***************************************************************** 05/14/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.118 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Can nuclear plants get 2nd chance here after WPPSS? 2 Freeman brings TVA lessons to California power crisis 3 IEER: Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository 4 Nuclear fight faces last chance 5 LEAKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL BNFL IN CRISIS WITH CUSTOMERS 6 Nuclear Phase-Out Accord Ready for Signing 7 Last Issues Settled On Plan to Shut Nuclear Plants 8 Letter: Ignorance hurts case against DOE 9 Majority of Americans Say Energy Crunch Very Serious 10 Uranium miners' dependents plan to lobby Congress 11 Wisconsin engineer poised to resolve nuke waste crisis 12 Nation: Power needs, health concerns collide 13 Energy interests' policy priorities 14 Cheney's energy panel gathers input from variety of interest NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Impact of Spallation Neutron Source begins to take shape 2 Energy secretary to make OR visit 3 Y-12 gets OK to resume enriched uranium work 4 Leak Shows Nuclear Trafficking Doubled 5 New Zealand to Probe '50s Nuke Tests 6 The Age: Canberra checks on Maralinga 7 Two More NZ Soldiers May Have Been Exposed 8 Locke Rejects Claims That NZ Nuclear Guinea Pigs Consented 9 NZ to investigate A-test 'guinea pigs' 10 Proposed treated to ban weapon based fissile material production 11 Japanese Worry About Nuke Ships 12 Seven atomic weapon storage sites built in Norway in 1960s, new 13 Nuclear sub heads for Faslane 14 Plutonium Conversion Plan Approved 15 Official: Sub to Be Raised by Sept. 16 Analysis: Raising the Kursk 17 1954 explosion was 'the most God-awful sight you ever saw' ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Can nuclear plants get 2nd chance here after WPPSS? The Seattle Times: Local News: May 14, 2001 - 12:32 a.m. Pacific *Seattle Times staff reporter* JIMI LOTT / THE SEATTLE TIMES A sign above the entrance to the shut-down WNP-1 reactor calls the facility "an asset to the Northwest." RICHLAND - With pressure on throughout the region for more kilowatts and a pro-nuclear president in office for the first time in a while, nuclear power is getting a second look, in both Washingtons. But nuclear power will face a tough sell in the Northwest, where in addition to concerns about nuclear-waste disposal and plant safety, ratepayers still are paying off billions in debt for a string of partially completed nuclear plants in Washington. Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to embrace nuclear power as part of the solution to the nation's energy needs when he unveils his energy strategy this week. "It's amazing," Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C., a nuclear-energy trade group, said of nuclear power's PR turnaround. "It's been quite incredible, to tell you the truth." Singer sees a convergence of factors: • The rising cost of other fuel alternatives, including natural gas, has made the operating cost of nuclear generation competitive. • Nuclear plants are far more reliable than they used to be. While plants used to run only about 65 percent of the time, plants routinely run at 90 percent capacity today as the industry has matured and plants have worked out the bugs. • Smaller-scale, modular-plant designs using new technology are being developed and could be cheaper to build and safer to run. • Concerns about air pollution and global warming make nuclear power's on-site air emissions - just water vapor and heat - attractive. • And while air emissions from coal and gas are diffused around the planet, nuclear waste can be contained. However, that doesn't make nuclear power clean: "Nuclear plants may not emit greenhouse gases, but they generate long-lived nuclear waste (that) till this day we still don't know what to do with," said David Lochbaum, nuclear-safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear-industry watchdog. "To say something is clean that puts 500 future generations at risk is worse than what they used to accuse Bill Clinton of." Energy Northwest, a regional consortium of public utilities, is conducting an approximately $1 million study of completing WNP-1, a nuclear plant next door to the state's only operating nuclear-power plant, the Columbia Generating Station near the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The study - funded from the $44 million in unspent construction funds for the 70 percent-complete plant - is due for release this summer. Energy Northwest says it would consider resurrecting the plant only if it got a big yes from the region. Abundance by 2004? Some obstacles to that resurrection are unique to the Northwest. In a region blessed with abundant, cheap hydropower, there is a question about whether the plant is needed. The Northwest Power Planning Council has determined the region needs 3,000 megawatts of new capacity by 2003 to maintain reliable, year-round supplies of electric power. The current drought has exposed the fact that the region's need for electricity exceeds its supply in a dry year. The need also could be bigger in the next few years because the council's calculation assumed as much as 2,500 megawatts of electricity imported from California and the desert Southwest. But California's energy woes will reduce its ability to send power to the Northwest. Still, a lot of new generation is already proposed or under construction throughout the region. "I think we are going to be completely awash in generating capacity in two to four years, and that doesn't even count conservation," said Jeff King, senior resource analyst at the Northwest Power Planning Council. The council is an interstate agency created by Congress in 1981, to encourage conservation in the Northwest, ensure adequate power supply and develop plans to protect regional fish and wildlife. "By 2003, 2004 we will have an abundance of capacity, and gas prices will be considerably below where they are right now. That's not the time to be completing a nuclear plant." Both the supply and transport capacity of natural gas are expected to be improved by then. In 1990, the power-planning council took a look at finishing off WNP-1 and determined it would take five years. The council estimated conservation alone could produce more power for the region than firing up WNP-1, which is designed to produce 1,300 megawatts of power. Conservation could generate at least 1,500 to 1,600 megawatts. "Nuclear has to be viewed in the context that we have other options," King said. "Conservation, gas, wind and solar will be an option. It would be an option now if we were willing to spend the money." The Bush administration has brushed aside the advice of U.S. Department of Energy scientists who contend half the nation's energy needs could be met with conservation and energy efficiency. Instead, the administration has embraced an aggressive campaign of power-plant construction. Only one Northwest plant While nuclear plants are common on the East Coast, they are an anomaly in the Northwest. Portland General Electric unplugged its Trojan nuclear plant in 1993 after 17 years of operation because the cost of generating power was too expensive. Its reactor is entombed at Hanford. While still paying off $6.4 billion in debt, the region has only one operating nuclear plant to show for it. Debt service paid by Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers on three of the five nuclear plants built in this region in the 1970s costs more than half a billion dollars a year. After the cost overruns, Washington voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 394 in 1981. It requires any public agency to put a bond issue for major plant construction to a popular vote. WPPSS not forgotten That could leave any future financing for WNP-1 to a private investor. Winning over Washington's voters for another round of nuclear-plant construction could be tough. Energy Northwest formerly was the Washington Public Power Supply System, or WPPSS - pronounced "Whoops" in a not-at-all fond reference. Construction of WPPSS' five plants was bedeviled by a lack of consistent safety standards from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The plants were continually redesigned at enormous cost as the commission imposed new rules. Some predict today's energy shortage will pass long before the political half-life of the WPPSS debacle dissipates. "Maybe they will find an Eskimo that hasn't heard of WPPSS," predicted Tom Carpenter, director of nuclear programs at the Government Accountability Project in Seattle. "But I doubt it." *Lynda Mapes can be reached at 206-464-2736 or . ***************************************************************** 2 Freeman brings TVA lessons to California power crisis Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:26 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001 KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Lessons learned at the Tennessee Valley Authority may help S. David Freeman find solutions for the power crisis in California. "This is a short term but very severe problem," said Freeman, 75, a former TVA chairman recently named chief energy adviser to Calif. Gov. Gray Davis. "It's going to take a lot of old-fashioned conservation similar to what we did at the Tennessee Valley Authority back in the '70s," said Freeman, a Chattanooga native who served on the TVA board from 1977 to 1984. "We reached a million homes with our energy efficiency program, and we built the equivalent of a nuclear power plant except the difference is that it was cheaper and worked all the time," Freeman told The Knoxville News-Sentinel in a story published Monday. Conservation has been the cornerstone of Freeman's gospel, not just at the TVA, the nation's largest public utility, but as top executive at the New York Power Authority, the Lower Colorado River Authority in Texas, the Sacramento (Calif.) Municipal Utility District, and most recently, the Los Angeles Division of Water and Power. U.S. Rep. Bob Clement, D-Tenn., served on the TVA board with Freeman, who was agency chairman from 1978 to 1981. "Dave Freeman is one of the brightest people I've ever met," Clement said. "If anyone can help solve those problems in California, I think it would be David Freeman." The whole country may be counting on it, Clement said, because "if it's not solved in California, I assure the American people the shortage of energy and the energy problems are going to move from California to the East Coast." All Contents.©Copyright *The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 3 IEER: Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository Program, Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For further information, contact: U.S.: Arjun Makhijanior Annie Makhijani: 301-270-5500 France: Didier Anger (French language only) 011-33-2-33-52-45-59; Michel Frémont (French and English) 011-33-2-33-07-59-91 Vice-President Cheney Wrong About French Nuclear Repository Program, Independent Institute Asserts French Public's Opposition to Nuclear Waste Repositories as Deep as that in the United States Washington, D.C.: Vice-President Cheney's claim that France has a safe and environmentally sound repository for burying radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants is wrong, according to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), an independent non-profit group that has published numerous technical reports, books, and papers on nuclear waste management and related issues. In a May 8 interview with CNN on the Bush administration's proposed energy policy, the Vice-President said: "Right now we've got waste piling up at reactors all over the country. Eventually, there ought to be a permanent repository. The French do this very successfully and very safely in an environmentally sound, sane manner. We need to be able to do the same thing." "The facts regarding the French repository program contradict Vice-President Cheney," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of IEER, who has written widely on nuclear waste issues. "France has no repository, and their siting program faces huge domestic opposition. The controversy that surrounds waste management is a thorn in the side of the French nuclear industry." The French government's schedule for a repository, like the U.S. schedule, is far too rapid for a careful scientific investigation required for estimating repository performance over hundreds of thousands of years, according to IEER. Later this year, the U.S. government hopes to declare the proposed Yucca Mountain repository site in Nevada suitable for disposing of radioactive waste, despite serious unresolved questions. The earliest U.S. government projection for opening the proposed repository is 2010. The earliest government-projected French repository opening date is 2015. Both programs have faced intense opposition. The first opposition in France surfaced in 1987 when the French government opened the search for a repository site without a significant public process. The opposition from the local populations was so intense that government investigators were not allowed near some of the named sites. Many protests centered around concern for the safety and image of France's food supply. France created a new waste law in 1991. Like the 1982 U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the 1991 French law mandates that there should be two sites (called laboratories in France) for study. In 1998, a clay site, Bure, located in the east of France was chosen for study, over local objections. The site is in an economically depressed area, and was chosen in disregard of both local opposition (which continues) and a large body of emerging evidence that, contrary to decades-old assumptions, plutonium and several other radionuclides migrate rapidly towards the groundwater under a variety of geologic circumstances. "When I spoke with the officials at the Bure site," noted Dr. Makhijani, who toured the site in July 2000 at the instance of community leaders and local government officials, "they seemed quite unaware of recent U.S. research on the migration of plutonium, for instance in colloidal form. Ignoring important scientific issues in France is quite parallel to what the U.S. Department of Energy has done with the U.S. repository program." The areas where a second site may be selected for research were listed early last year. The opposition was intense and widespread - in one case, large numbers of people escorted the officials' car to the