***************************************************************** 05/15/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.119 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Nevada battles feds on Yucca water 2 Texas: Time to settle radioactive waste issue 3 Opinion - Institute for Energy Analysis: A remarkable bunch most 4 Lawmakers introduce Prairie Island nuclear waste bill 5 Nevada battles federal government over nuclear waste dump 6 Prairie Island tribal council demands pact enforcement 7 Palo Verde reactor back in service 8 Cheney: Push Needed to Boost Nuclear Power 9 Bill would allow longer life spans for nuclear plants 10 US attraction to nuclear power 11 Council tries again for nuclear documents 12 YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Court hears arguments over water 13 DPRK Condemns U.S. for Delaying Nuclear Reactors Construction 14 Nuclear convoy heads for France 15 Protests Mark Atomic Waste Shipment 16 Nuclear power firm cuts 400 jobs 17 The Nuclear Brain Drain Continues 18 Nuclear waste storage battle heats up 19 Democrats to Release Energy Plan 20 Energy Department Issues Yucca Mountain Reports 21 Utah Opinion: Questionable Article 22 Voluntary wasteland NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Hanford contractor declares bankruptcy 2 FFTF foes assail DOE decisions 3 Hanford Environmental Cleanup Drivers Hit Five Million Mile Mark 4 National Lab, UK Begin Collaboration on Nuclear Facility Cleanup 5 DOE reports security 'adjustments' 6 DOE site celebrates fast work - By Joe Walker 7 Former nuclear weapons plant limits security 8 Veterans Tell of Brit Nuclear Tests 9 Further Information On NZ Involvement In Maralinga Atomic Tests 10 Asia Times: Fallout from nuclear amnesia 11 Australia looks into bomb clothing tests 12 Mayor asked to oppose Japanese city as port for U.S. Navy's 13 Mayor asked to oppose Japanese city as port for U.S. Navy's 14 MoD pledge on nuclear test papers 15 Police arrest 28 protesters at test site 16 Police hold 51 Trident protesters after sit-in at base 17 Should the Kursk be raised? **************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Nevada battles feds on Yucca water Today: May 15, 2001 at 11:00:11 PDT SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS SAN FRANCISCO -- The federal government and Nevada squared off in an appeals court Monday over where to store 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. At issue is Nevada's refusal to give the Energy Department rights to 430 acre-feet a year of ground water to build and operate a proposed nuclear waste dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It is a classic case of a state's rights versus federal authority. Contaminated waste from the nation's nuclear energy and weapons facilities is stored near 103 nuclear reactors nationwide. Those sites are nearing capacity. The government has proposed transferring the waste to Yucca Mountain, which would become the nation's main dumpsite for spent nuclear fuel. On Monday the Justice Department urged a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order Nevada to give the DOE a water permit. Without one, the site cannot be built or operated. Nevada has granted temporary water rights to the federal government, but only for the purpose of studying whether the desert location is suitable for a nuclear repository to bury commercial reactor spent fuel and defense wastes. Government lawyer Jared Goldstein told the panel that Nevada is "interfering with a congressional mandate" by refusing to issue a water permit. While the state has said it withheld a water permit because of potential safety threats to the public, Nevada lawyers told the judges Monday that the state denied the permit because Congress has approved the location only for study. Nevada cannot allocate water for a dumpsite until the government's studies are completed and Congress approves the area for a dump, argued Paul Taggart, a deputy attorney general. More important, he said, since Congress has not approved the dumpsite, the federal government has no legal authority to order Nevada to issue a water permit. He said the federal government might be able to make such a demand only after Congress approves the area as a dumpsite. Taggart said it was "speculative" that Nevada would still deny the water even after congressional approval. Judge Thomas Nelson said he believed Nevada would indeed deny a permit at that stage as well. "Would you like to put any money on that?" Nelson asked Taggart. "I'm not a betting man," the Nevadan replied. Judge Milton J. Shadur summed up the dispute when he asked who had the authority -- Nevada or Congress -- to set national policy on where to store the country's radioactive waste. "Isn't that really the question?" he said. The arguments came nearly a week after Vice President Dick Cheney said the Bush administration's turn to nuclear power as a long-term energy strategy requires a permanent nuclear waste dump. "Now, with the gas prices rising as dramatically as they have, nuclear power looks like a pretty good alternative from an economic standpoint, if the permitting process is manageable and if we find a way to deal with the waste question," Cheney said. The vice president is developing energy policy recommendations for President Bush that include changes meant to speed federal permits to utilities seeking to build nuclear power plants. The industry has not sought a permit to build a new plant in more than 20 years, prior to the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the nation's electric capacity. Congress, meanwhile, chose Yucca Mountain 14 years ago for a potential nuclear dumpsite under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for two repositories, one on each side of the country. The water issue is just one of many disputes over the Yucca Mountain site. Robert R. Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the state would continue fighting the facility even if it loses the water dispute. "Nevada doesn't want a repository," Loux said. "Scientific information suggests that this is not a good location." The government is expected to conclude its environmental review of Yucca Mountain by year's end. The court did not indicate when it would rule. Sun reporter Mary Manning and the Associated Press contributed to this story. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Texas: Time to settle radioactive waste issue The Dallas Morning News: Opinion: Letters to editor Letters for Tuesday 05/15/2001 The public benefits from activities that produce low-level radioactive waste in Texas, receiving major benefits from medical research and treatment, nuclear power and industrial processes. Over 900 licensees in Texas use radioactive materials and generate low-level waste; there are more than 50 of these licensees' sites where low-level radioactive waste is stored. About 80,000 cubic feet of waste is awaiting permanent disposal. Options for out-of-state disposal are almost non-existent and will get more severe. Leaving the waste at the locations where it is generated, as is being done now, is not a safe long-term option. Virtually none of the generators are equipped to permanently manage this material, and permanent storage at nuclear facilities is forbidden. The future of medical uses and industrial applications must not be determined by the lack of waste disposal availability. Senate Bill 1541 by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, is a good vehicle for addressing the critical problem of managing low-level radioactive waste disposal. The state, not a private entity, would hold title to the waste. Any private party will be able to bid for this activity and be required to provide all aspects of permanent disposal (including ensuring against accidents, unexpected occurrences and final closure)  under the full regulatory scrutiny of all appropriate state and federal agencies. We must be responsible, deal with these problems today and not delay the resolution of waste disposal for future generations. ROBERT BERNSTEIN, M.D., Texas Commissioner of Health, 1980-1991, Austin 2000, 1999 Katie winner for best news-related Web site 2000 Texas Associated Press Managing Editors Award ***************************************************************** 3 Opinion - Institute for Energy Analysis: A remarkable bunch most times surprisingly right Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:46 p.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Editor's License Dick Smyser A privilege of long life, Alvin M. Weinberg says, is looking back at one's predictions and either weeping at their inaccuracy or rejoicing at their prescience. Weinberg, who was 86 last month, did that Wednesday of last week in a retrospective talk about the Institute of Energy Analysis, a think tank of which he was director in the 1970s and '80s. The IEA, administered by Oak Ridge Associated Universities, looked to energy needs 20, 30 years ahead. With a few notable exceptions, what Weinberg recalls as "a remarkable bunch of people" got things rather much right, if only after some strong disagreements within the group. Weinberg, speaking to the Roane-Anderson Professional Society at the Sagebrush Steakhouse and Saloon, remembers the late William G. Pollard for saving the IEA a major embarrassment. Soon after IEA's founding in 1974, they contemplated a prediction of the total supply of electricity needed by about now -- 2001. In reaction to the initial figure on which most agreed, Pollard declared "You're crazy!" The late founder and first president of Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, now ORAU, had a much more modest prediction. Pollard made his point effectively. Others of the group responded and IEA scaled down its projection to what has proven to be about right. Pollard, Weinberg said, "more than anyone else set the IEA on a more realistic course." IEA was founded Jan. 1, 1974, after a year of planning by Weinberg and other energy-concerned people in Washington, notably Bill Baker, whom Weinberg had come to know while they both served on the president's Scientific Advisory Board. Baker, whom Weinberg has described as "the scientific gray eminence of the Nixon administration," was chairman of the Mellon Fund and instrumental in getting IEA a $500,000 start-up grant. Surprisingly (at least to some in his audience), Weinberg told how, even though the two reactor accidents that would shake public confidence in nuclear power had not yet happened, IEA began its work on the assumption that "the first nuclear era" was over. Well before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, IEA had accepted that there would be a nuclear moratorium -- no new reactors and the likely shutdown of some existing reactors -- from about 1985 to 2010. How then, had asked Edward Schmidt, of General Electric and another of the early proponents of IEA, might the "second nuclear era be planned so as to avoid the pitfalls of the first"? A nuclear moratorium could be dealt with, IEA concluded, but only with great pressure on coal. Also, before the end of the moratorium, there would have to be developed what David Lilienthal, early chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and first chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, had termed the "utterly safe reactor." But, Weinberg said, in its moratorium projection IEA missed "the ascendancy of natural gas" which has added significantly to energy supplies in more recent years. But IEA got it fully right on a number of other significant scores: * Concern for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Ralph Rotty, recruited by IEA because of his expertise on C02, was the pioneer in evaluating C02 effects and among the first to raise caution flags. Nuclear plants, Rotty calculated, put only one-tenth the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as do fossil fuel plants. Freeman Dyson, during a brief period with IEA, was among the first to promote the planting of trees to reduce C02. "We took C02 very seriously," Weinberg said. * Even during a 25-year moratorium on nuclear power, IEA predicted, most of the older nuclear power plants would be more likely to be relicensed than shut down, and this is what seems to be happening, especially with pressure now as a result of the California power shortage. * There would be consolidation of the companies that manage and operate nuclear power plants, this also now already happening with the likelihood that these companies will be reduced to only six or seven. * The late P.R. Bell, whom Weinberg called "one of the best ever at IEA," was first to make calculations on the release of C02 from sea beds -- methane gas coming from the ocean floor. * IEA originated the concept of "nuclear parks" -- the geographical concentration of nuclear power plants to eliminate the lengthy process of approving new sites. IEA concluded that existing nuclear power plant sites can accommodate another 80. * IEA preached that "time annihilates capital costs." The longer nuclear plants operate successfully, the lower becomes their original cost in comparison to other forms of energy production. And, Weinberg pointed out, right now one of IEA's concepts is utterly relevant. He had become concerned about the controversy over President Reagan's proposal for a massive missile shield against nuclear attack, the so-called "Star Wars" strategy. Thus an IEA study with Jack Barkenbus which evolved what they called "The Defense-Protected Build Down." Under this strategy, which Weinberg acknowledged had earlier been proposed by the arms guru Herman Kahn, there would be an anti-missile defense system, if considerably more modest than President Reagan's plan. But, to allay fears that the United States might launch a first strike, coupled with the anti-missile system would be a "build down" of offensive weapons. And this, Weinberg believes, is very close to what the Bush administration is proposing right now. "We were right a surprising number of times," Weinberg concluded. And, in consideration of that IEA record and from the perspective of his now 86 years, "the idea of predicting the future can be taken much more seriously." -- RDS *Richard D. Smyser is founding editor of The Oak Ridger. You can reach him by e-mail at rdsandmps@aol.com* All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 4 Lawmakers introduce Prairie Island nuclear waste bill Published Monday, May 14, 2001 By PATRICK HOWE / Associated Press Writer ST. PAUL (AP) -- A pair of lawmakers Monday released more details of their plan to let the Prairie Island nuclear power plant store additional spent fuel in outdoor concrete casks. Their bill, which isn' t expected to be voted on this year, would essentially undo a hard-fought 1994 agreement that allows Xcel Energy' s plant to store waste in up to 17 casks. That limit is expected to be reached in 2007. But critics of nuclear power, as well as the Prairie Island Indian Community, whose reservation abuts the plant, say they expect the state and Xcel Energy to live up to the original agreement. " We will take the necessary steps, including litigation, " to uphold the agreement, said Prairie Island Tribal Council President Audrey Kohnen. Under the proposed plan, the Prairie Island plant could continue storing waste as needed until its two reactors reach the end of their licenses in 2013 and 2014. Then, if the plant renews the licenses, Xcel would no longer be required to make payments into a fund to subsidize alternative energy sources or meet other parts of the 1994 agreement. The plan would also let the nuclear plant in Monticello start storing waste in outdoor casks if its license is renewed. Monticello' s license expires in 2010. Excel Energy officials say they hope to renew all of the licenses. The bill also would have the state place fees paid by customers of Xcel Energy toward the building of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in an escrow account that wouldn' t be turned over to the federal government until a site is open. Rep. Loren Jennings, DFL-Harris, and Sen. Mark Ourada, R-Buffalo, said they hope to hold hearings on the issue after the Legislature adjourns for the year so their plan can be voted on next year. The bill has already been introduced in the Senate and Jennings said he expects to follow soon with a House introduction. Both said