***************************************************************** 02/16/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.43 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Push Bush to develop strong radiation standards 2 Ohio nuclear waste awaits new home 3 Uranium plant gets higher assay level 4 Maine Yankee reactor to go south on barge 5 Tybee council asks government to find lost nuke 6 Nuclear industry hopes for a boom 7 Shutdown give nuclear plant chance to boost power 8 Vermont rejects AmerGen's offer for Vermont Yankee nuke 9 Nuclear Waste 10 Vermont Yankee wants auction of nuclear reactor 11 TVA SEIS for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Operating License Renewal 12 NRC Directs CP&L Not to Store Spent Fuel in Additional Storage 13 NK Completes N Waste Storage for Taiwan 14 DPP to lead anti-nuclear street rallies 15 Search is on for radioactive dump 16 Nauru joins condemnation of plutonium shipment 17 Trittin under pressure over transport of nuclear waste 18 Power play 19 Museum fined over radioactive exhibits 20 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: Nuclear industry turns to renewable energy 21 Cape is becoming a 'nuclear highway' 22 Waste facilities, recycled dumps boost health toll 23 Measures to Head Off N-Waste Appear to Have Smooth Sailing 24 State rejects using Oak Ridge for Ohio nuclear waste storage NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Cuts opposed on cleanup at Paducah plant - 2 Radiation Resistant Microbe Featured in Cleanup Research 3 Uranium Found In 6 More Wells 4 Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE) files friend of the 5 Japan Calls Sub Findings 'Outrageous' 6 McClellan Residents Upset Over Plutonium 7 U.N.: No Plutonium Shell Health Risks 8 UNEP confirms plutonium found in DU ammunition 9 Russia selling atomic know-how, says US 10 Russia: Torpedo blast sank Kursk 11 Lab tests uranium level in workers 12 Ecology's authority at Hanford upheld 13 Lab facilities need upgrade or replacement ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Push Bush to develop strong radiation standards Pollution Online News for pollution control professionals -->2/15/2001 The Bush administration should develop strong radiation protection standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to protect the public and the environment from the dangers of radiation, a dozen consumer and environmental groups said today. The national and Nevada-based groups, which actively oppose the Yucca Mountain repository proposal, were joined by Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn and Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) in calling attention to the radiation protection standards used to evaluate site suitability. Yucca Mountain, located near Las Vegas, NV, is currently the only site under consideration for a potential dump for high-level radioactive waste generated by U.S. commercial reactors and weapons facilities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to set radiation protection standards for the site. The agency released a proposed rule for comment in 1999. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Energy (DOE) commented in favor of weaker standards, and a final rule has not yet been issued. The standard now falls to the new administration to issue in final form. We urge the Bush administration to support a standard that at a minimum ensures: + exposure limits at least equivalent to the EPA's generic radioactive waste disposal standard, in terms of annual dose to the most vulnerable persons (e.g. fetuses, children, the elderly); + groundwater protection consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act; + a regulatory timeframe that covers the entire period the material would be dangerously radioactive; and, + compliance at the boundary of the repository so as to not allow for a buffer zone. While campaigning in Nevada last fall, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney promised to base a decision about the contentious Yucca Mountain proposal on sound science. The new administration has an early opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to this pledge by establishing a radiation protection rule that requires radioactive waste to be isolated from people and the environment. More lenient standards would threaten public health and promote a reliance on merely dilution -- rather than containment -- of nuclear waste to meet regulatory requirements. This would be a travesty of the scientific concept undergirding the proposal for a geologic repository, the groups said. The DOE is expected later this year to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for development as a permanent repository for 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste. A favorable recommendation is contingent on an assessment of whether a Yucca