step to 
recycle this stuff in complete disregard of its own environmental 
review process. It may be in the DOE’s financial and legal 
interests to toss its nuclear waste into our homes, but Americans 
have always been strongly opposed to the idea."

"DOE is destroying whatever fragments of credibility this 
troubled process has left by attempting to secretly reverse the 
one good policy they have – prohibiting radioactive metals from 
getting into commerce," said Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information 
and Resource Service project director. "In addition, DOE 
continues to send other contaminated materials out into the 
marketplace."

Dave Ritter, policy analyst with Public Citizen’s Critical Mass, 
agreed. "What Americans really want this holiday season is 
assurance from their government that radioactive waste will not 
be recycled into metal, concrete, soil, plastic or any other 
product. Instead of a clear and unambiguous ban on this practice, 
the DOE is trying to side-step its own process."

Public Citizen and NIRS are submitting Freedom of Information Act 
requests to the DOE for all materials relating to the development 
of the FMC memo.

*****************************************************************
 34  Panel clears Chu for Yucca post
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: December 13, 2001 at 10:28:23 PST 
 
By Benjamin Grove 
<grove@lasvegassun.com [grove@lasvegassun.com] >

 WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel on Wednesday approved Sandia 
Laboratories nuclear waste director Margaret Chu to be the next 
manager of the Yucca Mountain project.

 Now that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has 
approved Chu, her nomination goes to the full Senate for final 
confirmation.

 It is unclear whether lawmakers will vote on the nomination 
before they adjourn for the year. Committee leaders have said 
they intend to push for Chu's swift approval before adjournment.

 Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., the No. 2 
Senate Democrat, have not decided whether they will support Chu's 
nomination.

 The senators met with Chu in separate meetings earlier this 
month and asked her to answer some questions in writing about her 
stance on Yucca Mountain. Chu has not yet responded, Senate aides 
said today.

 Chu is director of the Nuclear Waste Management Programs Center 
at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. She leads a team 
of 150 researchers who study solutions to global nuclear waste 
problems, according to the resume she submitted to Congress. She 
has 20 years of experience at Sandia in waste management issues, 
the resume said.

 Her experience includes helping the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission and Environmental Protection Agency to develop 
technical rules and standards for high-level waste dumps like the 
proposed Yucca site.

 Chu has a doctorate in physical chemistry.

 "If confirmed as the Director of this Office, my role will be to 
ensure that an efficient management system is in place, that our 
disposal decisions are based on sound scientific understanding, 
and that my organization is responsive to Congress, oversight 
organizations and the public," Chu told the Senate energy panel 
Dec. 5.

 Chu would inherit a difficult job as director of the Department 
of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Her 
main responsibility would be overseeing the controversial Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste project. The DOE has been studying the 
mountain ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas for years.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35  B.C. Chamber quits U.S. group
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: December 13, 2001 at 10:39:55 PST 
 
By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com [manning@lasvegassun.com] >

 The Boulder City Chamber of Commerce has become the third Nevada 
chamber to withdraw from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after the 
national organization decided to support the Yucca Mountain 
nuclear waste repository.

 The 10-member board voted on Tuesday to withdraw its annual $350 
membership dues, Executive Director Beth Walker said.

 The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the third largest in the 
nation, withdrew its membership from the national organization on 
Nov. 19 after the U.S. Chamber announced a national campaign in 
support of the Yucca Mountain repository.

 The Henderson Chamber of Commerce unanimously voted last week to 
withdraw from the national group.

 The U.S. chamber announced its support before Sen. Harry Reid, 
D-Nev., released a draft General Accounting Office report that 
said the Department of Energy should delay a decision on turning 
the desert ridge 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas into a burial 
site for 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. The report noted that 
293 technical issues about the site remained unanswered.

 The Nevada chambers said that they withdrew after the national 
organization failed to consult with them. Las Vegas chamber 
officials said they were never contacted about the plan until an 
Oct. 23 e-mail arrived announcing the national support campaign 
for a repository.

 Walker said she faxed and e-mailed a letter to the U.S. chamber, 
asking why the national group failed to seek input from Nevada. 
The U.S. chamber never replied.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 36  Abraham: No Yucca decision

Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: December 13, 2001 at 10:57:28 PST 
 
Berkley calls energy secretary's surprise visit a 'setup'

 By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com [manning@lasvegassun.com] >

 Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Wednesday that he has not 
decided whether to choose Yucca Mountain as the nation's only 
nuclear waste repository and has not set a deadline for when he 
would make that decision.

 Nevada officials have criticized Abraham for planning to 
recommend the site to President Bush before scientific studies of 
the Yucca's suitability as a repository are complete.

 That recommendation is widely expected to come in the next few 
weeks, both nuclear power and Nevada officials say.

 "I have not made a decision on Yucca Mountain, and any decision 
I make will be made on a thorough and comprehensive review," 
Abraham said during a last-minute visit to Cashman Center for the 
last of more than 50 public hearings about the project held 
throughout the state this year.

 Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was singled out 
by Congress in 1987 as the only location for the Energy 
Department to study as a potential repository for 77,000 tons of 
the nation's nuclear waste. The DOE began studying the site in 
1982.

 The results of more than 18 years of scientific studies and the 
accompanying public comment are important elements in deciding 
whether to choose Yucca, Abraham said.

 "Their (public) comments will be a critical part of the review," 
Abraham said after listening to 41 speakers, ranging from Indian 
opponents to industry supporters. The public comment period -- 
the DOE began taking comments in May -- ends Friday.

 Yucca Mountain must pass two tests before Abraham reaches a 
conclusion: the suitability or safety of the site and whether the 
project is "justified by a compelling national interest," he 
said.

 "That's the duty I have to taxpayers who have paid billions of 
dollars, as well as ratepayers," Abraham said.

 The DOE has so far spent $8 billion studying Yucca Mountain. 
Another $11 billion remains in a fund made up of a fee charged to 
nuclear power customers, or ratepayers.

 "At the end of the day I want the people of Nevada to know that 
we will not move forward unless I believe we can meet the strict 
(radiation exposure) standards," he said.

 Nevada's top elected officials were caught off guard by 
Abraham's unexpected appearance. Abraham, who spoke about 10 
minutes but did not take questions from the public, said he 
decided to attend Wednesday's meeting late Tuesday night.

 Gov. Kenny Guinn had already made plans to spend the day at 
Hoover Dam with Interior Secretary Gale Norton.

 "We were not apprised of this," Guinn's press secretary Greg 
Bortolin said, adding that the governor was upset by the lack of 
notification.

 Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., John Ensign, R-Nev., Reps. Shelley 
Berkley, D-Nev., and Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., also were unaware of 
Abraham's decision to attend. Nevada officials had asked Abraham 
to attend a Sept. 5 hearing in North Las Vegas, which attracted 
more than 500 people. Of those, 400 spoke on the project.

 However, the DOE was criticized for the hearings because six out 
of the first nine speakers on Sept. 5 represented the nuclear 
industry. Consequently, it was 10 p.m. before members of the 
public had an opportunity to speak.

 Berkley was upset by Abraham's surprise appearance Wednesday.

 "This was not a hearing, but a setup," Berkley said. "This was a 
sham and insulting to the people of our state. If the secretary 
of energy is going to sneak into town like some kind of fugitive, 
he is never going to have to hear the real concerns of the people 
of Nevada.

 "The administration is being disingenuous to the people of 
Southern Nevada if they claim tonight that they are taking this 
process seriously," Berkley said in a prepared statement. "In 
reality, this was a PR stunt designed to silence the people of 
our state."

 Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who was notified of the 
secretary's presence just five minutes before the mayor strode to 
the podium, told Abraham that the city would sue the DOE if a 
repository at Yucca Mountain is approved.

 "Being a lawyer and a gambling man, I have the advantage," the 
mayor, who has represented mob figures in court, said.

 "I got a little screw loose up here," Goodman said, pointing to 
his forehead. "They don't know where I'm coming from."

 Goodman said drivers hauling nuclear waste, whether on trucks or 
trains, face six months in jail and $1,000 fines if they 
transport even one of the estimated 100,000 shipments -- over 24 
years -- of spent fuel through the city.

 Trucks hauling waste to Yucca would pass through the Spaghetti 
Bowl, the intersection of Interstate 15 and U.S. 95, a major 
crossroads through Las Vegas.

 "Every elected official should be here and look this man 
(Abraham) in the eye and tell him just as I did, that it is a 
disaster," Goodman said.

 A Yucca Mountain repository, said Goodman, was a "disaster" 
before Sept. 11. Since the terrorist attacks, he said, "we 
learned we are not safe in our native land. Not only will we be 
targeted by these evil people, but thousands of people around the 
country who don't know what Yucca Mountain is are at risk."

 Proponents of the repository tell another story.

 Retired health physicist Bill Phillips of Las Vegas said it was 
time for the DOE to build the repository, despite a recent 
General Accounting Office report that says 293 outstanding 
technical issues should be resolved before the site is 
recommended by the secretary.

 Phillips said the DOE should base its decision on scientific 
evidence already gathered and should pay little attention to 
public opinion polls that show more than 80 percent of Nevada 
residents oppose the Yucca repository. Phillips said more than 70 
percent of the state's population is "technically illiterate."

 The comment brought a collective gasp from the audience.

 Two out of three people who attended Wednesday's meeting were 
DOE employees or represented nuclear interests, according to an 
informal count. Yucca proponents included former Gov. Bob List, a 
Nuclear Energy Institute consultant, and Steve Kraft, an NEI 
executive.

 "We believe the facts overwhelmingly support the site," Kraft 
said, adding that Nye County -- the site of the mountain -- could 
gain 2,000 jobs if the repository is built. It may be "the only 
contribution to that region's economy," he said.

 List said a repository could create "a ripple effect ... 
spreading throughout the state of Nevada to everyone's benefit."

 Goodman snorted, "That's what prostitutes tell you, even if they 
have venereal disease."

 Las Vegas resident Nick Christensen was equally blunt. "The 
department which you head is ignorant," he told Abraham.

 The DOE, just as people who have not lived in the desert, often 
see the area as barren and a suitable place to dump unwanted 
material.

 "In truth, the Department of Energy has no vision," he said. "It 
could become a larger wasteland than the Department of Energy 
sees it now."

 Christensen referred to media reports concerning the potential 
for terrorists to produce and employ a "dirty bomb" -- an 
explosive device made with radioactive materials.

 "Trucks and trains will be terrorist targets," he said. "If 
Osama bin Laden wants a dirty bomb, he's got thousands if this 
opens."

 Diana Roth, a 30-year Las Vegas resident, said Midwestern 
farmers often use outhouses to dispose of waste. The DOE is 
"using Yucca Mountain as an outhouse, and my vote is no," she 
said.

 Moapa Paiute Indian Tribal Chairman Calvin Meyers said the DOE 
has not notified the tribe regarding its actions at Yucca 
Mountain, although American Indian tribes are considered 
sovereign nations according to nuclear waste management laws.

 "The only thing the DOE has offered us is to run over us with 
its (nuclear waste) casks," Meyers said, reciting a short prayer 
to protect people from radiation that escapes a future 
repository. "I'm not educated. My education comes from the 
streets. I read. I am not stupid."

 After Abraham presents his decision on Yucca to President Bush, 
the repository issue will head to Congress. Nevada then may veto 
the decision. Congress, by a simple majority, can override that 
veto.

 Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has vowed that as 
long as the Senate remains in the hands of Democrats, Yucca 
Mountain will not open.

 The public comment period closes Friday at 5 p.m. Written 
comments should be addressed to Carol Hanlon, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office (M/S #025), 
P.O. Box 364629, North Las Vegas, NV, 89036-8629.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 37  UK nuclear groups say energy review not anti-nuke

  Thursday December 13, 01:33 PM       

 LONDON, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Britain's two nuclear companies on 
Thursday said they did not think nuclear power has been brushed 
aside in a leaked government report into energy policy.

 "The report appears to say keeping the nuclear option open is 
important," said a spokesman for British Energy which supplies 
about a fifth of the country's electricity via its mainly nuclear 
reactors.

 But draft copies of the government's energy review leaked the UK 
media also appear to suggest the government should not take any 
immediate action to replace ageing reactors, most of which are 
due to close by 2020.

 British Energy said it would be up to the industry and not the 
government to decide whether to build new nuclear power stations.

 "We would like to replace existing power stations and have not 
talked about an expansion programme," the spokesman said.

 State-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) said it stood by its 
submission to the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU), which 
has been conducting the review, that nuclear power was an 
important ingredient to the country's energy pie.

 "We stand by our comments that nuclear has a part to play," a 
spokesman said.

 There has been speculation since Prime Minister Tony Blair 
initiated the energy review that nuclear power was garnering 
government support in the of concerns about over-reliance on 
imported natural gas and worries about emissions of greenhouse 
gases from carbon-fuelled power stations.

 Energy Minister Brian Wilson has publicly declared he supports 
nuclear power, but the minister has also been keen to show his 
green side.

 On Monday he helped unveil plans by British Energy and engineer 
AMEC (LSE: 

[http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/n/a/amec.l.html] ) to build a 
600-million-pound ($867.7 million) 600-megawatt wind farm, which 
will be the world's largest.   

Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 38  Rep. Barton’s Electricity Deregulation Bill Hurts Consumers 
Consumers Demand More Accountability, Not Less

Public Citizen 

Dec. 12, 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. — An electricity bill scheduled for hearings in 
the House on Wednesday and Thursday would replace consumer 
protections with unregulated corporate control over energy 
markets, potentially leading to the kind of price-gouging that 
plagued California consumers after deregulation, Public Citizen 
said today.

No consumer groups were scheduled to testify at the hearings 
before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Energy and Air Quality, chaired by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). 
Public Citizen sent a written request to Barton on December 5.

"It is wrong that only supporters of electricity deregulation — 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and energy 
corporations — were invited to testify, but consumers were not," 
said Tyson Slocum, research director for Public Citizen's 
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "Millions of 
consumers are paying higher prices because of deregulation's 
failure in California, Montana and other states. Consumers have a 
right to have their voices heard in this important debate."

Barton’s bill ends FERC’s authority to review utility mergers and 
power plant sales, in addition to repealing the Public Utility 
Holding Company Act.

"After the California debacle, the last thing consumers need is 
for Congress to remove controls over market power — but that's 
what Barton does by repealing PUHCA and ending FERC’s merger 
review authority," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public 
Citizen’s Texas office. "Removing these important consumer 
protections allows greed to go unrestrained, resulting in 
skyrocketing prices and energy company bankruptcies. As we begin 
deregulation in Texas, consumers outside urban areas don't have 
much choice — and only one or two companies are serving them. If 
we remove the merger and anti-trust protections, we will have no 
controls to prevent price-gouging."

Barton’s legislation also limits state regulatory oversight by 
transferring state jurisdiction of transmission lines to FERC. In 
addition, it strips electricity markets of transparency and 
accountability by forcing the creation of Regional Transmission 
Organizations, ending the ability of state regulators to regulate 
transmission.

"Rep. Barton promises his constituents that he supports private 
property rights," said Katy Hubener, director of a Dallas-based 
air quality group, the Blue Skies Alliance. "But his bill 
eliminates the ability of property owners to protest transmission 
line projects in their neighborhood. 

Because Texas doesn’t fall under FERC jurisdiction, our citizens 
have the right to protest such projects. By transferring 
authority away from other state and local officials, Barton is 
saying, ‘What's good for Texas isn't good for America.’"
*****************************************************************
 39  "Nukes Now!"

Salon.com Technology | 

 By Damien Cave

Dec. 13, 2001 | Read the story 

Damien Cave's article about the supposed renaissance of 
commercial nuclear power left me shaking my head in amazement. 
These "new" safety features he discusses, such as gravity-fed 
coolant and control rods, are not new at all. Most of them have 
been incorporated into U.S. Navy reactors since the 1960s. The 
reason they were not incorporated into civilian reactors, was, 
quite simply, the added cost. 

>?>?>?>?>

I served in the Navy as a nuclear reactor technician during the 
1980s. As part of our training, we were required to read the 
official (i.e., classified) NRC incident reports about various 
accidents at civilian nuclear power plants, among them Three Mile 
Island. What I read made my blood run cold, not because of what 
happened but because of what I learned about how civilian 
reactors are built. After I got over my shock at learning that 
the safety features I had come to think of as indispensable 
didn't exist in civilian reactors, I came away with the profound 
feeling that safe nuclear power simply isn't cost-effective. 

Navy reactors are overengineered to a degree inconceivable in the 
commercial world because they must survive being shot at in 
wartime. They generally have a coolant-to-power ratio that is 
many times higher than any civilian reactor (a higher ratio means 
a lower chance of a meltdown because there's more coolant to 
absorb the excess heat). Every single part that goes into a Navy 
reactor, down to the most basic nuts and bolts, is subjected to X 
ray examination for possible defects. The Navy can do this 
because its reactors aren't selling their electricity and the 
operating costs are paid by the taxpayers. Civilian reactors, on 
the other hand, are of no use unless they turn a profit, and any 
honest engineer will tell you that profit and safety are 
inescapably competitive concerns. 