that, with an energy shortfall projected for the state sometime between 2006 and 2010, the state can' t afford to put operation of the nuclear plants in jeopardy. Copyright 2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 5 Nevada battles federal government over nuclear waste dump tahoe.com] News CARSON Tuesday, May 15, 2001 By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer SAN FRANCISCO - As the Bush administration touts nuclear energy in the wake of California's energy crisis, the federal government and Nevada squared off in court Monday over where to store 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. Nevada opposes a proposed nuclear waste dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in a classic case of states' rights versus federal authority. At issue is what to do with contaminated waste from the nation's nuclear energy and weapons facilities that is now stored in 100 locations nationwide nearing capacity. The government has proposed transferring the waste to Yucca Mountain, which would become the nation's main dumpsite for spent nuclear fuel. On Monday, the Department of Justice urged a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order Nevada to give it a water permit. Without one, the site cannot be built or operated. Nevada has granted water rights to the federal government, but only for the purpose of studying whether the uninhabited desert location is suitable for a nuclear repository. Judge Milton J. Shadur summed up the dispute when he asked who had the authority - Nevada or Congress - to set national policy on where to store the country's radioactive waste. ''Isn't that really the question?'' he asked. The arguments came nearly a week after Vice President Dick Cheney said the Bush administration's turn to nuclear power as a long-term energy strategy requires a permanent nuclear waste dump. ''Now, with the gas prices rising as dramatically as they have, nuclear power looks like a pretty good alternative from an economic standpoint, if the permitting process is manageable and if we find a way to deal with the waste question,'' Cheney said. The vice president is developing energy policy recommendations for President Bush that include changes meant to speed federal permits to utilities seeking to build nuclear power plants. The industry has not sought a government permit to build a new plant in more than 20 years, since before the accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island spread fear about nuclear power. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the nation's electric capacity today. Congress, meanwhile, chose Yucca Mountain 14 years ago for a potential nuclear dumpsite under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and no other location has been proposed or studied. Government lawyer Jared Goldstein told the 9th Circuit panel that Nevada is ''interfering with a congressional mandate'' by refusing to issue a water permit. While the state has said it withheld a water permit because of potential safety threats to the public, Nevada lawyers told the judges Monday that the state denied the permit because Congress only has approved the location for study. Nevada cannot allocate water for a dumpsite until the government's studies are completed and Congress approves the area for a dump, argued Paul Taggart, a Nevada deputy attorney general. More important, he said, since Congress has not approved the dumpsite, the federal government has no legal authority to order Nevada to issue a water permit. He said the federal government might be able to make such a demand only after Congress approves the area as a dumpsite. Taggart said it was ''speculative'' that Nevada would still deny the water even after congressional approval. Judge Thomas Nelson said he believed Nevada would indeed deny a permit at that stage as well. ''Would you like to put any money on that?'' Nelson asked Taggart. ''I'm not a betting man,'' Taggart replied. Yet the water issue is just one of many disputes over the Yucca Mountain site. Robert R. Loux, director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the state would continue fighting the facility even if it loses the water dispute. ''Nevada doesn't want a repository,'' Loux said. ''Scientific information suggests that this is not a good location.'' The government is expected to conclude its environmental review of Yucca Mountain by year's end. The court did not indicate when it would rule. The case is United States v. Nevada, 00-17330. *Copyright tahoe.com. Materials contained within this site may ***************************************************************** 6 Prairie Island tribal council demands pact enforcement Published: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 *Agreement calls for restricting number of nuclear-waste casks* DENNIS LIEN STAFF WRITER The Prairie Island Indian Community on Monday demanded that the state of Minnesota and Xcel Energy honor a legislative agreement restricting the number of nuclear-waste casks at the Prairie Island nuclear power plant to 17. ``We will take the necessary steps, including litigation, to enforce the agreement,'' Audrey Kohnen, president of the Prairie Island Tribal Council, said in a statement. Companion Senate and House bills undoing that agreement are being introduced in the Minnesota Legislature, but no action is expected until next year. The chief sponsors, Sen. Mark Ourada, R-Buffalo, and Rep. Loren Jennings, DFL-Rush City, argue the ceiling should be lifted to help avoid an energy crisis similar to one being experienced in California. Their bill would allow additional casks to be stored at Prairie Island under the current reactor licenses, which expire in 2013 and 2014, and beyond at Prairie Island and Monticello, should those plants receive federal license renewals. The Monticello license expires in 2010. Xcel, which already has filled 12 above-ground storage casks at Prairie Island, expects to reach the limit of 17 in 2007. The bill also penalizes the federal government by establishing a state-run nuclear waste escrow account to receive money now being paid into a federal fund. That fund was set up to build a nuclear fuel-storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Xcel customers have paid $283 million into the fund as of last year. When the deal limiting the number of casks that could be stored at Prairie Island was reached by the 1994 Legislature, the tribe, because of its proximity to the plant, was given legal standing to enforce the agreement. Kohnen said it plans to do just that. ``We have a responsibility to our tribal members to protect their health and safety,'' she said. ``That means holding Xcel and lawmakers to the agreement they made with our community.'' Scott Northard, Xcel's director of nuclear asset management, said the utility is complying with the 1994 agreement and did not help initiate or draft the bill. But he said because the plant's continued operation is critical to the Upper Midwest's power supply, Xcel remains open to other solutions. ``We would expect any discussions of changes in state legislation would include the tribe,'' Northard said. In addition, he said Xcel continues to pursue an arrangement with a Utah Indian tribe to store spent fuel on its reservation. Northard said a Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision on that request could come as early as next year. Dennis Lien can be reached at or (651) 228-5588. © 2001 PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press / TwinCities.com- ***************************************************************** 7 Palo Verde reactor back in service Max Jarman The Arizona Republic May. 15, 2001 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is expected to return to full power this week after a prolonged outage of one of the plant's three generators. "It was synched to the grid Sunday night and we're ramping it up now," Arizona Public Service Co. spokesman Jim McDonald said Monday. That's good news for APS and Salt River Project. Both utilities are part owners of Palo Verde and rely on its power for up to one-third of their supply. It's also welcome news for Southern California Edison, which owns 16 percent of the plant, and has been struggling to find enough power to serve its customers during last week's blackouts in the Golden State. "It's always good when we get another source of low cost power," Edison spokesman Steve Hanson said. Palo Verde produces electricity for about 2 cents a kilowatt, compared with the 50 cents Edison and other utilities have had to pay on the spot market. The Palo Verde unit was operating at about 10 percent capacity Monday and expected to be at full power later this week. After refueling, nuclear generators are gradually brought up to full power, McDonald explained. The Palo Verde unit, which generates 1,300 megawatts of electricity, was shut down for refueling March 31. Its scheduled restart was delayed when a reactor rod was damaged during the refueling. The unit returns to service after a week of unseasonably hot weather produced a spike in demand for electricity in Arizona and rolling blackouts in California. It also comes back in time for a brief planned outage this weekend - when energy demand is lower - of another Palo Verde unit for turbine balancing. Copyright 2001, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Cheney: Push Needed to Boost Nuclear Power Tuesday May 15 12:40 PM ET By Randall Mikkelsen WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said on Tuesday the White House would seek to spur nuclear power production by seeking a renewal of legislation exempting nuclear companies from unlimited liability for accidents. In his most extensive comments to date on nuclear power, Cheney said in an interview with Reuters that concern over the safety of nuclear energy had abated in the United States since the 1979 Three Mile Island power-plant accident. He said President Bush (news - web sites)'s energy task force would recommend in its report to be released on Thursday the use of ``certain technologies'' to deal with the lingering issue of nuclear waste, which he said hindered investment in nuclear power. The report would not mention by name the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada, he said. ``We'd like to see an increase in the percentage of our electricity generated from nuclear power,'' Cheney, who is head of the task force, said in the interview. ``It is safe, the technology gets better all the time and it has the great advantage of not adding any to greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide emissions,'' he said. America's 103 nuclear plants now provide about 20 percent of U.S. electricity. The task force would recommend renewing the Price-Anderson Act, which exempts nuclear power companies from unlimited liability in the case of nuclear catastrophes, Cheney said. ``It needs to be renewed.'' If it is not, he said, ``Nobody's going to invest in nuclear power plants.'' NO SHORT-TERM GAS PRICE FIX Previewing other recommendations of the report aimed at outlining Bush's long-term energy strategy, Cheney said the panel would not address short-term ways to combat a summer rise in gasoline prices, which he said resulted from a lack of foresight during the administration of former President Bill Clinton. He said Bush would ask Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (news - web sites) to review of the possibility of raising fuel economy standards for vehicles to enhance conservation, based on a report expected in July from the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites). ``It may or may not prove that there's something that needs to be done,'' Cheney said. Bush would also ask Christine Todd Whitman (news - web sites), administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites), to evaluate within 90 days the ``new source review'' environmental regulations governing improvements on power plants and refineries, to see whether they unduly limit capacity increases. Reducing federal gas taxes, which Senate Republican leader Trent Lott has said could be considered in conjunction with Bush's energy program, could have adverse long-term consequences and a minimal short-term impact, Cheney said. Reducing the federal levy on gasoline sales could provide short-term relief for high gasoline prices, but could also have adverse consequences over the long term, including a reduction in federal highway money funded from the taxes, Cheney said. ``It might provide some short-term relief today but you could have long-term problems as a result of that,'' Cheney said. Furthermore, he said, there is no guarantee prices would not rebound higher in response to a tax cut. He also said trying to persuade OPEC (news - web sites) oil-producing nations to lower their crude oil prices would have a minimal impact on gasoline prices and would only discourage investment in energy development in non-OPEC nations where the costs of production are higher. ``The reason we've got (gasoline) price spikes today is obviously tied to supply and inadequate refinery capacity, and to some extend to the requirements we've imposed because we wanted clean air,'' he said. ``If somebody had three or four years ago addressed the question of having adequate supplies of gasoline at an affordable price we wouldn't have these problems today. Obviously nobody did address these issue three or four years ago, so we're having to do it now,'' he said. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Bill would allow longer life spans for nuclear plants May 15, 2001 Tom Meersman / Star Tribune Legislators introduced a bill Monday that would allow additional storage of radioactive waste for the next 20 to 30 years at Xcel Energy's two nuclear plants at Prairie Island in Red Wing and in Monticello. Sen. Mark Ourada, R-Buffalo, and Rep. Loren Jennings, DFL-Harris, the two chief sponsors of the bill, said Minnesota needs electricity from the two plants to avoid a shortage of power later this decade and beyond. Jennings said that Minnesota will need a mix of energy conservation, and the addition of renewable energy projects such as wind machines and one or two new large coal-fired plants to meet electric demands by the end of the decade. If the nuclear plants were to shut down, he said, the state would need even more new power sources. The bill was introduced so that it can be considered later this year and brought to the Legislature in 2002. Under a 1994 law, Xcel Energy is allowed to fill 17 outdoor casks with the highly radioactive fuel, allowing its Prairie Island plant to operate at full capacity until 2007. The legislation would allow additional casks so that the nuclear plant's two units could continue producing power until their federal licenses expire in 2013 and 2014, or longer if Xcel Energy receives federal permission to renew the licenses for an additional 20 years. The Prairie Island Tribal Council opposes the bill, and its president, Audrey Kohnen, issued a statement saying the tribe "will take the necessary steps, including litigation," to hold the state and Xcel to the terms of the 1994 law. The Ourada-Jennings bill also would allow the Monticello nuclear plant, located about 45 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, to store wastes in outdoor casks after 2010 if Xcel renews the plant's federal license at that time. Monticello is now storing all of its radioactive spent fuel indoors at the plant in a specially designed pool. *-- Tom Meersman is at meersman@startribune.com.