border of the Mayenne Département. (A Département is a French administrative unit in between a county and a state.) The people wanted to see an end to the production of waste and pointed out that it was not very democratic to discuss dumping waste in areas that had had no say in the decision to produce it. "France made a historic mistake when it decided to rely so heavily on nuclear power, rather than develop more advanced renewable technologies and efficient utilization methods," said Didier Anger, a local elected official, and a founder of France's Green Party, which is part of the ruling coalition government. Mr. Anger represents one of France's most heavily nuclearized regions, Normandy, where the world's largest commercial plutonium separation plant is located. France's nuclear waste management differs from the U.S. in one major respect. France has a major plant, called a reprocessing plant, to dissolve used reactor fuel in a chemical plant to separate plutonium, uranium and fission products. "But reprocessing does not get rid of the radioactivity," said Dr. Makhijani. "Rather it creates more pollution. Moreover the separated plutonium is a proliferation problem and a very costly, uneconomical fuel." Liquid waste discharges from reprocessing are polluting the English Channel and spreading radioactivity in the seas of Western Europe. The pollution from the reprocessing plant has so rankled other European countries, that 12 members of the OSPAR (Oslo-Paris) convention (a European body whose mission is to protect the marine environment) voted last year for the elimination of the radioactive releases from the plant with a view to shutting down the reprocessing activity. France abstained. Denmark, Norway and Ireland have called on France and Britain, which runs a similar plant, to shut down their reprocessing operations. The French public is also growing more and more skeptical of government claims about the safety of nuclear power. Government spokespersons misled the French public into believing that there was no fallout on France after the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, even as the rest of Europe was dumping contaminated food. Those reassurances have since been proven to be false. France, like much of the rest of Europe has hot spots from Chernobyl. The government has recently commissioned an epidemiological study to investigate the role of the Chernobyl accident in the increase of thyroid cancers. "There is no good solution to the problem of long-lived nuclear waste," said Dr. Makhijani. "Before we launch into an energy policy that will lock us into another generation of waste creation, we ought at least to look carefully at the terrible burdens we will pass on to future generations from the last round of reactors." "France is no showcase for nuclear power," said Didier Anger. "Before pointing to France as a success story, the American public should ask the French people what they think of the problems of waste, disease, and government cover-ups." --30-- ***************************************************************** 4 Nuclear fight faces last chance Ratepayers association wearies of battles with power [Thestar.com] May. 14, 12:57 EDT Kate Harries ONTARIO REPORTER It's ``do or die'' this week for a Bruce County residents' group in its fight against a high-level nuclear waste storage facility at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development on Lake Huron. The David-and-Goliath legal battle pits the Inverhuron Ratepayers Association against the federal environment ministry, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Ontario Power Generation. The association is appealing a federal court's refusal in May, 2000, of a judicial review of then-environment minister Christine Stewart's approval of the facility in April, 1999, without a full environmental assessment. 'There is potentially a very dangerous precedent being set and we think the Canadian public should be up in arms over this.' Although the association won't have exhausted all its legal options, the federal court of appeal hearing, set for Wednesday and Thursday, is critical, the association's Norm Chevrotiere said. ``This really is do or die.'' Last week the association was ordered to pay $55,000, the cost of a federal court case it lost last year, to Ontario Power Generation and the federal government. ``I think it's pretty deplorable,'' Chevrotiere said yesterday of the award decision. ``It seems to be punishing a citizens' group for tackling issues of public health before, rather than after, something like Walkerton happens.'' An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is possible if the association fails to make its case this week - but even if the top court were to agree to hear the matter, Chevrotiere wonders whether his group will be able to keep going on the issue. ``It has been tough slugging,'' he said. ``It's taken a terrible toll on us.'' Only a small number of the group's 300 members - who pay a $20 annual membership fee - are involved in the all-consuming effort to keep tabs on what is happening at the Bruce facility. The core group soldiers on despite public indifference and opposition from municipal politicians in the Kincardine area who have told the nuclear safety commission they're satisfied with Ontario Power Generation assurances that the storage facility will be safe. Chevrotiere said he doesn't understand why more people don't care. ``There is potentially a very dangerous precedent being set and we think the Canadian public should be up in arms over this.'' A key element of the association's position is how Mr Justice Denis Pelletier, the judge who refused a judicial review, defined his role in the process. The court's function, Pelletier wrote, is ``to assess, in a formal rather than substantive sense, whether there has been some consideration of those factors which the (environmental assessment) act requires the comprehensive study to address. ``If there has been some consideration, it is irrelevant that there could have been further and better consideration.'' The association argues that the formal approach allows environmental assessment to become ``a hollow public relations exercise.'' The act expressly calls for ``careful'' consideration, not ``some'' consideration, the association points out in court documents. Chevrotiere said neighbours of the Bruce plant - which is being taken over this week by the foreign-owned Bruce Power Inc. - just want to make sure the safeguards that exist are followed. ``We're talking about the most toxic of all industrial waste products. It's going to be deadly for hundreds of years. We want some answers here.'' The association says a full environmental assessment hearing is needed because fundamental design changes, approved by Stewart, were made to the proposed storage facility after the project was put forward for public scrutiny. ***************************************************************** 5 LEAKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL BNFL IN CRISIS WITH CUSTOMERS DISSATISFIED AND THREATENING LEGAL ACTION 13 May 2001 London - According to leaked documents published today in the UK newspaper, customers of troubled nuclear company, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), are deeply dissatisfied over massive cost overruns and failures in key facilities at Sellafield. According to the documents, customers are considering legal action if the situation continues. Greenpeace today said the documents (available at , set up by Greenpeace) totally contradict BNFL's public statements that it has rebuilt customer confidence, and that it will obtain sufficient contracts to allow the UK government to approve the opening of the Sellafield mixed oxide (MOX) plutonium fuel plant, SMP. The internal documents detail talks between senior officials from British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and its overseas plutonium reprocessing clients from Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Italy, during two meetings held in September 2000 and March 2001. They show how dissatisfied BNFL's clients are with the embattled plutonium company. Rejecting the assurances made by BNFL Chief Executive Norman Askew in September last year that BNFL was a changed company, in March this year the overseas utilities instead describe it as returning to "its previous ways of being unresponsive and unwilling to help." "Some of your customers believe that the situation is now becoming critical and are calling into question whether BNFL has breached the implied terms of the contracts due to the lack of performance in the areas of reprocessing and vitrification," read the statement to BNFL in September last year. "I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, that if BNFL's under-performance continues in these areas, there could be a complete loss of confidence in all aspects of BNFL's services", they continued. Greenpeace International nuclear campaigner, Shaun Burnie, said negotiations over waste substitution are particularly troubling as this relates to BNFL and customers plans to agree to the dumping of vast volumes of low and intermediate level nuclear waste in the UK, with only high level waste being returned to customers. "This leaves the UK public and environment confronted with the dangers of massive volumes of long-lived hazardous wastes into the foreseeable future," said Burnie. "If implemented, this would be financially favorable to the clients, with BNFL presumably hoping that the UK taxpayer would ultimately cover the costs of dumping these dangerous wastes in the UK." BNFL's massive cost overruns in nearly all areas of its operations have led customers to view them "as highly unsatisfactory and make it impossible to manage our own fuel cycle business economically." BNFL is also accused of preventing an assessment of its massive risks and costs from being completed by the international consultancy Price Waterhouse Coopers, despite demands from customers that such an assessment be conducted. It is further attacked by its customers as being potentially in breach of contract due to its continued failure to operate its 'flagship' THORP plutonium reprocessing plant, following continual shut-downs due to accidents, leaks and poor equipment. The revelations are an acute embarrassment for Norman Askew and BNFL following its attempts to present its business future as being on firm ground. In recent weeks, the company has claimed that its controversial plutonium Sellafield MOX Plant, SMP, has secured sufficient business to justify the UK government granting it a license. Yet, less than 10% of their order book contains signed contracts. The nuclear proliferation threat posed by MOX or plutonium fuel and the discharges and waste from the plant have, therefore, not been justified by any benefit. "It is clear from these documents that BNFL's key clients remain deeply dissatisfied over how BNFL operates. They have accused it of deliberately blocking progress in negotiations, reneging on earlier agreements, and penalizing them with costs that go up continually," said Burnie. "Just as BNFL's reprocessing business is a financial and environmental disaster, so too is their economic approach to the MOX plant," Burnie continued. "Their future business prospects are bleak - they know it, their customers know it, and the British government needs to understand it. The mistake was made nearly ten years ago when Thorp was licensed. The same mistake should not be made over the Sellafield MOX plant," said Burnie. In contrast to BNFL's secretive approach to its plutonium business (despite it being a wholly owned public company) Greenpeace, in the interest of the environment, public health and safety and nuclear non-proliferation has today established where the leaked documents and a background briefing on BNFL's reprocessing crisis can be found. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: - Shaun Burnie +31 629 00 11 33 (dutch mobile in the UK) - Pete Roche +44 (0) 7 801 212 965 ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear Phase-Out Accord Ready for Signing Handelsblatt.com Deutsche Ausgabe HB/sms DÜSSELDORF. Eleven months after the German government and industry forged an agreement in principle, the bill setting out the terms of Germany's phasing-out of nuclear power has now been drawn up and is ready for signing. According to the Environment Ministry, the accord – which allows a total life-span of 32 years for nuclear power plants and sees an end to nuclear reprocessing in 2005 – will be signed on 22 May or 11 June. A spokesman for Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin said once the signing has taken place, it should be possible to get the bill approved by Cabinet pretty quickly, and then to pass through the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament, just after the summer recess. Getting Bundestag approval shouldn't be a problem, since the governing coalition of Social Democrats and environmentalist Greens can summon a majority there. The bill doesn't need to be endorsed by the Bundesrat, or upper house, where the government *can't* summon a majority. Energy insiders confirmed for Handelsblatt that the signing dates specified by the government had been earmarked by industry too. They said a few small details were all that remained to be cleared up, and it would be possible to last year's agreement in principle more or less unchanged. When the agreement was first forged, there were reports of industry uneasiness that if the law was applied strictly, the government could go through the courts to force the decommissioning of individual nuclear plants. The insiders' words suggest that these fears have been allayed. Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin (Greens) said the law would be implemented in just the spirit of the talks that led to last year's landmark agreement. He said Germany's example demonstrates just what a turnaround in energy policy can mean. From around 2018, each of the 19 plants currently operating in Germany will have been switched off from the network, he said. Most of Germany's nuclear plants date from the 1980s. Greens parliamentary leader Rezzo Schlauch said on Sunday that he is expecting E.On AG's 630-megawatt reactor at Stade to be the first to be decommissioned. As part of a capacity reduction in response to overcapacity in the liberalized German and European electricity markets, E.On has said it plans to close Stade in 2003. HANDELSBLATT, Sonntag, 13. Mai 2001 ***************************************************************** 7 Last Issues Settled On Plan to Shut Nuclear Plants [Frankfurter Allgemeine] May 15, 2001 F.A.Z. BERLIN. German government and energy leaders have settled the final questions blocking legislative consideration of a proposal to shut down the country's 19 nuclear plants, a spokesman said on Sunday. The disagreements arose after Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and leaders of the country's electricity producers worked out a broad outline of the plan on June 15. Afterward, the energy producers called for changes in the draft legislation because they feared the text could be rewritten to their disadvantage. The next step will be a signing ceremony that could be held on May 22 or June 11, Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin said over the weekend. After the signing, the agreement will be considered by the German cabinet and then by the parliament. The legislation will not require the approval of the Bundesrat, which represents the states on some national issues. A spokesman for Mr. Trittin said he expected that the parliament, the Bundestag, would receive the legislation after its summer break. The announcement moved Alliance 90/The Greens, the junior partner in the national coalition with the Social Democrats, a step closer to reaching one of the party's primary goals -- ending Germany's use of a technology that led to the accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986. By moving to shut down the plants, Germany is going in the opposite direction that the United States apparently is prepared to take. President George Bush plans to unveil a national energy plan this week that would clear the way for more nuclear reactors, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. Even though the German agreement is ready to be signed, the final goal of closing all 19 plants lies years in the future. Mr. Trittin, a member of the Greens, told the Berlin newspaper Tagesspiegel, "The result of the agreement is that around 2018 Germany will no longer have any nuclear power plants on-line." But Michaele Hustedt, an energy specialist for the Greens, said the last plant would go off-line in 2021. Ms. Hustedt also said she expected that the first plant could go out of service in the next few years. That plant is likely to be the one in Stade, near Hamburg, she said. The plan would allow each plant to operate for 32 years and produce a fixed amount of energy. But producers could trade these quotas among plants, allowing older facilities to be closed in order to extend the life of other sites. In the negotiations, the government promised the energy producers that after the agreement becomes law it will not try to increase plant security standards or carry out any other measures that could hinder production. Government officials won a promise from the industry that it would stop studies designed to determine whether a former salt mine near Gorleben would be a suitable location for a permanent storage site of nuclear waste. Gorleben has been the battleground for nuclear protesters, and the industry has spent millions of deutsche marks at the site. Under the agreement, the research at Gorleben will be halted for three to 10 years while officials look for alternatives.May 13, 2001 © Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 All ***************************************************************** 8 Letter: Ignorance hurts case against DOE Today: May 14, 2001 at 9:22:05 PDT I am heartened by the May 8 story, "DOE delays seeking Yucca permit." It seems as if Nevada politicians are cooperating well to keep nuclear waste out of our state. It is great that Sen. Harry Reid occupies a key committee position to stop this, and I welcome his close cooperation with Sen. John Ensign to coordinate strategy in the Senate. Though fighting DOE corruption and credibility problems is a key aspect of Nevada's legal strategy, I believe we must recognize the DOE's role as a symptom of a much larger and more serious cause: the ignorance of the American people about Nevada's natural beauty. With only one national park and less designated wilderness than any Western state besides Utah, Nevada has done a poor job of marketing her natural beauty. Americans are content to dump nuclear waste here, simply because they believe "nothing is out there." If we ever have a chance to address the root cause of the Yucca Mountain Project -- ignorance and indifference -- it is by protecting our wilderness areas, adding more places like the Black Rock and Red Rock national conservation areas, and educating people that Nevada is truly not a wastel! and. Until then, we will find ourselves reacting to an agenda forced on us from decision makers who haven't a clue. JOHN WALLIN Editor's note: The writer lives in Reno and is executive director of the Nevada Wilderness Project. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 Majority of Americans Say Energy Crunch Very Serious Environment News Service: PRINCETON, New Jersey, May 14, 2001 (ENS) - An increasing number of Americans now believe the energy situation in the United States is "very serious," a new survey of public opinion has found. In the last two months, there has been a significant increase in the percentage of those who say the energy situation is very serious - from 31 percent at the beginning of March to 58 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted May 7 through 9. The current 58 percent is the highest ever recorded in response to this question, according to the Gallup organization - significantly higher than the previous high point of 47 percent, recorded in August 1979. The results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,005 adults, 18 years and older. [traffic] Denver, Colorado rush hour. As Americans drive more miles, fuel consumption is increasing. (Photo by Warren Gretz courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)) Gas prices of up to $3 a gallon have been predicted for this summer and the poll found that almost six out of 10 people say the rising price of gasoline will force them to cut back on their summer travel plans. Analyzing the survey for the Gallup organization, Frank Newport says, "The American public is apparently settling in for a possible long term increase in gas prices. A majority of Americans - 56 percent - say the recent rise in gas prices is "more permanent," and not just a "temporary fluctuation." President George W. Bush is expected to release his energy strategy for the nation on Thursday. It will cover increasing sources of supply and ways to conserve energy. This latest survey found a greater proportion of people want both more production and more conservation than a poll on the same topic found in March. Then, 56 percent favored conservation and 33 percent favored production, while only eight percent favored both. The poll conducted last week found that 14 percent favored both, 47 percent favored conservation, and 35 percent want more production. [house] This Connecticut house uses passive solar design to capture and store the Sun's heat, and solar photovoltaic cells to generate electricity and heat water. (Photo by Pamm McFadden courtesy NREL) Large majorities of those questioned May 7-9 are in favor of mandating more energy efficient appliances, and more energy efficient buildings, while 91 percent told pollsters they favor investments in new sources of energy such as solar, wind and fuel cells. Eighty-five percent of those questioned favor requiring more energy efficient cars by law. More than three in every four people favors a federal government partnership with the auto industry working towards energy efficient cars. Such a partnership was created during the Clinton administration, and today coordinates the efforts of the major automakers and a wide range of other engineering talents to make and market a vehicle that goes 80 miles on a gallon of gas. On the controversial issue of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling for oil, fewer of those polled support this action now than did in March. Then, 40 percent favored drilling in ANWR, with 56 percent opposed. Today 38 percent support the drilling, 57 percent are opposed. [pipeline] Building a pipeline through Alaska's frozen tundra (Photo courtesy Arctic Power) Conservationists warn that drilling in this pristine wild region on Alaska's North Coast would destroy the ecosystem, but proponents of the drilling including Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham say it could be done with very little impact on the environment. Increasing investment in gas pipelines was favored by a majority - 64 percent - of those questioned. Increasing the use of nuclear reactors as a major source of power was also favored, but by a slim margin - 48 percent favor the move towards nuclear, and 44 percent are opposed. While it is impossible to pinpoint the exact role energy plays in the public's perception of President Bush, Newport says, the poll shows that Bush's job approval rating is at 53 percent - identical to his late March rating, but down from his administration's high of 62 percent measured three weeks ago. © Environment News Service ***************************************************************** 10 Uranium miners' dependents plan to lobby Congress *May 13, 2001* By Jim Snyder/Staff writer SHIPROCK - Gilbert Badoni was a 3-year-old son of an uranium miner in 1960. Today, 41 years later, he is the president of the Navajo Nation Dependents of Uranium Workers. Badoni said the all uranium miners and the families themselves were victims of the Cold War, because uranium was mined for the federal government to be used for nuclear weapons. He believes 15,000 dependents in the Four Corners region were affected due to the effects of 'take home' uranium. His organization is seeking new legislation and compensation from the federal government because of illnesses that have plagued not only the miners, but their wives and children too. A group of 15 people, including Navajo elders who are the widows of miners, are planning a trip to Washington in late July. They plan to meet with U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and other congressmen. They will set up a display of photographs of uranium miners' family members and talk about their plight in the Washington Mall in front of the U.S. Capitol. They also plan to go to the White House. Family members were victims too (subhead please) The federal government acknowledged it exposed miners to toxic levels of radiation when it passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990. But RECA classified family members, like Gilbert Badoni, as beneficiaries and not as victims. "We don't hold MD degrees, but we know how we feel," Badoni said, who suffers from shortness of breath, wheezing in his sleep and is subject to numerous colds. "But the people in Washington want scientific evidence." Badoni's father, Harry John Badoni, died in 1997 from silicosis and lung cancer. He had worked in the mines for 25 years. His son Gilbert, who had never worked in the mines and had never smoked, has been diagnosed with silicosis too. Other people have similar stories, where numerous illnesses are spread throughout the miners' families. Badoni and thousands of other children lived in uranium mining camps during the Cold War era. Camps with long-forgotten names like Slick Rock and shafts with names like the Rico mine in Colorado and the Jackpile mine in New Mexico. They watched their fathers go deep into the ground to mine uranium. They watched their mothers hand wash their husbands' clothes, full of radioactive particles. Their baby brothers and sisters drank formula made with unsafe water. They lived in houses where yellow-caked uranium bricks were used. Radioactive dust was tracked across their kitchen floors. Radioactive dust filled the air in front of their tenements from passing trucks. In one case, children played in a water-filled abandoned uranium mine pit for a swimming pool. Uranium touched every part of their lives. And nobody living in the camps knew about the silent danger until it was too late. A mother dies a miner's death (subhead please) "They said she had a lung disease," daughter Sharon Dempsey said of her mother, Annabella Bekis. Dempsey lost her mother in February 1998, after losing her father Roy to the same lung disease in 1995. Roy worked in the uranium mines from the 1940s until he retired in 1975. Dempsey, who now works at the Northern Navajo Medical Center in Shiprock, said she grew up in Colorado uranium mining camps. Her father complained of shortness of breath and couldn't walk far. He watched his friends, his fellow miners, slowly die one by one. "The last three months (before he died) they had to give him oxygen, he couldn't breath on his own," Dempsey said. She worries now about her mother's brother, who has shortness of breath and gets rashes. "He was a miner too," she said. Her mother eventually ended up using a portable oxygen tank at home while she babysat Dempsey's son. "She was getting pneumonia off and on. It was the same symptoms as my father. She never got well. By 1998 she was so weak, she didn't want to eat," Dempsey said. "She said she didn't want to leave us, that she wanted to take care of the family." Her mother eventually agreed to go to a nursing home, where she died eight days later. Dempsey remembers her dad coming home all dirty, carrying grime from the mine. "My mom would hand wash his clothes, before there were laundromats." Everyone living at the camps was exposed to uranium radiation she said. "We hope the government would accept responsibility for health dangers the family members were exposed to." No legislation for dependents, yet There is no current legislation to classify family members as victims and provide them compensation. RECA provided $100,000 in compensation to the uranium miners, listing family members as beneficiaries (but not as victims), who worked from the 1940s to 1971. A RECA amendment in 2000 provided an additional $50,000 to the original amount. However, families are still waiting to be fully compensated, as the government has run out of budgeted funds this year to continue paying them. It's President Bush's fault, Udall said during a recent Town Hall meeting at the Shiprock Chapter House, for refusing to allow any supplemental funding bills to come across his desk. While families have received letters stating they will receive compensation funds for miners who worked in the mines from the 1940s to 1971; only partial or no payments have been received, because funding had been depleted. Udall said that Bush had allocated $700 million to be paid out over the next 10 years to these families. "In a worse-case scenario, the money would be available Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins. But if Bush gets his $2 trillion tax cut passed, there won't be any money for anything," Udall said at the time. Congress passed Bush's $1.95 trillion budget Thursday. It includes $1.35 trillion in tax cuts from 2001 to 2011. Udall voted against the budget. How this will affect Badoni's long-term efforts remains to be seen. Udall is on Badoni's target list of congressmen to lobby for new legislation to get compensation for uranium miners' dependents. "At lease five future generations will be affected with this contamination because it's genetically inherited. So we have quite a bit of work cut out for us," Badoni said. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 11 Wisconsin engineer poised to resolve nuke waste crisis - 2001-05-14 - The Business Journal of Milwaukee Pete Millard In a sleepy little village in southwestern Wisconsin, John Parkyn is staying awake nights going over his plans to solve the nuclear waste problem in the United States. When he is not wrangling with Western politicians over the creation of a temporary nuclear waste storage facility in Utah, the 30-year veteran of the nuclear energy industry is overseeing the development a sample state-of-the-art rail car being tested in Colorado that will be used as a model for other rail cars that will handle 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel shipments. In his spare time, Parkyn is creating a short-line railroad company called the Great Salt Lake &Southern that will connect the proposed Utah storage site with the Union Pacific Railroad line. Parkyn is the chairman and chief executive officer of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (PFS), Genoa, a company that was formed by seven of the nation's largest energy utility companies and Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse. The other partners in the Private Fuel Storage venture are: American Electric Power Inc., Columbus, Ohio; Florida Power &Light Co., West Palm Beach, Fla.; GPU Inc., Parsippany, N.J.; Consolidated Edison Co., New York City; Southern California Edison Co., Los Angeles; Southern Co., Birmingham, Ala.; and Excel Energy Inc., Minneapolis. "We'll open up the service to all other utilities in the country that own nuclear plants," Parkyn. "This could be a $1.7 billion company after 20 years." Wisconsin Energy Corp., Milwaukee, which owns the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, does not plan to have PFS ship its spent fuel to Utah. "Our strategy is to wait for the Department of Energy to finish the development of its facility in Nevada," said John Bartel, a spokesman for Wisconsin Energy. One of the problems at Point Beach is that there is no rail line running into the plant to make it easy for PFS to pick up the material. The nuclear waste from Point Beach would have to be trucked or put on barges and sent to the nearest rail line in Kewaunee, home of a nuclear plant owned by Wisconsin Public Service Corp., Green Bay, Alliant Energy Corp., Madison, and Madison Gas &Electric Co. Parkyn's work to find interim storage space for spent nuclear fuel and then transport it there is considered a critical step before utilities can begin planning for any kind of expansion of nuclear power, said a spokesman for Con Ed. The Bush administration is advancing the notion that nuclear power is an essential part of the national energy picture. The administration is staffing up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing division to potentially handle more new plant applications. At the same time, President George W. Bush is pushing the Department of Energy to move forward on a permanent spent fuel storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev. "Our Utah facility is on the way to Yucca Mountain, so it really makes sense to get our facility operating," Parkyn said. In the meantime, Private Fuel Storage is well ahead of the learning curve on handling, transporting and storing nuclear waste away from the production facilities' dry storage containers. PFS has a contract in Utah to open the site that will become valid only if the NRC approves the license. In the meantime, the Republican governor of Utah, Michael Levitt, is spearheading the opposition to Parkyn's plan. "The Utah governor is standing on his head and doing whatever he can to prevent this from happening in his state," NRC spokesman Jan Strasma said. "But this is Indian land, and states don't have the ability to regulate what goes on there." Parkyn is also the nuclear plant manager for Dairyland, which operated a nuclear facility in Genoa until the plant was decommissioned in the late 1980s. He worked as a fuel shipping supervisor for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant before moving to the La Crosse area in the early 1980s. "PFS has made significant progress to finding a private solution to the nuclear waste problem," said Mike Wadley, a vice president of Nuclear Management Co., Hudson, which now operates the nuclear plants at Point Beach and Kewaunee. "The company's pioneering work will eventually be valuable to the Department of Energy when a permanent storage facility is built." Private Fuel Storage was formed in 1994. The company applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to operate its temporary Utah site in June 1997. The site would be located on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. "Private Fuel Storage is a good option for companies that are decommissioning their plants and need to move spent nuclear fuel to convert the land into some other use," said Wadley. An NRC review last October found that the Utah site facility and the casks containing the spent nuclear fuel would be safe and meet regulatory requirements. More public hearings will be held this summer before a decision is made about issuing a license to Private Fuel Storage to open the temporary site in Utah. Also, three other federal agencies -- the Surface Transportation Board, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs -- must complete regulatory actions associated with the proposal. 2001 American City ***************************************************************** 12 Nation: Power needs, health concerns collide The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 14, 2001* BY SETH BORENSTEIN KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- Lower gas, electric and heating bills. More plentiful electricity, oil and gas from expanded power plants and refineries. Tax breaks for buyers of gas-electric hybrid cars. Those are some benefits consumers could see as early as next year from the Bush administration energy policy to be unveiled Thursday. Rising asthma rates from more smog. More mercury contamination. Worsening global warming. More power lines and plants where people don't want them. Those are some of the Bush plan's likely costs. There will be some conservation, but administration officials stress it won't be "eat your spinach" conservation like President Carter's that called for Americans to wear sweaters in winter and reduce air conditioning until they sweated a bit. Instead, more energy-efficient air conditioners, cars, power plants and power lines -- what Bush in his radio address Saturday called "21st century conservation" -- will be relied upon to reduce net consumption. At the same time, Americans will be asked to make another kind of sacrifice by allowing some environmentally sensitive areas -- the Arctic, eastern Gulf of Mexico and Rocky Mountains -- to be drilled for oil and natural gas. That's because Bush's plan requires big increases in future energy supplies. And not just more drilling, but more coal mining, expanded refineries, hundreds of new and bigger power plants. Even nuclear power, stymied for a generation by public fear and an inability to come up with a way to dispose of nuclear wastes, gets a new lease of life. Not everyone likes this. "If [the Bush policy] were substantially enacted, I suspect Americans would be breathing dirtier air, driving bigger vehicles on more crowded highways and conclude they had a lower quality of life," said Philip Verleger Jr., a top California-based energy economics consultant. But others, such as Linda Stuntz, a Washington energy industry lobbyist, say the Bush plan won't pit energy production against environmental quality. Rather, they'll "run hand in hand" in the future, she said. Oil industry officials who have had Bush's ear say one of the big problems is the 1990 Clean Air Act, which spells out specific blends of gasoline required by different cities depending on their smog level. There are 15 different, inefficiently produced blends of U.S. gasoline, said Ed Murphy, a marketing and refinery specialist at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group in Washington, D.C. Murphy said such regulations are keeping oil refineries from expanding, and President Bush is a believer. "America needs more refining capacity," he said Friday, adding that his administra- tion would "analyze all regulations that discourage development" of refineries. In three years, markets should restore cheap, abundant electrical power, according to the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley. Vice President Dick Cheney, chairman of Bush's energy task force, has called for 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants in the next 20 years. It sounds like a tall order, but nearly half of those are in the works already, utilities and environmental groups say. Other plants could be refurbished or expanded quickly if air quality standards are relaxed. Key among those rules is one that says that older existing power plants -- predominantly coal -- that currently don't have to abide by clean air regulations would have to live up to new standards if the plant is upgraded. The Bush administration is considering easing that rule. The expansion of refineries and coal power "will mean increased asthma attacks, increases in premature deaths," said Frank O'Donnell, director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington environmental lobby. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 13 Energy interests' policy priorities By Associated Press, 5/14/2001 01:28 Initiatives that energy interests hope are included or left out of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy plan this week, based on interviews with industry groups that met with the administration's energy task force: COAL: Create incentives for utilities to use ''clean coal'' technology that turns coal into a clean-burning gas for use by power plants. Change Environmental Protection Agency interpretation of Clean Air Act to let coal-burning power plants conduct routine maintenance, including anti-pollution upgrades, without facing environmental reviews. Give states greater flexibility in meeting Clean Air Act requirements. Give coal-burning utilities flexibility in meeting the new mercury emission standard the EPA is to develop in 2003. ELECTRIC: Improve transmission. Proceed with proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada. Relicense hydroelectric facilities. Ease transmission bottlenecks. Open power grid, now largely owned by utilities, to all participants. Make wholesale power market open and competitive. ENVIRONMENTALISTS: Recognize energy efficiency as best resource. Do not ease environmental standards. LABOR: Preserve and create union jobs. NATURAL GAS: Increase the nation's natural gas supply and pipeline capacity. Speed approval of pipeline construction. NUCLEAR ENERGY: Extend law setting minimum liability coverage nuclear power plants must carry. Make sure decommissioning funds money nuclear plant owners must set aside to handle any contamination if their plants eventually close are not taxed when plants change hands. Establish federal nuclear waste site. Give Congress rather than EPA authority over groundwater standards for a federal nuclear waste site and plant decommissioning. OIL: Speed permitting, including providing access to nonpark federal land, for oil exploration and production. Increase crude oil supply from abroad, in part by re-examining countries under U.S. economic sanctions. Expand refining/pipeline/distribution infrastructure to meet demand, in part by making environmental permitting more flexible. Lift requirements for use of oxygenated fuel. Let industry sell different types of pollution-cutting gasoline. Back development of Arctic natural gas pipeline. Ease Western-land use restrictions. Provide tax credits to advance environmental technology, including development of fuel-cell vehicles. WIND POWER: Extend tax credit for wind energy production for five years. Require utilities and federal government to obtain certain percentage of power from renewable energy sources. © Copyright 2001 Boston Globe Electronic Publishing, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Cheney's energy panel gathers input from variety of interest groups 05/14/01 Topeka Capital-Journal 051401 news 2 CJOnline WASHINGTON -- The White House team developing a national energy plan has met with more than 130 interest groups, from environmentalists and unions often at odds with Republicans to major Bush supporters given private sessions with Vice President Dick Cheney.--> Last modified at 12:00 a.