Mountain repository could meet EPA radiation protection standards. Radiation standards are of critical importance for public health and environmental protection -- quite literally a matter of life and death. Therefore, on behalf of their combined memberships across the country, the following organizations urge the Bush administration to live up to its campaign promises by establishing strong radiation protection standards for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository: Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), Public Citizen, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Women's Legislative Lobby (WiLL), Citizen Alert, Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth (HOME), Nevada Desert Experience, Nevada Nuclear Waste Taskforce, Toiyabe (Nevada Chapter) Sierra Club. Bipartisan political leadership in Nevada shared the concerns of these groups. "Last year, it required a presidential veto to stop efforts to strip away the role of the EPA in establishing radiation standards for Yucca Mountain, and I would hope the new administration will pledge to do the same if required," said Sen. Reid. "During her confirmation hearing I received an assurance from EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman that her agency would continue to set radiation standards for Yucca Mountain. The Bush administration must honor that commitment to protect the health and safety of Nevadans by requiring a stringent radiation standard, not one which is supported by the greedy nuclear power industry." Nevada's governor, Guinn, has received promises from President Bush that radiation protection standards would not be lowered or transferred to another agency. The state continues to insist that Nevadans are entitled to the same level of radiation protection as other Americans and that standards for a Yucca Mountain repository cannot be more lenient than those governing the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Added Sen. Ensign, "I welcome this call for the strongest possible radiation protection standards when it comes to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. I have every confidence this administration will follow through on promises made during the campaign, to let the Environmental Protection Agency set those standards. If sound science truly governs this process, then nuclear waste will not be dumped in Nevadans' backyard in the first place." In conjunction with other groups in Nevada, Citizen Alert has prepared a detailed position paper on the proposed EPA radiation standards from a Nevada perspective, which will be ready for release within the next 10 days. *Source: Public Citizen* --> ***************************************************************** 2 Ohio nuclear waste awaits new home *Friday, February 16, 2001* Michael Hawthorne *Dispatch Environment Reporter* Nuclear waste from central Ohio's involvement in the Manhattan Project might be around a little longer than the federal government expected. Cleanup crews are busy packing up plutonium and other highly radioactive materials left by scientists who helped unlock the secrets of atomic energy at Battelle's research labs west of Columbus. Begun in 1942, the Manhattan Project created the world's first atomic bomb. About 100 drums, or 10 truckloads, are being prepared for shipment. Some of the waste is so dangerous that it can be handled only with remote-controlled equipment by operators who are shielded behind thick, leaded glass. Political opposition, though, could scuttle the U.S. Energy Department's plans to store the waste in Tennessee until it can be treated and sent to a special dump in the New Mexico desert. "This is not an option,'' Tennessee Gov. Don Sundquist wrote in a letter this week to an Energy Department official who oversees the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. "Tennessee will not become an interim radioactive-waste storage facility for the DOE complex.'' Battelle might end up sending the waste to another government facility outside Hanford, Wash. But Sundquist's letter highlighted how difficult it has been for federal officials to come to terms with America's nuclear legacy. Though Battelle conducted federally sponsored nuclear research at its West Jefferson complex for nearly 40 years, the government didn't accept responsibility for cleaning up the site until 1986. The $120 million cleanup, most of which is being financed by taxpayers, originally was expected to be completed by 1998. Battelle now estimates the work could go on past 2005. "We're talking about stuff from the '40s, '50s and '60s that we've finally had to deal with,'' Joe Gantos, a Battelle executive overseeing the cleanup, said yesterday. "As we've collected more data, we've discovered there's more work to be done than previously thought.'' Federal budget cuts initially slowed the