* © Copyright 2001 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 US attraction to nuclear power BBC News | AMERICAS | Tuesday, 15 May, 2001, 09:11 GMT 10:11 UK California has suffered a series of rolling blackouts By Stephen Evans in Washington Nuclear power is undergoing a dramatic rehabilitation in the United States as the new Bush administration reviews the country's future energy demands. In the middle of the luxuriant forests and farmlands of Pennsylvania, there is an unlikely tourist attraction - a working nuclear power station. Three Mile Island, once a by-word for nuclear disaster, is now a designated official historic monument and a magnet for tourists. Three Mile Island: Scene of worst US nuclear accident In 1979, a controlled nuclear reaction here became an uncontrolled one, threatening meltdown and the contamination of a continent. A heroic effort contained the damage within the concrete, but the closeness of the call changed attitudes. From then, no new nuclear power station was built in the United States. Now, though, nuclear is coming back. Most American citizens take cheap energy for granted and the new Bush administration is trying to keep those demands satisfied. Three Mile Island is jointly owned by British Energy and by US company Exelon. Exelon's Ralph De Santa said the old assumption that existing nuclear power stations would close when their licenses expired has now gone. "You will see existing nuclear companies put in for license renewal, to extend the life of the existing plants," he said. "So that's very important, because just a couple of years ago the common thought was that these plants would be shut down. "Ultimately, they are looking at building new plants. So that's the future." Cheaper costs Apart from the politics, the economics have changed. Howard Greenspect, of the independent Resources for the Future think-tank in Washington, said costs had come down, certainly for running existing stations. These guys are looking backwards by 30, 40, 50 years Damon Moglan, Greenpeace "They are operating more efficiently; their utilisation rates are higher," said Mr Greenspect. "The plants are being gathered, instead of being operated individually. They're now being agglomerated and put in the hands of more experienced operators. "It's now more economically attractive to extend the lifetime of those facilities and seek an additional 20-year period." No nuclear power plant has been built in the US for 30 years All the same, new plants remain expensive to build. However, as burning coal and oil gets more politically and economically costly, nuclear power plants will become more attractive. And there is the problem of waste, which has to be buried for centuries. Damon Moglan, Greenpeace's nuclear expert in the US, said pinning hopes on nuclear power meant the Bush administration was dodging the real issue. "These guys are looking backwards by 30, 40, 50 years, instead of looking forwards," said Mr Moglan. "And it's quite clear that the real solution is going to be the development of alternative renewable, clean technology, wedded to energy efficiency and conservation. "Those are solutions." New confidence The forests around Three Mile Island bristle with monitoring equipment, continually testing the air: a testament to the fact that, when nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. All the same, the man charged with policing this expanding industry, Dr Richard Meserve, the head of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said lessons had now been learnt. "We have been preparing for the possibility of new construction by staffing, by trying to anticipate the problems that may arise, that may be presented to us, particularly if new technologies are something that licensees seek," said Dr Meserve. "Every indication we have is that there's great enthusiasm in the generating companies for maintaining their existing nuclear plants and possibly expanding them." The Bush administration reckons that 1,300 new power stations, conventional and nuclear, will be needed to keep pace with American demand over the next 20 years. The great political attraction of nuclear is that it seems to offer cheap power to a people suffering power cuts. Whatever the long-term issues, that argument will be immediately attractive in Washington. ***************************************************************** 11 Council tries again for nuclear documents theage.com.au, Breaking News Source: AAP|Published: Tuesday May 15, 8:59 AM A Sydney shire council will today challenge the Federal Government to release secret nuclear documents. Sutherland Shire Mayor Tracy Sonda says the Government is refusing to hand over many key papers about the location of a new nuclear reactor and that those it's given are censored to the point of uselessness. Today the council will go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in a second bid to access the documents under Freedom of Information laws. In March, the Federal Government released documents showing it had considered Lucas Heights, Holsworthy, Goulburn, Adelaide, Perth, Woomera, Broken Hill, Mt Isa, Darwin and mine sites for a new nuclear reactor site. However, Cr Sonda says most of the documents council requested access to have been refused and many of those released contain so many deletions they are rendered useless. Cr Sonda says Sutherland Council, which is home to the present reactor in Lucas Heights, has been requesting the documents since January 2000 and has spent more than $10,000 in the paper chase. The Federal Government has proposed a new reactor be built in Lucas Heights but this has incited protests from environmentalists and local residents. Copyright © 2001 The Age Company Ltd. Any unauthorised use, copying or ***************************************************************** 12 YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Court hears arguments over water [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Nevada fights to withhold permit for nuclear repository By DAVID KRAVETS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAN FRANCISCO -- While Nevada officials said Monday they won't budge on their refusal to grant the federal government water permits to build and operate a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, federal lawyers urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order the state to do so. Nevada Deputy Attorney General Paul Taggart told a three-judge panel that because Congress has not approved the proposed repository site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the federal government has no legal authority to order Nevada to issue water permits. He said the Department of Energy might be able to demand the permits only after Congress approves the site for disposal of 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste, most of which is spent fuel from commercial power reactors. Taggart said it would be "speculative" to say Nevada would deny the water even after congressional approval. "Would you like to put any money on that?" Judge Thomas Nelson asked Taggart. Nelson said he believed Nevada would indeed deny the permit applications for a total of 430 acre-feet of water from five wells in Nye County. "I'm not a betting man," Taggart replied. The case has the classic elements of a dispute over states' rights versus federal authority. Department of Justice lawyer Jared Goldstein told the 9th Circuit panel that Nevada's refusal to issue the permits is "interfering with a congressional mandate." Judge Milton J. Shadur said the case centers on who has authority -- Nevada or Congress -- to set national policy on where to store the nation's most lethal nuclear waste. "Isn't that really the question?" he asked. The court did not indicate when it would rule, but a Yucca Mountain Project spokesman said he hopes the panel will issue its decision "within the next couple of months. The case comes in the wake of an energy crisis in California and just as the Bush administration is pushing nuclear power as a way to cope with the nation's long-term energy woes. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of the nation's electric capacity today. Without the permits, the Department of Energy can't build or operate a repository to dispose of spent fuel piling up at reactor sites across the nation. The Energy Department holds a 10-year permit, which expires in March 2002 to pump about 95 acre-feet of water per year from a well near the site in order to study the mountain to see if it can safely contain the waste for at least 10,000 years. An acre-foot is the amount of water that would cover an acre to the depth of 1 foot -- about 326,000 gallons, or enough to meet the needs of a Las Vegas family of five for a year. This month, the Energy Department released four documents, including the Yucca Mountain Scientific and Engineering Report that Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham is expected to use as a road map to reach a decision this year on whether to recommend Yucca Mountain for development of a repository. Last year, State Engineer Michael Turnipseed rejected the Energy Department's request for water for Yucca Mountain because it would be used for operating a repository that involves handling of high-level nuclear waste. Use of water for that purpose is prohibited under Nevada law, because of its potential safety threats to the public. Turnipseed's rejection of the permit applications was followed by a federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas in March 2000. A few weeks later, the state moved to have the lawsuit dismissed. U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt did that in September, saying, "The issues here can and should be pursued in state court." Hunt ruled that the case arises out of state water law, "to which Congress has historically deferred." The judge said the issue should specifically be heard in Nye County. Taggart said Monday evening that the state is seeking to have Hunt's decision upheld. "The federal government shouldn't be getting special privileges because they feel they have a better opportunity in federal court," he said. Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency Director Bob Loux, who attended Monday's hearing, said the state would continue fighting the proposed repository even if it loses the water dispute. "Nevada doesn't want a repository," Loux said. "Scientific information suggests that this is not a good location." For the past decade, Nevada's elected officials have confronted every attempt in Congress to bring the waste to Nevada for storage before a decision is made on the mountain's suitability. The volcanic-rock ridge is the only site government scientists are studying to entomb the nation's high-level radioactive waste. If all hurdles that could disqualify the mountain are cleared, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants the Energy Department a license to build and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain, the first waste shipments would not arrive until 2010. Review-Journal staff writer Keith Rogers contributed to this report. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-15-Tue-2001/news/16098102.html ***************************************************************** 13 DPRK Condemns U.S. for Delaying Nuclear Reactors Construction May 15, 2001, updated at 19:46(GMT+8) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) condemned the United States for its delay in the construction of two light water reactors (LWR) that should be delivered to the DPRK by 2003, according to a newspaper editorial on Tuesday. Under a framework agreement reached on October 21, 1994, the United States is committed to building two light water reactors, each with a capacity of 1 million kilowatts, and delivering them to the DPRK by the year 2003. However, nearly seven years have passed since the adoption of the agreement, the LWR construction, its main provision, has made no progress due to the insincerity and obstruction of the United States, said the editorial published in the official newspaper Rodong Sinmun. It is none other than the United States that is mainly responsible for non-compliance with the DPRK-U.S. agreed framework, said the newspaper. The deliberate procrastination on the part of the United States over the LWR construction is aimed at hindering the DPRK's independent development of its nuclear power industry and weakening its economic and military potentials, thus stifling the DPRK by force, said the newspaper. The DPRK cannot but make a special mention of the urgent need to compensate for the loss of electricity caused by the U.S. intentional delaying tactics. It has every right to claim compensation from the United States and will exercise it to the last, it added. However, the newspaper stressed that there is no change in the DPRK's stand to sincerely implement the agreed framework. The newspaper also criticized Mohamed Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), for his remarks to shift the responsibility for the delayed construction of the two reactors onto the DPRK. It said the principles the IAEA should follow in its work are neutrality and impartiality and it described the remarks made by Baradei as "falsifying facts to favor the hostile policy of the Bush administration toward the DPRK" and as "shameless enough" to cripple the authority of the IAEA and people's faith in it. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved | ***************************************************************** 14 Nuclear convoy heads for France CNN.com - - May 15, 2001 [Germany nuclear shipments] Germany resumed nuclear shipments in March BERLIN, Germany -- A batch of nuclear waste has resumed its journey to France after being delayed by two protesters chained to the railway line. Police told the Associated Press that the two activists had chained themselves to a pipe beneath the track and were cut free after about an hour. Six demonstrators were detained during the overnight protest by environmental campaigners. A second shipment set off from a nearby plant in northern Germany without incident. The two trains linked up just south of the city of Hamburg for their journey to the reprocessing plant in La Hague, western France. Germany has no reprocessing works of its own and currently ships its spent fuel to France, where it is sent back to Germany after it has been treated. Shipping resumed in March after a three-year break imposed by the previous German government after radiation leaks were found in some containers. German anti-nuclear and environmental campaigners remain unconvinced about the safety of the shipments and are calling for an immediate ban. In March they staged demonstrations which caused 18-hour delays to a consignment of reprocessed waste, and they turned out with renewed force in April to hinder shipping to plants in France and Britain. The German Government has said that with a third of the country's electricity produced by atomic energy, nuclear power cannot be immediately shut off. Last year it reached an agreement with power companies to phase out the country's 19 nuclear plants -- though the process is likely to take more than 20 years. The protestors aim to make shipping so costly that the government and power companies will be forced to stop it. ***************************************************************** 15 Protests Mark Atomic Waste Shipment JS Online: Associated Press *Last Updated: May 15, 2001 at 1:52:56 p.m.