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001 Cheney's energy panel gathers input from variety of interest groups By Sharon Theimer *The Associated Press * WASHINGTON -- The White House team developing a national energy plan has met with more than 130 interest groups, from environmentalists and unions often at odds with Republicans to major Bush supporters given private sessions with Vice President Dick Cheney. The vice president, Cabinet secretaries and others on a special task force have solicited ideas behind closed doors, hoping the privacy would encourage a free exchange of ideas. The White House has declined to provide names of participants even to Congress. Energy interests' policy priorities Initiatives that energy interests hope are included or left out of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy plan this week, based on interviews with industry groups that met with the administration's energy task force: • Coal: Create incentives for utilities to use "clean coal" technology that turns coal into a clean-burning gas for use by power plants. Change Environmental Protection Agency interpretation of Clean Air Act to let coal-burning power plants conduct routine maintenance, including anti-pollution upgrades, without facing environmental reviews. Give states greater flexibility in meeting Clean Air Act requirements. Give coal-burning utilities flexibility in meeting the new mercury emission standard the EPA is to develop in 2003. • Electric: Improve transmission. Proceed with proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada. Relicense hydroelectric facilities. Ease transmission bottlenecks. Open power grid, now largely owned by utilities, to all participants. Make wholesale power market open and competitive. • Environmentalists: Recognize energy efficiency as best resource. Don't ease environmental standards. • Labor: Preserve and create union jobs. • Natural gas: Increase the nation's natural gas supply and pipeline capacity. Speed approval of pipeline construction. • Nuclear energy: Extend law setting minimum liability coverage nuclear power plants are required to carry. Make sure decommissioning funds money nuclear plant owners must set aside to handle any contamination if their plants eventually close aren't taxed when plants change hands. Establish federal nuclear waste site. Give Congress rather than EPA authority over groundwater standards for a federal nuclear waste site and plant decommissioning. • Oil: Speed permitting, including providing access to nonpark federal land, for oil exploration and production. Increase crude oil supply from abroad, in part by re-examining countries under U.S. economic sanctions. Expand refining/pipeline/distribution infrastructure to meet demand, in part by making environmental permitting more flexible. Lift requirements for use of oxygenated fuel. Let industry sell different types of pollution-cutting gasoline. Back development of Arctic natural gas pipeline. Ease Western-land use restrictions. Provide tax credits to advance environmental technology, including development of fuel-cell vehicles. • Wind power: Extend tax credit for wind energy production for five years. Require utilities and federal government to obtain certain percentage of power from renewable energy sources. -- The Associated Press Interviews with participants detail a massive outreach where diverse interests have met with task force executive director Andrew Lundquist. Cheney's time has been reserved for meetings with more select participants such as power wholesaler Enron Corp. and the Edison Electric Institute, both GOP donors. "The way the task force is set up, they don't have the staff or time to have a huge host of companies come through the door. They have told us to work through our associations to the extent we can," said Don Duncan, vice president of government relations for Phillips Petroleum Co. Participants said the meetings, typically 20 minutes to 45 minutes, included about a dozen to 100 interest group members and a few task force members and staff. No details were disclosed. Instead, administration representatives summarized the nation's energy problems or listened as groups briefly offered background and proposals. Many sent detailed materials to the task force outlining their priorities. At a half-hour meeting in late March with White House strategist Karl Rove and Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, nuclear energy executives tried to make sure the two knew about the production records the industry has set during the past few years. At one point, Rove asked if anyone was looking to build a nuclear power plant. An executive with Exelon replied that his company was thinking about it, meeting participants said. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has attended several meetings, including one with Teamsters President James Hoffa and an hourlong session in California with Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, who contends the administration has done little to help the power-strapped state. Like other governors, Davis was asked to provide one page on the state's power crisis, including a description of the problem, an anecdote about it and possible solutions. "They're asking for a one-page memo on possibly the biggest crisis ever affecting the state, with a massive ripple effect for the nation," Davis spokesman Steve Maviglio said. "I think it demands more attention than a one-page memo." Cheney spokeswoman Juleanna Glover Weiss said the task force has been studying the California problem almost daily. At a meeting between Abraham and about 100 coal industry representatives in late April, task force staffers handed out a briefing packet that outlined national energy needs, and then they listened to industry proposals. "I thought the purpose was one to reassure people in the coal industry that coal was going to play a large role in the energy mix and essentially when the plan is unveiled that they're going to be looking to people to help martial this through Congress," said Bill Banig, a lobbyist for the United Mineworkers Union. White House officials said the meetings aren't designed to encourage lobbying and that task force members were instructed carefully on what was permissible under federal law. Cheney's meetings included Enron, Edison Electric Institute, California Republicans and the senators from Nevada, home to the proposed Yucca Mountain federal nuclear waste site. The vice president plans to meet with the renewable-energy industry this week. Enron ranked among Bush's top 10 presidential campaign contributors, giving more than $110,000, and helped sponsor a $7 million party fund-raiser last month. The Edison Electric Institute gave Republican candidates more than two-thirds of its $193,000 in contributions last year. Edison International, whose holdings include the Southern California Edison electric utility, is also a major donor, giving $535,000 to Republicans last year and $330,000 to Democrats. Enron spokesman Mark Palmer said Cheney met with Enron executives because the power wholesaler is a respected member of the industry, not because it was a contributor. Enron wants the administration's energy plan to ease electricity transmission bottlenecks, give companies incentives to invest in new transmission and make the wholesale power market as open as possible, he said. Tom Kuhn, the institute's president, said it is "totally ludicrous" to think political donations played a role. Cheney's meeting with Edison board members, organized at the institute's invitation, lasted 15 minutes to 20 minutes. Cheney spoke about the task force process, Kuhn said. He said Cheney's remarks were consistent with the vice president's public statements. Edison wants to see new generation and transmission systems built, including coal, natural gas and nuclear and hydroelectric power, Kuhn said. Democrats in Congress sought a list of participants in the meetings, but Cheney's office responded by only listing broad categories and no names. That has left fodder for political attack. "You can't just take advice from one interest group or set of interest groups when you do these things," said Dave Albersworth of the Wilderness Society, whose group has met with Lundquist but was denied its request to talk with Cheney. Weiss countered that the energy task force has collected information from more than 130 groups since January in an "almost Herculean effort" to draw input from all sides. "People deserve the right to petition their government and not expect a full laundry list of who's called to be announced," she said. Enron spokesman Palmer said he isn't seeking such privacy. "I'm happy to tell people what we're advocating for. I'd rather be talking about policy than about politics," he said. The Topeka Capital-Journal/CJ Online. All ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Impact of Spallation Neutron Source begins to take shape May 14, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer As construction progresses atop Chestnut Ridge on the government's Oak Ridge reservation, one can begin to visualize what the Spallation Neutron Source will look like a few years from now and better appreciate the impact of this new research complex. This is not just another federal facility or series of shiny new buildings with names and numbers to be placed on a locator map at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This is a new institution of great distinction, a destination all its own. It's almost like Oak Ridge has been granted a second national laboratory. What's taking place on the 75-acre site is a big deal, and perhaps to the inner amazement of many, including myself, it looks like it's actually going to happen. That sounds silly and stupid and ridiculously overwrought, but the importance of SNS is magnified by how long it's been since Oak Ridge got anything really big from the federal government. Oh, sure, there have been new computers -- even one that can perform a trillion calculations per second -- and various labs and office buildings to support the traditional goings-on. But nothing like a Spallation Neutron Source, a $1.4 billion venture that promises to take its place among the world's top centers for the study of materials. At an open house last week, the excitement was pretty obvious -- among the staff as well as visitors. Thom Mason, the 36-year-old neutron scientist now heading the SNS, was on hand and fielded a lot of questions. Mason signed on a few years ago to help develop a plan for the experimental facilities. At the time, the Spallation Neutron Source was still something of a career risk. Fortunately for him and the other managers, it's now a lot easier to recruit scientists to come to Oak Ridge. "The site is our best recruiting tool," Mason said during a tour of the construction scene. "We can take people up here and you get an idea of the scale of it and also the imminence. That's important. I joined the project before it got line-item funding, and there weren't that many people who had been recruited from the outside. ... When I began hiring people in my capacity (as director of) experimental facilities, that was clearly an issue early on: What happens if it doesn't get funded? What are we going to do? Those questions don't arise anymore." SNS funding will peak next year, and Congress is now considering the fiscal 2002 budget ($291.4 million) recommended by the Bush administration. "After that we drop off," Mason said, "and it's a whole lot easier than it is to increase your funding. The really big jump for us was last year when we had to go from $118 million to $278 million. That's a big bite for the system to swallow." As the buildings become visible and the research complex starts to take shape, one assumes the Oak Ridge project will become more difficult to kill -- although history shows it's never too late for fickle funders to change their mind. In the case of the SNS, however, there don't appear to be storm clouds on the horizon. "The scientific support has always been very solid," Mason said. "There really hasn't been anything but the strongest support, even from people who are not necessarily users of neutrons but just sort of look at it as part of the portfolio of research equipment for the nation." Unlike other big projects such as the Superconducting Super Collider, which was haunted by a changing price tag, the costs associated with the SNS appear to be well-tracked and under control. "That can kill a project faster than anything," Mason said of spiraling costs. "With the pace we're on, with the design being wrapped up, we now have a pretty firm basis for all of our cost estimates," he said. "One of the difficulties when you start the project is you've got to tell Congress and the country how much it's going to cost. But until you've actually designed it, you're doing your estimates on the basis of a pretty preliminary guess of what things are going to look like. "So that's a stage when people can really worry because there's really not a lot of data. We're about 22 percent complete ... so we can say now we have a detailed design basis from which to extract costs. But that's after having spent a significant amount of money. Until you spend that money to do the design, you can use comparisons and rules of thumb and everything, but the hard data only come with the detailed design. We have that now." There's also a significant contingency fund built into the project, so there's money available to deal with unexpected problems. That already came in handy when about $20 million was required to drill hundreds of pillings into the bedrock to stabilize the foundation of the Target Building. There will be some flexibility to add equipment or scale down or scale up things in the years to come as the project heads toward completion in 2006. (Actually, at the current pace, that could occur the year before.) "To the scientific community, the most important thing about the SNS is that it exists," Mason said. "And that's really the job that we have -- to finish the thing. We've got a budget that's adequate to build the world's best neutron-scattering facility, and that's what we're going to do. Within that constraint, we have to figure out the most efficient way to do it." Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. ***************************************************************** 2 Energy secretary to make OR visit Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:02 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Spencer Abraham is expected to make his first visit to Oak Ridge in June since being appointed energy secretary earlier this year, according to U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-3rd District. Wamp this morning said he received confirmation from Abraham's chief of staff that the energy secretary would be in Oak Ridge on Monday, June 18. Though details of the visit are sketchy, Abraham is expected to tour some of the Department of Energy's local operations as well as attend a campaign fund-raising event for Wamp. "I hope that he has time that day to see a portion of what is done at all three sites," Wamp said. "I'm sure that he (Abraham) is going to see that some important missions are carried out here." One of those missions, Wamp said, is cleanup projects on the Oak Ridge Reservation. If proposed budget figures hold true, Oak Ridge stands to lose $90 million in cleanup funds, which could halt cleanup projects and result in layoffs. "We're not a site that has had problems," the congressman said. "We've had success. I believe that Secretary Abraham is committed to spending more on environmental cleanup at some point in the process." Abraham was sworn in as the 10th secretary of energy on Jan. 20. Prior to that, he represented Michigan in the United States Senate from 1995 to 2001 and voted twice to abolish DOE. Though it could not be confirmed this morning, Wamp said he's heard that U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., may be in Oak Ridge for Abraham's visit. Wamp's campaign fund-raising event is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. on Monday, June 18, in the Crown Court portion of the Crown Conference Center at Oak Ridge Mall. Tickets for the event are $250. For more information on the event, call (865) 777-1706 or (423) 510-9267. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 3 Y-12 gets OK to resume enriched uranium work Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:01 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff BWXT Y-12 has been authorized to resume two operations involving enriched uranium at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The activities include "reduction" and "pour-up" operations that are important to production at the weapons plant, but haven't been done since 1994, according to Ellen Boatner, spokeswoman for BWXT Y-12. The authorization to resume these operations came from the National Nuclear Security Administration, the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that is responsible for national security programs. The reduction operations will convert uranium tetraflouride powder (green salt) to uranium buttons, according to information provided by BWXT Y-12 officials. The pour-up operations will be used to transfer uranium solutions to containers for a process that extracts the uranium. Boatner said this latest action is one in a series of milestones that are part of Y-12's phased plan to fully restart manufacturing operations by next year. The plant received approval to resume fissile material handling and storage in April 2000. The aging weapons plant is also the target of a proposed modernization that would include the construction of a storage area for highly enriched uranium and a special materials complex. Existing Y-12 facilities for storage of highly enriched uranium are in buildings that are 35 to 55 years old and require significant maintenance and funding to maintain operations and security protocol. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 4 Leak Shows Nuclear Trafficking Doubled NewsMax.com Wires* *May 14, 2001 *The worldwide smuggling of radioactive materials has reportedly doubled in the last five years, according to a leaked United Nations study, and there are now thought to be more than 100 terrorist organisations capable of developing a rudimentary atomic bomb. The report, drawn up by the UN's terrorism prevention branch and detailed in the Sunday Herald newspaper, reveals that since 1993 there have been 550 recorded incidents of trafficking of nuclear materials across the globe. Most of the incidents involved materials such as radioactive scrap metal but one in 10 is said to have included weapons-grade plutonium or uranium. The study quotes the head of the UN anti-terrorism unit, Alex Schmid, as warning that much of the nuclear material in the former Soviet republics is poorly protected and the risk of some being stolen is growing. "Time might not be on our side," Mr Schmid is reported as saying. "The amount of plutonium in the world is increasing. Vigorous efforts need to be made to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle and out of the hands of terrorists." Mr Schmid added: "Most of the weapons-usable nuclear materials in the kilogram range are stored in nearly 400 buildings which are not all guarded in the way they should be guarded. This quantity of dangerous but potentially precious materials offers temptation for adventurers and desperados." The 40-page report, commissioned by the international atomic eneregy agency, claims that there are 130 terrorist organisations listed by the US department of state as posing a potential nuclear, chemical or biological threat. They include 55 ethnic groups, 50 religious groups, 20 left-wing groups and five right-wing groups. The list includes Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan. A UN spokeswoman said yesterday that she could not confirm or deny the existence of the report or its findings. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 5 New Zealand to Probe '50s Nuke Tests May 13, 2001 WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - The government will ask Britain and Australia whether its servicemen were used as guinea pigs in the 1950s at British nuclear tests in Australia, officials said Monday. According to Australian military documents released last week, troops dressed in a variety of protective clothing had to run, crawl and drive through a contaminated area to test the protective quality of the clothing. Defense Minister Mark Burton has instructed officials to provide him with a full briefing after the documents showed New Zealand, Australian and British officers entered the "ground zero" areas of atomic bomb blasts at the Maralinga test site in South Australia shortly after nuclear devices had been detonated. "The object was to discover what types of clothing would give best protection against radioactive contamination in conditions of warfare," a military memo from Australian government archives said. Burton asked senior defense officials to check what involvement New Zealand troops had in the program and what risks were involved. "If there has been any suggestion of those people being put in any risk then we will be looking at whatever steps are necessary to follow that up," he said. Defense force historian John Crawford said Monday the military had the names of five young officers used to test the protective clothing at the Maralinga bomb test site. The five were sent to take part in the experiments because New Zealand wanted firsthand information about the effect of nuclear blasts, he told National Radio. "This group of (senior 1950s military planners) thought that the use of nuclear weapons could occur at any time, and that this group of youngish, up-and-coming officers should then come back to the New Zealand armed forces and pass on their knowledge of what the effects of a nuclear bomb were," Crawford said. Britain claimed in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 that humans had never been used as experimental subjects during nuclear weapons trials. London detonated 12 atomic bombs in Australia between 1952 and 1957. However, Britain's Ministry of Defense acknowledged on Friday it had used the servicemen during clothing tests. The revelations have caused an uproar in Australia, with demands for an official inquiry. Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said his government would examine possible links between illnesses suffered by servicemen and exposure to radiation. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 The Age: Canberra checks on Maralinga Monday 14 May 2001 The Federal Government will seek details from Britain this week on a claim that Australian servicemen were used as guinea pigs in British nuclear tests in the 1950s and '60s. Sue Rabbitt Roff, a research fellow at Scotland's Dundee University, last week claimed to have uncovered documents in the National Archives of Australia, proving that Australian and New Zealand servicemen were deliberately exposed to radiation during weapons tests at Maralinga. Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott said he was seeking access to Ms Rabbitt Roff's material. "We already have started the process of establishing a nominal role of the participants in the Maralinga tests, which will lead to a cancer incidence study," he said. Following the revelations, the British Government admitted it had used Commonwealth servicemen in nuclear radiation tests, but denied it had treated soldiers as guinea pigs. "These were not nuclear tests as such, these were radiation tests on clothing," a ministry spokeswoman said. "We were not testing people, we were testing the clothing." Opposition Leader Kim Beazley immediately called for further investigations into the tests. But Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the government would analyse the claims before deciding whether to raise the matter with Britain. In New Zealand, it was reported that Defence Minister Mark Burton said he would be briefed on the issue today by senior defence chiefs. - AAP ***************************************************************** 7 Two More NZ Soldiers May Have Been Exposed By Staff Reporter Patric Lane at 5:26pm, 14th May 2001 More New Zealand soldiers than first thought may have been exposed to radiation from nuclear bomb tests in Australia around 40 years ago. The British Defence Ministry has admitted that personnel from New Zealand, Australia and Britain were involved in tests in Western and South Australia in the 1950s and 60s. Five Kiwi officers — one of whom may have since died — were involved in the exercises that saw them run and crawl through nuclear bomb blast areas to test the effectiveness of protective clothing. However, Defence Minister, Mark Burton, said he had been told this afternoon that another two officers might have been sent to observe exercises at Maralinga. Mr Burton said the two were sent in 1957, a year after the first exercise. wapnews.co.nz ***************************************************************** 8 Locke Rejects Claims That NZ Nuclear Guinea Pigs Consented Press Release by Green Party at 9:45am, 14th May 2001 Green Party Veterans Affairs spokesperson Keith Locke today rejected the British Defence Minister's claims that soldiers consented to being exposed to nuclear test fallout in the early 1950s. "It's absurd to think that the servicemen, including five New Zealanders, would have willingly risked their health in this way," said Mr Locke. "They wouldn't have become nuclear guinea pigs if they'd realised the real dangers. "In addition, it would have been very difficult for servicemen not to give their consent, given the culture of the armed forces in the 1950s. Casting doubt on your superiors' judgement, or seeming to be a wimp, just wasn't done. It wouldn't have helped your career chances," he said. Mr Locke said New Zealand should seek a full admission of wrongdoing from the British Government, and assist New Zealand nuclear veterans here in any court cases that flow from the Maralinga and Monte Bello Island experiments. New Zealand has already assisted the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association in its planned court cases over the exposure of New Zealand sailors to British nuclear tests over Christmas Island in the 1950s. "The government should also track down the five soldiers involved in the Australian tests, or their survivors, to get the full story on what happened, and the health consequences," said Mr Locke. wapnews.co.nz ***************************************************************** 9 NZ to investigate A-test 'guinea pigs' ISSUE 2180 Monday 14 May 2001 By Paul Chapman in Wellington and Geoffrey Lee Martin in Sydney AN urgent inquiry into claims that five New Zealand officers were among servicemen used as guinea pigs during British nuclear testing in Australia was ordered last night by Mark Burton, the Defence Minister. Papers made public at the weekend show that, despite Ministry of Defence denials of human experiments, military personnel from Britain, Australia and New Zealand entered the fallout zone three days after a nuclear device was exploded in 1956. Sue Rabbitt Roff, a professor at Dundee University, found documents in the Australian National Archive showing that more than a third of the 76 personnel involved received more than the maximum "permissible" radiation exposure. An Australian Central Command memo on tests at two sites in Australia said: "The object was to discover what types of clothing would give best protection against radioactive contamination in conditions of warfare." Mr Burton said he wanted senior defence officials "to prepare for me a full brief of what, if any, involvement any New Zealanders had in any such test and, secondly, if there were, to what extent we can identify who they were and any risks to their well-being . . . then we will be looking at whatever steps are necessary to follow that up". A retired Australian army officer, Major Alan Batchelor, said: "We had to go in and uncover equipment shelters between 300ft and 500ft from ground zero. We would do that commencing at about one hour after the blast, without protective clothing." © Copyrightof Telegraph Group Limited2001. Terms & Conditionsof ***************************************************************** 10 Proposed treated to ban weapon based fissile material production Statement by the Press Secretary/Director-General for Press and Public Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the Geneva Workshop on a Treaty to Ban the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices [The Ministry of Foreign Affairs Japan] Statement by the Press Secretary/Director-General for Press and Public Relations, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the Geneva Workshop on a Treaty to Ban the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices May 11, 2001 1. Japan took the initiative in holding a Workshop on a Treaty to Ban the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices which will be held on 14 (Mon) and 15 (Tue) May in Geneva, with a view to increasing a momentum to start negotiations for such a Treaty. Japan therefore strongly hopes that the Workshop will achieve success and that, after such extensive efforts, negotiations for the Treaty start immediately. Japan is determined to continue its diplomatic efforts for immediate commencement of the negotiations for the Treaty, based upon the view that the Treaty is a concrete and realistic measure in the wake of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and is extremely significant in realizing a world free of nuclear weapons. 