Rather than focusing on all these false "advances" in power plant 
design, Cave should have asked whether the utilities are willing 
to even talk about relaxing the decades-old federal liability 
exemption for nuclear power plant accidents. The answer -- of 
course not -- will tell you whether they really think they can 
build safe reactors cost-effectively. -- Tom Overton
 

As a nuclear engineer, I share Professor Waltar's concerns -- 
will my grandchildren complain that I didn't try hard enough to 
build more nuclear power plants and help mitigate global warming? 
I suspect future generations will see nuclear safety and nuclear 
waste as trivial concerns compared to the measurable and 
foreseeable impacts of dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide 
into the atmosphere. Frankly, our long-term energy problem is not 
where we get fossil fuels but that we don't have a big enough 
atmosphere to dump the waste products into. The energy business 
is ultimately built on physics -- no amount of wishful thinking 
will change the fact that uranium can deliver the juice and 
windmills, solar and all the assortment of "alternatives" just 
can't beyond hobbyist scale. Why are the "environmentalists" 
barking up the wrong tree? 

As to nuclear technology, our first generation of nuclear power 
plants were much like Ford's first Model T automobile -- they 
needed a bit of work. No seat belts, no antilock disk brakes, no 
drivers' education, plus little history of failures to base 
rational improvements upon. I know personally since I helped 
design some of the first batch of big nukes and have spent much 
of my career since in making improvements. The next generation of 
reactors will have fundamental advantages built into the design 
-- most of us in the nuclear industry are eager to get to work on 
them -- for ourselves and for our posterity. -- Joseph Somsel
 

In Damien Cave's article "Nukes Now!" I was surprised to see the 
debate about the damage done by Chernobyl framed simply in terms 
of how many people were killed at the time, and how many human 
deaths in the near future can be attributed to the emissions from 
the Chernobyl accident. That's actually an extremely conservative 
estimate of the damage. The underlying problem, and the reason 
for the deaths, is radiation contamination to the region around 
the Chernobyl disaster. A more circumspect assessment of the 
damage would include both the physical extent of contaminated 
land, water and air, and the duration of time for which the air, 
water and land will be radiation-contaminated. Even from a 
human-centric viewpoint, we are talking about land that should 
not be farmed for tens of thousands of years, water that should 
not be drunk or allowed to escape the region for tens of 
thousands of years, and a region of a country that should remain 
uninhabited for over 20,000 generations -- far longer than all of 
written human history so far. We don't even know how to construct 
something that would mark the spot that long. The 
per-kilowatt-hour costs listed in the article for nuclear power 
also do not include costs for TMI or for future accidents. 
Cleanup costs will be paid by taxpayers, and other social and 
environmental costs -- deaths, illness, disruption and loss of 
reproductive capability -- by the unlucky regions of the U.S. 
where the next large nuclear power plant leak occurs. In that 
light, nuclear power does not look competitively priced with 
other power sources. -- L. Durbeck
 

It was nice to see a balanced article about the nuclear power 
industry for a change. 

The anti-nuclear lobby has always puzzled me. They continually 
oppose efforts to find safe ways to dispose of the waste, yet it 
is at the top of their list when the complaints start. It needs 
be pointed out that a nuclear power plant -- even one built 20 
years ago, much less today -- produces less radiation than a coal 
plant, and results in a small amount of solid waste rather than 
the thousands of tons that coal plants spew into the atmosphere, 
or the considerable pollution accompanying the production of fuel 
for gas plants. 

If people were truly serious about reducing pollution they would 
push for far more nuclear plants to replace the current crop of 
coal and gas-burners. Until the pipe dreams of solar, tidal or 
wind power become economical (and these won't work everywhere), 
nuclear is the best and cleanest alternative. -- James Ellis
 

In the article "Nukes Now", Damien Cave discusses claims that 
nuclear power is cost-effective by considering how much it would 
cost the power companies. In fact, nuclear power only appears 
cost-effective due to massive federal subsidies, including 
liability limitations and cheap waste storage. These costs are 
attached to our tax return instead of our energy bill, but we'll 
still be paying for them for the next 10,000 years. -- 
Christopher Hapka
 

Your nuke article describes Chernobyl in the most interesting 
terms I've yet heard. "Only 31 people" were killed. Hmm. That's 
not so bad. Never mind that millions of tons of topsoil were 
removed for miles in every direction, or that the place remains a 
ghost town today, and will remain a ghost town for centuries. -- 
David Sexton
 

Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste. Nuclear waste. It's the same old 
argument that "scientists" are tired of hearing about, but it's a 
simple fact that exists about nuclear power. You can't just bury 
something and expect future generations to deal with it. One 
scientist was worried about his children and global warming -- 
how about how their generation is going to deal with nuclear 
waste that is leaking out of poured concrete storage bins. And 
furthermore, mountains weren't put on this earth to house nuclear 
waste containment facilities. We've got a sun, we've got wind, 
and they still work. Also, there have been vast improvements in 
fuel cells and fly wheels. It's the same old argument, but there 
is a reason this argument is still around. -- Jay B. Johnson
 

North Anna Power plant has also experimented with solar and 
hydroelectric power. The facility created Lake Anna by damming 
the North Anna River. (There is a parallel South Anna River, but 
they never meet, there is no Anna River.) Making use of Lake 
Anna, land values of a county in the boondocks became a rural 
retreat popular with the south D.C. crowd. Emissions for all 
electrical generation at North Anna is near zero and lots of jobs 
have been brought to the area employing a good mix of skilled 
labor and Ph.D./engineering experts. While the methods of mining 
and disposal are still up in the air, the power generation 
facility has been a definite gain to the community. 

Zero emissions, good employment, positive community job growth 
and increasing land values. -- Tobi
 

I am afraid that the article makes the mistake that many articles 
on nuclear power make: They ignore the cost of decommissioning a 
nuclear power plant when adding the total cost. Even if the 
plants are safe and there are no accidents, the costs will be 
huge to store the radioactive material safely for thousands of 
years. Since a plant is only good for perhaps 50 years at the 
most, is it right to dump our nuclear wastes into the hands of 
future generations? 

The nuclear power industry used to say that the odds of a nuclear 
power accident are the same as being hit by lightning. Well, 
people do get hit by lightning every year, and the industry has 
not been totally honest about the safe operation of their 
reactors. That's another story for those who take the time to 
study the history. -- Robert Adjemian
 

I, like many liberals, always reacted vociferously to any mention 
of the benefits of nuclear power. Green ooze, the image of a 
hazardous-waste symbol and Chernobyl meant that nuclear power was 
obviously negative and frightening -- it was never a question in 
my mind. While at the same time admonishing others for their 
inability to have an "open mind" about social issues I, like many 
liberals, reacted to nuclear power with rancor and prejudice. But 
there is a rational argument that favors fission-generated 
nuclear energy over other sources for environmental, economic and 
scientific reasons. Of course, many can argue against it for 
other equally persuasive reasons, but fear should not be one of 
them. If you are afraid of it then explain clearly why. In his 
article, Damien Cave has done an excellent job of showing that 
you may need to have an open mind. -- Scott Lewis
 

As a researcher on Wall St. looking at the business case for 
environmental management, I came across a lovely little document, 
kept on microfilm at the Science &Technology library on 5th Ave. 
entitled "Radioactive Releases From Nuclear Power Plants." This 
document, compiled by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 
detailed the total amount of curries of radioactivity (usually in 
steam releases from the cooling system) that each plant in the 
U.S. released each year. The NRC ceased compiling this document 
in 1994, and when I called them to request an update was told 
that there were "data problems" with the document, but that if I 
wanted this information I could submit Freedom of Information Act 
requests to all 100 plus plants nationwide. I think the problem 
with the data in this case is the data itself and what it says 
about the industry. Mr. Cave ought to ask why the industry 
doesn't want this information released to the public, and also 
why if nuclear power is such a good idea the insurance industry 
wants nothing to do with it and the taxpayers have to pick up the 
tab? -- Marc Brammer
 

As a former resident of one of the states considered ideal for 
dumping nuclear waste, New Mexico, I must say that the cavalier 
treatment given to the issue of where to dispose of this 
radioactive garbage never fails to enrage me. Articles on the 
supposed safety of nukes give the barest mention to the fact that 
there isn't much plan for disposal beyond "stick it in some cave 
where sparse population and poverty make political dissent less 
likely." That is because we are so very far from having a 
workable solution that it's not even possible to lie about it. 
Such articles also uniformly fail to mention that the Germans 
recently decided to discontinue their extensive nuclear program, 
based in a large part on the difficulty they had in finding 
anyplace to put waste. Why don't we learn from their experience 
and refrain from creating an unsolvable mess in the first place? 
-- Beth Morgan
 

Before we start designing new nuclear reactors, some 
investigative journalism needs to be done to explore rumors that 
Flight 93 was aiming at Three Mile Island rather than some 
undisclosed target in Washington. A departure delay at Newark 
Airport allowed the passengers of Flight 93 to learn about the 
death and destruction at the Trade Towers during their hijacking, 
and to take heroic action against the hijackers. If this twist of 
fate was all that stood between us and a successful nuclear 
attack, U.S. citizens need to be fully informed as they formulate 
or vote on energy policy. -- Margot Corrigan
 

Near the end of the article you have the phrase "But are we 
prepared enough?" 

Well that's hardly the point isn't it? Prepared against a 
government that withholds the truth, the facts or any meaningful 
information about anything as a matter of standard operating 
procedure? How can we be safe against an administration that 
simply does not understand the difference between ruling and 
governance, between commonwealth and special interests? If there 
is a severe accident in a new nuke plant can we expect to even be 
warned sufficiently by the government to save ourselves, or will 
it, like almost everything else, be blocked off from public 
information at worst, or at best pooh-poohed as not getting with 
the program? Be afraid. -- Stephen Rifkin
 

OK, it's like this: 

Anyone with half a brain knows that nuclear power plants aren't 
"safe." Neither are any other sort of power plant. The only real 
comparison of safety would be to do a calculation of 
deaths/kilowatt-hour, including mining (or drilling, or 
whatever), plant construction, waste disposal, etc. 

Given the hazards involved in mining and transport of the large 
amounts of coal needed to generate power and given the disposal 
problems for the toxic waste generated, I find it hard to believe 
that coal-fired plants are safer than nuclear plants. -- John 
Kasper
 

While the article of Dec. 10 that addressed nuclear energy and 
its value to society as well as its risks seemed thorough, the 
author left out one important consideration. In fact, this one 
consideration has been left out of the equation from the very 
start of our fascination with nuclear energy. I refer to the fact 
that the uranium needed to run the nuclear power plants is 
located on the lands of our American Indian population. Since the 
1940's, when the mining of uranium began in earnest, it has been 
our indigenous people who have borne the brunt of the nuclear 
industry. It was the Navajo people who were tantamount in the 
stockpiling of this nation's nuclear arsenal and the Navajo 
people who have suffered tremendous incidences of cancer because 
of this stockpiling. 

Capitalizing on the poverty-stricken conditions, the mining 
companies, with their promise of a crust of bread and a smidgen 
of butter to spread on top, hired a work force of Native people 
to do their dirty work. Men were sent into inadequately 
ventilated mines, exposed to 100 to 1,000 times the dosage of 
radon gas now thought to be acceptable, ate their lunches in the 
shadow of radioactive waste piles and drank it down with 
radioactive tainted water. Told that what they did was safe, 
while the industry moguls had evidence to the contrary, these 
people slowly but assuredly began to suffer and die in 
outstanding number. 

The author of the article mentioned the Three Mile Island scare, 
but neglected to mention the Rio Puerco incident in July of 1979. 
At 5 a.m. on July 16 a dam owned by the United Nuclear Corp. 
developed a crack and spewed 1,100 gallons of uranium "tailings" 
(the waste from mining) and radioactive water into the Puerco 
River, the primary water source of the people of this high desert 
location. By 8 a.m. radioactivity levels were monitored in 
Gallup, NM, 50 miles away, and were found to contain 7,000 times 
the allowable standard for drinking water. The livestock 
population of this area drank from this source and soon began 
giving birth to deformed offspring, began dying in huge numbers. 
Meager warnings were issued, but numbers of Navajo people at the 
time did not read English, nor did they have electricity to power 
televisions and radios. As such, their contamination was assured. 
And, as can be deduced, this land and this water will never be 
the same. 

The radioactivity from such a disaster takes thousands of years 
to dissipate. The media at the time were lax in covering the 
story, though it was the largest nuclear accident in the history 
of the United States. In addition to this travesty, large 
mountains of tailing blows through Navajo lands, settling on 
towns and villages, settling on water sources. There has been 
extensive documentation of the extreme dangers of this 
radioactive dust as it relates to the incidence of cancer. The 
statistics of lung cancer alone in the Navajo people are 
staggering. Currently it is estimated that 75 to 80 percent of 
our uranium resources are located on Native American lands. Who 
will mine this uranium and what will happen to the poisons that 
result from this mining? And while the author mentioned the 
questionable safety of the proposed Yucca mountain site as a 
repository for nuclear waste, there was no mention of this 
mountain as a sacred site for the Native peoples of the area. 

In case the author and your readers are not aware, the Native 
American culture is a land-based culture, holding great regard 
for a spiritual connection to the land and for the physical 
connection to the bounty the land has to offer. The U.S. 
government has continually and systematically stripped and 
strapped the resources of the Indigenous Tribes, relegating the 
people to the back burner, forgotten and left to burn. Will we 
continue in this vein, neglecting the fact that people's lives 
and way of life are at stake? With other options to choose from 
for our energy needs, specifically wind as a viable and clean 
energy option, there is no good reason to reintroduce new nuclear 
energy into the mix. -- Jean Roman
 
salon.com
 
Copyright 2001 Salon.com 
Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
*****************************************************************
 40  Town ends talk of nuke plant

asahi.com : ENGLISH
 
  Asahi Shimbun     www.asahi.com [http://www.asahi.com/]     JAPANESE   

The Miyama town assembly adopts a petition against any plans for 
a plant. 

MIYAMA, Mie Prefecture-The Miyama town assembly Wednesday 
approved a petition against accepting any plans for a nuclear 
power plant in the seaside community, underscoring the results of 
an earlier referendum on the issue. 

The 18-seat assembly voted 12-to-2 in favor of withholding 
invitations for companies to build a nuclear plant in the town. 
The assembly also rejected a petition in favor of a Miyama 
nuclear facility. 

The assembly's decision ends almost four decades of debate on the 
issue since Chubu Electric Power Co. considered Miyama as a 
potential site in 1963. 

The assembly's decision follows a Nov. 18 referendum on inviting 
a nuclear power company to construct a plant in the town to 
revive the local economy. 

Most residents were thought to support the possible nuclear 
facility, but 67.26 percent of those who voted in the legally 
nonbinding referendum opposed the idea. 

Of the town's 8,748 eligible voters, 5,215 opposed, while only 
2,512 were in favor. 

Voter turnout was 88.64 percent. 

Many assembly members supported the idea of bringing a nuclear 
plant to the town, but flip-flopped after the results of the 
referendum, sources said. 

Pro-nuclear residents, led by officials of the town's chamber of 
commerce and industry, submitted a petition Feb. 21 to the 
assembly calling for Miyama to ask a power company to set up a 
nuclear plant in the area. 

The petition was signed by 5,606 people, or 64 percent of 
eligible voters. 

A group of anti-nuclear residents submitted a counter-petition 
the following day. 

In August, assembly members decided to hold a referendum on the 
issue.
 
(12/13)
   
  [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction 
*****************************************************************
 41  State opposes change in OR waste program
 
Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 1:10 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2001

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

In a move that has shocked some groups, the Department of Energy 
has informed the state that it is no longer bound by requirements 
or milestones pertaining to some of the most dangerous wastes in 
Oak Ridge.

 At the heart of this brewing controversy is a category of waste 
known as mixed transuranic that includes both radioactive waste 
and chemically hazardous components. The waste is stored at a 
handful of DOE sites, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

 Speculation is DOE's action is connected with a comprehensive 
review of the federal agency's Environmental Management program, 
which was initiated after Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham took 
office earlier this year.

 The review, which isn't complete, is supposed to determine 
methods for accelerating cleanup work and reducing costs.

 In a letter dated Oct. 31, DOE informed state officials that it 
was deleting a section of the Site Treatment Plan for Oak Ridge 
that deals with mixed transuranic wastes. The federal agency is 
claiming an exemption from the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, which provides for the management of hazardous wastes from 
the point of origin to the point of final disposal.

 The Energy Department also maintains the exemption is covered 
under amendments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 
Withdrawal Act, which outlines the amount and types of 
transuranic wastes that could be disposed of at the facility. DOE 
planned to dispose of mixed transuranic waste at the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M.

 "I'm really disappointed in DOE," said Susan Gawarecki, 
executive director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight 
Committee. "It looks like an attempt to back off their 
environmental obligations."

 The Local Oversight Committee, which is funded by a grant from 
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's DOE 
Oversight Division, was created in 1991 to represent those 
counties and communities affected most directly by DOE's Oak 
Ridge activities.