* BERLIN - A train carrying nuclear waste from two north German power plants was on its way to a French reprocessing plant Tuesday after police cut free two protesters who had chained themselves to the track. Six activists were detained following the overnight protest near the power plant at Stade, police said. The two protesters, who had attached themselves to a pipe that ran under the tracks, delayed the transport by about 30 minutes. A second load of waste set off from a plant at nearby Brunsbuettel without incident, and the two trains were coupled together south of the city of Hamburg for the journey to the reprocessing plant at La Hague, in western France. Two groups of about 40 protesters each blocked the tracks and caused brief delays to the train near the town of Lueneburg as it headed south, and about a dozen people were taken into custody, police said. Police reported no major protests as the train traveled toward western Rhineland-Palatinate state, then crossed into France in the early evening. Germany sends spent nuclear fuel from its power plants to France for reprocessing under contracts that oblige it to take back the resultant waste. Nuclear waste shipments in Germany resumed in March after a three-year break imposed by the previous German government when radiation leaks were found in some containers. The government lifted the ban last year, citing improved safety standards. German anti-nuclear activists staged massive demonstrations in March to disrupt the first shipment, when German waste was returned from France. They delayed it by 18 hours. In April, activists turned out in force in an attempt to disrupt waste shipments to reprocessing plants in France and Britain. The government last year struck a deal to scrap the country's 19 nuclear plants, though the shutdown likely will take decades to complete. The protesters want Germany's plants shut down faster and say shipments are unsafe. They aim to make the transports so costly that the government and power companies will be forced to stop them. , Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. Produced by | ***************************************************************** 16 Nuclear power firm cuts 400 jobs BBC News | BUSINESS | 15 May, 2001, 15:27 GMT 16:27 UK Struggling nuclear power firm British Energy is to axe 400 jobs as part of a £150m cost-cutting drive. The firm, which owns eight nuclear power stations and one coal-fired plant, has opened talks with unions over the cuts, which are expected to be made mainly from support centres in East Kilbride, Scotland and Barnwood, Gloucestershire. British Energy will on Wednesday announce full-year results, which are expected to show a fall in pre-tax profits from £241m last year to little more than £8m. The firm, based in East Kilbride, is expected the blame the slide on low levels of nuclear output and a decline in wholesale electricity prices. In the City, British Energy shares closed 14p down at 310p on Monday. Radioactive duties The European Commission on Thursday protested a decision by the US impose duties on imports of low-enriched uranium from Europe and said it might take the case to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The US Commerce Department authorized the imposition of duties of almost 14% on imports from the French company Eurodif and nearly 4% from the British-German-Dutch consortium Urenco, after finding they had unfairly benefited from government subsidies. The Commission said it might complain to the WTO if talks with Washington aimed at reversing the decision fail. The US investigation followed a complaint by Maryland-based US Enrichment Corp (USEC). The Commerce Department's ruling will be followed by one concerning anti-dumping findings on July 5. ***************************************************************** 17 The Nuclear Brain Drain Continues May. 15, 2001. Page 12 By Valentin Tikhonov Since the collapse of the Soviet Union nearly a decade ago, the West has been rightly concerned about the fate of Russia's vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, materials and expertise. Specifically, the West worried that the disintegration of the Russian economy would make that nation's nuclear scientists and experts vulnerable to temptation by rogue states seeking the expertise and material necessary to develop their own nuclear weapons and missiles. To avert or manage this threat, Western programs were begun to provide financial support and alternative employment for the skilled experts and technicians needed to maintain Russia's nuclear industries and weapons. These efforts have been largely successful in engaging portions of Russian weapons experts, but the risk of brain drain remains. While few have actually fled their country or tried to profit by stealing fissionable material, fewer still are being attracted into the field. The net result poses a new danger for Russia: that there will soon be no one left with the requisite skills needed to maintain the safety and security of its nuclear materials. A new study shows this to be especially true among those living in what were once known as the "secret cities." In these isolated communities, the economic strain has been so severe that it's nearly impossible to attract new scientists and experts to fill the necessary positions. A recent survey of five Russian nuclear cities and three Russian missile enterprises makes the reasons clear enough. The results in the nuclear cities show that more than 62 percent of employees earn less than $50 per month; 89 percent of experts report a decline in living conditions since 1992. Life for those working at missile enterprises is equally glum: 67 percent report a slight or severe decline in economic conditions since 1992; 25 percent of those surveyed would like to emigrate to another country. It wasn't always this way. After World War II, the Soviet Union applied enormous effort to the development of its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, which was viewed at the time — and still today — as a key component of its political and military status. Tens, if not hundreds, of enterprises were built, making it possible for Moscow to achieve a rough nuclear parity with the United States by the early 1970s, although at the price of significant overtaxing of the nation's resources. During the 1940s and 1950s, the "closed" nuclear cities were developed far away from major cities and were almost totally isolated from the surrounding areas. It was possible to visit or relocate there only with specially issued passes, and the residents of the cities had to get official permission to leave these sites. These cities were not shown on maps, had no names, and were referred to by the names of the nearest administrative centers plus a postal code; for example: Chelyabinsk-45 or Krasnoyarsk-26. As a practical matter, however, they had nothing in common with these centers and often were located tens or even hundreds of kilometers from them. As compensation for their remote location, the populations of the closed cities enjoyed significant privileges and advantages. A much better selection of foods and consumer goods was available than around the country as a whole, and at reasonable prices. Workers received higher pay and generally received free housing. This higher standard of living made it possible for the nuclear and missile enterprises to attract highly qualified specialists, including the top graduates from the country's most prestigious universities. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union put an end to the relatively comfortable existence of those in the nuclear-missile complex. A sharp reduction in government funding substantially reduced the standard of living in the nuclear and missile cities. Despite Western assistance programs, nuclear experts regularly went months or longer without receiving any pay. Work orders declined, job satisfaction decreased and the relative benefits that city residents once enjoyed all but vanished without any real prospect for finding new jobs in their current locations. These circumstances create two potential security concerns. First, they give rise to fears that these highly trained and now disenfranchised workers might be tempted or even compelled to sell whatever is close at hand — or themselves — simply in order to make ends meet. Despite this potential danger, there has been only one known incident: In 1992 a large group of missile experts from the missile city of Miass tried to leave the country. At the last minute, they were removed from an airplane setting out for Pyongyang, North Korea, from Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport. The threat of the unauthorized use of nuclear materials attracted most of the attention during the '90s, and there were several recorded cases of theft, which led to a significant but arguably underfunded effort to improve the security of and accounting for nuclear materials throughout the former Soviet Union. The second significant security concern caused by the collapse of Russia's nuclear program is that the country's economic and strategic hard times are crippling its ability to maintain the human and technical capabilities necessary to keep up its modern nuclear arsenal and its nuclear power stations. Just as the United States is facing potential problems as its nuclear work force ages — and fewer top experts are interested in entering the field — Russia is already facing a notable degradation in the skills of its nuclear experts. Without the needed investment in facilities, education and living standards, Russia might face serious problems with the safety and reliability of its nuclear arsenal and nuclear power plants in the years ahead. And, of course, this has serious implications for Russia's perceived security and for international strategic stability generally. The risk that a brain drain could also lead to additional global proliferation sparked early attention from the United States and its international partners. In 1991 and 1992, Western countries moved to engage and employ the elite of the ex-Soviet nuclear, chemical, biological weapon and ballistic missile complex through the International Science and Technology Centers, which were described at the time as technical "dating services" between Western government grants and ex-Soviet experts. The expectation was that the Russian economy would, within a reasonable amount of time, develop to the point where it could provide alternative employment for these specialists. This expectation, however, has proved very wrong and almost a decade later the economy is still unable to provide the necessary conditions for job creation to adequately employ this vast network of experts. Although the science centers and a variety of other unilateral and multilateral projects have made important progress toward employing ex-Soviet experts, the situation in the cities remains a serious concern and a threat to international peace and security. Without concerted and prolonged assistance to these locations, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. For its own security, it is critical that the West understands the changes going on in the Russian military complex and develop effective responses to deal with the serious challenges posed by those developments. *Valentin Tikhonov is a Moscow-based sociologist and author of "Russia's Nuclear and Missile Complex: The Human Factor in Proliferation" for the Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He contributed this comment to the Global Beat Syndicate.* ***************************************************************** 18 Nuclear waste storage battle heats up RGJ.com - ASSOCIATED PRESS May 15th, 2001 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — As the Bush administration touts nuclear energy in the wake of California’s energy crisis, the federal government and Nevada squared off in court Monday over where to store 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. Nevada opposes a proposed nuclear waste dumpsite at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, in a classic case of states’ rights vs. federal authority. At issue is what to do with contaminated waste from the nation’s nuclear energy and weapons facilities that is now stored in 100 locations nationwide nearing capacity. The government has proposed transferring the waste to Yucca Mountain, which would become the nation’s main dumpsite for spent nuclear fuel. On Monday, the Department of Justice urged a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order Nevada to give it a water permit. Without one, the site cannot be built or operated. Nevada has granted water rights to the federal government, but only for the purpose of studying whether the uninhabited desert location is suitable for a nuclear repository. Judge Milton J. Shadur summed up the dispute when he asked who had the authority — Nevada or Congress — to set national policy on where to store the country’s radioactive waste. “Isn’t that really the question?” he asked. Congress chose Yucca Mountain 14 years ago for a potential nuclear dumpsite under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and no other location has been proposed or studied. Government lawyer Jared Goldstein told the 9th Circuit panel that Nevada is “interfering with a congressional mandate” by refusing to issue a water permit. While the state has said it withheld a water permit because of potential safety threats to the public, Nevada lawyers told the judges Monday that the state denied the permit because Congress only has approved the location for study. Nevada cannot allocate water for a dumpsite until the government’s studies are completed and Congress approves the area for a dump, argued Paul Taggart, a Nevada deputy attorney general. More important, he said, since Congress has not approved the dumpsite, the federal government has no legal authority to order Nevada to issue a water permit. He said the federal government might be able to make such a demand only after Congress approves the area as a dumpsite. Taggart said it was “speculative” that Nevada would still deny the water even after congressional approval. Judge Thomas Nelson said he believed Nevada would indeed deny a permit at that stage as well. “Would you like to put any money on that?” Nelson asked Taggart. “I’m not a betting man,” Taggart replied. The court did not indicate when it would rule. The case is United States v. Nevada, 00-17330. ©2001 Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 19 Democrats to Release Energy Plan Today: May 15, 2001 at 7:50:21 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) - Eager to draw a contrast with President Bush, House Democrats are unveiling an energy blueprint that calls for the government to hold down price increases for electric power while sparing environmentally sensitive areas from oil and gas exploration. The plan also includes proposed tax credits of up to $4,000 for the purchase of energy-efficient homes and cars and additional tax incentives for businesses to invest in energy-efficient technologies or vehicles. "Democrats believe in a balanced national energy policy that helps consumers by both increasing energy production and reducing energy demand," they said in an energy blueprint drafted for unveiling by House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., and other lawmakers. "The Bush administration is merely following the same tired old Republican playbook: cast blame, insist on extreme anti-environmental proposals, and provide American families with no real help now or very little in the future." Gephardt, Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, Rep. Robin Filner of California and others arranged to release the proposal at a service station a few blocks from the Capitol where gas lines formed during the energy crisis of the late 1970s. Democratic sources who spoke on condition of anonymity described the plan in advance. The Democrats drew up their proposal as a contrast to the policy which the president is expected to release on Thursday. Political leaders in both parties say rising energy costs are is becoming a more significant concern of average Americans, in part because of higher fuel prices and in part because of the potential for a return to rolling blackouts in California. Democrats intend to propose a blend of government intervention, tax breaks and additional federal funding to hold down prices and encourage energy efficiency in the short-term, and to increase domestic supplies in the future. Included is a call for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop producers from charging "unjust and unreasonable wholesale prices" in the West. FERC would be told to return to "cost-of-service-based rates" until March 2003, a system that allows government to limit wholesalers' profits. Democrats also want FERC to order refunds of any unjust charges that have occurred already and are pressing the Justice Department to "assure that illegal price-fixing does not occur." In addition, they say, "Democrats reject opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration until all other proven reserves and other federal lands already open to development have been exhausted." On gasoline prices, Democrats want Bush to signal willingness to tap the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the event of sharp price hikes. They accuse the president of "unilateral disarmament" by saying he won't do so. In addition, they will press him to call on OPEC and other oil-producing nations to increase production as a means of holding down prices. Longer term, Democrats want more money for existing programs for weatherization and low-income heating assistance. And while the plan suggests more incentives for production, it departs from Bush's emerging proposal on several key points. It makes no recommendation for additional nuclear power plants, which the administration is expected to stress later this week. Instead, Democrats intend to say that they "support continued research in advanced technologies for nuclear power as well as continued efforts to find safe and environmentally sound methods to reduce nuclear waste and provide for its safe disposal." Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, spoke dismissively of some of the Democratic proposals, even before they became public. Cheney, the administration's lead spokesman on energy, rejected calls for price limits and a federal investigation into allegations of price gouging by gasoline companies. "That's exactly the kind of misguided - I'm trying to think how to state this gracefully - politically motivated policies we've had in the past," he said. Bush and Cheney both have roots in the energy business in Texas, a fact that Democrats are likely to underscore as the debate unfolds in the weeks ahead. On the Net: Links to House members, committees, caucuses: http://www.house.gov/ All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 Energy Department Issues Yucca Mountain Reports EarthVision Environmental News* WASHINGTON, May 15, 2001 - The US Department of Energy (DOE) has released four documents related to its ongoing work and study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada as a possible site for a long-term nuclear waste and materials repository. The documents are: + The Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report that provides a summary of scientific and other technical information developed by DOE over the last 20 years in its study of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The department is accepting public comments on this material. + Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. The supplement provides the most recent information on the repository design evolution and the potential environmental impacts associated with this updated design information. The department announced that is it opening a 45-day comment period on the supplement to the draft EIS. The original draft EIS was issued in August of 1999 followed by 21 public hearings and a 199-day comment period. DOE will hold three public hearings on the supplement document in Nevada during the 45-day period. + The 2000 Total Systems Life-Cycle Cost Report of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Program - estimates the total amount of dollars required for project completion. + The 2000 Fee Adequacy Report Assessment - determines whether the fee charged to ratepayers is sufficient to cover the total life-cycle cost of the project and is intended to inform Congress as to the sufficiency of the fee. All the reports are accessible by the public. By issuing information on the Yucca Mountain site in stages, DOE said it hopes to provide all interested parties with ample time to thoroughly review the materials and develop comments on the possible recommendation of the site as a long-term repository. For more information on any of the documents listed, contact Gayle Fisher, Public Affairs Specialist, at 702-794-1322, or visit the Yucca Mountain Project website at http://www.ymp.gov. EarthVision Stories ***************************************************************** 21 Utah Opinion: Questionable Article The Salt Lake Tribune -- ** *Tuesday, May 15, 2001* In a recent article ("Tune In, and Learn to Love Nuclear Waste," May 6), The Tribune took a very straightforward story and tried to invent a controversy. The article was about public service announcements, co-sponsored by the Tooele County Chamber of Commerce and the Utah Broadcasters Association, airing on Utah radio stations. As three of the people who were quoted in the article, we are compelled to respond to the article's editorial innuendos and blatant inaccuracies. The article stated that the spots "promote a single business: Envirocare of Utah." This is not true. The spots meet the Broadcasters Association's criteria for Non-Commercial Service Announcements sponsored by a nonprofit organization. Also contrary to the article, the spots have nothing to do with low-level waste that is generated or disposed of here in Utah. The article missed the point that the radio spots are designed to provide "big picture" insights into the valuable uses of radiation, which create radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is a hot topic in Utah right now, with critics and environmental groups spreading misleading information about the industry and criticizing Tooele County. The Tooele County Chamber of Commerce sponsored these spots to express their independent perspective on this important public issue. One of the responsibilities of a chamber of commerce is to support its local industries. The 16-member chamber board voted to create the spots. The chamber worked directly with a local public relations agency to write and produce them. The agency worked with the Broadcasters Association to ensure the spots met their criteria. Most importantly, the spots are true. They feature real people telling real stories about how radioactive materials have touched -- and even saved -- their lives. Low-level waste has been safely disposed of in Tooele County for more than a decade, and the industry has been part of the county's economic development. These spots take a step back and educate Utahns about where low-level radioactive waste comes from and about our responsibility to dispose of it safely. JACK HOWARD Executive Director, Tooele County Chamber of Commerce TIM BARNEY Public Relations Director Envirocare of Utah Salt Lake City GAIL BROWN PR Managing Director Publicis Dialog Salt Lake City © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 22 Voluntary wasteland May 14, 2001 Voluntary wasteland Goshute Indians need money and jobs. So why won't Utah allow nuclear waste site? Jan Cienski i National Post Kent Horner, The Associated Press Leon Bear, chairman of the Goshute Indian band, is lobbying to have a nuclear waste storage facility built on his reserve. SKULL VALLEY GOSHUTE RESERVATION, Utah - The United States needs a place to store four decades of high-level nuclear waste and one of the smallest and poorest Indian bands in the country is volunteering. "It's going to change our lives," said Leon Bear, chairman of the 112-member Skull Valley Goshute Indian tribe, leaning against his green truck as he explained the rationale for putting the US$3-billion storage facility on Goshute land. About 20% of the country's electricity comes from nuclear reactors and many of those facilities are slowly choking on the waste they produce. The long-term plan is to stick the radioactive spent fuel rods in a secure storage facility where they can decompose for the millennia they need before becoming safe again. But no one wants such a site in their state. The government hopes to build a final storage site in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, but talks have been dragging for decades. In the meantime, as many as 75 nuclear power plants may be forced to close because they have nowhere to store their waste. That cannot happen in a country suffering from an energy shortage, where California has been roiled by blackouts and brownouts, and where the new administration of George W. Bush is promoting nuclear power as a safe, clean generating option. With Yucca Mountain still unbuilt, eight reactor-owning utilities have banded together to create a consortium called Private Fuel Storage that is offering up to US$300-million to anyone willing to accept a temporary nuclear waste dump. That kind of money caught Mr. Bear's attention -- and it isn't difficult to see why. The arrow-straight road that slices the Skull Valley passes the only business in the reservation, a Pony Express Convenience Store with two gas pumps outside, sparsely stocked shelves inside and an Indian woman at the cash register waiting for the rare customer. A rocket testing facility that used to supply 90% of the reservation's income recently closed. The few Goshutes who still live in Skull Valley face a litany of drug and alcohol abuse problems. The health clinic is 400 kilometres away. Their culture is dying and few Indians speak the Goshute language, an offshoot of Shoshone. "[The waste dump] is the best alternative for us," Mr. Bear said, pointing out the tribe will have a chance at 43 permanent jobs as well as millions in payments from Private Fuel Storage. To the untrained eye the valley looks pristine: Dusty grass and scrub on the valley floor edged by a line of snow-capped peaks on the east and a ridge of low brown hills to the west. But the locals know better. His sunglasses glinting in the morning light, Mr. Bear gave a quick tour of the local attractions. His finger jabbed south. Fifteen kilometres away lies the Dugway Proving Ground, home to 40% of the U.S. military's chemical and nerve gas stores. In 1968 an Air Force jet spraying nerve gas had one of its nozzles jam open as it flew over a flock of sheep. They all died. Southeast, across the mountains, is the Toole Chemical Weapons Incinerator, where nerve gases and blister agents are burned to conform to a treaty signed with the Soviet Union. North, up the valley, is MagCorp, a huge magnesium plant responsible for about 85% of the country's chlorine emissions and 90% of Utah's air pollution. West, across the hills, is Envirocare, a low-radioactivity nuclear waste dump, and other toxic and medical waste sites as well as a medical waste incinerator. Northeast, toward Salt Lake City, is Kennecott Copper, one of the largest open pit copper mines in the country. "The way I see it, they shouldn't be surprised," Mr. Bear said, explaining that his people -- then 20,000 strong -- had been pushed here by Mormon settlers a century ago from more fertile lands and left with no resources and no future. "They put in all those waste facilities without asking us. But when we try to build something here, they're all up in arms about it." Mr. Bear gives short shrift to environmentalists aghast that Indians, who are stereotypically viewed as nature's protectors, should be lobbying for a nuclear waste dump. "These people don't pay our bills," he said scornfully. "They may be against it, but what are they doing to help us? When did the Sierra Club ever offer to come up and help the tribe?" About five kilometres away, a small dust plume rises in the air, kicked up by a truck from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission studying the proposed nuclear waste site. If the NRC gives its approval, expected next year, Private Fuel Storage plans to build 4,000 steel casks filled with 40,000 tonnes of highly radioactive fuel rods shipped in from around the country. The six-metre-high casks would stand like a gleaming forest on a concrete pad for up to 40 years before being shipped to their final resting place at the yet-to-be-built permanent storage facility. A scientific study by Private Fuel Storage and the Goshutes claims there is no danger in transporting the waste to Utah and no danger of an accident at the storage site. But the state of Utah, still spooked by memories of above-ground nuclear explosions conducted by the military in the 1950s, disagrees. The state legislature has passed a law that would make it impossible for Private Fuel Storage to do business in Utah. The consortium would have to put up US$150-billion as insurance against accidents. The new legislation also imposes a 75% tax on any business transaction conducted with groups trying to place nuclear fuel in the state. It imposes legal penalties on things like holding news conferences, hiring lawyers and public relations companies and renting hotel meeting space. The Goshutes and Private Fuel Storage filed suit in federal court last month arguing the law violates the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from interfering in interstate commerce, and tramples on the Goshutes' tribal sovereignty. Unbowed, the state is helping a group of Goshute traditionalists who oppose Mr. Bear. They filed suit against him last week, alleging he embezzled some of the up-front money paid by PFS, cheated to win election as tribal chairman, and is ramming through the nuclear waste project despite strong tribal objections. "Leon Bear is not serving his people," charged Duncan Steadman, the traditionalists' lawyer. "Leon Bear has been acting in this whole situation on his own. He's just out to feather his own nest." Mr. Bear remains optimistic he will prevail. But if the nuclear waste project falls through, he says he has other ideas. A bingo parlour perhaps? "We're a patient people," he said. "'We'll find something else." Copyright © 2001 National Post Online | Privacy Policy | ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Hanford contractor declares bankruptcy This story was published 5/15/2001 By Mary Hopkinand John Stang Herald staff writers Washington Group International -- a major player at Hanford's waste glassification project and the Umatilla Chemical Depot -- filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday to try regain its financial footing. The Chapter 11 reorganization is not expected to affect Hanford's glassification project nor the construction of Umatilla's nerve gas incinerator, said corporate and federal officials. Boise-based Washington Group announced Monday that it had filed the petition to restructure itself in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Reno, Nev. The corporation is one of the nation's largest construction firms with 17,821 employees in 97 subsidiaries plus 68 limited and joint ventures, according to its bankruptcy filing. It began in 1964 as a three-person highway construction company in Missoula, Mont. Employee salaries and benefits at both Mid-Columbia projects will be protected under the reorganization, said Washington Group spokesman Jack Herman. Washington Group is the chief Hanford subcontractor for Bechtel National, which is in charge of designing, building and testing Hanford's top-priority glassification project through 2011. The facility is supposed to convert at least 10 percent of the site's 53 million gallons of radioactive tank wastes into glass by 2018. The bankruptcy proceedings will not affect ongoing hiring at the glassification project nor the pace of its construction, said Bechtel spokesman John Britton. The project currently employs 950 people with 110 working for Washington Group. It is supposed to employ about 4,400 people -- mostly short-term construction workers under Bechtel -- by 2004. Washington Group's role in the project is to provide technical expertise from glassification projects at Savannah River, S.C., and West Valley, N.Y. Washington Group absorbed those projects in 1999 when it bought them from Westinghouse Electric Co. Washington Group's problems should not affect its role under Bechtel, nor Bechtel's contract with the Department of Energy, said Britton, Herman and DOE spokesman Erik Olds. Washington Group also is in charge of building and operating an incinerator to destroy 7.4 million pounds of deadly nerve and mustard gas agents at the Army's chemical depot in Umatilla. The company took over the project when it bought Raytheon Engineers & Constructors from Raytheon Co. in July 2000. In Umatilla, Washington Group employs about 500 workers. Incineration is supposed to begin in 2002, and the bankruptcy filing won't affect that deadline, said Chris Early, a Washington Group spokesman in Umatilla. "We have no reason to believe that the project won't continue and be completed," said Army spokeswoman Mary Binder. In its bankruptcy filings, Washington Group blamed Raytheon for its financial woes. On March 8, Washington Group filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Idaho, alleging Raytheon committed fraud when it sold Raytheon Engineers & Constructors' about 200 projects to Washington Group. Washington Group paid $53 million to Raytheon and assumed about $450 million in liabilities. Washington Group claims Raytheon did not disclose all of its liabilities on the projects it sold. That led to huge cash-flow problems for Washington Group, the company's court filings said. Herman said Raytheon's Umatilla project did not contribute to those troubles. Raytheon claims it was frank with Washington Group about its finances, that Washington Group fumbled in obtaining all pertinent information and that Washington Group tried to absorb more than it could handle with the purchase. The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking into the transaction. Herman said most of Washington Group's managers and corporate structure will remain in place. The changes will be in Washington Group's power-production businesses, with two New England gas-fired power plant projects potentially facing shutdown. Under the proposed reorganization, Washington Group's creditors effectively will become the corporation's stockholders. The reorganization could take about four months, Herman said. The reorganization will set aside $20 million to pursue the litigation against Raytheon. On Monday, the New York Stock Exchange removed Washington Group's stock from its listing. In the mid-1990s, then Washington Construction Co. began an expansion that included a push into federal radioactive waste cleanup. The company merged with bankrupt Boise-based Morrison Knudsen Co. in 1996, keeping the Morrison Knudsen name. In 1999, Morrison Knudsen bought the Westinghouse segment that handled DOE contracts at West Valley, Savannah River and the underground national radioactive waste storage site at Carlsbad, N.M. In July 2000, Morrison Knudsen bought and merged with the Raytheon subsidiary, Raytheon Engineers & Constructors -- becoming Washington Group International. Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 2 FFTF foes assail DOE decisions This story was published 5/15/2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is violating the Tri-Party Agreement by not filing a cleanup plan for Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility, says a coalition of groups that opposes restarting the Hanford reactor. They're also critical of DOE's proposal to have the manager of its Brookhaven, N.Y., office head the review of whether the reactor should be restarted, overturning a January decision by the Clinton administration. "The only fair review of the decision to shut down the FFTF reactor would be the secretary himself (Spencer Abraham) attending hearings in our region and hearing firsthand why (we oppose) adding more nuclear wastes to Hanford's problems," said Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group. The Washington State Department of Ecology says it is not clear whether DOE is out of compliance with the Tri-Party Agreement, but it may be. The Clinton administration in its final days ordered the Hanford reactor permanently shut down. That triggered a 90-day deadline for DOE to submit a proposal for dismantling the system, including removing and disposing of liquid sodium in its cooling system and treating waste. However, in April, Abraham suspended the former administration's decision to permanently close the reactor. DOE notified the Department of Ecology then that it would not be filing a schedule for shutdown of FFTF under the Tri-Party Agreement because the shutdown decision had been suspended. The agreement is a legal pact among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state that governs Hanford's cleanup. DOE has agreed to spend three months looking at possible uses for the reactor and whether DOE can find private or other partnerships to decrease its costs. Although the Department of Ecology is not sure if DOE is in compliance with the cleanup agreement, it's focusing its energies on bigger worries, such as budget cuts that could slow getting tank wastes cleaned up and vitrified, said Sheryl Hutchinson, department communication director. "We're concerned the budget cuts are putting this in jeopardy for the umpteenth time," she said. Gov. Gary Locke has said he would support a restart if a viable research use for the reactor is identified. The Department of Ecology will follow his lead and wait for the Bush administration's decision on the reactor's fate, Hutchinson said. Michael Holland, DOE's Brookhaven manager, was named last week to lead the review of the decision to shut down the reactor. Holland is expected to visit FFTF this week and meet with workers there. "There is no credibility in having a reviewer who meets only with one side, never attended the public hearings and cannot criticize the cost claims made by a sister nuclear facility run by his own department," said Tom Carpenter, director of the Government Accountability Project. The reactor costs $40 million a year to keep in standby condition. Once the sodium is drained from its cooling system, it cannot be restarted. Opponents want DOE to stop all nuclear production -- and the resulting production of nuclear waste -- at Hanford. Supporters of the restart say it could be used to make isotopes to treat cancer in new ways, to make isotopes to power deep-space missions and to do research and testing for the next generation of nuclear power plants. Opponents plan a news conference at noon today at the Federal Building in Richland, at which a letter to Abraham will be read. They include Heart of America Northwest, Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, Government Accountability Project, Hanford Action, Columbia Riverkeeper and Washington Peace Action. Back to top stories Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 3 Hanford Environmental Cleanup Drivers Hit Five Million Mile Mark EarthVision Environmental News* RICHLAND, WA, May 14, 2001 - Earlier this month, drivers for Hanford's Environmental Restoration Project drove the five-millionth mile without an at-fault accident. The drivers transport waste from remediation projects in numerous locations throughout the 560-square-mile Hanford Site, which is undergoing the world's largest environmental remediation work. "The constant focus on safety by the drivers and mechanics, and excellent teamwork between Bechtel Hanford drivers, Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council and RCI Environmental, our subcontractor, has made this accomplishment possible," said Mike Hughes, Bechtel Hanford Inc. President. "The drivers are some of the very best in the trade. They take the time to look out for their own safety, in addition to the well being of others on the road. They take a lot of pride in what they do." Bechtel Hanford manages the ER Project for the US Department of Energy. The safety mark dates back to 1996 when the first load of waste was delivered from Hanford's 100-B Area to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in the center of the Site. Since that time, the drivers have made 152,000 trips in trucks that weigh about 80,000 pounds fully loaded. Five million miles is equivalent to about 200 trips around the earth or 10.5 round trips to the moon. The Hanford site, located in Southeastern Washington State, was established during World War II as part of the top secret Manhattan Project to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Weapons material production was halted in the late 1980s and the Site is now engaged in the world's largest cleanup effort to deal with the legacy of radioactive and hazardous wastes that resulted from the plutonium production era. The US Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology regulate Hanford's cleanup program under a long-term compliance contract called the Tri-Party Agreement. This agreement sets the framework and timelines on the cleanup work so that Hanford meets environmental standards. Hanford cleanup is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River Corridor for other uses, transitioning the Central Plateau to long term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future. EarthVision Stories ***************************************************************** 4 National Lab, UK Begin Collaboration on Nuclear Facility Cleanup EarthVision Environmental News* IDAHO FALLS, ID, May 14, 2001 - Officials from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) recently visited the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to share technology and develop collaborative efforts related to remediating and decommissioning nuclear facilities. Under an agreement that runs to 2005, INEEL and UKAEA will exchange general, scientific and technical information of common interest, visit one another's sites, and conduct joint research and development studies and projects. The option also exists for exchanging staff. "The value to the United Kingdom of this new agreement cannot be underestimated or ignored," said John McKeown, Chief Executive of UKAEA. "UKAEA is committed to the safe decommissioning of all of its sites. Through collaboration we are able to ensure that we are following best practice in our decommissioning program, and delivering value for money to the British taxpayer." Through a separate "work for others" contract with a value of up to $1 million, the UKAEA also commissioned the INEEL to perform a variety of technical assistance projects. Tasks already completed or in progress include work identifying mixed waste treatment processes and facilities; reviewing UKAEA environmental technologies and vendor evaluations; preparing reports on characterizing, sorting, segmenting, and conditioning remote-handled transuranic waste; and reporting on radioactive waste management strategies. Though environmental laws in each country are different, the INEEL - whose wastes are primarily attributed to its role in handling Cold War materials - and the UKAEA have similar cleanup responsibilities. The INEEL and the Dounreay site in Northern Scotland share some of the same history, as both sites became leading nuclear reactor design, testing and research stations in the 1940s. The cleanup activities at both sites involve spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste treatment, storage, and disposal; facility decommissioning; environmental remediation, and long-term environmental stewardship. Once the center for fast reactor research, the Dounreay site is now engaged in a major decommissioning and site remediation effort that is expected to cost $12 billion over the next 50 to 60 years. EarthVision Stories ***************************************************************** 5 DOE reports security 'adjustments' Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 1:07 p.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Only minor adjustments appear to have been made regarding a plan announced earlier this year by the Department of Energy to reduce security personnel at two Oak Ridge facilities. At the time they were announced, the security cuts were said to be due to a budget shortfall and would have impacted Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Federal Building. DOE spokesman Steven Wyatt said discussions continue regarding any security changes to be made in conjunction with the "revitalization" efforts at ORNL. This effort includes making ORNL more of an open, campus-like environment. "The revitalization effort could require adjustments in how security services are accomplished at ORNL," Wyatt said. "It is anticipated that discussions will continue this summer. Some implementation of these changes could occur this fall." As for the Federal Building, Wyatt said security "adjustments" were made at this facility in late February. "Adjustments in activities and schedules provided for the redeployment of five security patrol officers to other Oak Ridge Reservation facilities that needed additional personnel," Wyatt said. "The anticipated savings from these actions is $325,000 in reoccurring costs." DOE awarded Wackenhut Services Inc. a $75 million, three-year contract in September 1999 to provide security at its Oak Ridge facilities. The security contract was expected to save DOE money. But DOE announced in May 2000 that the deal ended up costing the government $10 million more than expected during the first six months. The increased costs were attributed to a variety of factors including the cost of Wackenhut's transition into the role as security provider. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 6 DOE site celebrates fast work - By Joe Walker The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, May 15, 2001 DOE site celebrates fast work *The workers' president presents a trophy for their stand-alone achievement.* By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--*270.575.8650* JOE WALKER/The Sun--Milestone: William 'Nick' Timbers (left), USEC president and CEO, presents a trophy to plant General Manager Howard Pulley for the extensive work it took for the facility to achieve stand-alone status. The 1,500 employees of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, soon to be the nation's only uranium enrichment facility, should be happy at achieving a huge milestone that helped preserve their jobs just in time for a resurging nuclear power industry led by the Bush administration. That was the message of William "Nick" Timbers, president and chief executive officer of USEC Inc., who visited the plant Monday to celebrate workers' achieving stand-alone status. It took them 18 months to upgrade the plant to produce reactor-grade uranium hexafluoride, or UF6, a project the company first thought would take three years, he said. As a result, the plant now is poised to become the nation's only UF6 enricher once USEC closes its sister facility in Piketon, Ohio, next month. "To do a project that you guys did in 18 months ... was really quite amazing," Timbers told employees gathered Monday in the plant theater. "If there's an example in American industry of teamwork, this is the project." Timbers presented what he called a "Stanley Cup" trophy to General Manager Howard Pulley on behalf of the employees. After chatting with workers in various areas of the plant, he went to Madison Hall downtown for a community reception in honor of the accomplishment. "As I've said in many different quarters, this company has put its flag in Paducah," Timbers said. "Paducah is our town. This is our plant." Timbers said the upgrade is among several developments that give cause for optimism. By next year, USEC expects to have a new contract lowering the price it pays for Russian uranium, which will make the company more competitive, he said. And a recent preliminary Commerce Department ruling in a USEC trade case suggests that two foreign competitors have been unfairly subsidized by their governments and must pay duties on uranium imported into the American market, which accounts for 60 percent of USEC revenue. "All these things have helped the company," Timbers said. "It's been also a robust market in terms of nuclear power. How many of us would have guessed five to seven years ago that we would be talking about the construction of new nuclear power plants? And with new nuclear power plants goes enriched uranium." Timbers said almost every existing nuclear power plant is extending its license, and some are planning work until 2038, which should give the Paducah plant some security. Add to that the Bush administration's policy of increasing energy capacity, including nuclear power, and that is an environment increasingly more conducive for the workers here, he said. The new emphasis on nuclear power apparently is a reason why USEC stock has rebounded after a two-year plummet from $14.25 a share, when the company was privatized, to $3.50 a share. In recent months, the stock has steadily risen and closed Monday at more than $9.50. "It appears that the value of the stock reflects that positive environment," Timbers said in an interview. Agreeing with President Bush that the nation has a critical shortage of energy capacity, he said no nuclear power plant has been built in the nation in three decades since the Three Mile Island accident. Timbers said that in speeches during the past several years, "I felt like the little boy crying wolf" in stressing the need for more nuclear power. The changes made by the Paducah workers, combined with difficult cost-cutting measures taken by USEC during the last few years, means there are no foreseeable changes in the work force here, Timbers said. Upgrading the plant took thousands of work hours to change systems, procedures and training to produce reactor-grade UF6. That allows the plant to ship directly to nuclear power plants, rather than having to send the UF6 to the Ohio plant for more enrichment. Because reactor-grade material is more radioactive, the plant had to convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the work would be safe. That approval came in March, after which the plant ran for about six weeks at higher assay with no problems, said Production Manager Mike Buckner. "I do think the majority of the work force had some