cleanup. Battelle also decided that the hot-cell building, which once housed a research reactor and laboratories, should be torn down and shipped piece by piece with soil from around the site to another dump for low-level radioactive waste. Among the surprises: Higher-than-normal levels of radioactivity in the Big Darby Creek, which flows past the Battelle property. Cleanup crews traced the problem to a long-abandoned drain pipe that contained small amounts of cesium-137, a byproduct of nuclear fission. The pipe was removed last summer. In the Tennessee governor's letter to federal officials, he said his state would consider treating and packaging out-of-state waste on a "case-by-case basis'' once a treatment plant in Oak Ridge, Tenn., begins operating late next year. It's unclear, though, where Ohio's waste could be stored until the New Mexico dump is ready to receive it. "We understand this is a delicate matter,'' said Walter Perry, a spokesman in the Energy Department's Oak Ridge office. "We're going to work cooperatively with the governor's office on a solution.'' mhawthor@dispatch.com Copyright © 2001, The Columbus Dispatch ***************************************************************** 3 Uranium plant gets higher assay level The Paducah Sun Friday, February 16, 2001 Paducah, Kentucky By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--*270.575.8650* The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant has achieved a record-high uranium enrichment level to prepare to be a stand-alone facility once operator USEC Inc. closes its other plant in Ohio in June. On Thursday, the Paducah plant reached a level of 2.25 percent assay, signifying the amount of material in uranium hexafluoride (UF6) that is useful in producing nuclear fuel. More than 99 percent of UF6 is uranium-238, which is not useful in the fuel cycle. The rest is useful uranium-235. Using powerful electrical equipment and miles of piping, the plant gradually increases the level, or assay, of U-235, traditionally to about 2 percent. The product is then shipped to a plant in Piketon, Ohio, for more enrichment to reach the 4 percent to 5 percent assay desired by nuclear power plants. Once the Ohio plant is closed, Paducah will have the nation's only uranium enrichment plant. Paducah workers have made changes to be able to enrich to 5.5 percent, and hope to receive Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval for that level in mid-March, said company spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. "Our Paducah employees have worked very hard on the higher-assay project," she said. "We're very proud of their achievements and very proud of the milestone they've made today." Stuckle said the increase from 2 percent to 2.25 percent is to prepare to enrich to 2.75 percent, a level the plant was approved for last year, as a step toward 5.5 percent. "This initial rise in enrichment level is to create an inventory of feed material, which will be used to help increase levels up to 5.5 percent once that is approved," she said. "It allows the assay to increase more easily if we have higher feed material than if lower-level feed is used." Stuckle said the higher-assay material will be tested regularly until April. In May, the plant will start cutting production to avoid paying high summer costs for electricity. When peak production resumes in the fall, the plant will be ready to enrich uranium at higher levels needed for customers, she said. ***************************************************************** 4 Maine Yankee reactor to go south on barge Feb 15 2001| Browse Feb 15 2001| Vol. 126-No. 7 Greg Foster The 340-ton reactor, which for 30 years or more enabled Maine Yankee to furnish electricity, will leave the site later this year and be transported to a low level nuclear waste dump in Barnwell, N.C. as a part of the plant's decommissioning process. There is one snag in the plan, however. Shipment of the reactor will be via barge down the coast and up the Savannah River before going overland to Barnwell. The current level of the river is too low for the barge to make it, but company officials are optimistic the rainfall by end of the year will be sufficient to raise the water level. The company in the meantime is moving ahead with plans for removal of the reactor vessel. The insides of the vessel are much higher in radioactivity (class C) and will be placed at the spent fuel storage site on location, chief nuclear officer Mike Meisner told its monthly Community Advisory Panel. The insides of the reactor will be broken down through a high tech procedure and placed into steel dry casks, which will go into steel-lined concrete silos at the storage site now under construction on the property. Framatone, Inc. is the company handling the segmentation process inside the reactor involving high pressure water jets. The