2. At the Conference on Disarmament, there have been no negotiations for a new disarmament-oriented treaty after 1996 when CTBT negotiations came to an end, underlining the stagnation of the trend for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation since the latter half of the 1990s. (END) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan Home Page ***************************************************************** 11 Japanese Worry About Nuke Ships Today: May 14, 2001 at 10:45:26 PDT TOKYO- Residents of a city near Tokyo urged the mayor on Monday to oppose making it the permanent home base for U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. A citizens group's petition with more than 70,000 signatures, addressed to Yokosuka Mayor Hideo Sawada, asked him to block Navy plans to expand part of an area where the ships are docked. The group said the construction was aimed at allowing future deployment of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and making the port their permanent base, said city official Nagatoshi Esashi. The U.S. Naval Headquarters in Japan are located in the city, just south of the capital. The USS Kitty Hawk, a conventional aircraft carrier, is based at the Yokosuka Naval Base and is expected to be retired around 2008. The citizens group has said it fears the vessel may be replaced with a nuclear-powered carrier. Cmdr. James Graybeal, a spokesman for Yokosuka U.S. Naval Base, said the project to update Piedmont Pier started a decade ago in preparation for a bigger aircraft carrier and denied any plans to put nuclear-powered carriers in the port. "It is not programmed to accommodate nuclear-powered aircraft carriers," he said. "There is no plan at this point to port a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the future." Japan's constitution bans the use and possession of nuclear arms. A 1964 bilateral agreement requires that the United States notify Japan at least 24 hours prior to port calls by U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 Seven atomic weapon storage sites built in Norway in 1960s, new book reveals Source: M2 Communications Ltd. Story Filed: Monday, May 14, 2001 11:07 AM EST May 14, 2001 (M2 Best Books via COMTEX) -- Rolf Tamnes and Kjetil Skogrand reveal in their new book published this week that seven atomic weapon storage sites were built in Norway in the 1960s. To produce their book the two authors were granted access to previously confidential archives, where they established the information on the locations of the sites, which actually held only conventional ammunition, reported the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. The sites were located at Bodo, Setermoen, Asker, Valer, Trogstad, Nes and Flesland. Norway's stated policy at the time was not to allow storage of nuclear weapons during peacetime. *Copyright © 2001, M2 Communications Ltd., all rights reserved.* ***************************************************************** 13 Nuclear sub heads for Faslane The Scotsman Online - Scotland's best selling quality national newspaper Jill Stevenson ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners fear a British submarine which caused a major radioactive scare is undergoing secret tests in Scottish waters. And they are furious that HMS Tireless will be heading to Faslane for further examination despite leaving her former Gibraltar base a week ago without a 100 per cent safety check. The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament fears essential shore-side exercises, which were never completed in the Mediterranean resort, will now be carried out at Faslane – a port they claim is hardly equipped for any major disaster. CND administrator John Ainslie claimed that exercises deemed “too dangerous” to carry out in Gibraltar would now be carried out at the Clyde Naval Base. Mr Ainslie said: “While in Gibraltar, Tireless did not complete some of the normal routine exercises, partly on safety grounds because they would have to be carried out at the berth. The Ministry of Defence admits the specific nuclear reactor repairs carried out in Gibraltar were a first for them. He added: “As far as I am aware full post-repair work-up exercises were incomplete when she set sail this week.” A spokesman for the MoD yesterday refused to reveal HMS Tireless’ precise location, but confirmed she was heading for Faslane. CND campaigners insisted Tireless should have berthed at her home port of Devonport in the south of England to undergo any trials which were necessary. “If Tireless is to undergo sea trials in Scottish waters then it would seem only logical for her to tie up at Faslane,” said Mr Ainslie. “I can understand why they might not want to do that in the middle of Devonport – but that is her home base, after all. He added: “We do not want her at the Faslane base, where we have very real fears of the base’s ability to cope with anything other than a minor accident.” A Naval spokesman at Faslane said it was policy never to discuss the movements of submarines once they were at sea. “HMS Tireless has now left Gibraltar and is engaged in a period of work-up,” he said. “No vessel would ever be put to sea unless she was 100 per cent safe – safety is our primary concern.” However Mr Ainslie said: “It appears the Navy is desperate to get another sub operational as the only other vessel on operational duty appears to be HMS Triumph. They were also keen to sail Tireless out of Gibraltar before she marked her first anniversary of being tied up there for repairs, as that would have been a PR disaster for them.” I am concerned that she is arriving in Scotland without undergoing full repair checks.” David Mackenzie, spokesman for the anti-nuclear group Trident Ploughshares, said: “There are no plans to take direct action against Tireless coming to Scotland at this stage – but that could easily change.” ***************************************************************** 14 Plutonium Conversion Plan Approved Monday, May. 14, 2001. Page 5 Reuters The government approved a treaty to turn plutonium from nuclear weapons into civilian reactor fuel Friday, boasting of its commitment to arms reduction on a day when U.S. officials were in town pitching missile defense plans. But Moscow said it needed billions of dollars from Washington and other Western partners to make the swords-into-ploughshares program a reality. Last summer, Russia and the U.S. signed a memorandum to each turn 34 tons of weapons plutonium into reactor fuel over 25 years. The Russian government said in a statement it had approved the agreement and passed it to parliament to become law. "The realization of this agreement will clearly demonstrate Russia's adherence to the further development of the nuclear disarmament process," the statement said. Russia said the agreement foresees large-scale international funding, including the U.S. paying at least $200 million. The project aims to soothe fears that "rogue states" could somehow acquire ex-Soviet plutonium. /www.moscowtimes.ru ***************************************************************** 15 Official: Sub to Be Raised by Sept. Today: May 14, 2001 at 4:30:27 PDT MOSCOW (AP) - A top Russian official said Monday that the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk would be raised in a three-month operation that will be finished by Sept. 20, Russian news agencies reported. Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who heads the commission investigating the Kursk tragedy, said that an agreement would be signed between Russia and the Dutch and Norwegian firms taking part in the lifting operation on May 20 in St. Petersburg. The Kursk was one of the Russian Naval Fleet's most modern nuclear submarines. It exploded and sank during maneuvers in the Barents Sea last summer, killing all 118 crewmen. The government has not released any official explanation of the cause. Most foreign experts say it was most likely was an internal malfunction, such as a torpedo misfiring, that caused an explosion in a forward compartment. However, the government has not officially ruled out the theory that the Kursk collided with another vessel, possibly a foreign submarine. The Russian government is supposed to share the cost, estimated at $70 million, with the Kursk Foundation, an international fund-raising group. The ITAR-Tass news agency, citing sources, said that the foreign firms would help lift all but the first compartment of the submarine, which was most heavily damaged. Only Russians would take part in lifting the first compartment. Klebanov said earlier this year that the submarine's mangled torpedo compartment would be cut away from the vessel and left on the sea floor, in order to minimize the possibility of further explosions. The plan to lift the Kursk has provoked controversy in Russia. Some of the crewmen's families have said they would prefer to follow the naval tradition of burying their dead at sea. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Analysis: Raising the Kursk BBC News | EUROPE | Monday, 14 May, 2001, 10:40 GMT 11:40 UK Twelve bodies were recovered from the Kursk Russia is aiming to raise the wreck of the Kursk nuclear submarine from the bottom of the Barents Sea by late September 2001. The vessel sank in August 2000 after a mysterious explosion and all 118 crew were killed. The salvage operation will be costly and complicated. The mission is expected to take three months, starting in mid-June, and could cost in excess of $100m. If it proceeds too hastily, there is the risk that the submarine could be further damaged and leak radioactive material into the sea. Twelve bodies were recovered last year, but conditions were too dangerous to recover the remainder of the crew. Appeal for help No single country on its own can handle such an operation Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov Moscow has been seeking international help in funding the operation, and Dutch and Norwegian firms are expected to take part. Speaking last year Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who is in charge of the vessel's future, said: "No single country on its own can handle such an operation." The submarine has already spent a winter on the seabed, but some experts warned last year that it was better to wait until this summer before trying to raise it. The logistics Weight: 25,000 tonnes est. Length: 155 metres Depth: 108 metres Cost of salvage: up to $100m It normally takes at least three months for a submarine's nuclear reactors to cool down, and attempts to move the vessel too early could have cracked the hull, releasing radioactive matter, according to Nils Bohmer of the Bellona Foundation. "It's vital to ascertain the condition of the reactors first," he told BBC News Online last August. The options The Rubin research centre in Saint Petersburg, which developed the Kursk, has been studying ways of salvaging the submarine. + Refloat: The 155-metre vessel could be lifted with the help of cables attached to platforms or by giant air cushions, and then towed back to base, according to Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov. Another radical option being considered is to strap balloons made of a special hi-tech fibre along the hull, and pump them with enough air to raise the estimated 25,000 tonne vessel to the surface. The relatively shallow depths - of just over 100 metres - at which the Kursk is lying make the option of refloating the submarine fairly feasible, according to Paul Beaver of Jane's Information Group. + Chop up: If the Kursk is too damaged to stay intact, experts say the wreckage could be sawn into pieces to be hoisted individually. Or the reactor compartment alone could be lifted out - although this would again require special, very expensive, equipment. + Move to shallow waters: Alternatively, it could be dragged to shallower waters. This may be a short-term option used to recover the bodies. However, the journey could still be dangerous. Another idea that was considered was to simply seal off the reactors and leave the vessel on the seabed. The Russians have developed a special biological gel, which was used when the Soviet submarine, the Komsomolets, sank in 1989. The gel is said to block all cracks, and has the advantage of being lighter than conventional materials. Russian specialists claim this material works effectively for 500 years. However, it is also very expensive. Marine graves Even so, some experts have said this would be the safest option. And some of the crewmen's families have said they would prefer their husbands and sons to remain untouched. "I don't want to get a coffin that I'm not allowed to open, that could be filled with stones and rags," said Anna Troyan, who lost her husband. "I would rather just come down her and throw flowers into the water." The Kursk is the sixth nuclear submarine to sink since the 1960s. Two of the sunken submarines have been American, the other three Russian - buried at depths of up to 4,800 metres. Most of them have been left on the seabed because of the huge expense of lifting them. Search BBC News Online ***************************************************************** 17 1954 explosion was 'the most God-awful sight you ever saw' *May 13, 2001* By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER In the predawn hours of March 1, 1954, James L. Coffey stood on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Bairoko, facing away from the massive explosion. He waited for an officer's signal that it was safe to turn around. "Everything turned one color -- a grayish color," said Coffey, 72, who served as an electronics technician. He turned to see the fiery aftermath of the blast rising quickly into the sky. It was the largest hydrogen bomb test ever conducted by the United States. "It reminded me of a volcano going up into the air. We were 50 miles out and it was huge. We could see the sonic wave coming across the water. When it hit it was just like a vacuum -- it just sucked up the air," he recalled. "It was mostly just the most God-awful sight you ever saw. And the higher it went the more purple it got. It reminded me of lava. It was something else." Donald Lee Lundine, a quartermaster aboard the Bairoko, was wearing a pair of goggles to view the test. "We had some scientists aboard our ship. One guy's mouth fell open when he saw it go off. It was over double the amount they expected," said Lundine, 70. "It was so bright, terribly bright, even with the goggles on. It was brighter than any tropical sun. It was the most beautiful thing -- the colors were outstanding," he said. Though he dabbles in painting now, Lundine said he could never reproduce the palette of colors he saw that day. "It was gorgeous. It was awesome." Lundine crouched behind a barrier on the bridge when the shockwave hit. "It was plenty loud and rough. It shook the heck out of us." The shock waves reverberated throughout the atolls for several minutes, he said. It would be a few hours before the fallout would begin to accumulate on the ship, a carrier escort that ferried radiation-monitoring helicopters. "(T)his ship received a