 DOE's attempt to absolve itself from meeting requirements and 
milestones for mixed transuranic waste hasn't sat well with state 
officials either.

 "The state of Tennessee rejects the position being taken by DOE 
that any mixed TRU (transuranic) wastes should be deleted from 
the Site Treatment Plan," wrote William H. Childres, manager of 
the waste program at the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation's Oak Ridge DOE oversight office, in a Nov. 30 
letter to DOE.

 Childres says DOE is taking the exemption out of context, adding 
that the state will "fight vigorously to maintain milestones in 
the Site Treatment Plan for mixed transuranic wastes."

 DOE spokesman Frank Juan this morning said the federal agency 
has a draft response to Childres' letter worked up. Though he 
said he could not discuss the contents of the letter, Juan said 
it should be sent very soon.

 In contrast to DOE's letter of Oct. 31, some DOE officials have 
said publicly that the agency plans to continue to do the work 
and meet the milestones associated with the mixed transuranic 
wastes even if the language for doing so is not included in the 
Site Treatment Plan.

 Gawarecki says that doesn't make sense.

 "If it's not in the Site Treatment Plan, then it's not 
enforceable," she said. "They can delay and put it off as long as 
they want."

 Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or 
pparson@oakridger.com [pparson@oakridger.com] .

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 42  Environmental report says deer's radiation hike not problematic - 

The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Thursday, December 13, 2001

By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650
 
  BARKLEY THIELEMAN/The Sun--Revealing report: DOE site manager 
Don Seaborg talks about the 2000 environmental report. 

The radiation level in deer tested near the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant was nearly twice as much as last year, but U.S. 
Department of Energy officials say it is well below federal 
standards for being a health risk. 

The 2000 environmental report also found — for the first time — 
small amounts of polychlorinated biphenyl, or PCBs, in deer that 
were harvested in the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area. 

The amount of PCBs in the deer doesn't pose a health risk and is 
similar to the amounts found in deer tested away from the DOE 
compound in western McCracken County, according to DOE site 
manager Don Seaborg. 

Even with those results, Seaborg said overall findings were 
consistent with previous years and consistent with other studies. 
"There were no surprises," he said. "There were no increases in 
(contamination) levels to indicate the problems are increasing. 
The levels are staying stagnate." 

The report said the maximum radiation risk for people living near 
the plant in 2000 was 1.9 millirems above the normal exposure 
that exists in the environment. That compares with a .69 millirem 
risk in 1999. Seaborg said the higher risk level is related to 
the increases in radiation levels in deer. 

The report shows that all other areas tested for radiation had 
decreased levels. They include surface water, direct radiation, 
atmospheric releases and ingestion of sediments. 

He said the exposure risk from the DOE site is less than 2 
percent of the regulatory limit for annual exposure, and less 
than 1 percent the average person receives in the United States 
each year. "It is one-fifth the radiation received in a typical 
chest X-ray," he said. 

The level also is far below levels prior to 1998 when the risk 
exceeded 3 millirems. 

The report said eight deer were taken for the study from the West 
Kentucky Wildlife Management Area. The highest radiation level 
found in deer meat was 4.7 millirems as compared to deer tested 
in the Ballard County Wildlife Management Area that had a level 
of 3.2 millirems. 

The highest level of PCBs in the West Kentucky Wildlife 
Management Area deer was 126 parts per billion. Seaborg said that 
is well below the Food and Drug Administration standards that 
allow meat to have up to 3,000 parts per billion. Seaborg said 
major progress should be made next year in site cleanup.

Eventually, he said the work should result in improvements in the 
annual environmental reports. 

Work is expected to begin early next year on cleaning the highly 
contaminated North-South Diversion Ditch, thought to be a major 
source of groundwater contamination. That work should be 
completed by October if a dispute can be resolved with state 
environmental officials over the method of disposing of excavated 
contaminated soil. 

Work also will proceed next year on removing some of the 
contaminated material from the scrap pile. It is a long-term 
project that will take several years. 
*****************************************************************
 43  BNFL Faces Safety Charges
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
BNFL FACES SAFETY CHARGES
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
A radiation incident involving a scaffolder at Sellafield has 
landed BNFL with another court appearance on four charges next 
month. 

The scaffolder received a radiation dose to his skin while 
working in Thorp head-end plant's crane maintenance area nearly 
12 months ago.
 
Site director of operations Brian Watson told the Sellafield 
Local Liaison Committee: "We are summoned to appear at Whitehaven 
Magistrates Court in January in relation to the contamination of 
a contract scaffolder. I deeply regret it has happened and even 
more determined to make the necessary changes, as we have done 
over the last two years, to make sure such occurrences don't 
happen."
 
At the time of the incident, BNFL reported in its weekly 
Sellafield Newsletter that it had set up a board of inquiry after 
the scaffolder was found to have three patches of contamination 
on the outside of his PVC suit. BNFL classed the incident as 
level 1 on the International Nuclear Event scale - an anomaly.
 
The government's Health and Safety Executive has brought four 
charges accusing BNFL of failing to ensure a non-BNFL employee 
was not exposed to risk, failing to take all necessary steps to 
restrict exposure to radiation; failing to making a suitable 
assessment of risk and in breaching the site licence failing to 
ensure that a suitably qualified and experienced person was 
supervising operations at the time.
 
The case will be heard by Whitehaven Magistrates on January 24. A 
BNFL spokeswoman said: "We will not indicate our plea to the 
charges until we are in court." 

*****************************************************************
 44  Sellafield Anti-Terrorist Review
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
Sellafield is looking to see if it can strengthen its defences 
and minimise the risk of a disaster in the event of a terrorist 
attack on the site.
 
BNFL Director of operations Brian Watson told Sellafield's local 
community health and safety watchdogs that more anti-terrorist 
measures are still possible following the New York Twin Towers 
catastrophe of September 11.
 
Mr Watson said: "We are actively reviewing and have been since 
September 11 to be sure we have everything possible in place to 
prevent damage to plants which could lead to the release of 
radioactivity. We do believe our plants are robust and able to 
withstand significant major damage. At the same time we are 
looking to see whether there is anything more we can do to 
further protect those plants and mitigate the potential 
consequences."
 
He also told Sellafield Local Liaison Committee that while the 
existing Sellafield emergency plans were based on a worse-case 
scenario they were being reviewed as well.
 
Gosforth parish councillor Derek Abel drew attention to how the 
French government had gone further by setting up a surface-to-air 
missile base around Cap La Hague - Sellafield's equivalent - to 
combat an aerial attack.
 
"You might think this is an over-reaction, on the other hand one 
might think the UK response is an under-reaction. Maybe the right 
measure lies somewhere in between."
 
Brian Watson told the meeting: "It is a difficult balance. I 
don't feel best placed to judge whether the French have 
over-reacted or whether we have under-reacted. 

"People who have to take the decisions are the ones who are 
getting the best intelligence of the real potential of any threat 
- the government is in the position to do that, it determines our 
security status and form a view on whether anything above and 
beyond what we have done so far needs to be done. Sellafield is 
not the only site in the UK or the western world or the USA that 
could be potentially subject to a further terrorist attack. We 
just need to take the best advice we can from government and 
implement accordingly. The absolute key is that we continue 
dialogue with community representatives and be sure you have the 
information you need to help provide the reassurance. It is an 
anxious time for everybody and I don't think it is easy to remove 
anxiety like this by saying words."
 
Mr Watson stressed: "It is important I try to give you as much 
reassurance as I can. We have to be absolutely prepared for all 
measures resulting in emergency requirements but there are some 
things I am not able to give answers to for obvious reasons. I do 
not want to make life easier for people who want to perpetrate 
such acts. We don't set the security alert status for Sellafield 
- it is done by the officer for Civil Nuclear Safety, a 
government dept, and since the 11th of September we have 
fluctuated between amber and black special. We have had to do a 
number of very specific things with increased checks on people 
and vehicles entering the site and vigilance at the perimeter 
fence and chicanes at the access gates."
 
nFriends of the Earth has claimed to a Commons Environment 
Committee that as many as two million people could be killed if a 
suicide bomber crashed into Sellafield.
*****************************************************************
 45  Calder Hall Faces Indefinite Shutdown
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
By Alan Irving
 
Calder Hall power station at Sellafield is shut down for 
investigations. BNFL, facing more heavy financial losses, cannot 
say when the four nuclear reactors will start up again.
 
The indefinite shutdown is expected to cost operators BNFL 
millions of pounds in lost electricity generation to the national 
grid, although vital energy supplies to the Sellafield site, 
especially for reprocessing, are being met from other sources. 

The 300 hundred Calder employees will continue to be employed on 
various reactor work. 

It is believed that enforced shutdowns could cost BNFL at least 
£30,000 for each reactor per day.
 
Only a few months ago the world's first commercial nuclear 
station (opened by the Queen in 1956) celebrated its 46th 
anniversary in a series of parties for the workforce but all the 
reactors are now out of operation for what may be the first time 
ever.
 
Checks are under way to discover whether there are any problems 
with the graphite chargepans which are used to guide the highly 
radioactive used fuel rods into place.
 
This is because at Chapelcross - Calder's sister station - one of 
the chargepans was found to be slightly tilted and misaligned due 
to what BNFL call "the well known phenomenon of radiation-induced 
graphite shrinkage."
 
The Calder Hall checks are described as a precautionary measure, 
although the reactors at both sites are of the same design.
 
A serious incident at Chapelcross last July involving a spent 
fuel basket saw BNFL put a self-imposed ban on refuelling its 
Chapelcross reactors when each became due for annual maintenance. 
At Calder Hall last week, Reactor I became the last to be put out 
of service. 

Union officials were yesterday meeting with management to get a 
full briefing on the situation.
 
As Calder Hall which employs about 300 people, is already due to 
close in four years time, there is already speculation and worry 
on the site that if cost and risk assessments prove too high BNFL 
could decide to cut its losses and go for an earlier closure.
 
But yesterday BNFL insisted: "All reactors will be returned to 
service as soon as possible next year. It is too early to set 
specific dates at this stage."
 
The chargepans consist of cast iron guide plates which sit on top 
of the graphite cores.
 
A BNFL spokesman said: "Detailed chargepan inspection work is now 
being carried out on all of the Calder Hall reactors, the results 
of which will lead to the development of revised safety cases 
together with options for any necessary modification work."
 
The first word of something being wrong came from Sellafield 
director of operations Brian Watson at a meeting of the 
Sellafield Local Liaison Committee, the site's community channel 
for health and safety matters.
 
He said: "Calder Hall is currently in some difficulties, 
significant outage (maintenance) work being undertaken. 

"The impact of the recent incident at Chapelcross has meant that 
we have not been able to secure permissions to recharge the 
reactors and there is a further problem to do with an item within 
the reactor called the chargepan. There is an issue with the 
positioning of those steel plates and we are currently looking at 
how we can justify the re-start of the reactors and taking a 
safety case to the NII. 

"It does mean that, very shortly, we are likely to be in a 
situation of having none of the reactors operating."
 
The reactors cannot become operational again until the NII agrees 
new safety cases.
 
Meanwhile, Sellafield is receiving its essential steam and 
electricity supplies from a non-nuclear source - the Fellside 
combined heat and power plant, on the site.
 
Sellafield spokesman Jamie Reed said: "There is no risk to safety 
and at no time have the reactors operated unsafely.
*****************************************************************
 46  UK-based consortium seeks partners to build 1 bln usd uranium 
enrichment plant 

AFX (UK); Dec 12, 2001

WASHINGTON (AFX) - Urenco Ltd, an European-led consortium is 
planning and seeking partners to build a 1 bln usd uranium 
enrichment facility in the US, introducing competition in the 
market for fuel for nuclear power plants, the Wall Street Journal 
reported, citing consortium executives.

Peter Lenny, president of the US marketing subsidiary of Urenco, 
a UK-based consortium of Dutch, German and British companies, 
said "everything looks very positive," but added that a final 
decision may still be a few days or weeks away. The plant, he was 
quoted as saying, will be designed to produce at least 30 pct of 
US. nuclear fuel needs.

Urenco is recruiting US partners, and Lenny said that among those 
interested is Exelon Corp, the country's largest operator of 
nuclear power plants.

So far, he said, there is no designated site for the plant, but 
the most likely candidates are locations that have already been 
licensed for nuclear power plants or other related activities by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

James Malone, a vice president of Chicago-based Exelon, said 
"we're interested enough to become a force in driving things 
along." He said the project would put new pressure on the only US 
enrichment company, Usec Inc. "It would push them to try and get 
themselves to be a more competitive business."

Charles Yulish, a spokesman for Usec, said the company will not 
comment on the Urenco plan until the company files an application 
with the NRC.

He noted, however, that Usec is also looking for partners to 
build a new 1 bln usd enrichment plant.

Both proposed plants would use high-speed centrifuges to separate 
uranium-235 from natural uranium, the process that leads to the 
manufacture of fissionable uranium fuel.

At the moment, Usec derives part of its enriched uranium from a 
50-year-old former government enrichment facility that it leases 
in Paducah, KY, which has become increasingly expensive to 
operate. The other part comes from Russia's former nuclear 
weapons program; however, future supplies of Russian uranium are 
currently hung up on prolonged negotiations over price, Yulish 
noted.

Usec is currently the world's largest supplier of nuclear power 
plant fuel.

Daniel Einbund, vice president of New York Nuclear Corp, a New 
York Uranium broker, said the most logical site for the Urenco 
plant would be near Piketown, Ohio, where the Department of 
Energy ran a pilot uranium enrichment facility that used 
centrifuges, but shut it down in 1987 after spending 3 bln usd.

"The local people there are familiar with the process," he noted, 
but the site is currently leased to Usec.

An earlier Urenco-led consortium applied to build an enrichment 
facility near Homer, LA, but dropped it three years ago after 
environmental groups intervened in the NRC licensing process and 
charged the company with "environmental racism" for locating near 
a poor, African-American community. Lenny said his company has 
been assured by the NRC that it has since changed its licensing 
process to limit such interventions. "You don't want to repeat 
that sort of experience," he said. 

"You go where you're wanted."

lj NNN For more information and to contact AFX: www.afxnews.com 
and www.afxpress.com World Repoter
*****************************************************************
 47  £400m Drypac Mothballed
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
On top of the Calder Hall blow, BNFL has to "mothball" a key 
plant designed to play a vital part in dealing with the big 
backlog of the site's old nuclear waste legacy.
 
Drypac has been constructed at a cost of £400 million but 
commissioning of the new plant will be held up indefinitely as 
BNFL takes a fresh look at the way in which it will clear up the 
backlog.
 
"Drypac is taking a breather," say the company.
 
But completion of the expensive project is bringing another loss 
of jobs on the construction site, starting just a few days before 
Christmas.
 
All told well over a hundred jobs will go between two companies - 
Balfour Kilpatrick whose contracts on the project are finished.
 
The first batch of jobs go on December 21, with the rest 
following at monthly intervals until March except for a 
maintenance crew.
 
Grant Cattanach, regional organiser for the AEEU, said: "It is 
unfortunate, especially coming on top of what is an horrendous 
jobs situation in West Cumbria. We can only hope things improve 
on the Sellafield construction site, and elsewhere, in the New 
Year."
 
Meanwhile, all BNFL employees who have been working on Drypac are 
being moved to other sites at Sellafield. Most of the agency 
staff will also be transferred to other work depending on how 
their skills match up. The actual building work has come to an 
end and that is the nature of the job. "BNFL is not making 
anybody redundant," said spokesman Nigel Monckton.
 
BNFL denied speculation that Drypac was being held up by design 
faults. "Some technical issues have come up as a result of our 
increased understanding of the waste," said Mr Monckton. 

He added: "The building has been completed but we are holding up 
commissioning to make sure the plant fits in with the historic 
waste management strategy we are drawing up. We have to make sure 
the plant does exactly what has to be done for dealing with this 
waste before we commit ourselves to anything irreversible. We 
definitely need Drypac, it is taking a breather."
*****************************************************************
 48  'No Risk' Over Mystery Leak at Sellafield
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS

Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
A mystery leak of radioactivity has been discovered under 
Sellafield but experts are satisfied there is no risk to workers 
or the public.
 
The contamination is from Technetium 99, a radioactive waste 
which has caused international concern following its appearance 
in the Arctic and North Atlantic.
 
Investigations are under way involving BNFL, the Environment 
Agency and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to find out 
where the technetium is coming from.
 
The material is a waste product arising from Magnox reprocessing 
and is discharged into the sea.
 
The mystery is whether it is appearing underground from a new 
leak or whether it is a legacy from a previous release of 
radioactivity.
 
There is speculation on the site that the technetium could be 
"historic" from the old B214 waste silo which started leaking 
underground in the 1970s but has now stopped.
 
A BNFL spokesman said: "There is no danger but we are currently 
investigating the source. This is the first time technetium has 
appeared in one of our boreholes but we have expanded the range 
of radionuclides we are looking for in the sampling."
 
The Environment Agency says it has been properly informed by BNFL 
of the finding.
 