jets make precision cuts into the metal parts under water using robotics and cameras. Recently the company sent divers in to take care of a problem with particles not properly vacuumed, according to company engineer Dean Wheeler. The work of dismantling the insides, which weigh a total 130 tons, is about 60 percent complete, Wheeler said. Reporting on the regulatory picture, Meisner said the recent NRC finding that the chances very slim for a nuclear fire accident at the plant given the level of decay of the spent fuel was no surprise to Maine Yankee, which had believed that for some time. The water level can be regained quickly in the event of a leak in the spent fuel pool, in Meisner's estimation. "It is a recoverable event," he said. Fuel is currently stored underwater in the fuel pool until it is put into dry casks and storage at the new facility on site. Meanwhile water cools the spent fuel. Demolition of the turbine and service building is scheduled for late spring or early summer and the company will be relocating personnel to the staff building, according to decommissioning Vice President Ray Burke. The turbine building was originally scheduled for demolition in 1999. "We have to take a better look at 2001-2002 to see where we can cut some slack," Burke said. "One of the problems is we could lose focus. Our focus is to follow through on the decommissioning schedule." Meanwhile, PA Strategies consulting firm of Portland has been working with area officials about reuse of 600 acres of land at Maine Yankee, including the actual space on which the plant itself is located. At the meeting, CAP member Ray Shadis of Friends of the Coast stated his reservations about saving the buildings, citing the Vermont Yankee sale case. "An expert witness stated that saving the buildings was a useless exercise in terms of the overall economy of it, and they wound up tearing down what was there and had decayed during the nine years of decommissioning," he said. CAP members discussed how to better keep the public informed about the decommissioning process and progress on the dry cask storage installation. "The thing the people ought to be paying attention to is the ISFSI (independent spent fuel storage installation), to understand it," Don Hudson of the Chewonki Foundation said. Agreeing with him, Dr. Paul Crary said, "You can't educate people any more than what they want to learn." Dan Thompson, Wiscasset town planner, disagreed. He said that the company is going through a cleanup that will make the property ready for reuse. "We should be raising the public's confidence," he said. "We're trying to make it a demonstration project for the whole county." Whether the output of information should express only Maine Yankee's view of things is another question Ray Shadis raised about informing the public. He is concerned that other views are expressed. State Sen. Marge Kilkelly (D-Wiscasset) suggested a newspaper insert of some kind as an alternative to poorly attended public meetings, which some recommended having. Also, during the public comment segment, David Hall of West Bath suggested having an event coincide with a larger event, such as the Common Fair. Currently the decommissioning work is 40 percent complete with 430 workers on site. Of that total, there are 160 people for Maine Yankee, security and staff augmentation and 270 people who are with the subcontractors. Burke reported that the first spent fuel will be loaded starting in June at the new storage facility. Burke also reported current and projected figures of radiation dosage concerning radiation protection during the project. The next public CAP meeting is scheduled March 1, 6-9 p.m., at the information center. *Editor@LCNews.Maine.Com* Lincoln County News PO Box 36, Damariscotta, ME 04543 Tel: 207.563.3171 http://LCNews.Maine.Com/2001-02-15/my_reactor.html rev 2001-02-15 ***************************************************************** 5 Tybee council asks government to find lost nuke Force insists a bomb dropped off the coast of Tybee Island in 1958 could not cause a nuclear explosion. However, a man who says he can recover the bomb for as much as $1 million claims it could cause an explosion so big a mushroom cloud could rise out of the ocean.