heavy fallout of contaminated coral particles following the detonation of an atomic device on Bikini Atoll," according to a report issued by a Bairoko officer on March 7. "At the time of the fallout the ship was 31 miles ... from the shot site." Other military ships exposed to heavy fallout were the U.S.S. Estes and U.S.S. Philip, according to a separate report, and about a dozen ships received significant levels of radiation. The Bravo test, conducted by Los Alamos Laboratory scientists, had gone horribly wrong. Though scientists had predicted a yield of 5 megatons -- equal to 5 million tons of TNT -- the actual blast measured 15 megatons. It erased a small island and created a mile-wide crater in Bikini Atoll. The sea around the test was littered with dead fish and tree debris. Edward Teller, a founding father of Livermore Lab and the H-bomb, said in a National Security Archive interview that the Bravo test was "a little over-successful." Scientists from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs conducted a total of 66 atmospheric nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 58. Livermore Lab carried out 22 of the tests. Though scientists expected that most of the Bravo fallout would be carried into the upper atmosphere and disbursed globally, heavy fallout was concentrated in the ocean and atolls within 300 miles of blast site. Tom Kunkle, a staff member at Los Alamos Lab who has researched the history of the nuclear testing program, said hydrogen bombs were still very experimental devices at the time of the Bravo test. "Everyone realized that there was scientific uncertainty in (the yield)," he said. Bravo was one of the most heavily instrumented early tests, with diagnostic equipment installed to measure different aspects of the explosion. Small islands were selected for many tests because of this need to install the data-collection equipment, though fallout tended to be heavier on island tests than on floating barges, he said. Kunkle said that it was "a big surprise" to scientists when the Bravo fallout that had been thrown miles high into the sky began to drop in a wide area, concentrated within about 300 miles of ground zero. "It rained down as quite large particles. It was back on Earth's surface in about four or five hours," he said. Though much has been written about a sudden shift in wind direction that led to heavy fallout on Rongelap Atoll east of Bikini, Kunkle said the disaster of Bravo's fallout was more a product of a miscalculation of fallout patterns. "There was a scientific debate going on between three different camps of forecasters. They all had different tools for calculating fallout," he said. Tired from a night spent awake prior to the nuclear test, Lundine climbed into the ship's crow's nest to take a nap. When he awoke there was a white, powdery dust raining down on him. He didn't realize the dust was radioactive and he went back to sleep. A shipmate woke him up later and told him about the fallout. Members of the crew placed a Geiger counter on him "and it went right to the top," Lundine said. He was told to strip his clothes off, and crew members rinsed him off with salt water until the Geiger counter readings began to fall. "The monitor guy -- he told me, 'If you'd have stayed, you'd start bleeding very shortly out of the ears and nose,' " Lundine said. Radiation burns appeared around Lundine's waistline. "It looked like somebody took a cigarette and burned me three or four times," he said. "A guy standing in front of me had a burn on his shoulder and they cut it off and sewed him up. (A medical officer) wanted to cut on me and I said, 'No.'" Coffey, who said he was ordered to take a shower and throw his clothes overboard after receiving some exposure to the fallout, said the Bravo test "was just one big screw-up -- things were just so disorganized." He added, "They didn't expect anything to work out like it did. And, of course, it was a tremendous amount of radiation." An emergency sprinkler system aboard the ship was activated to wash the radioactive dust away, and the crew was ordered below deck and all hatches were sealed to limit radiation exposure. In all, about 300 people were exposed to Bravo fallout, according to government estimates, including about 250 Marshallese, 23 U.S. military personnel and 23 Japanese fishermen. Lundine and Coffey said their health, so far, appears good and they don't seem to be suffering from any illnesses related to their exposure. But some so-called atomic veterans who participated in the Marshall Islands tests have said they believe their present-day illnesses may be related to radiation exposure. One of the Japanese fishermen died from his exposure to the fallout seven months after the Bravo test. In 1955, the U.S. government paid $2 million in restitution for damages to the crew and their boat and cargo. On March 5 of this year the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, established in 1988 to decide compensation for Marshall Islanders affected by nuclear testing, ruled the former residents of Bikini Atoll are due $563.3 million from the U.S. government. And in April 2000 the tribunal voted that Eniwetok residents are entitled to $341 million for damages to their people and atoll. But the tribunal does not have enough money left to pay either award, and the Marshallese must petition Congress if they want to receive the money. Between 1988 to 99 the tribunal awarded about $70 million to Marshallese people for various claims related to nuclear testing. 7TM1501A0513 Explosion 'the most God-awful sight you ever saw' 'The most God-awful sight you ever saw' 1954 explosion was 'the most God-awful sight you ever saw' By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER In the predawn hours of March 1, 1954, James L. Coffey stood on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Bairoko, facing away from the massive explosion. He waited for an officer's signal that it was safe to turn around. "Everything turned one color -- a grayish color," said Coffey, 72, who served as an electronics technician. He turned to see the fiery aftermath of the blast rising quickly into the sky. It was the largest hydrogen bomb test ever conducted by the United States. "It reminded me of a volcano going up into the air. We were 50 miles out and it was huge. We could see the sonic wave coming across the water. When it hit it was just like a vacuum -- it just sucked up the air," he recalled. "It was mostly just the most God-awful sight you ever saw. And the higher it went the more purple it got. It reminded me of lava. It was something else." Donald Lee Lundine, a quartermaster aboard the Bairoko, was wearing a pair of goggles to view the test. "We had some scientists aboard our ship. One guy's mouth fell open when he saw it go off. It was over double the amount they expected," said Lundine, 70. "It was so bright, terribly bright, even with the goggles on. It was brighter than any tropical sun. It was the most beautiful thing -- the colors were outstanding," he said. Though he dabbles in painting now, Lundine said he could never reproduce the palette of colors he saw that day. "It was gorgeous. It was awesome." Lundine crouched behind a barrier on the bridge when the shockwave hit. "It was plenty loud and rough. It shook the heck out of us." The shock waves reverberated throughout the atolls for several minutes, he said. It would be a few hours before the fallout would begin to accumulate on the ship, a carrier escort that ferried radiation-monitoring helicopters. "(T)his ship received a heavy fallout of contaminated coral particles following the detonation of an atomic device on Bikini Atoll," according to a report issued by a Bairoko officer on March 7. "At the time of the fallout the ship was 31 miles ... from the shot site." Other military ships exposed to heavy fallout were the U.S.S. Estes and U.S.S. Philip, according to a separate report, and about a dozen ships received significant levels of radiation. The Bravo test, conducted by Los Alamos Laboratory scientists, had gone horribly wrong. Though scientists had predicted a yield of 5 megatons -- equal to 5 million tons of TNT -- the actual blast measured 15 megatons. It erased a small island and created a mile-wide crater in Bikini Atoll. The sea around the test was littered with dead fish and tree debris. Edward Teller, a founding father of Livermore Lab and the H-bomb, said in a National Security Archive interview that the Bravo test was "a little over-successful." Scientists from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs conducted a total of 66 atmospheric nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands from 1946 to 58. Livermore Lab carried out 22 of the tests. Though scientists expected that most of the Bravo fallout would be carried into the upper atmosphere and disbursed globally, heavy fallout was concentrated in the ocean and atolls within 300 miles of blast site. Tom Kunkle, a staff member at Los Alamos Lab who has researched the history of the nuclear testing program, said hydrogen bombs were still very experimental devices at the time of the Bravo test. "Everyone realized that there was scientific uncertainty in (the yield)," he said. Bravo was one of the most heavily instrumented early tests, with diagnostic equipment installed to measure different aspects of the explosion. Small islands were selected for many tests because of this need to install the data-collection equipment, though fallout tended to be heavier on island tests than on floating barges, he said. Kunkle said that it was "a big surprise" to scientists when the Bravo fallout that had been thrown miles high into the sky began to drop in a wide area, concentrated within about 300 miles of ground zero. "It rained down as quite large particles. It was back on Earth's surface in about four or five hours," he said. Though much has been written about a sudden shift in wind direction that led to heavy fallout on Rongelap Atoll east of Bikini, Kunkle said the disaster of Bravo's fallout was more a product of a miscalculation of fallout patterns. "There was a scientific debate going on between three different camps of forecasters. They all had different tools for calculating fallout," he said. Tired from a night spent awake prior to the nuclear test, Lundine climbed into the ship's crow's nest to take a nap. When he awoke there was a white, powdery dust raining down on him. He didn't realize the dust was radioactive and he went back to sleep. A shipmate woke him up later and told him about the fallout. Members of the crew placed a Geiger counter on him "and it went right to the top," Lundine said. He was told to strip his clothes off, and crew members rinsed him off with salt water until the Geiger counter readings began to fall. "The monitor guy -- he told me, 'If you'd have stayed, you'd start bleeding very shortly out of the ears and nose,' " Lundine said. Radiation burns appeared around Lundine's waistline. "It looked like somebody took a cigarette and burned me three or four times," he said. "A guy standing in front of me had a burn on his shoulder and they cut it off and sewed him up. (A medical officer) wanted to cut on me and I said, 'No.'" Coffey, who said he was ordered to take a shower and throw his clothes overboard after receiving some exposure to the fallout, said the Bravo test "was just one big screw-up -- things were just so disorganized." He added, "They didn't expect anything to work out like it did. And, of course, it was a tremendous amount of radiation." An emergency sprinkler system aboard the ship was activated to wash the radioactive dust away, and the crew was ordered below deck and all hatches were sealed to limit radiation exposure. In all, about 300 people were exposed to Bravo fallout, according to government estimates, including about 250 Marshallese, 23 U.S. military personnel and 23 Japanese fishermen. Lundine and Coffey said their health, so far, appears good and they don't seem to be suffering from any illnesses related to their exposure. But some so-called atomic veterans who participated in the Marshall Islands tests have said they believe their present-day illnesses may be related to radiation exposure. One of the Japanese fishermen died from his exposure to the fallout seven months after the Bravo test. In 1955, the U.S. government paid $2 million in restitution for damages to the crew and their boat and cargo. On March 5 of this year the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, established in 1988 to decide compensation for Marshall Islanders affected by nuclear testing, ruled the former residents of Bikini Atoll are due $563.3 million from the U.S. government. And in April 2000 the tribunal voted that Eniwetok residents are entitled to $341 million for damages to their people and atoll. But the tribunal does not have enough money left to pay either award, and the Marshallese must petition Congress if they want to receive the money. Between 1988 to 99 the tribunal awarded about $70 million to Marshallese people for various claims related to nuclear testing. RELATED SITES AND INFORMATION: + Information about the Bravo test that spread fallout on Rongelap Island and about military personnel who were exposed to radiation from the test. From the Atomic Veterans History Project, affiliated with the National Association of Atomic Veterans. http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/castle.htm + Health Physics: The Radiation Journal Special issue on Marshall Islands nuclear testing impacts, including history, radiological monitoring, dose assessment, health effects and environmental studies. http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ihp/marsh/journal/ + Information about nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. Details information about resettlement, cleanup and compensation efforts. http://www.bikiniatoll.com/ + Energy Department site with information about studies scientific studies conducted in Marshall Islands. Includes historical documents and current events. http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/ihp/marsh/marshall.htm + Information about whole body counter for monitoring radiation levels in residents of the Marshall Islands. http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/hc_dept/spd/Project8.html + Information about the Marshall Islands Dose Assessment and Radioecology Program at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. http://www.llnl.gov/ees/hea/marshall_is2.html NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************