Ian Parker, the Agency's representative on the Sellafield Local 
Liaison Committee, said: "Because the levels in the borehole 
water are extremely low we don't have any public health concerns 
but we need to know where it is coming from. Further work is 
taking place to make sure the source is identified."
 
He said the Agency would only consider taking enforcement action 
against BNFL if the source was not discovered and the 
contamination got any worse or out of control.
 
"If there is no impact on the environment generally then there is 
not a problem because the radiological impact is insignificant. 
It would be silly to say there is no possibility of it getting 
into water courses but none has been detected. We have a 
widespread environmental monitoring programme and if any 
technetium get into a water course it would be seen. Even if it 
did and water containing technetium was consumed it would have an 
insignificant impact. So it is not a problem in that sense - it 
is just that it's there and that's unusual."
 
Sellafield's director of operations Brian Watson broke news of 
the discovery to the Sellafield Local Liaison Committee, the 
site's health and safety community watchdog.
 
He said: "Technetium 99 has been detected in a small number of 
boreholes. The levels are extremely low and pose no threat to 
safety. We are monitoring further and looking at an enhanced 
programme of borehole construction and monitoring as part of our 
contaminated land study."
 
Tritium has been discovered in water for some time and Mr Watson 
added that there was a long standing underground programme of 
monitoring in boreholes.
 
Technetium 99 has been detected in Norwegian seafood but BNFL 
say: "Eating seven lobsters would give the same radiation dose as 
eating a single Brazil nut.
 
"When technetium is discharged from Sellafield it is diluted and 
dispersed in the sea. Minute quantities can be traced for 
thousands of miles but doses arising from it will be much smaller 
than even the small effects near to Sellafield. When BNFL ceases 
Magnox reprocessing around the year 2012 discharges of technetium 
will reduce even further, by more than 80 per cent."
 
A plant to remove the material would cost up to £200 million but 
would not be available for at least six years. BNFL says it is 
looking to see what technetium abatement technology can be 
developed.
 
Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive 
Environment, said: "It is not the quantities, it is the fact that 
this stuff is there at all - and whatever else might be there."
*****************************************************************
 49  Speak Out on Nuclear Waste
 
THE WHITEHAVEN NEWS
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 
People from the local community must become involved in the 
national debate on the future management of radioactive waste, 
says a borough councillor.
 
Coun Margaret Devlin told a meeting of the environmental policy 
group: "Unions, councils, Friends of the Earth, CORE, they all 
have their say but the ordinary people of West Cumbria, they 
don't have a voice."
 
Copeland Council has to make a response to the government's 
consultation paper, Managing Radioactive Waste Safely, and is 
seeking the public's views on the subject via a variety of means: 
citizen's panels, Copeland Matters, a telephone survey, a series 
of talks across the borough and an interactive website.
 
Coun Devlin (Lab) said she felt it was important to get the views 
and ideas of "the ordinary people who live and work in West 
Cumbria''.
 
"We see offcomers and people who have an axe to grind, like FoE, 
giving their views but opinions from all sorts of people with 
other skills, interests and ideas are needed.
 
"It is the ordinary people who for generations have been born 
here who should have some sort of voice.
 
"This consultation must engage them and ask and listen to them. I 
don't think they have ever really been consulted.''
 
Coun Bob Docherty (Lab) said: "In all the consultation and 
discussions we need to be sure we have the facts and not a 
version of the facts, we want transparency in this from BNFL and 
Nirex etc. people need to know what is happening.''
 
Coun Janet Johnston (Lab) said she had been aghast for years at 
how the area had been exploited in terms of radioactive waste.
 
"It is not reflected in the roads and the infrastructure system - 
investment that would make living here more acceptable than it 
is.
 
"It is just not fair that we have to put up with this. I don't 
think we should be out of pocket, we should reap the benefits.
 
"These benefits can only come nationally from the government and 
we want to see more of them, now.''
 
l Cumbria County Council has called an open meeting of its 
Economic and Community Forums at Westlakes Science Park on 
Friday, December 21, starting at 10am. Consultation ends on March 
3.
 
l A cross-party group of MPs who are members of the radioactive 
waste parliamentary sub-committee visited Sellafield on Monday. 
The purpose of the visit was to help the sub committee with their 
investigations in respect of the radioactive waste consultation.
*****************************************************************
 50  Winston & Strawn Bows Out; Leaked GAO Report Creates Furor
 
Vol. 21 No. 48 December 6, 2001 Page 481
 
Yucca Mountain
 
Winston & Strawn Bows Out; Leaked GAO Report Creates Furor
 
The Chicago-based law firm of Winston & Strawn has withdrawn from 
a contract with DOE for legal assistance in the department´s 
possible future effort to license a geologic repository for high 
level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
 
The law firm bowed out after the DOE In-spector General´s office 
stopped just short of con-cluding that the firm´s simultaneous 
representation of DOE and a leading proponent of the project, the 
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), constituted conflict of interest 
(NWN, Nov. 29, p. 471).
 
Winston & Strawn also was a member of NEI, the Washington, 
D.C.-based nuclear industry policy organization that lobbied 
heavily for quick progress on the repository.
 
DOE´s general counsel now is examining the next path forward.
 
Lebeouf Lamb Could Get the Job
 
One option could be to award the contract to New York City-based 
Lebeouf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, another top U.S. energy law firm 
that has filed a lawsuit challenging DOE´s award of the original 
contract.
 
The Yucca Mountain project was also the center of a national 
controversy this week with the leak of a draft General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report that said DOE did not have the necessary 
scientific and technical supporting evidence to ap-ply for a 
license for a repository at Yucca Moun-tain. The draft urged the 
secretary of Energy to postpone recommending the site to the 
president for development of the repository.
 
Abraham: Report is Fatally Flawed
 
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called the GAO report “fatally 
flawed” in a Nov. 30 letter to GAO Comptroller General David 
Walker.
 
“In the normal course of events, DOE would have had an 
opportunity to formally comment on its deficiencies, allowing GAO 
to correct its work product,” Abraham wrote. “Our interactions 
with your staff on this inquiry and the inappropriate, premature 
release of the draft report reinforce my concern that it was 
assembled to support a prede-termined conclusion.”
 
GAO told NWN that it would not comment or release the report and 
it was “unfortunate” that the report got out before the 
department had time to comment on the draft.
 
Reid Named as Source of Draft
 
According to a Las Vegas Sun report, the draft GAO report was 
sent to DOE and to members of the Nevada delegation, Sen. Harry 
Reid (D) and Rep. Shelley Berkley (D), the requestors of the 
re-port, on Nov. 28. It was featured in the Washington Post Nov. 
30.
 
In a Dec. 4 letter to President George Bush, the Nevada 
delegation asked for a delay in a site rec-ommendation in light 
of the GAO report and alle-gations of conflict of interest 
surrounding the Winston & Strawn law firm.
 
Contact: Sen. Reid´s Office, (202) 224-3542; DOE office of public 
affairs, (202) 586-5806.
 
Reprinted with permission of Nuclear Waste News. Published by 
Business Publishers, Inc. 8737 Colesville Rd., Ste. 1100 Silver 
Spring, MD 20910 (800) 273-6737 http://www.bpinews.com 
[http://www.bpinews.com] Email: bpinews@bpinews.com 
[bpinews@bpinews.com] 

©2001 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 51  Documents Are a Mess; Key Issues Unresolved: Former OCRWM Head
 
Vol. 21 No. 48 December 6, 2001 Page 481
 
Yucca Mountain
 
ROCKVILLE, MD. — The Yucca Mountain, Nev., radioactive waste 
repository program is a mess, concluded the former head of DOE´s 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the 
first Bush administration. He has spent almost the last year 
reviewing DOE´s pre-liminary site suitability evaluation and 
supporting documentation.
 
A comprehensive, independent peer technical review of all aspects 
of DOE´s Total Systems Per-formance Assessment (TSPA) analyses is 
needed for there to be any confidence in the program, John 
Bartlett, now a private consultant with S. Cohen & Associates, 
McLean, Va., told the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission´s Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) Nov. 29.
 
However, this review will be a daunting task because of the poor 
state of the documentation, which contains many gaps, 
inconsistencies among documents, contradictory models and 
analyses, generalities and lack of traceable technical 
sup-porting information.
 
Bartlett reviewed the program for Clark County, Nev., one of the 
counties adjacent to the planned repository. A county planning 
official, En-gelbrecht van Tiesenhausen, told ACNW that county 
officials had neither seen nor asked to see Bartett´s 
presentation before the ACNW meeting.
 
Key Documents Reviewed
 
The principle documents Bartlett reviewed were:
 
  + The Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation (PSSE);
 
  + The FY01 Supplemental Science and Per-formance Analyses 
(SSPA), including Vol. 1: Sci-entific Bases and Analyses and Vol. 
2: Performance Anayses (S-TSPA);
 
  + The Science and Engineering Report (SER);
 
  + The Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation (TSPA-SR) and the supporting models and assumption 
reports;
 
  + The Analysis Model Reports (AMRs) and Process Model Reports 
(PMRs) that were available (a few were not available); and
 
  + The Waste Package Material Performance Peer Review Panel 
Interim Report (Sept. 4, 2001).
 
The documents were very difficult to work with and in some cases 
it was almost impossible to trace the relationships among models, 
assumptions and data, Bartlett said.
 
“Overall, ‘technical traceability and continuity´ was lacking, 
and seems to have been interpreted by DOE as ‘information 
accounting,´” Bartlett said, adding that this makes review of the 
documents ex-tremely difficult.
 
Bartlett pointed out that the Nuclear Waste Technical Review 
Board also has been stressing the need for “traceability” for 
several years.
 
Bartlett explained in detail some of the prob-lems encountered 
just in trying to review the site recommendation documentation.
 
Substantive technical information concerned with TSPA efforts was 
limited and very difficult to trace within the documents. Most of 
the substantive information was in the AMRs and the PMRs. 
No-where did the documents clearly spell out the rela-tionships 
between models, assumptions and data.
 
Information on any given technical topic was not compete in any 
single document. The example Bartlett used was cladding 
degradation information, which is spread out among various 
documents without any cross-referencing.
 
Substantive Issues Also Show Problems
 
Along with the documentation inconsistencies, Bartlett identified 
a number of substantive issues in the technical analyses.
 
Many of the assumptions in the TSPA analyses are “extreme and are 
not related to data or realism,” he said. Also, many of the 
department´s assump-tions appear to be highly conservative or 
non-conservative, but DOE never describes the basis for its 
assertions that a particular assumption is conser-vative or not 
conservative.
 
Bartlett found major differences between TSPA-SR and S-TSPA 
methods and results, but the basis for these differences is never 
made clear in the documentation.
 
As an example, he said, S-TSPA assumed early canister failures. 
The TSPA-SR assumed such failures would not occur until 10,000 to 
100,000 years after closure. These conflicting assumptions make 
it very difficult to follow the projections of dose rate over 
time.
 
TSPA Lacks Sound Basis
 
The documentation does not provide a sound foundation for S-TSPA 
methods and results, which are the basis for the PSSE findings.
 
Overall, the “TSPA-SR and S-TSPA methods and results, 
individually and in comparison, give the impression that projects 
of performance are more an artifact of models and assumptions 
than they are a realistic assessment of expected repository 
perform-ance,” he said.
 
Bartlett, like other analysts, was troubled by DOE´s decision not 
to use a specific repository de-sign as the basis for its 
analyses. “Variations on the high-temperature design and 
peformance as the ba-sis for low-temperature repository 
performance as-sessments do not provide an appropriate or 
suffi-cient suite of TSPA results,” he told ACNW.
 
Alloy 22 was another trouble point, he said. The S-TSPA results 
for the regulatory compliance period depend solely on Alloy 22 
performance, “for which the key data base is small and fragile, 
and the long-term performance is unknowable.”
 
The use of Alloy 22 essentially makes DOE´s repository an 
“underground engineered storage fa-cility,” Bartlett said, 
referring to the need to be able to retrieve the waste if Alloy 
22 does not perform as expected under repository conditions.
 
Weakest Link Is Forged of Alloy 22
 
Bartlett specifically criticized DOE´s use of “one-off” analyses 
of Alloy 22 sub-system per-formance factors, such as localized 
corrosion and stress-corrosion cracking.
 
“Such analyses for Alloy 22 as a whole have not been performed, 
despite the fact that Alloy 22 controls overall system 
performance.”
 
Although most repository performance factors are temperature 
dependent, DOE´s performance assessments find, “without adequate 
documented substantiation,” that overall system performance is 
virtually independent of temperature.
 
DOE´s TSPA results for high- and low-temperature repositories, 
which show no difference in system performance after about 10,000 
years, “imply that coupled effects during the period up to 10,000 
years have no significant or persistent ef-fects,” Bartlett said.
 
Neither Hot Nor Cold Site Fully Studied
 
DOE also has not evaluated in detail either “hot” or “cold” 
repositories, despite the fact that they pose different and 
unresolved performance issues, Bartlett added.
 
As a result of coupled effects, a hot repository could alter 
natural features in uncertain ways, he said, adding that this, in 
turn, could have a negative impact on Alloy 22 performance.
 
A cold repository may require a significantly increased 
repository footprint, which in turn may require additional site 
characterization and revision of the expected contribution of 
natural features to repository performance.
 
Furthermore, Bartlett pointed out that DOE could only expand the 
repository to the north, the direction of the highest gradient.
 
Given that the program technologies are on the cutting edge of 
knowledge and understanding, Bartlett stressed that independent 
peer review is the only way for DOE to have confidence in the 
scien-tific basis for the site suitability evaluation. Such peer 
review is particularly needed for the supple-mental TSPA models 
and results.
 
Contact: John Bartlett, SC&A Inc., 6858 Old Dominion Dr., Suite 
301, McLean, VA 22101.
 
Reprinted with permission of Nuclear Waste News. Published by 
Business Publishers, Inc. 8737 Colesville Rd., Ste. 1100 Silver 
Spring, MD 20910 (800) 273-6737 http://www.bpinews.com 
[http://www.bpinews.com] Email: bpinews@bpinews.com 
[bpinews@bpinews.com] 

©2001 Business Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 52  No boating in power plant zones

  [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ]   
 
As a security measure, the Coast Guard has set up no-trespassing 
zones in waters near the Crystal River nuclear power plant. 

By ALEX LEARY, Times Staff Writer © St. Petersburg Times, 
published December 13, 2001 

CRYSTAL RIVER -- In a sign that the threat of terrorism has not 
died, the Coast Guard has established no-trespassing zones in 
coastal waters near Florida Power's nuclear power plant. 

The security areas, up to 3 miles from the reactor, were defined 
in late November -- although the rule was not published in the 
Federal Register until last week. They will be in effect until at 
least June 15. 

Based on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, "there is an increased 
risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or 
persons in close proximity to Florida Power Crystal River power 
plant," the Coast Guard said. 

"This power plant provides critical energy to the Tampa area and 
contains extremely hazardous materials." 

There have been no credible threats made against the power plant, 
said Lt. Dave McClellan, chief of port operations for the Coast 
Guard's Marine Safety Office in Tampa. 

But because the Gulf of Mexico was already being patrolled in the 
aftermath of the jetliner attacks on the World Trade Center and 
the Pentagon, it made sense to establish a security zone, he 
said. 

"You have more authority that way. We can basically tell a 
vessel: "If you're in this area, you are in violation of the law. 
You need to leave.' " 

People who refuse can be fined up to $27,000. The Coast Guard 
said the restriction makes it easier to use force if a threat to 
the nuclear plant is determined. 

The restricted areas, which encompass intake and discharge canals 
to the power plant, are popular with recreational anglers, 
particularly the discharge canal because fish flock to the warm 
water produced by the plant. 

"I'm against any kind of closure when it comes to fishing, like 
manatee sanctuaries, but when it's national security, it doesn't 
bother me any," said Homosassa fishing guide Mike Locklear. "But 
it will hurt some of the local people when it gets real cold." 

Already, some boats have shown up loaded with crab traps or 
fishing poles. "They politely left after we discussed it with 
them," said Chief Petty Officer Mark Dalrymple of the Coast Guard 
station in Yankeetown. 

He would not say how many boats are patrolling the area, only 
that the nuclear plant is being watched 24 hours a day. 

The Coast Guard is notifying boaters of the exact coordinates of 
the restricted zones through radio broadcasts. Some vessels may 
be able to enter the area, but only after getting permission. 

Similar no-access zones have been established for Tampa's port, 
the Sunshine Skyway bridge and MacDill Air Force Base. 

Florida Power spokesman Mac Harris said the utility welcomed the 
additional security. 

"We agreed it makes sense for security and ease of patrolling." 

- Staff writer Alex Leary can be reached at (352) 564-3623 or 
leary@sptimes.com [leary@sptimes.com] 
*****************************************************************
 53  Improvement Urged In N-Plant Security

Newsday.com - 

By Kathleen Kerr
STAFF WRITER
 	 	
December 13, 2001

A state examination of anti-terrorist plans for Westchester's 
Indian Point nuclear plant has concluded that security 
improvements - like special FBI training for some personnel - are 
necessary, a spokesman for the operating company said yesterday.
 