-->Web posted Friday, February 16, 2001 By Noelle Phillips Savannah Morning News The Air Force insists a bomb dropped off the coast of Tybee Island in 1958 could not cause a nuclear explosion. However, a man who says he can recover the bomb for as much as $1 million claims it could cause an explosion so big a mushroom cloud could rise out of the ocean. Derek L. Duke, a Statesboro man who created an underwater recovery company, assembled a team of retired military, CIA and shipwreck researchers to make his case for finding the bomb. The group spoke Thursday night during a special meeting of the Tybee Island City Council. More than 120 people sat through the hour-long meeting as Duke and his cohorts talked about the bomb and its potential for danger. At meeting's end, the council passed a resolution asking the federal government to locate the bomb and end speculation. Mayor Walter Parker said the meeting's goal was to educate the public and the council about the bomb's history. He also said the hype surrounding the bomb is not necessary and is wary of people creating hysteria or wanting to make money off the bomb's legend. "Our concern as public officials is we want to make sure everything is safe," Parker said. Tybee's meeting came a day after a Department of Energy report was leaked to the media. The report said the bomb was not capable of a nuclear explosion. At one point, Duke introduced a letter signed by Howard H. Dixon, a retired Air Force chief master sergeant. Duke said the letter would give more evidence that the bomb was capable of producing a nuclear explosion. In the letter, Dixon said he verified there was no weapon on the B-47 bomber when it returned to Hunter Army Airfieldafter dropping its bomb off Tybee. The plane collided with a fighter jet during a training exercise. He also wrote: "I cannot state if this weapon had the nuclear capsule ball installed or not." Other testimony by Duke's team covered the grueling 10-week search after the bomb was lost, fear over terrorists finding the old bomb, and the possibility of nuclear leaks causing environmental problems. Harris Parker, a Whitemarsh Island resident on Duke's team, passed around a deformed crab claw he found while cast-netting. "I said this looks like nuclear mutation to me," Parker said. Bert Soleaucq, an adviser to Duke's group, said he is retired from the Central Intelligence Agency and fears terrorists finding the bomb and using it to attack important U.S. cities. "You could take the Capitol, you could take Wall Street, any major industrial center and tear it down," Soleau said. Councilwoman Pam O'Brien asked Duke about his company, American Seashore Underwater Recovery Expedition, and its experience in recovering underwater objects. Duke said his company, ASSURE, is non-profit and was formed this spring to find the lost bomb off Tybee's coast. It has never searched for anything else, he said. Duke has not explained how his group would locate the bomb. The Department of Energy's report said it would be difficult to locate and recovery would be hazardous to personnel. Duke also told O'Brien it is important for his group to raise enough money for the project. "To go out there without accurate funding is like drawing a big bull's eye on it for the terrorists," Duke said. After the meeting, Duke insisted he is not trying to make money off the lost bomb. ASSURE is non-profit and any left over money would be donated to Tybee Island, he said. Military reporter Noelle Phillipscan be reached at 652-0366 or at phillips@savannahnow.com. ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear industry hopes for a boom FT.com | News and Analysis | World Article By Nancy Dunne Published: February 15 2001 23:00GMT | Last Updated: February 15 2001 23:08GMT *The Abyss,* a special-effects thriller movie released in 1989, served two purposes: to scare viewers and to make use of a giant hole in the ground in South Carolina, originally dug for a nuclear plant but abandoned when the market went bad. Fears of nuclear accidents after the incident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979 and escalating costs of nuclear energy amid increasingly cheaper alternatives, left dozens of plants unfinished or on the drawing boards two decades ago. No new reactors have been built in the US since 1978. But now, as the US endures yet another energy crisis - epitomised by California's woes and record high natural gas prices - the nuclear industry has begun to plan cautiously for a revival. The industry's hopes have also been boosted by the election of George W. Bush, who has placed energy at the top of his "to do" list. A task force headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to examine energy options, is expected to produce good news for the nuclear industry, according to Charlie Pryor, chief executive of the Westinghouse Electric Company. Mr Pryor is urging the adoption of a "balanced energy policy" and argues that costs of nuclear power have fallen below the costs of coal. New designs, already approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would produce smaller, simplified and safer plants, he says. Nuclear plants currently supply about 20 per cent of the nation's power. Coal provides about 50 per cent, and gas, 17 per cent. Most of the new electric generating capacity coming on line is powered by gas, and there is considerable concern about a shortfall in transmission capacity. The industry would potentially receive its