eloquent contribution to this," he said. "It really touched almost everyone. It's been obvious from the activity level of the plant that it had total employee support." The plant has begun its annual rampdown to idle status during summer months when electricity costs are highest. A new Tennessee Valley Authority contract allows the plant to run at 125 megawatts higher than in past summers, which means less equipment shutdown, Buckner said. The facility will resume normal production in late August at better power prices under the new contract. ***************************************************************** 7 Former nuclear weapons plant limits security *Web posted Tuesday, May 15, 2001 By Beth Wohlberg ROCKY FLATS, Colo. - Cleanup workers walk freely past a boarded-up security checkpoint in Building 707 where they once waited in line for about 30 minutes at a time. Dozens of white 50-gallon drums line the hallways, ready for waste to be placed inside their walls. Ceiling-high doors inside long, narrow vaults open only to reveal stacks of empty shelves. Limp, white gloves hang like cows' udders off the sides of the metal glove boxes where government workers made plutonium parts for bombs. And crews dressed in protective clothing walk among the idle equipment with scanners for detecting radioactive contamination. Once a highly secured part of the former nuclear weapons plant, Building 707 has lost a certain kind of fervor. Last month, the workers in 707 moved what they call the ``good stuff'' - weapons-grade plutonium and uranium - to Building 371, known best as the strongest building in Colorado. The move has left Building 707 in a purely cleanup phase. As manager Vic Pizzuto said, now that all the valuable material is gone, ``waste handling is the name of the game here.'' Site officials say that by moving all of the high-grade nuclear material to Building 371 - 707 was the last structure to complete the transfer - they have passed another milepost on the road to cleanup. But the move is not purely symbolic or just a boon to workers in 707. With Building 371 housing all of the bomb-making materials the government wants guarded, the thousands of feet of fence and barbed wire that surround the current protected area can come down. Instead of securing 180 acres with intensive security systems, hand scans and metal detectors, site managers will shrink the protected area to 30 acres. ``Every time we take down a building or remove a barrier, it lets people know we are, no kidding, making progress,'' said Hank Dalton of the Department of Energy. ``Slowly but surely we've consolidated into manageable areas where the security is good enough. Now, two entrances can be opened up. We don't have to devote resources to escorts, maintenance of metal detectors, and it eliminates the need to have every vehicle searched in that area.'' Kaiser-Hill Co. has contracted with the energy department to clean up and close down Rocky Flats by the end of 2006. The plan is ambitious - leave the site looking like the rolling prairie that covered the area south of Boulder before construction started in 1951. Rocky Flats opened 50 years ago as one of the nation's main nuclear weapons-producing facilities. Workers there made triggers for use in the weapons, and they recovered plutonium from old weapons. In 1988, the FBI raided the plant for alleged environmental violations, and the eventual result was a permanent shut down of the bomb factory. Since the mid-1990s, Rocky Flats has been on the road to closure. Site managers are particularly anxious to shrink the protected area, a major milestone on their cleanup list. When that happens, workers in any of the seven other buildings in the protected area, except 371, won't have to wait in line while their colleagues pass through the metal detectors, metal-caged revolving doors and hand scan areas. They won't have to wait, caught either in the protected area or on the outside, when an alarm malfunctions and officials ``lock down'' the area to prevent movement in or out. ``When you eliminate those kinds of things, you can keep about the business of deconstructing the buildings,'' Dalton said. The contractor also will save money that can be used for other cleanup projects - an estimated $10 million to $20 million each year. ``Most of the cost savings is in operations and work productivity,'' said Bill Sanders of Kaiser-Hill's security division. Shrinking the protected area hasn't occurred yet, as site officials work to ensure the new alarm systems and other security measures are working properly. Kaiser-Hill still needs approval from Department of Energy, but the change is expected by the end of the month or in early June. All contents 1996 - 2001 *The Augusta Chronicle*. All rights ***************************************************************** 8 Veterans Tell of Brit Nuclear Tests *Updated 3:08 AM ET May 15, 2001* *By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writer* WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - Two veterans of British nuclear tests in the 1950s said Tuesday that they were ordered to walk and crawl through an Australian desert shortly after authorities set off a nuclear bomb there. Flight Lt. Roger Peart, 78, and Brig. John Burns, 84, were among seven New Zealanders who took part in blast aftermath tests at Maralinga in South Australia in 1956 and 1957 to experience the effects of nuclear fallout. "We were marching and crawling and there was a truck passing every so often that would shower us with a bit of dust and dirt to make sure we got some of the fallout," said Burns, who was among a group of officers who walked through the test area in white rubberized suits. The New Zealand and Australian governments have called for full details of the experiments following claims the British used servicemen as guinea pigs to help monitor the effects of nuclear fallout on combat troops. New Zealand Defense Minister Mark Burton has ordered officials to provide him with a full briefing after Australian documents released last week showed New Zealand, Australian and British officers entered the "ground zero" areas of British atomic bomb blasts. Burns said they got as close as about half a mile from ground zero. Both men said they had suffered no ill-effects from the tests. While Peart and Burns wore protective clothing, they said other servicemen exposed to fallout wore only shorts and short-sleeved shirts. The officers took showers after their walk and were monitored for radiation levels. Burns said his radiation reading was very low. Burton said Tuesday he wanted to establish "how well informed consent may have been" for Peart and Burns. Peart, who wore overalls and rubber boots in the contaminated area, said the men were not told about the purpose of the trial and the health risks until after they arrived at the site. "I don't suppose it mattered how we felt. We were all serving officers. We just had to do it. We were relatively young and this was brand new and it was interesting to see one of these things," he said. He said he had studied physics at a university and was aware of the effects of radiation, and that he trusted that those in charge of the trial dealt honestly with the servicemen. "I don't think they intended to kill us," he said. Burns said he had no qualms about going to Australia to observe the tests, but that he now plans to seek compensation. "We were in the army, we were told to go, so we went," he said. AP International News ***************************************************************** 9 Further Information On NZ Involvement In Maralinga Atomic Tests Press Release by New Zealand Government at 5:21pm, 15th May 2001 The Minister of Veterans' Affairs Mark Burton this afternoon updated Parliament on the information that has been collated to date regarding New Zealand involvement in the British Atomic Test programme in Australia in the 1950s. "This information-gathering process is ongoing," Mark Burton said, "and has involved searches of New Zealand archives, direct liaison with British and American officials, and with the University of Dundee researcher Sue Rabbitt-Roff. "We have established that 5 New Zealand officers were sent to Maralinga in September 1956 to observe British atomic tests, and we have confirmed their identities. "The involvement of the New Zealanders was never a secret — indeed, it was extensively covered by the newspapers of the time. "We have established that New Zealand participation was initiated by Defence officials when they learnt that there would be observers at upcoming British atomic tests in Australia. "New Zealand asked to send up to 20 observers and was offered 5 places. "It appears that there was little detail about what the observers would actually do at the test site. We do know that at least 2 of the 5 New Zealanders participated in "clothing trials". "We've also established that 2 New Zealand personnel attended atomic tests at Maralinga the following year. They too have been identified. "Work continues to establish a full account of the facts," Mark Burton said. "As a first priority, the Office of Veterans' Affairs will be following up the individual veterans or their families, to establish their circumstances, and to ensure that any appropriate support is available. "It may also be that the men themselves are able to provide useful information. "A key outstanding question is the nature of specific activities after the explosions, involving the use of protective clothing, and the degree of informed consent. "The archival material suggests that personnel were briefed on their tasks and the nature of the hazards to which they might be exposed, and that radiation monitoring was carried out. "New Zealand authorities were informed at the time that the five New Zealand personnel had all been monitored and that very low levels of radiation exposure were recorded. "In 1985, a Royal Commission Into British Nuclear Tests in Australia was held, which reviewed the Maralinga testing programme. I have asked officials to check the findings of that Royal Commission. "We will also have ongoing contact with British and Australian authorities, " Mark Burton said. wapnews.co.nz ***************************************************************** 10 Asia Times: Fallout from nuclear amnesia Alan Boyd, is that fair treatment be extended to all the participants and innocent bystanders of the tests."> May 16, 2001 atimes.com PACIFIC BEAT SYDNEY - If a week is a long time in politics, then a lapse of 50 years truly tests the boundaries of government accountability. Never ones for magnanimous gestures over the botched affairs of state, politicians tend to hide behind security notices or collective amnesia when the blame is being apportioned. So perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised that it has taken this long for the authorities in Britain and Australia to come clean on one of the more incredible chapters of the early Cold War nuclear frenzy. Britain has admitted for the first time that troops were used as human guinea pigs for a testing program in Australia in the 1950s that helped it join the United States and the Soviet Union in the nuclear club. The admission came begrudgingly, and only after it had been independently confirmed in released Australian military records that servicemen were deliberately exposed to nuclear fallout to test their levels of tolerance to illness. Stricken with a range of cancers and deformities, some of the soldiers have been fighting for decades to have their plight accorded official recognition, which might open the door to compensation. Why such obduracy over events that occurred a lifetime ago and have long since lost any of the relevance that they might once have had to global security? Probably because Western governments are loathe to stir an even bigger can of worms over the considerable liberties that they took on the nuclear issue between the 1950s and 1990s, when Pacific states were frontline laboratories for superpower experimentation. From Bikini to Maralinga and Christmas Island to Murarora, scarred landcapes bear mute testimony to the practice of commandeering territory for military objectives, often without the acquiescence of indigenous populations. Maralinga, an area of 3,200 square kilometers in South Australia's desert Nullabor region, was occupied by the Maralinga Tjarutja Aboriginal tribe when it was leased to Britain in 1952 as an extension of a rocket development program at the nearby Woomera space center. By 1963, nine major nuclear atmospheric explosions had taken place within the site, including two US tests that were conducted under a sub-leasing arrangement. Three other British tests were held in Western Australia. According to the files released by Canberra, the Aborigines were kept well away, along with the security detachment of 20,000 British soldiers and 15,000 Australians. However, one mixed unit of 24 soldiers, thought to have also included several New Zealanders, was told to walk through the test zone three days after a detonation for what was termed "clothing tests". Dressed in heavy woolen garments in one of the hottest regions on earth, the soldiers - none of them volunteers - were given a battery of medical tests to check which type of clothing offered "the best protection against radioactive contamination in conditions of warfare". Both Britain and Australia deny that the men were in danger. An official Australian report states that the sites for these tests did not "present any significant health risks, because all the radioactivity released in the explosions was either widely dispersed [ie, worldwide] at the time, or has decayed sufficiently". But that was not the case with the hundreds of smaller tests that were conducted at ground level using radioactive cobalt, uranium and plutonium, and usually involving hundreds of soldiers in various roles. More than 7,000 kilograms of uranium was deposited in one site. Two detonations involving a combined 1,000 kilograms of plutonium took place in another area and 550 kilograms of plutonium was used in a third location. Lawyers representing veterans in the UK and Australia contend that safety was so lax that scores were exposed to radiation illnesses. Often the only protection they were offered was "a quick wash under a hose". Now that the lawsuits are flooding in, usually in response to second-generation birth defects, Australia has been quick to shift the compensation burden to Britain. London argues that there is no medical evidence linking the defects with Maralinga. As recently as September 1997, it had informed the European Court of Human Rights that servicemen were never allowed into the testing areas, a statement that has now a decidedly hollow ring. Any further admissions of guilt might invite unwelcome scrutiny as to why Britain failed to provide for the welfare of the Aborigines who were deprived of their heritage by the tests. And why it has declined to foot the bill for cleaning up the site, which remains highly contaminated despite the removal of some radioactive material in 1997 and will be partly uninhabitable for at least another 30 years. For all of its obscurity, Maralinga was a milestone for Britain's coming-of-age as a nuclear power. In 1957, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan sparked a nationalist fervor with news of the successful tests, which he said would put his country "in the same position as the United States or Soviet Russia". "It will be possible then to discuss on equal terms," he said. Isn't it really time that those some equal terms were extended to the participants and innocent bystanders who, for better or worse, helped project Britain into the nuclear age? ((c)2001 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please ***************************************************************** 11 Australia looks into bomb clothing tests Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Richard Norton-Taylor Guardian May 15, 2001 Australia said yesterday it was urgently investigating the disclosure that Britain subjected Australian servicemen to radiation tests in the Maralinga desert in the 1950s and 1960s. Bruce Scott, the veterans minister, said after talks with the Ministry of Defence in London that he was unaware of the tests that Britain conducted after it exploded nuclear bombs. Asked to comment on whether the British