State Public Security Director James Kallstrom, charged with 
defending New York against terrorism, was expected to announce 
today that overall security at Indian Point is adequate, 
according to Larry Gottlieb, spokesman for Entergy Corp.
 
The plant, located on the Hudson River in Buchanan, provides 
about 20 percent of New York City's electricity.
 
Kallstrom's office would not comment. Gottlieb said yesterday 
that the company expected an "extremely robust" report.
 
In recent weeks, community activists, anti-nuclear groups and 
lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), have 
clamored for better protections for people living within a 
50-mile radius of Indian Point, including New York City 
residents. One concern is that deaths and severe illnesses could 
occur if a terrorist attack were to damage the plant and release 
a radiation plume.
 
Since Sept. 11, Gottlieb said, Entergy has spent about $3 million 
to hire an unspecified number of new security workers and to 
construct barriers to help ward off attacks. Gottlieb said the 
number of security workers must remain secret to avoid giving 
information to possible attackers.
 
Some of the improvements covered by the $3 million were initiated 
by Entergy, and some came as a result of Kallstrom's inquiries, 
Gottlieb said.
 
"They want a closer tie between us and the FBI in terms of 
training for security personnel and more advanced tactics," 
Gottlieb said.
 
Gottlieb said an armed Navy boat patrols adjacent to the plant 
and that air defense can be summoned quickly.
 
Kallstrom is expected to release one version of his report to the 
news media today, Gottlieb said. 

Copyright © 2001, Newsday, Inc. [http://www.newsday.com]        
*****************************************************************
 54  AU: Anti-nuclear group attacks Govt uranium report

ABC News - 

Posted :Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:04 AEDT
 
A critical review released by the Friends of the Earth labels the 
Honeymoon Uranium Mine environmental assessment as inappropriate 
and invalid.

Anti-nuclear campaigner Bruce Thompson says the report found the 
government assessment was based on the work of an inexperienced 
PhD student who supports uranium mining.

He also says the company is still unable to demonstrate the 
groundwater will return to its natural state.

Mr Thompson says despite assurances by the South Australian 
Government it would place all relevant documents on public 
record, key reports of the mine's trial operation are still 
missing.

"If more and more information is out out into the public realm, 
both information coming from farming groups and also the 
information that's been withheld, I think that hopefully will 
generate a public debate," he said.

"[This will] put it back on the Government to make some 
response."

South Australian Minister for Minerals and Energy Wayne Mathews 
refused to comment.

However, a spokesperson for the Minister dismisses the claim key 
documents have not been placed on public record.

© 2001 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 
*****************************************************************
 55  Opinion: Midlands Voices: Green Party misleads about Fort Calhoun

Omaha.com

December 13, 2001

BY FRED PETERSEN  

The writer is president and CEO of the Omaha Public Power 
District. The Omaha Public Power District's board of directors 
today votes on whether to proceed with an application to renew 
the operating license of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station for an 
additional 20 years. The Nebraska Green Party (in an article by 
its chairman, Frances Mendenhall, on the Dec. 12 More Commentary 
page) challenges the decision based on numerous misleading and 
inaccurate contentions. 

The first allegation is that there has not been sufficient time 
to discuss this issue. The facts are that the OPPD board voted to 
study license renewal in a public meeting on June 19, 1999. That 
decision was reported widely in the Omaha news media. Since then, 
area news organizations have covered the subject on many 
occasions. In addition the OPPD board has discussed relicensing 
in an open public meeting every month since June 1999. 

Throughout this lengthy and public process, there have been no 
requests for information on relicensing, nor have any public 
concerns been expressed until Nov. 21, when the Green Party 
apparently decided to launch its efforts to shut down nuclear 
generation in Nebraska. 

The security of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, as at all nuclear 
power plants around the country and world, has increased 
dramatically since the acts of war of Sept. 11. Our security 
forces at Fort Calhoun have been at their highest level of alert 
since that time. These security forces are composed of carefully 
screened and selected officers who are well-trained and 
frequently drilled on defending the plant against attack from 
multiple attackers with a saboteur assisting them. 

The Green Party seems certain that an airplane will attack the 
nuclear plant with the same effects as on the World Trade Center. 
The Greens do not consider the differences in the structures. 

The jetliners that hit the World Trade Center easily penetrated 
glass walls and did considerable damage to the Pentagon's office 
building construction. The containment building at Fort Calhoun 
has steel-reinforced concrete walls that are approximately four 
feet thick. The containment building at Fort Calhoun Station was 
designed and built to withstand 500-mph tornadic winds and the 
large objects such as vehicles which those winds could hurl at 
the building. It was built to withstand earthquakes, floods, 
sabotage and significant internal and external explosions, among 
other challenges. 

We could go into "What ifs" indefinitely concerning jetliners 
hitting the Fort Calhoun station. What we know is this: Several 
years ago an F-4 Phantom was run at 480 mph into a simulated 
containment building wall of steel-reinforced concrete to see 
what damage would be done. The plane was obliterated. The densest 
part of the aircraft, its engine, penetrated less than 
two-and-a-half inches. The remainder of the plane barely made a 
dent. While the F-4 is smaller than a modern jetliner, the lesson 
is clearly relevant. 

The Green Party implies that OPPD did not take into consideration 
the risks to the public when considering license renewal. That is 
simply not true. Be assured the continued safe operation of the 
Fort Calhoun station has always been a prime concern of ours, as 
our board repeatedly has emphasized in public meetings. 

Finally, the Green Party touts wind energy as a solution. We 
believe wind energy has a role to play in the generation of 
electricity. In less than two weeks, we intend to dedicate OPPD's 
first wind turbine generator in Valley, Neb. That wind 
generation, along with our future generation using landfill 
gases, makes OPPD the largest producer of renewable energy in 
Nebraska. And we intend to continue to explore and develop 
renewable energy supplies. 

Having said that, it should also be noted that replacing the Fort 
Calhoun station's generation with wind generation would be 
impractical. It would take more than 2,000 wind generators, a 
minimum of 150 square miles of land, and cost approximately $2 
billion. 

Having said all this, it should be clear that the intent of the 
Green Party is to shut down nuclear power in Nebraska and across 
the United States with little or no regard for economic, 
reliability and practical security issues.

©2001 Omaha World-Herald.*
*****************************************************************
 56  Vermont closing roads to `superloads' 

By Associated Press, 12/12/2001 19:45 

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. (AP) Vermont highways are being closed to 
''superloads.'' The huge tractor-trailer rigs carry oversize 
loads such as one that broke down in Old Bennington on Nov. 7. 

Those loads will get a permit from the Motor Vehicles Department 
only if Vermont roads are part of their direct route, 
Transportation Agency Secretary Brian Searles said. 

Searles said the agency had reviewed its policies following the 
breakdown in Bennington of a 192-foot truck carrying the 
16-foot-wide, 72-ton reactor vessel head from the defunct 
Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant. 

The massive shipment, classified as low-level radioactive waste, 
was on its way from Haddam Neck, near the mouth of the 
Connecticut River, to Utah. It took its circuitous route north up 
Interstate 91, east to Vermont Route 103 and then south on U.S. 
Route 7 through Bennington en route to New York state probably 
because of Vermont's easygoing approach to such shipments, 
Searles said. 

Although the November nuclear shipment was the largest and 
heaviest in the state's history, according to Sgt. Guy Welch of 
the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, it needed only a $20 
oversized permit from the DMV. In Massachusetts, by comparison, 
the cost of transporting such loads is considerably higher, 
according to Searles. 

Some shipments are routed through Vermont instead of 
Massachusetts, Searles said, because they cannot fit through the 
toll booths on the Massachusetts Turnpike. 

But Searles said it made no sense to allow Vermont's roads to be 
used for outsize shipments if they don't originate or end in the 
state and Vermont's not on the way from one point to the other. 

''We're not approving requests for transport of 'superloads' if 
Vermont is not on the direct route,'' he said. 

He said he had learned that other states are ''beginning to say 
no'' to such shipments. 

''If we're becoming the route of least resistance, we're going to 
plug that gap,'' Searles said. ''We've already turned down a 
couple of loads.'' 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 Tritium Facility - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
 
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:50:59 -0800 (PST)

 

December 11, 2001

Antonette Cordero
Chief Counsel
Department of Toxic Substances Control
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA  94710


	RE: LBNL’s (9/20/2001) Petition to Restart Highly
Radioactive Tritiated 
	Mixed Waste Treatments Under a Treatability Study
Exclusion


Dear Ms. Cordero:

Following a long investigation, the decision of DTSC
on October 13, 2000, to shut down the tritiated mixed
waste treatability study at LBNL was correct and
prudent.  Both LBNL and LLNL have had outrageous
accidental releases of tritium during their years of
operation.  Unfortunately, the communities where these
facilities are located paid the price with increased
rates of leukemia, cancer, autism, etc. – especially
the most at-risk – the unborn children, children and
the elderly.  It is clear to me after 35 years as a
professional scientist, and a past employee with
personal experience at LBNL and LLNL, that both of
these facilities have demonstrated an unprecedented
conscious disregard, to the extent over the years of 
genocide and ecocide to those “outside the fence”.

The macho cowboy attitude, which is pervasive in the
culture of LBNL and U.C. management, is reflected in
this new petition to continue activities which will
clearly put additional tritium into the environment. 
This will add to the radiological burden of exposure
which this community has suffered from years of
radiation research at LBNL and on the U.C. Berkeley
campus.  Tritium is absorbed through the skin as well
as in the lungs, and further releases will continue to
expose and endanger the lives of unborn children
carried by pregnant women as well as children visiting
the Lawrence Hall of Science and uninformed
bystanders.

I am the Bay Area Coordinator for the Radiation and
Public Health Project (www.radiation.org), a group of
independent scientists who have studied the health
effects of radiation for 50+ years, testified in
Congress, and published books based on these studies:

Dr. Jay Gould: DEADLY DECEIT – Low Level Radiation
High Level Cover-up  (1990)
THE ENEMY WITHIN – The High Cost of Living Near
Nuclear Reactors (Breast Cancer, AIDS, Low            
           
Birthweights, and other Radiation-Induced Immune
Deficiency Effects (1996)

Dr. Ernest Sternglass: SECRET FALLOUT: Low-Level
Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island (1981)
“The Long Island Breast Cancer Epidemic: Evidence for
a Relation to the Release of Hazardous     
Nuclear Waste,” CMA Occasional Paper, Long Island
Univ., School of Public Service, July 1994.
“Fallout and Decline of Scholastic Aptitude Scores”,
American Psychological Association 
Conference, NY, Sept. 3, 1979.  
“Environmental Radiation and Public Health”, Effects
of Pollution on Health, proceed. 6th Berkeley 
Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability,
UC Press, 145-216, 1972.

Joseph Mangano: Low Level Radiation and Immune System
Damage – An atomic era legacy (1999)

Janette Sherman, M.D.: Chemical Exposure and Disease:
Diagnostic and Investigative Techniques (1994).
		Life’s Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of
Breast Cancer (2000).

Leuren Moret: Foreword to Discounted Casualties: The
Human Cost of Depleted Uranium  (2001).

In studies conducted by the Radiation and Public
Health Project (RPHP) on tritium releases from the
Brookhaven National Lab, and RPHP studies in the U.S
and Britain around nuclear power plants which emit
large amounts of tritium (BBC November 27, 2001), it
is clear that tritium is one of the three deadliest
radioactive isotopes (Carbon 14, Tritium, Krypton 85)
to public health and the environment.  Nuclear Power
plants in the U.S. and the U.K., now operating at
nearly maximum capacity (85%), with minimum repairs on
aging reactors resulting in greater amounts of
radioactive emissions, are sacrificing a generation of
American children in order for the nuclear industry to
increase profits.

Low level radiation, such as the weak beta particles
from tritium, are far more dangerous to living systems
than higher energy particles.  Our investigations as
well as recent research in Japan, the U.K., and other
researchers in the U.S. indicate that the Linear
Energy Transfer (LET) of ionizing radiation is far
more damaging for low level radiation than previously
thought.  Implementing the Precautionary Principle is
prudent and necessary in issues of low level
radiation.  

Extensive tritium contamination in the environment has
already occurred around LBNL as demonstrated by the
presence of tritium reported in rain gauges as far as
El Cerrito, the 1996 study “Tritium Activity in
Excreta, Milk and Pasturage for Goats Grazing at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory” by Mencheca and
Pauer, and an environmental tritium gradient across
the U.C. Berkeley campus as reported by Dr. Roger
Byrne during the Franke Report to the community on
April 2, 2001.  

During a presentation on November 2, 2001, by Iraj
Javandel to the Community Environmental Advisory
Commission which I sit on, he reported tritium in
sludge samples from a catch basin for the stack at the
NTLF.  “Tritium was detected at a concentration of
1,540,000 pCi/L” in the sludge from the catch basin
for the Hillside Stack.  This information makes it
clear that much larger amounts of tritium have been
released from the Hillside Stack than has been
reported or admitted to by LBNL – and has drifted
straight into the lungs of visitors to the Lawrence
Hall of Science.  Airborne emissions are also rained
out into the environment (see attached letter
Sternglass).  To allow further releases just because
three or four people at LBNL would benefit from
extended employment from a questionable treatability
study, would have a much larger negative impact on our
community.

The National Tritium Labeling Facility, in the glossy
public relations brochures of LBNL is clearly a
“Subsidy of Industry”.   LBNL states that it has been
used by many pharmaceutical companies such as Ciba
Geigy, Sandos (now Novartis), Bristol-Meyers-Squib,
the Pharmacia, UpJohn, and Genentec.  The glossy LBNL
public relations brochures also state that they have
worked on insecticides, specifically phemarones, and
tracking location and metabolism in living systems
(cells in culture, insects and mice).  

Our children and the community should not have been
effected by an outdated and sloppy operation serving
industry at the National Tritium Labeling Facility. 
And it should not continue to be effected by tritium
emissions from mixed waste treatments.  As a member of
the Community Environmental Advisory Commission in
support of the City Council resolutions to close the
facility, I hope that you will uphold the October 13,
2000, decision by the DTSC to shut down illegal
activities which LBNL continues to dishonestly and
selfishly promote.

 Sincerely yours,



Leuren Moret
Community Environmental Advisory Commission
President, Scientists for Indigenous People
Past President, Association for Women Geoscientists

Attach:  (1) “Tritium The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard”
by I. Fairlie,  The Ecologist Vol.22 No.5, Sept./Oct.
1992
(2) Letter to L. Moret from E. Sternglass: August 23,
2001 “Radiation and dust particles”.




Cc: Berkeley City Council
U.S. Representative Barbara Lee 
U.S. Representative Shirley Berkely
T. Mitsuko, Member Japan House Representatives
R. Kitagawa, Member Japan House Representatives 
R. Aragon, Department Toxic Substance Control 
R. Robison, Department Toxic Substance Control  
K. Davis, Department of Toxic Substance Control
G. Zeman, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 
I. Carmichael, Director/Lawrence Hall of Science 
R. Byrne, U.C. Berkeley
J. Gould, Radiation and Public Health Project
S. Cullen, S.T.A.R. Foundation
J. Treichel, Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
P. Shivola, Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste 
G. Karras, Communities for a Better Environment 
K. Susag, Communities for a Better Environment
L. Brown, Communities for a Better Environment
M. Kelley, Tri-Valley CARE’s
J. Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation
A. Ramo, Golden Gate Law School
M. Fulk, Lawrence Livermore National Lab (retired)
M. MacDonald, City of Berkeley Peace and Justice
Commission
N. Al-Hadithy, City of Berkeley 
City of Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory
Commission 
G. Cannon, West County Times
Judith Sherr,  Berkeley Daily Planet
M. Ratcliff, San Francisco Bay View 
M. Keda, Social Democratic Newspaper, Japan 
J. Withgott, Science
Editor, Nature
G. Von Luppke, Natur
D. McGraw, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 
C. Barrett, City of Berkeley  
L. Barsamian, Regional Water Quality Control Board
M. Bandrowski, Environmental Protection Agency 
M. Bessette-Rochette, Regional Water Quality Control
Board
M. Marron, National Institutes of Health
K. Takata, Environmental Protection Agency
R. Nolan, DOE/Berkeley Site Office
C. Shank, Lab Director/LBNL 
B. Tartar, Lab Director/LLNL 
N. Shepherd, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab  
W. Nelson, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
B. Cooper, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
P. Charp, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry 
M. Evans, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry 
K. Shingleton, LLNL
P. Evans, Alameda County Public Health
M. Underwood, California Department of Health Services
J. Wong, California Department of Health Services



  


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Attachment Converted: "c:\lib\news\attach\LetDTSC12.11.01.doc"
*****************************************************************
 2  Bush's Nuclear Brinksmanship     
       
by Matt Bivens  

MENTIONED HERE 

Bruce Blair was among several speakers at a conference in 
November organized by the Institute for Policy Studies . Also 
featured were Jonathan Schell, Frances FitzGerald, Michael Klare 
and Patrick Cockburn, among many others. Transcripts of speeches 
from that event, which was co-sponsored by the Nation Institute, 
are being posted at the IPS website. 