most significant boost from legislation soon to be introduced in the Senate by Frank Murkowski, chairman of the Senate energy committee. A draft, now circulating in Washington, gives the industry numerous subsidies and production incentives. The bill would provide $10bn in accident insurance for each nuclear plant, a rise from $7bn currently. Plants could get up to $2m a year for increasing production and $1m each for efficiency improvements. The draft bill also provides at least $60m in annual spending for research and development for existing and new reactors. The proposals have infuriated the industry's foes. Scott Denman, executive director of the Safe Energy Communications Council, an energy policy watchdog said the new subsidies would add to more than $65bn already spent by taxpayers on nuclear research and development in the past 50 years. "All the government help in the past has been unable to make the industry, viable," he said. "Now they demand additional economic and regulatory subsidies to help nuclear plants compete in deregulated electricity markets." Other opponents are warning of new safety hazards. Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service said regulatory oversight of nuclear plant licensing had diminished. In recent years, the number of nuclear plants has fallen to 103 from 110. But many in operation have undergone expansion and rehabilitation, and most are expected to seek 20-year licence extensions. Mr Gunter, however, warned that the extensions would raise the risk of catastrophic accidents, as utilities continued to sacrifice safety to profit margins. The nuclear industry is well aware of the strength of its opposition. Mr Pryor said he did not expect any contracts for new plants for three to five years. Nuclear power companies are now promoting new generation plants that they claim will be smaller, cleaner and safer, in the hope it will lessen opposition. Westinghouse has developed a new smaller plant, the AP600, which it says uses 50 per cent fewer valves, 80 per cent less pipe, 70 per cent less control cable, 35 per cent fewer pumps and 45 per cent less seismic building volume than other reactors. Meanwhile, Exelon Corporation, the country's largest nuclear operator, is currently working in South Africa to develop its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which it claims will be "faster, safer and cheaper" than the current generation of plants. ***************************************************************** 7 Shutdown give nuclear plant chance to boost power The News-Herald By Dino DiSanto News-Herald Staff Writer February 16, 2001 The Perry Nuclear Power Plant will shut down on Saturday for refueling and maintenance. >The shutdown, though, won't affect power for customers and businesses in the area, said Todd M. Schneider, spokesman for FirstEnergy Corp. In fact, it will actually give FirstEnergy, the Akron-based company that owns the plant, a chance to boost production. During the shutdown, when fuel rods are routinely replaced every 12 to 15 months, plant workers also will boost power to 1,318 megawatts from 1,293 megawatts. The North Perry Village plant, when operating at 100 percent capacity, used to produce 1,250 megawatts of power, which is enough to power 1.4 million homes. But the plant increased its power output to 1,293 megawatts in June. The increase in megawatts was the first phase of a project to eventually increase reactor power by 5 percent, or to 1,318 megawatts. The second phase of that project will take place during this shutdown, when a turbine rotor is replaced. FirstEnergy wouldn't disclose the price on the upgrade. But the added power will help to serve about 77,000 new customers. During this shutdown, the plant won't be producing power for about a month. Schneider said the shutdown is being done in February because it usually is a slow time of year for electricity usage. During the shutdown, more than 1,000 craftsmen, technicians and laborers will team up with plant employees to replace 304 - or about 40 percent - of the 748 fuel assemblies in the reactor core. These fuel assemblies hold the 47,872 pencil-like fuel rods, which power the plant. It will cost FirstEnergy about $76 million to replace the fuel assemblies, or about $250,000 per fuel bundle. In the past, the fuel rods have been a source of constant problems because of pinhole leaks created by particles circulating in the water around the fuel. Just last June, the plant had to be shut down to place filters around the fuel bundles to prevent debris from damaging the rods. Despite this setback, Perry generated more than 10.4 million megawatt-hours, which ranked it 14th in the world and sixth nationally for the amount of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant. Since the plant's last refueling, it has operated 644 out of 655 days, yielding a 