government had been implicated in a cover-up when it told the European court of human rights in 1997 that there was never any intention to expose anyone to harmful radiation, Mr Scott replied: "I would not use that term." British, Australian and New Zealand servicemen were asked to test protective clothing. They were told to run and crawl across contaminated areas of the desert to assess degress of protection. Mr Scott said he did not know whether details of these tests - found in Australian official archives by Sue Rabbitt Roff, a researcher at Dundee University - had been made available in the 1980s to an Australian royal commission on the Maralinga nuclear tests. The MoD said yesterday that clothing trials were carried out with the informed consent of the servicemen involved. They were all volunteers, they were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, and there was no evidence that the tests had caused ill-health, a spokesman said. Mr Scott said he had been assured by John Spellar, minister for the armed forces, that the MoD would make available all relevant British documents. "If any Australian has suffered from an illness or injury related to service during the nuclear testing programme, they are entitled to health treatment and, where appropiate, to compensation", Mr Scott said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 12 Mayor asked to oppose Japanese city as port for U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered carriers The Associated Press TOKYO (May 14, 2001 1:21 p.m. EDT) - Residents of a city near Tokyo on Monday urged the mayor 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. Copyright © 2001 Nando Media ***************************************************************** 13 Mayor asked to oppose Japanese city as port for U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered carriers The Associated Press TOKYO (May 14, 2001 1:21 p.m. EDT) - Residents of a city near Tokyo on Monday urged the mayor 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. Copyright © 2001 Nando Media ***************************************************************** 14 MoD pledge on nuclear test papers ISSUE 2181 Tuesday 15 May 2001 By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent THE Ministry of Defence promised yesterday to hand over any documents about a 1956 nuclear test in which British, Australian and New Zealand servicemen were exposed to radiation. Bruce Scott, the Australian veterans' affairs minister, discussed the issue with John Spellar, the Armed Forces minister, during a visit to London yesterday. Mr Scott, speaking at the Australian High Commission, said Mr Spellar had promised him access to "all relevant documents". An Australian Royal Commission investigated the tests in the 1980s, but the Australian government ordered a further study to take account of new evidence. Britain and Australia had resisted veterans' claims for compensation. But Mr Scott said: "If any Australian veteran has suffered from an illness related to service during the nuclear testing programme they are entitled to treatment and compensation." The MoD admitted that the servicemen were exposed to nuclear radiation at Maralinga, South Australia. It claimed that the tests were designed to measure the ability of radiation to pass through clothing. © Copyrightof Telegraph Group Limited2001. Terms & Conditionsof ***************************************************************** 15 Police arrest 28 protesters at test site [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal REVIEW-JOURNAL Police arrested 28 anti-nuclear demonstrators during two days of civil disobedience actions that ended Monday at the Nevada Test Site, according to officials for the National Nuclear Security Administration. The administration is an agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Administration spokesman Kevin Rohrer said Nye County sheriff's deputies cited and released all but three of the protesters on trespassing charges. He said 21 were arrested Sunday and seven on Monday. One was being held in Beatty on a public nuisance charge in connection with stopping a busload of test site workers. The other two, he said, face misdemeanor escape charges. The traditional Mothers Day protest by the Shundahai Network was held to heighten awareness about the impact from nuclear weapons tests on "Mother Earth." Shundahai Network spokeswoman Susi Snyder said six people blocked the road at the Mercury entrance to the test site after a sunrise service on Monday attended by 150. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-15-Tue-2001/news/16096537.html ***************************************************************** 16 Police hold 51 Trident protesters after sit-in at base Independent 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. By Terri Judd 15 May 2001 Fifty-one protestors were arrested yesterday during a demonstration outside AWE Aldermaston, where the Trident warhead is manufactured. More than 90 demonstrators from a group calling themselves Trident Ploughshares, supported by CND and the Aldermaston Women's Camp, staged a sit-in protest at the gates of the Berkshire Atomic Weapons Establishment. They sang and chanted at the entrance to the nuclear weapons site before sitting or lying down to block the west entrance. Police attempts to remove them were frustrated when the protesters repeatedly resumed their horizontal vigil. Most of the activists were arrested by Thames Valley Police for obstruction of the highway. The rest were detained by Ministry of Defence police for alleged criminal damage after a perimeter fence was cut. Among those taken to police stations across Thames Valley was Daniel Conquer, election agent for Darren Williams, the Socialist Alliance candidate for Reading East. Mr Conquer said: "The police have yet again used excessive force to break up a completely peaceful protest against illegal nuclear weapons." A spokesman for Trident Ploughshares also accused Thames Valley Police of being heavy-handed. Superintendent Frank Sullivan responded: "Thames Valley Police is committed to ensuring people are able to exercise their right to engage in peaceful and lawful protest ... We are also bound to protect the right of Aldermaston employees to carry out their work unimpeded ..." He added: "We are disappointed by the poor level of co-operation we have received today from the organisers of the protest ... If they had been more co-operative, we would not have had to make so many arrests." The blockade was the final act of the "disarmament camp" organised by Trident Plough-shares, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Reading Socialist Alliance. The three-year-old Trident Ploughshares campaign pledges "to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a non-violent, open, peaceful, safe and fully accountable manner". ***************************************************************** 17 Should the Kursk be raised? BBC News | TALKING POINT | 15 May, 2001, 16:43 GMT 17:43 UK Russia says it hopes to raise the wreck of the nuclear submarine, Kursk, from the bottom of the Barents Sea before the end of September. The vessel sank in August 2000 after a mysterious explosion and all 118 crew were killed. But it will be a costly and complicated salvage operation. The mission is expected to take three months, starting in mid-June, and could cost in excess of $100m. There is also the risk that the submarine could be further damaged and leak radioactive material into the sea. Is this a risk that should be taken? Is the operation too expensive to be considered? The environmental considerations should come first Charlie Richardson, England The Kursk should definitely be raised. It's only in 100 metres of water which isn't very deep. The environmental considerations should come first - not to mention finding out exactly what happened. This accident could provide us with knowledge for the future, making a second accident an impossibility. *Charlie Richardson, England * While my heart goes out to the families of those poor sailors who died, I'm sure they would be the first to agree that there is no point in bringing up the bodies of their loved ones if others may die as a result. If, and only if, it is going to be 100% safe to bring up this submarine, should it be done. But the relatives of the dead should be asked first whether they want this to happen, or whether they would rather mourn them where they are. *Karen, UK * It depends purely on the dangers in involved in such an operation versus the dangers of doing nothing and letting the waste leak out and contaminate the sea. While I have sympathy for the families of those who lost their sons on the sub, I am sure every soldier that enters any kind of army is aware of the risk to life and limb this implies, and Putin was wise not to interrupt the rescue effort with his personal presence *Chris Cormier, Canada * The Kursk should be raised in order to find out how and why it sank Keith, UK The Kursk should be raised in order to find out how and why it sank. Both the recovery and subsequent investigations should be performed by a multinational team to prevent anybody from tampering with the evidence. *Keith, UK * It should be raised and the dead bodies given a decent mass grave and the Kursk taken as national monument. *Chitiyo Jacob, Zimbabwe * Recovery of the bodies of the crew is not a sufficient reason for raising the Kursk -- the hundreds of ships that went down during the Second World War (many of them in shallow water) were not raised for that purpose either, nor, more recently, was the ferry Estonia which sank in the Baltic. If recovery of the reactor separately is sufficient to prevent environmental harm and is possible, then that should certainly be done. On the other hand I hardly doubt that the Russian Navy already knows exactly what caused the Kursk to sink. *Peter, Netherlands * Governments should stop riding roughshod over the feelings of the people Jon Turner, France (ex-UK) There have been many comments about giving the dead a 'proper burial'. No one has actually asked the relatives of those that died if they want their bodies raised. Many will now have said their final goodbyes from a boat above a watery grave. If they want bodies brought up then fine, however, whilst the nuclear material needs to be rendered safe in some way, the families of those that died should have some say as to what happens to the bodies of their relatives. If this means that the whole submarine can be raised, great. If it means that the warheads and reactors only are salvaged, then that is what should be done. Governments should stop riding roughshod over the feelings of the people and relatives of those that have lost their lives for their country. Equally, who are we in the Western world to tell the Russians what to do? they are a civilised country and can come to their own decisions as to what is the correct thing to do within their culture. *Jon Turner, France (ex-UK) * If it isn't raised, the environmental impact will be massive. However, to risk raising a hull weakened by two explosions could be even worse. The safest thing for all would be to make the reactors safe and no more. *James Canfer, England * Too many questions lie unanswered over the wreck of the Kursk. By raising the ship, perhaps we may be able to establish what happened to her and her crew, and how to prevent it happening again. When the complex issue of nuclear material lying on the ocean bed also comes into the equation, I don't think we can afford to let the Kursk lie. Any attempts to raise her should be executed and funded by the UN, so the truth is known and the cost not borne by a country with financial difficulties. *John Hutchence, England * The Kursk should be raised not only to clarify the circumstances of its sinking but also to give the seamen who died a befitting burial. The Russian nation should be given the opportunity to honour these men posthumously. They died a horrific death, they do not deserve eternal imprisonment on the seabed. *Daley, UK * What about the risks of leaving the submarine alone at the bottom of the sea? Jordan Medeiros, USA What about the risks of leaving the submarine alone at the bottom of the sea? As the submarine corrodes it will inevitably leak radioactive waste into the ocean. It will eventually have to be dealt with. Raising it now, while complicated, will be no less complicated when the sub needs to be removed in the future and is in worst condition than it is now. *Jordan Medeiros, USA * Our Russian allies should raise the Kursk, only if such action is the consensus of those families who lost loved ones. *Rahul Mahajan, India * The question is do we raise it now while the hull is in reasonable sound condition or wait until the radio activity leaks causing a barren sea in which nobody can work. An alternative may be to encapsulate it in concrete and wait for technology to advance. Either way at some point those reactors must be raised. *John, France * I think only the radioactive material and arms should be salvaged from the Kursk. No doubt this would cost a lot less than salvaging the whole submarine and it reduce the risk to near by Norway. *Alan Perry, England * It will force the Russian Navy to consider its own responsibility Alex, UK Despite a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, senior Russian Admirals continue to suggest that the Kursk may have sunk after collision with a Western vessel. If raising the Kursk for all to see finally lays that theory to rest, then it is definitely worth it -- because it will force the Russian Navy to consider its own responsibility in the accident and its aftermath. *Alex Duggan, UK * There would obviously be an ongoing risk of contamination in the future if the site weren't cleaned up now. Also it is necessary to find out exactly what happened in order to reduce the chance of another incident in the future. When there is an air crash at sea, all possible material is recovered for investigation. The same principle should be applied here. *Graeme, England * Respect for the young sailors Wndy, UK Where's the respect for those young sailors who were allowed to die in horrific conditions? Raise the Kursk. *Wendy, UK * The Kursk should be raised purely so the families of those who died can lay their dead to rest. The Russian government is obviously only thinking of the money. *Carrie, England * The Kursk submarine has a nuclear reactor on board. I presume that it is full of radioactive material, plutonium, which is a very dangerous substance. Has anybody considered the future costs and other implications of not raising the sub? *Peter Dziulka, UK * The Kursk cannot be left as it is anyway, because the radioactive material will be more dangerous in the long run. But wouldn't it be safer if those materials simply removed by divers? *Nick, UK * I can understand the victim's families wanting to have their loved ones returned to them for proper burial and since Russia is financing this venture I see nothing wrong in that. But I am a little wary in regards to whether or not this is a health hazard and if there are not sufficient guarantees it might be better to wait until an international body of experts examines the feasibility of such an undertaking first. *K, Canada * Leave it buried at sea! Elaine, UK NO NO NO - let these souls rest in peace. It will certainly not help the relatives to raise this wreck and it will not help the men who have the task either. I know someone who assisted in raising a sub nearly 20 years ago and he still has nightmares about it! All that and the cost and risk to more lives is just not worth it. Leave it buried at sea!! *Elaine, Dorset, UK * Only the nuclear part should be raised. The bodies should be left there and it should be marked as a sea grave. As long as we are respectful of the dead we can still give them some dignity and take away the nuclear waste. *James Clarke, UK * The Russians are the least qualified to raise the Kursk, or even to say if it should be. *T.J. Cassidy, U.S.A. * I have worked for the company that will raise the Kursk. If T.J. Cassidy knew anything about it, the raising companies are American and Dutch. The Norwegian government are the ones who have requested and partially funded the recovery. *Paul, UK * BBC News Online ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************