It's perhaps impolite to dwell on it, but throughout Vladimir 
Putin's visit last month to President Bush's ranch in Crawford, 
Texas, the US military had nuclear missiles aimed unwaveringly at 
his office back home in Russia. 

Overall, there are still 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons poised 
for launch on extremely short notice--in just minutes--and aimed 
at 2,360 Russian targets, according to Bruce Blair, president of 
the Center for Defense Information. 

This may sound like a passive situation--missiles standing around 
waiting to be used, as they have been for decades--but it's 
actually quite active. 

The US military still sends frequent reconnaissance planes 
prowling the edge of Russian air space, looking for entry 
corridors for strategic B-2 and B-52 bombers, should that sad day 
ever come. "They fly around the borders checking the performance 
of air defense radars, assessing coverage, looking for where the 
holes are," said Blair. 

Several months ago, Blair--a former Minuteman missile launch 
officer--spoke with a flight crew in Omaha, Nebraska, that was 
fresh back from just such a Russian border-probing exercise. The 
crews told him they hadn't seen a Russian fighter jet come up to 
challenge them in years. Meanwhile, a launch somewhere in the 
world just about every day sends crews at NORAD, the strategic 
command outfit, into "three-minute huddles." 

They are supposed to emerge in that time period with an 
evaluation of the threat, if any, and recommendations for the 
President, if appropriate. Blair, on a recent visit to NORAD, 
said he watched just such an emergency huddle in response to a 
Russian missile launch report. It turned out to be a Russian Scud 
missile fired into Chechnya, he said. 

Blair was speaking at a conference in New York on weapons of mass 
destruction, "Cold War Legacies in a Post-9/11 World," sponsored 
by the Nation Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies and 
three New York universities, which also featured remarks by 
Jonathan Schell, Frances FitzGerald, Michael Klare and many 
others. 

To a rapt audience Blair recounted how two years ago he watched 
junior officers in Wyoming performing the same job Blair had 
performed thirty years ago: rehearsing a nuclear missile launch. 
For Blair and a film crew, two young officers in their 20s 
simulated turning the keys to launch fifty ICBMs carrying a total 
of 500 nuclear warheads--a task they would be expected to 
accomplish within just two minutes of receiving orders. 

The occasion of Blair's Wyoming visit was the Y2K 
problem--remember that? Washington and Moscow had judged it 
prudent to have Russian military observers present in Colorado 
Springs on New Year's Eve at a Y2K center, where they could track 
US military activity. 

There was much talk afterward of a joint missile warning center 
to be built near Moscow, but work on it ground to a halt about a 
year ago. "The Russians got the signal from the Bush 
Administration that they were not interested in continuing with 
this," Blair said in an interview after his New York talk. 

But aren't we friends with the Russians now? And didn't candidate 
George Bush talk about de-alerting nuclear weapons? And aren't we 
getting rid of a whole bunch of missiles now after the Crawford 
handshake? 

Well, if we are friends with the Russians, our nuclear policies 
are only slowly catching up. A classified Nuclear Posture Review 
drawn up by the Bush Administration should soon be in the hands 
of key members of Congress. Sources familiar with the report's 
contents say it does indeed downgrade the Russian threat--part of 
the justification for Bush's announcement in Crawford that we 
will stand down our current 6,000-missile arsenal to as low as 
1,700. 

But what's odd is that Bush said this would take ten years --even 
though his Administration is not dismantling the missiles, only 
"de-alerting" them, i.e., taking the warheads off and storing 
them. "Why that would take ten years is beyond me," said John 
Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, a disarmament group 
focused on lobbying Congress. (And as to those 1,700 missiles, 
there are still another 4,000 tactical nukes on hand, Isaacs 
said, nearly all of them many times larger than the bombs that 
destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) 

De-alerting missiles means keeping them but making them much 
harder to launch in just minutes. Candidate Bush had talked about 
de-alerting nearly all of the missile fleet. But in the new 
Nuclear Posture Review, Blair said, "They've categorically 
rejected de-alerting. [Bush] has reversed himself completely." 

thenation.com

© 2001 The Nation Company, L.P. Permissions
*****************************************************************
 3  F.B.I. Faulted in Nuclear Secrets Investigation 

December 13, 2001

By REUTERS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — The F.B.I.'s investigation of Wen Ho Lee, 
the nuclear weapons scientist who was suspected of spying for 
China, was "deeply and fundamentally flawed," a Justice 
Department report released today found. 

The report, two chapters of which had been previously released, 
said the F.B.I.'s national security division and its Albuquerque 
office failed to give the investigation a high priority. 

"The investigation was never accorded the resources which the 
underlying allegations warranted and should have dictated," the 
report said. "Frequent, unnecessary and inappropriate delays 
characterized the Wen Ho Lee investigation." 

Dr. Lee, a Taiwan-born naturalized citizen, was fired from his 
job at the Energy Department's Los Alamos National Laboratory in 
New Mexico in March 1999 as a result of the espionage 
investigation. 

Mr. Lee was never charged with spying. Instead, he was arrested 
in December 1999 on 59 counts of mishandling classified nuclear 
data. He pleaded guilty last year to one count of downloading 
nuclear weapons design secrets to a nonsecure computer, and the 
government dropped all remaining charges.

While the case was pending, Dr. Lee was held in solitary 
confinement. The report released today was completed in May 2000, 
and its general findings, sharply critical of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, and to a lesser extent of the Justice and 
Energy Departments, were made known at the time.

In one of two chapters that were released in August, the report 
rejected accusations that Dr. Lee had been singled out for 
investigation because of his race.

In 1999, Attorney General Janet Reno named a federal prosecutor, 
Randy Bellows, to lead an internal review into whether mistakes 
were made in the Lee case starting in 1982, when his name 
surfaced in a separate espionage case at the Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory. 

In that earlier investigation, the F.B.I. failed to formally 
notify the Energy Department of specific information about Dr. 
Lee that might have led to the revocation of his security 
clearance, the report said. 

In the investigation in the late 1990's, the bureau's national 
security division initially showed an "unreasonable reluctance" 
to get involved.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information 
*****************************************************************
 4  Nuclear experts briefed bin Laden?

The Frontier Post From Peshawar Pakistan

Updated on 12/13/2001 10:09:45 AM
             
WASHINGTON (Agencies): Two Pakistani nuclear scientists have 
admitted they conducted long discussions about nuclear, chemical 
and biological weapons with Osama bin Laden, The Washington Post 
reported Wednesday.The scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and 
Abdul Majid met with bin Laden in August in the Afghan capital of 
Kabul, the report said, citing Pakistani officials. 

They have insisted the talks were of an academic nature, adding 
they did not provide any specific plans to the suspected 
terrorist mastermind. 

"They spoke extensively about weapons of mass destruction," one 
Pakistani official said, according to The Post. 

The official described the scientists as "very motivated" and 
"extremist in their ideas," but added they were "discussing 
things that didn't materialize, but fall under the breaking 
secrets act." 

The reported admissions represent a turnabout from their earlier 
claims that they met with bin Laden only to discuss their 
charitable endeavors in Afghanistan, according to the accounts 
provided by Pakistani intelligence authorities. 

Neither scientist has been charged with a crime. 

The government is considering charging Mahmood and Majid with 
violating the national official secret act, a crime that carries 
a seven-year jail term, the newspaper said. 

It would be the first known case of a nuclear official charged 
with that offense, officials said. 

© Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post 
*****************************************************************
 5  Plan would leave toxin at Rocky Flats 

Denver Post.com

Mike Soraghan

[msoraghan@denverpost.com]          

Denver Post Washington Bureau

--> Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - WASHINGTON - Radioactive dirt 
from the closed Rocky Flats bomb plant could be stored on site 
rather than being shipped to Nevada under a proposal being 
discussed among regulators, neighboring cities and activists 
involved in the cleanup. 

Currently, all radioactive waste from the plant is supposed to be 
shipped out of state, but supporters say the money saved on 
transportation could allow the site to be cleaned up to a higher 
standard. 

"You pay for cleanup or you pay for transportation," said 
Broomfield City Councilman Hank Stovall, who represents the city 
on a Rocky Flats board. 

The proposal does not include the actual plutonium metal or 
bomb-plant buildings, only mildly radioactive dirt contaminated 
by wind-blown plutonium. 

The material would be packed in containers and stored in the 
heavily fortified basement of one of the buildings at the plant, 
which stopped making plutonium "triggers" for nuclear bombs in 
1989. 

Supporters say the idea is very preliminary and many questions 
would have to be answered before it could even become a formal 
proposal, starting with whether it's safe and would really save 
money. 

In the end, the state government, the Environmental Protection 
Agency and the Department of Energy, which operates Rocky Flats, 
would have to agree to the plan. 

It is being discussed as legislation nears passage in Congress to 
turn the plant southwest of Broomfield into a 6,000-acre federal 
wildlife refuge. 

But a Boulder group criticized the refuge plan Tuesday, saying 
that while the idea sounds environmentally friendly, it would 
leave the site too polluted. 

If the site is made clean enough for a wildlife refuge, it would 
need to be safe for refuge workers to work outdoors at the site 
eight hours a day. 

The Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center released a report in 
Washington saying the standard should be more stringent - that it 
should be clean enough to farm there and drink the water on the 
site. 

Even if the site is turned into a federally protected refuge, the 
group says, it won't prevent people from living on the site in 
the distant future. 

"Fences will fall and people will forget," said LeRoy Moore of 
the Peace and Justice Center. 

"Leaving plutonium in the environment as the price for open space 
is a pact with the devil," Moore said. 

Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist with the Maryland-based 
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, which did the 
report for the Boulder group, said the refuge plan could be 
setting a precedent for less rigorous cleanups across the 
country. 

"The Department of Energy is set to abandon a proven method in 
favor of one allowing a higher standard of plutonium," Makhijani 
said.
 	 
 All contents Copyright 2001 The Denver Post or other copyright 
*****************************************************************
 6  Iraqi Defector Warns Congress of Saddam's Weapons

FOXNews.com
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 			 				 				By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
WASHINGTON — A former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program 
warned lawmakers Wednesday that if the United States does not 
topple Saddam Hussein immediately, the Iraqi dictator will 
possess three nuclear missiles by 2005.

 		 	 	 	 		 			 	 				 				 				 				
American-educated Dr. Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 
1995 after serving as the Iraqi dictator's top official for 
nuclear weapons development, told a bipartisan task force that 
his estimation was a conservative one.
 			 				
"When I left, we designed one missile," and were acquiring the 
materials from foreign stockpiles to build it, Hamza said, adding 
that the U.N. weapons inspections that ended in 1998 were the 
only measures that ever put a dent in Saddam's plans.
 			 				
While Saddam's nuclear program was still in the development 
stages at the time weapons inspectors arrived on the scene, 
Saddam had already used biological and chemical weapons against 
Iranian soldiers in the 1980s and Iraq's own Kurdish civilians, 
Hamza told the bicameral Bipartisan Task Force on 
Nonproliferation.
 			 				
As Hamza described a violent and paranoid leader who would set 
off on drunken binges and hysterical rages, lawmakers in the 
House Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday passed a resolution — 
now headed to a full House vote — that demands that Iraq allow 
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to its weapons 
programs. 
			 				
Any refusal, according to the measure, "presents a mounting 
threat to the United States, its allies and international peace 
and security."
 			 				
The resolution followed President Bush's recent threat warning 
Saddam to open his country to weapons inspectors or find out the 
hard way the consequences of refusal. 
			 				
The focus on Iraq picked up clarity in recent weeks as 
congressional leaders urged President Bush to make the despotic 
nation the next target in the war on terror. Several lawmakers 
have also asked Bush to release $10 million in appropriated funds 
to Iraq's parliament-in-exile, the Iraqi National Congress.
 			 				
The Bush administration is moving cautiously, however, saying 
that only loose connections have been made tying Saddam's regime 
to the Sept. 11 attacks, and allies are uneasy about taking him 
down. 
			 				
Hamza said the longer the United States plays softball with 
Saddam, the more time he has to work on his nuclear weapons 
program.
 			 				
Hamza suggested that a small U.S. force similar to that in 
Afghanistan today could encourage anti-regime factions, as well 
as disloyal Iraqi soldiers, to defect and bring down the 
dictator. He said dropping bombs strategically on Baghdad would 
help smoke Saddam out. 
			 				
Asked if Hamza's story compelled him to push for the topple of 
the regime, task force co-chair Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said he 
wanted to be sure that if the United States were to move into 
Iraq, its mission would be strategically sound.
 			 				
"I don't think there's a debate about whether or not to take out 
Saddam Hussein — I think if any member of Congress had a magic 
wand they would eliminate him immediately," he said. "The 
question is whether we have the military capacity to undertake 
that and to manage it if a civil war were to break out. We're 
trying to determine that by listening to the experts."
 			 	 
	   	     
Fox News Network, LLC 2001. 
*****************************************************************
 7  Bush Has Some Leeway in Treaty Pullout
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
December 12, 2001 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States' withdrawal from the landmark 
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty is a slap at Russia, China and most 
of America's European allies. But President Bush's timing in 
signaling the pullout may limit the damage, thanks to a crest of 
international good will in the war on terrorism. 

"His popularity in this country is very high. Secondly, he 
certainly appears to be winning the war in Afghanistan. So in 
that sense, he's taking double advantage of his popularity at 
home and abroad," said John Issacs of Council for a Livable 
World, an arms-control group that opposes Bush's move. Congress 
is also preoccupied with trying to finish work on must-pass 
spending bills so it can adjourn for the year - and has little 
time to block such a move, even if it was so inclined. 

Bush is expected to announce on Thursday that the United States 
is withdrawing from the 1972 ABM treaty, which expressly bans 
national missile defenses. He tried to strike a deal with Russian 
President Vladimir Putin that would allow the United States to 
move to a next phase of testing in its missile defense program - 
beginning construction next spring on silos and a testing command 
center near Fairbanks, Alaska. 

But Russia, which cannot afford a national missile defense, views 
the ABM treaty as a bedrock pact on which all subsequent nuclear 
arms-reduction treaties rest. Furthermore, Putin wasn't in a mood 
to compromise further, having alrady taken heat from Russian 
conservatives and the military for giving too much away to the 
United States. 

"We have not been able to resolve this disagreement," Secretary 
of State Colin Powell said glumly in Moscow after a final 
unsuccessful effort to reach a deal with Putin in the Kremlin on 
Monday. 

America's European allies have argued against scrapping the ABM 
treaty so the United States can build a missile defense. They 
assert that would prompt Russia and China to build more and more 
missiles to keep their own nuclear forces credible. They claim 
the ABM has maintained strategic stability for 30 years. 

Russians have been opposed because it would put them at a 
military disadvantage and further rub in America's technological 
superiority. And Chinese leaders fear that such a system could 
totally neutralize their batam nuclear force of fewer than 20 
long-range nuclear missiles. 

Bush has been threatening for months to excercise a clause in the 
ABM treaty that allows either side to withdraw by giving 
six-months' notice. 

Many nations worry that a U.S. missile defense shield would only 
start a new arms race with Russia and China, and lead to more 
nuclear instability. But the September 11 terror attacks gave 
allies real threats to worry about - not just potential ones. 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a strong proponent of the 
ABM treaty, said differences remain with the United States. 
"Let's not beat around the bush. Those differences are going to 
lead to some degree of upheaval," he said. "But they must not, 
and I think they will not, lead to any kind of major crisis 
here." 

Bush claims the system, which could cost up to $80 billion, is 
not intended as a defense against missiles from Russia - which, 
like the United States, still has roughly 6,000 long-range 
ballistic missiles fitted with nuclear warheads - but from a 
limited attack from a rogue or terrorist nation. 

However, it could also defend U.S. cities from an accidental 
firing of a Russian or Chinese missile. 

The Sept. 11 attacks have only intensified Bush's resolve. "I 
wish I could report to the American people that this threat does 
not exist, that our enemy is content with car bombs and box 
cutters, but I cannot," Bush said earlier this week. 

It was not clear when the six-month clock would begin on the U.S. 
withdrawal from the treaty - from the time of Bush's expected 
Thursday announcement, or from Jan 1, 2002. 

"I'm not in a position to make any predictions," White House 
press secretary Ari Fleischer said. 

In any event, the United States seems almost certain to use the 
six-month period to try to gain Moscow's last-ditch acquiesance. 

"We will continue to work together on defense," State Department 
spokesman Richard Boucher said. He said the United States was 
"willing to work out all kinds of arrangements" to allow 
missile-defense testing to go forward without having to scrap the 
ABM treaty. 

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, urged U.S. restraint. 

"There is no need to withdraw in terms of our testing program in 
the coming year," Levin said. "Unilateral withdrawal will likely 
lead to an action-reaction cycle...and that kind of arms race 
would not make us more secure." 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Tom Raum has covered national and international 
affairs for The Associated Press since 1973 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 8  Panel Passes Iraq Resolution
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
December 12, 2001 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors 
into the country presents a mounting threat to the United States 
and its allies, according to a House International Relations 
Committee resolution. 

The committee vote Wednesday came days after President Bush 
warned Iraq it would be held accountable if it developed weapons 
of mass destruction, and amid public debate over whether Saddam 
should be the next target in the war against terrorism. 

The resolution, now headed for the full House, said Iraq should 
allow U.N. weapons inspectors "immediate, unconditional and 
unrestricted access" and refusal to do so "presents a mounting 
threat to the United States, its allies and international peace 
and security." 

Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said there is every reason 
to believe that Saddam has rebuilt his nuclear, biological and 
chemical weapons programs since he stopped allowing inspections 
in 1998. 

The events of Sept. 11 "demonstrate the severity of this threat 
to the United States," Hyde said. 

Time was running out for the Iraqi leader, said Rep. Tom Lantos 
of California, the top Democrat on the committee. "Saddam Hussein 
has one last chance to comply," he said. 

The resolution writers toned down original language that said 
keeping out weapons inspectors "should be considered an act of 
aggression against the United States," and stressed that they 
were not authorizing the president to use military force against 
Saddam. 

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the single holdout in the 32-1 vote, said 
it still went too far. "It's jingoistic, it talks about 
confrontation," he said, asking why the United States singles out 
Iraq for attack when it tries to promote dialogue in other world 
disputes. 

The Iraqi government agreed to weapons inspections as part of its 
acceptance of terms ending the Gulf War in 1991. The United 
States accused Iraq of withholding documents and otherwise 
impeding the inspections until they were finally halted in 1998. 

The bill is H.J. Res. 75 On the NET: International Relations 
Committee: http://www.house.gov/international-relations/ 
[http://www.house.gov/international-relations/] 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 9  Energy Dept. May Recycle Nuke Metal
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
December 12, 2001 
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - Energy Department officials are considering the 
recycling of some scrap metal from government nuclear 
installations despite a ban on that practice, an internal agency 
memo says. 

The draft memo obtained by The Associated Press outlines 
procedures that Energy Department facilities should follow to 
allow release of metals from areas where radiation has been 
present. The procedures involve testing the metals and 
documenting their release. 

"The purpose of this action is to reduce site inventories in 
radiological areas of scrap metals that have not been 
radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or operations," the 
memo says. 

Supporters of recycling say it can be done safely and is a useful 
way to dispose of materials left by the decommissioning of Cold 
War-era facilities. Critics say all metals from nuclear sites 
should be treated as radioactive waste because of the difficulty 
in ensuring they are uncontaminated. 

Energy Department officials did not return calls Wednesday 
seeking comment. Under current rules, release of metals from 
radiological areas of nuclear sites is banned, forbidden by the 
Clinton administration last year. That was in response to 
consumer advocates and the metals industry worried that possibly 
tainted recycled material would be put into the general commerce 
in products such as braces, zippers, silverware and toys. The 
steel industry also complained that recycling the scrap could 
create a perception of that American steel was somehow corrupted 
and could lead to a glut on the steel market. 

In July, the Bush administration began an environmental 
assessment study to evaluate the policy. At the time, the Energy 
Department said it would continue the ban during the review 
unless "DOE makes a specific determination that the metal could 
not have been radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or 
operations." 

Watchdog groups said Wednesday they were disappointed to learn 
the agency was considering modifying the ban before its own study 
is completed. 

"This is currently what they're supposedly evaluating under the 
public process," said Diane D'Arrigo, radioactive waste project 
director at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in 
Washington. 

The memo says it was written for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham 
and comes from James Decker, acting director of the Office of 
Science; Gen. Ronald Haeckel, acting deputy administrator for 
defense programs; and Jessie Roberson, assistant secretary for 
environmental management. 

It says several Energy facilities asked permission to recycle 
some metals, and thousands of tons of nonradioactive metals are 
piling up across the DOE complex. 

Recycling metals from nuclear sites into general commerce is a 
money saver for the agency, but D'Arrigo said the cost to the 
public of recycling could be high. 

"It needs to be treated as radioactive waste and isolated from 
the public - not deliberately introduced into commonly used 
household items," she said. 

Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy 
and Environment Program, agreed. She said a lot of people opposed 
recycling metals from nuclear sites during several public 
meetings DOE held recently as part of the review process. 

The memo refers to the meetings and the opposition. 

Releasing the metals before the study is completed, it says, 
"could be viewed by some as vindicating their opinion that the 
department is not really objective" in its development of an 
environmental assessment. But the memo adds that the action would 
not "bias the analysis." 

On the Net: Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov/ 
[http://www.energy.gov/] 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 10  Hanford budget OK for cleanup
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 12, 2001
 By John Stang Herald staff writer 

Hanford is in good financial shape to meet its fiscal 2002 
cleanup obligations, said Department of Energy officials after 
crunching the final numbers for the year.
 
That's true even though the $1.776 billion Hanford will receive 
is less than the $1.818 billion Congress had appropriated for the 
fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
 
The total was trimmed by some overall federal budget balancing, 
plus DOE's headquarters taking some money from its field offices 
for some Washington, D.C., work.
 
So, the Office of River Protection ended up with $1.062 billion, 
and DOE's Richland office received $714 million for other cleanup 
work.
 
That means Hanford has the full $690 million it needs to start 
construction of a radioactive tank waste glassification complex, 
said Jeanie Schwier, the Office of River Protection's assistant 
manager for integration and controls.
 
However, the $380 million for the rest of Hanford's tank farms 
work has shrunk to $372 million. This includes safely maintaining 
the tank farms and preparing wastes for eventual glassification. 
Even with the cut, planned work should be completed this year 
after some belt tightening, Schwier said.
 
Roger Stanley, the Washington Department of Ecology's chief 
negotiator on Tri-Party Agreement talks, said the Office of River 
Protection's budget appears sufficient.
 
The state has fined DOE $10,000 a week since it missed a July 31 
legal deadline to begin building the glassification complex. That 
accumulated fine is now $185,000.
 
But the state expects to forgive the fine if DOE's construction 
catch-up plan looks good and if DOE guarantees that plan will be 
fully funded.
 
Right now, that appears likely, Stanley said, although some final 
details still need to be addressed.
 
In other parts of the budget, DOE's Richland office believes it 
can meet its legal obligations with the $714 million earmarked 
for work that's not under the Office of River Protection.
 
That work includes removing spent nuclear fuel from the K Basins, 
converting plutonium into safer forms at the Plutonium Finishing 
Plant, cleaning up the Columbia River shore area, dealing with 
contaminated ground water, and many other duties.
 
"We feel a budget of $714 million allows us to keep that momentum 
going," said Bob Rosselli, DOE's deputy manager for site services 
at Hanford.
 
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates much of the 
DOE Richland office's work, hasn't determined if funding is 
adequate for the year, said Doug Sherwood, Hanford site manager 
for the EPA.
 
Right now, Bechtel Hanford has several months left in its 
existing contract for dealing with Hanford's old reactors, 
removing contaminated soil from the river area and tackling some 
work in the 300 area.
 
A proposed new contract would include Bechtel's current work, 
plus some added 300 Area cleanup and some central Hanford ground 
water work -- as well as speeding up the river shore work.
 
Hanford is allocating $149 million in 2002 for this work, which 
approximately equals the 2001 appropriations after adjustments to 
reach "apples-to-apples" comparisons, Rosselli said. That is 
enough to seal up D Reactor and complete most of the same work on 
F Reactor.
 
However, DOE calculates that the river corridor contract will 
most likely need $180 million to $190 million annually starting 
in fiscal 2003.
 
Right now, DOE has told prospective bidders on the new contact 
that their proposals must fall within an annual range of $150 
million to $210 million.
 
Here are some highlights of DOE's Richland office's 2002 budget:
 
-- The K Basins' budget shrinks from $192 million in fiscal 2001 
to $163 million this year. However, the 2001 budget focused on 
construction and startup, while this year's budget concentrates 
on moving spent fuel out of the basins.
 
-- The PFP's budget will shrink from $102 million to $80 million 
this year. Like the K Basins, the PFP's budget reflects a shift 
from preparations to actual cleanup work.
 
-- The HAMMER training complex will get $5.1 million this year, 
compared with $5.9 million in 2001.
 
-- DOE's payments-in-lieu-of-taxes to local governments will 
remain steady at $3.4 million. 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 11  Hanford budget rumors force senator's $1.8 billion request
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 12, 2001
 
By the Herald staff
 
U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., has fired a warning shot in the 
battle over Hanford's fiscal 2003 budget.
 
Smith sent a letter to the federal Office of Management and 
Budget on Nov. 29 requesting that OMB provide at least $1.8 
billion for Hanford in 2003.
 
The OMB prepares the administration's proposals for the 
president's annual budget request to Congress, which is unveiled 
in February. Fiscal 2003 will begin Oct. 1.
 
OMB is traditionally mum on its budget calculations, but Smith 
wrote that he had heard the budget it is preparing "will 
recommend dramatically reducing funding" for Hanford cleanup. "It 
is critical that the (fiscal) 2003 environmental management 
budget include $1.8 billion to allow a seamless continuation of 
Hanford's cleanup activities," he added.
 
Smith spokesman Joe Sheffo said Smith wanted to send a preemptory 
signal to the OMB before the February figures are unveiled 
because he had heard rumors that cuts are being considered.
 
For fiscal 2002, the administration wanted to cut Hanford's 
budget from a 2001 level of $1.456 billion to $1.4 billion, even 
though at least $1.8 billion was needed to meet all Hanford's 
cleanup obligations. Congress overruled the administration and 
increased Hanford's 2002 budget to $1.818 billion, which DOE 
trimmed to $1.776 billion. 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 12  Critics say Colorado nuclear plant cleanup will leave soil contaminated
 
This story was published Wed, Dec 12, 2001
 
By The Associated Press
 
WASHINGTON -- The government is spending $7 billion to 
decontaminate a former nuclear weapons plant in Colorado and turn 
it into a wildlife refuge. But critics said Tuesday that the 
cleanup will still leave the soil too polluted.
 
Legislation before Congress would officially designate the Rocky 
Flats site, 15 miles northwest of Denver, a wildlife refuge after 
cleanup is completed.
 
Rocky Flats is contaminated with tons of plutonium and other 
radioactive materials, in buildings and in the soil, after years 
of weapons work. The Energy Department and its civilian 
contractor will decide early next year how clean the site should 
become.
 
A report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 
contends the residual contamination levels being considered by 
the government are 40 times greater than what would be allowed if 
the land is used for something other than a wildlife refuge.
 
"We have no control over what will happen at Rocky Flats in the 
future," said LeRoy Moore, a member of a citizens' group in 
Boulder, Colo., that is monitoring the cleanup. About 2.5 million 
people live within 50 miles of the facility.
 
While the site stretches across more than 6,000 acres, fewer than 
200 acres are contaminated. While much of the soil will be 
trucked away, acres will remain contaminated.
 
The report by IEER, a research group long involved in nuclear 
watchdog activities, contends that designating the area a 
wildlife refuge will allow the cleanup to be less stringent.
 
"We don't oppose the designation of this site as a wildlife 
refuge as a short-term way to keep the public off the site," said 
Arjun Mahkijani, a nuclear physicist who heads the institute in 
Takoma Park, Md. But he said cleanup standards should take into 
account other likely uses of the land, including farming or 
residential development, where people are more likely to become 
exposed.
 
Plutonium and other radioisotopes that will be left over in the 
soil would be expected to remain dangerous for thousands of 
years, he said. After the cleanup, the report said, the soil 
should be left with no more than 10 pico-curies of radioactivity 
per gram of soil, far cleaner than what the Energy Department has 
been considering.
 
Jeremy Karpatkin, a spokesman for the Energy Department's Rocky 
Flats project office, said no decision has been made on the level 
of residual contamination.
 
Preliminary analysis from the department concludes that soil 
contamination could be as high as 490 pico-curies. It still could 
fall within acceptable risk levels of no more than one additional 
cancer per 10,000 individuals if the land becomes a wildlife 
refuge. 

Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This 
*****************************************************************
 13  Chronology of Nuclear Standoff
 
Today: December 13, 2001 at 1:25:16 PST 

A chronology of events in the nuclear standoff between the United 
States and the Soviet Union: 

December 2001: President Bush alerts congressional leaders that 
he will withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty. 

November 2001: During a U.S. summit, Bush and Russian President 
Vladimir Putin emphasize their shared commitment to nuclear arms 
reductions, but fail to reach a compromise on Bush's plans for a 
national missile defense, which would violate the 1972 ABM 
Treaty. Putin vows that the issue would not harm relations 
between the two nations as it had in the past. 

October 2001: The Pentagon announces it has put off several 
missile defense tests scheduled for the fall to avoid being 
accused of violating the ABM Treaty. Bush and Putin also hold 
separate talks following the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation leaders, in preparation for their November 
summit. 

August 2001 - September 2001: Several Bush administration Cabinet 
members and officials meet intermittently with their Russian 
counterparts but have little success in breaking down Russian 
opposition to the notion of scrapping the ABM Treaty. 

July 2001: Bush and Putin agree to tie U.S. plans for building a 
missile defense shield to talks on reducing both nations' nuclear 
stockpiles. 

May 2001: Bush declares, "We need a new framework that allows us 
to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of 
today's world." 

2000: President Clinton decides not to authorize work to begin on 
deploying national missile defense. 

1997: Members of a congressionally chartered panel chaired by 
Donald Rumsfeld are named to examine missile threats to the 
United States. 

1993: President George H.W. Bush and Russian President Boris 
Yeltsin sign START II treaty. 

1991: Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev sign the START 
I Treaty. Soviet Union disbands. 

1989: Berlin Wall falls. Soviet Union cuts conventional forces in 
Europe. 

1987: President Reagan and Gorbachev sign the INF Treaty, which 
bans ground-launched, medium-range nuclear missiles. 

1986: An agreement to drastically reduce strategic nuclear arms 
collapses at the Reykjavik summit because of Soviet opposition to 
American Strategic Defense Initiative development. 

1983: Reagan announces during a nationally televised speech that 
the United States will embark on an extensive research and 
development program to examine the feasibility of a missile 
defense program. 

1982: Soviets and United States begin Strategic Arms Reduction 
Talks (START). 

1979: In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 
President Carter withdraws the SALT II treaty from Senate 
consideration. 

1972: President Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Leonid 
Brezhnev sign the SALT I agreement, and the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty. 

1968: President Johnson says the United States and Soviet Union 
will discuss limits on strategic nuclear arsenals and ballistic 
missile defenses. Talks are canceled when Moscow invades 
Czechoslovakia in August. 

1962: Cuban missile crisis. 

1961: Berlin Wall built. Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba fails. 

1957: Soviet Union launches Sputnik, the first earth-orbiting 
satellite. 

1950s: Cold War accelerates. 

1949: The Soviet Union explodes its first atomic bomb. 

1945: The United States drops atomic bombs on Nagasaki and 
Hiroshima to end World War II. 

Sources: Associated Press reports, Center for Defense Information 
and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 14  FBI Probe of Scientist Wen Ho Lee Found Flawed

RealColumbus.com: 

 
Posted: 06:19 PM EDT Wednesday, December 12, 2001. 

BY JAMES VICINI

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI conducted a ``deeply and 
fundamentally flawed'' investigation from 1994 to 1999 of nuclear 
weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee, who was suspected of spying for 
China, according to a Justice Department report released on 
Wednesday.

 The full, 779-page unclassified report, two chapters of which 
had been previously released, said the FBI's National Security 
Division and its Albuquerque office never made the investigation 
a high priority.

 ``The investigation was never accorded the resources which the 
underlying allegations warranted and should have dictated,'' the 
report found. ``Frequent, unnecessary and inappropriate delays 
characterized the Wen Ho Lee investigation.''

 Lee, a Taiwan-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was fired from his 
job at the Energy Department's Los Alamos National Laboratory in 
New Mexico in March 1999 amid the spy allegations.

 After the spy allegations collapsed, Lee was arrested and 
charged in December 1999 on 59 counts of mishandling classified 
nuclear data. He pleaded guilty last year to one count of 
downloading nuclear weapons design secrets to a non-secure 
computer, and the government dropped all remaining charges.

 While the case was pending, Lee was held in solitary 
confinement.

 The report was completed in May 2000, and its general findings 
-- sharply critical of the FBI, and to a lesser extent of the 
Justice and Energy Departments -- were made known at the time.

 Then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 1999 named federal 
prosecutor Randy Bellows to head the internal review into whether 
mistakes were made in the Lee case beginning in 1982, when his 
name first surfaced in a separate espionage case at the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory.

 In the investigation in 1982-84, the FBI failed to formally tell 
the Energy Department of specific derogatory information about 
Lee that might have led to the revocation of his security 
clearance, the report said.

 In the investigation in the late 1990s, the FBI's National 
Security Division initially showed an ``unreasonable reluctance'' 
to get involved, and then inappropriately deferred to Energy 
Department judgements, it said.

 The heavily redacted report said the FBI could have searched 
Lee's computer files at any point during a preliminary 
investigation in 1994 or 1995 or during the full-scale 
investigation in 1996 through 1998.

 The failure ``permitted Lee to download in 1997 some of our 
nation's most prized nuclear weapons secrets,'' the report said. 
The report also blasted the FBI and the Energy Department for 
failing to restrict Lee access to sensitive, classified nuclear 
weapons secrets during the full investigation.

 In one of two chapters that previously had been released in 
August, the report rejected claims that Lee had been singled out 
for investigation because of his race.   
 	
Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 15  Subcritical experiment at test site today

Thursday, December 13, 2001
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 
 
REVIEW-JOURNAL 

Government scientists plan to conduct a subcritical nuclear 
weapons experiment today at the Nevada Test Site, according to 
the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

The experiment, dubbed Oboe 7, will be the last in a series by 
scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 
California, and the nation's 15th such experiment since the 
program was launched July 2, 1997. 

Oboe 7 was scheduled for detonation on Wednesday but was delayed 
because of "operational support issues," administration officials 
said. 

Subcritical experiments stop short of erupting into nuclear chain 
reactions. They are designed to give scientists information about 
the aging nuclear stockpile in the absence of full-scale nuclear 
tests, which were put on hold indefinitely in 1992. 

The experiments in a below-ground complex, 85 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas, allow scientists to study how materials, such as 
plutonium, blow apart when detonated. 

The last subcritical experiment by the Lawrence Livermore Lab, 
Oboe 8, was conducted out of sequence Sept. 26 in order to 
provide data that the scientists realized would be needed for the 
Oboe 7 experiment. Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the NNSA said 
more subcritical experiments by the Lawrence Livermore Lab and 
the Los Alamos, N.M., national laboratory are planned for next 
year.
 
webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 16  Aid expanded for ex-test site workers
 
Thursday, December 13, 2001
 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal 

By STEVE TETREAULT 
DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- Defense leaders in Congress agreed Wednesday to 
expand compensation for former Nevada Test Site workers who got 
lung disease from digging tunnels for nuclear weapons 
experiments. 

Completing work on a 2002 defense authorization bill, a 
conference committee decided to relax an X-ray standard in the 
law used to qualify nuclear workers suffering from silicosis. The 
House and Senate are expected to pass the final bill in the 
coming days. 

The agreement reverses a decision made by Congress last year that 
limited compensation to test site employees who could produce 
X-rays indicating they had a more advanced form of the disease. 

The legislation, initiated by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., will 
benefit as many as 71 former test site employees who contracted 
silicosis but whose X-rays did not meet the standard set last 
year, according to estimates by Dr. Lewis Pepper, a Boston 
University assistant public health professor who conducts medical 
screening of former test site workers. 

Only 50 or so qualify under last year's standard. 

Another approved change would allow all surviving children to 
qualify for benefits. The original law limited payments only to 
survivors who were under 18 at the time of the worker's death. 

Ill workers qualify for payments of $150,000 plus medical care. 
Claims can be filed at a program office at 1050 E. Flamingo Road. 
Nevada lawmakers watched the issue closely even though none sat 
on the conference committee that negotiated it among hundreds of 
other defense items over the past month. 

webmaster@lvrj.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 
*****************************************************************
 17  Nuclear experts briefed bin Laden?

 [info@frontierpost.com.pk] 
 ©The Frontier Publications (Pvt)
  
   Updated on 12/13/2001 10:09:45 AM  
     
WASHINGTON (Agencies): Two Pakistani nuclear scientists have 
admitted they conducted long discussions about nuclear, chemical 
and biological weapons with Osama bin Laden, The Washington Post 
reported Wednesday.The scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and 
Abdul Majid met with bin Laden in August in the Afghan capital of 
Kabul, the report said, citing Pakistani officials. 

They have insisted the talks were of an academic nature, adding 
they did not provide any specific plans to the suspected 
terrorist mastermind. "They spoke extensively about weapons of 
mass destruction," one Pakistani official said, according to The 
Post. 

The official described the scientists as "very motivated" and 
"extremist in their ideas," but added they were "discussing 
things that didn't materialize, but fall under the breaking 
secrets act." The reported admissions represent a turnabout from 
their earlier claims that they met with bin Laden only to discuss 
their charitable endeavors in Afghanistan, according to the 
accounts provided by Pakistani intelligence authorities. 

Neither scientist has been charged with a crime. The government 
is considering charging Mahmood and Majid with violating the 
national official secret act, a crime that carries a seven-year 
jail term, the newspaper said. 

It would be the first known case of a nuclear official charged 
with that offense, officials said. 

© Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post 
*****************************************************************
 18  Report suggests 2 solutions for revising Hanford cleanup plan
 
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 
YAKIMA -- A U.S. Department of Energy memorandum on the treatment 
of radioactive waste has raised questions again about the federal 
government's commitment to clean up Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
 
The Nov. 19 memo from Energy Department cleanup chief Jessie 
Roberson to the agency's budget officer was distributed last week 
at a meeting of the Hanford Advisory Board in Portland.
 
In it, Roberson recommends eliminating plans to turn into glass 
-- or vitrify -- at least 75 percent of the high-level 
radioactive waste currently scheduled for vitrification at 
Department of Energy complexes.
 
It suggests that at least two solutions be developed for treating 
high-level radioactive waste.
 
But it's not clear exactly what that would mean at Hanford, where 
the Department of Energy is scheduled to begin construction next 
year on a huge complex to turn radioactive waste into glass 
cylinders for permanent storage.
 
Plans and deadlines for cleaning up 25 percent of radioactivity 
in the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste stored at Hanford 
already have been negotiated, Sheryl Hutchison, a spokeswoman for 
the state Department of Ecology, said. But the idea of having the 
177 tanks emptied and all the waste vitrified by 2028 is still to 
be negotiated, she said.
 
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 
101 Elliott Ave. W.
 Seattle, WA 98119
 (206) 448-8000

©1999-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 19  Test Site workers can get benefits for silicosis
 
Las Vegas SUN
 
Today: December 13, 2001 at 10:28:23 PST 
 
LAS VEGAS SUN

 A Senate conference committee approved a change in compensation 
legislation that will allow Nevada Test Site workers exposed to 
dust while preparing underground nuclear experiments to collect 
benefits.

 A 2002 defense authorization bill would contain expanded aid for 
workers suffering from silicosis, a lung disease.

 The committee relaxed X-ray standards that would allow some 71 
Test Site workers to apply for a lump sum payment of $150,000 
plus medical checkups.

 Physicians discovered that workers assigned to tunnels at the 
Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, had silicosis, a 
disease caused by inhaling particles of dust, but workers had to 
prove they had an advanced form of the disease.

 The Nevada congressional delegation had pushed lawmakers to 
change the compensation package since it was passed in October 
2000. No Nevadan sits on the committee.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the No. 2 Senate leader, initiated the 
change in the benefits.

 Another change approved by the panel would allow all surviving 
children access to benefits.

 Claims can be filed at an office operated by the Departments of 
Labor and Energy at 1051 E. Flamingo Road.
 
All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 20  Next priority is terrorist nukes, says Bush 

-DAWN - International; 13 December, 2001
 
CHARLESTON, Dec 12: The "next priority" in the war on terrorism 
will be preventing terrorists from securing nuclear, biological 
or chemical weapons, US President George W. Bush said on Tuesday. 

In remarks apparently designed to put Iraq, Iran and North Korea 
on notice, Bush said the United States "cannot accept" other 
countries providing terrorists with weapons of mass destruction 
or the means to deliver them, including missiles, and held out 
the defeated Taliban as an example of their fate should they 
continue to sponsor terrorists. 

Bush made the remarks in a speech to cadets at The Citadel, a 
military academy in the state of South Carolina, where two years 
ago as a presidential candidate he outlined his views for 
"transforming" the US military to meet the challenges of the new 
century. 

He lavished praise on the US armed forces for their unprecedented 
use of special forces, pinpoint aerial bombing and coordination 
with friendly ground troops in Afghanistan as "rewriting the 
rules of warfare". And he warned that the United States would not 
tire in its pursuit of Osama bin Laden, blamed by Washington for 
the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. 

"No cave is deep enough to escape the patient justice of the 
United States of America," Bush said, referring to the network of 
caves and tunnels in eastern Afghanistan where bin Laden and his 
al-Qaeda lieutenants are believed to be hiding. 

The centrepiece of his speech was the emphasis on weapons of mass 
destruction, a new objective of his war on terror he first 
enunciated two weeks ago. 

He said he had ordered his advisers to develop a comprehensive 
strategy to counter the proliferation of such weapons. "The great 
threat to civilization is that a few evil men will multiply their 
murders and gain the means to kill on a scale equal to their 
hatred," he said. 

"Our lives, our way of life, and our every hope for the world 
depend on a single commitment - the authors of mass murder must 
be defeated and never allowed to gain or use the weapons of mass 
destruction," he said. 

Meeting that threat will involve destroying "sleeper cells" of 
terrorists, cutting off financing and other means already part of 
the US war on terror, he said. "Above all, we are acting to end 
the state sponsorship of terror," he added. "Rogue states are 
clearly the most likely sources of chemical and biological and 
nuclear weapons for terrorists. 

Every nation now knows that we cannot accept and we will not 
accept states that harbour, finance, train or equip the agents of 
terror. "Those nations that violate this principle will be 
regarded as hostile regimes. They have been warned, they are 
being watched and they will be held accountable," he said. 

With Afghanistan's Taliban regime decimated by the US-led 
military campaign, Bush expressed confidence that other regimes 
would mend their ways and cut off support for terrorism. 

"For states that support terror, it's not enough that the 
consequences be costly; they must be devastating," he said. "The 
more credible this reality, the more likely that regimes will 
change their behaviour, making it less likely that America need 
to use overwhelming force against them." 

Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Libya and Cuba are the 
seven states listed by the US government as sponsors of 
terrorism. 

Last month, Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein allow United 
Nations weapons inspectors back into Iraq or "find out" the 
consequences.-dpa 

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001
*****************************************************************
 21  CROET, absent a quorum, OKs lease transfers 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 1:10 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2001

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

Despite not having a quorum, the Community Reuse Organization of 
East Tennessee's board of directors Wednesday afternoon voted to 
approve a resolution authorizing the transfer of several leases.

 The vote, some members maintained, was to signify the intent of 
the full board that this was the right thing to do. The board is 
expected to ratify the resolution at its next meeting that has a 
quorum.

 Lawrence Young, CROET's president and chief executive officer, 
said there could be "financial ramifications" if the leases were 
not transferred from CROET to three of its recently formed 
subsidiaries: Heritage Center, Horizon Center and Heritage 
Railroad Corp.

 In addition, the resolution states all future property transfers 
from the Department of Energy will be made directly between DOE 
and the appropriate subsidiary.

 CROET, which is an economic development organization, leases 
DOE's underutilized land and facilities to the private sector.

 The CROET board of directors has around 42 members, and 14 of 
them need to be present to reach a quorum. Out of the 12 members 
who were present during the meeting Wednesday at the Garden Plaza 
Hotel, two members, Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the 
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, and Paul Boyer, 
Oak Ridge city manager, voted against approving the resolution.

 Gawarecki had wanted the resolution amended to allow board 
members access to the leases once they were transferred to the 
subsidiaries. That amendment was rejected until CROET's lawyers 
can look at the issue.

 Also at the meeting, the CROET board briefly addressed the 
results of a telephone survey aimed at determining how satisfied 
CROET's tenants are with the organization. CROET spent around 
$4,300 to have Laine Communications, a public relations firm, 
talk with executives from 28 of the 33 companies with facilities 
at the Oak Ridge K-25 site, also known as the Heritage Center.

 The survey consisted of 11 mostly open-ended questions. Results 
include the following:
 
* While there were a few complaints, almost all tenants said they 
were satisfied with CROET.
 
* The most prevalent frustration of the tenants questioned was 
the tight security. A common theme was the suggestion to remove 
the fence from unclassified areas. Some tenants said getting 
visitors and deliveries in and out are nagging problems.
 
* The tenants confirmed that proximity to clients, infrastructure 
of the facilities, adequate space and low rents were the major 
draws to the sites. "There weren't too many surprises," Young 
said of the results from the survey.

 Paul Parson can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or 
pparson@oakridger.com

[pparson@oakridger.com] .

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
*****************************************************************
 22  Letter: DOE must ban any release of contaminated materials - 

Ruby English
 
The Paducah Sun
Paducah, Kentucky
Thursday, December 13, 2001

EDITOR: I am writing this letter on behalf of the ACT (Active 
Citizens for Truth) Committee. We, as neighbors and citizens 
surrounding the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, are very 
concerned for our safety and the well-being of our community, as 
well as our families and friends. 

We strongly oppose the procedure the Department of Energy is 
wanting to use in the dispersing of some radioactive contaminated 
materials. If this is released, there will be no way for the 
Department of Energy to trace these contaminants. We do not want 
these contaminants to be used by innocent people in their homes 
(or at work) and become contaminated, sick and eventually die. 

Radioactive concrete, metals, soil, plastics, chemicals and more 
have been permitted to be released from DOE controls on a 
"case-by-case" basis at the discretion of the DOE at all levels 
of management. In the past, mixed radioactive and hazardous 
wastes have gone to the facilities designed to take only mixed 
waste. We know this for a fact as we live here by one of the 
dumps that has this very same situation. 

We, as a committee, urge you to really take a good look at what 
is being proposed. If this gets to the general public and people 
are not aware of the radioactive metals and contaminants that 
have been sold in order to make money for DOE and they become 
sick, what are you going to do then? You should prohibit such 
materials from being released for disposal or recycling. 

DOE should revise its authorizations to prohibit any 
radioactivity from DOE activities being released into commerce or 
regular trash. There can be multiple exposures from many 
different deregulated waste streams. Once radioactive materials 
are released from the DOE complex, there is no limit on what can 
be made with them. The scope must be expanded to cover all 
releases, not just surface contaminated metals in control areas. 

RUBY ENGLISH ACT Chairman West Paducah 

*****************************************************************
 23  DOE memo shows desire to recycle scrap metals 
 
Oak Ridger Online -->

 Story last updated at 1:11 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2001

by Nancy Zuckerbrod
 Associated Press

 WASHINGTON -- Energy Department officials are considering the 
recycling of some scrap metal from government nuclear 
installations despite a ban on that practice, an internal agency 
memo says.

 The draft memo obtained by The Associated Press outlines 
procedures that Energy Department facilities should follow to 
allow release of metals from areas where radiation has been 
present. The procedures involve testing the metals and 
documenting their release.

 "The purpose of this action is to reduce site inventories in 
radiological See DOE, Page 5A areas of scrap metals that have not 
been radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or operations," 
the memo says.

 Supporters of recycling say it can be done safely and is a 
useful way to dispose of materials left by the decommissioning of 
Cold War-era facilities. Critics say all metals from nuclear 
sites should be treated as radioactive waste because of the 
difficulty in ensuring they are uncontaminated.

 Energy Department officials did not return calls Wednesday 
seeking comment.

 Under current rules, release of metals from radiological areas 
of nuclear sites is banned, forbidden by the Clinton 
administration last year. That was in response to consumer 
advocates and the metals industry worried that possibly tainted 
recycled material would be put into the general commerce in 
products such as braces, zippers, silverware and toys. The steel 
industry also complained that recycling the scrap could create a 
perception of that American steel was somehow corrupted and could 
lead to a glut on the steel market.

 In July, the Bush administration began an environmental 
assessment study to evaluate the policy. At the time, the Energy 
Department said it would continue the ban during the review 
unless "DOE makes a specific determination that the metal could 
not have been radioactively contaminated by DOE activities or 
operations."

 Watchdog groups said Wednesday they were disappointed to learn 
the agency was considering modifying the ban before its own study 
is completed.

 "This is currently what they're supposedly evaluating under the 
public process," said Diane D'Arrigo, radioactive waste project 
director at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service in 
Washington.

 In Tennessee, the Tennessee Valley Authority operates nuclear 
plants near Chattanooga and near Spring City. The city of Oak 
Ridge has long been a center of nuclear work.

 The memo says it was written for Energy Secretary Spencer 
Abraham and comes from James Decker, acting director of the 
Office of Science; Gen. Ronald Haeckel, acting deputy 
administrator for defense programs; and Jessie Roberson, 
assistant secretary for environmental management.

 It says several Energy facilities asked permission to recycle 
some metals, and thousands of tons of nonradioactive metals are 
piling up across the DOE complex.

 Recycling metals from nuclear sites into general commerce is a 
money saver for the agency, but D'Arrigo said the cost to the 
public of recycling could be high.

 "It needs to be treated as radioactive waste and isolated from 
the public -- not deliberately introduced into commonly used 
household items," she said.

 Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass 
Energy and Environment Program, agreed. She said a lot of people 
opposed recycling metals from nuclear sites during several public 
meetings DOE held recently as part of the review process.

 The memo refers to the meetings and the opposition.

 Releasing the metals before the study is completed, it says, 
"could be viewed by some as vindicating their opinion that the 
department is not really objective" in its development of an 
environmental assessment. But the memo adds that the action would 
not "bias the analysis."

All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger 
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************