98.2 percent availability factor. This measures the percent of time the plant was available to produce power *©The News-Herald 2001* ***************************************************************** 8 Vermont rejects AmerGen's offer for Vermont Yankee nuke Thursday February 15, 3:37 pm Eastern Time NEW YORK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - The Vermont Public Service Board late Wednesday rejected AmerGen Energy Co.'s offer to buy the 510-megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor, opening the way for an auction of the plant. The Board said in its order it found AmerGen's proposed purchase price ``does not reflect the fair market value of Vermont Yankee and thus cannot, as a matter of law, be found to promote the general good.'' The Board said it was now up to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Corp.), which operates the reactor on behalf of several New England utilities, to reevaluate its decision to sell the station. Officials at Vermont Yankee Corp. were not immediately available for comment on the Board's order, but in the recent past they did ask the Board to reject AmerGen's offers and allow the reactor to be put up for sale in an auction. AmerGen is a joint venture between Exelon Corp. (NYSE: - news) of Chicago and British Energy Plc (*quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland*: ) of Edinburgh, Scotland. The Board said if Vermont Yankee Corp. decides to sell the plant, it may proceed with an auction or other process that will ensure the sale occurs at a fair price. The reactor, which provides about one-third of all the electric power used in Vermont, can produce enough electricity to light about 510,000 average homes. On October 20, 1999, Vermont Yankee Corp. and the two biggest owners of the reactor, Green Mountain Power Corp. (NYSE: - news) and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (NYSE: - news), petitioned the Board for approval of the sale to AmerGen. This proposal was described by the parties as ``break-even from a financial point of view.'' By October 26, 2000, the Board was ready to reject the original petition as not in the best interests of the public when considered alongside the billion dollar, mega-deals done for other nuclear units in the U.S. Northeast. On November 16, 2000, the plant's owners and AmerGen submitted to the Board a sweetened $23.8 million offer for the plant. On January 12, 2001, Entergy Nuclear, a unit of Entergy Corp. (NYSE: - news) of New Orleans that was buying nuclear units in the region, asked the Board to dismiss AmerGen's proposal. Entergy offered to buy the plant for $50 million in cash, more than twice the $23.8 million offered by AmerGen in its latest offer. And, Entergy offered to back its proposal with a bond of $26.4 million dollars, as a security in case the final sale price was lower than AmerGen's offer. On January 19, AmerGen filed a third and final proposal valued by AmerGen at $1.5 million more than the $50 million Entergy offered. The Board, with the support of the plant's joint owners, decided to reject all of the proposals because none provided a fair return to Vermont's electric customers. Only AmerGen disagreed with the Board's dismissal of its proposals. If Vermont Yankee Corp. decides to sell the plant in an auction, Energy Nuclear, Constellation Nuclear, a unit of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (NYSE: - news) and Dominion Energy, a unit of Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE: - news), have already said they would be willing to participate. AmerGen said its participation in an auction would ``depend on the timing and the process,'' AmerGen spokesman Bill Jones told Reuters. ``We want to own the reactor, but we don't want to get caught in another 12 or 18 months of negotiations with (Vermont Nuclear Corp.) and the Public Service Board,'' Jones explained. The owners of Vermont Yankee are Central Vermont (30 percent), National Grid Group Plc's (*quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland*: ) New England Power Co. (18), Montaup Electric (2) and Newport Electric (1), Green Mountain Power (17), Northeast Utilities' (NYSE: - news) Connecticut Light &Power (8), Public Service of New Hampshire (4) and Western Massachusetts Electric (2), the Vermont Group (7), other municipal and co-ops (5), Energy East Corp.'s (NYSE: - news) Central Maine Power (4) and NSTAR's (NYSE: - news) Cambridge Electric Light (2). --Scott DiSavino, New York Power Desk, +212-859-1622, fax +212-859-1758, Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 9 Nuclear Waste Thursday, February 15, 2001 While "Nuclear Power May Rise Again" (Feb. 9) extols the virtues of recent advances in nuclear power safety, it completely ignores the most devastating condemnation of nuclear power--the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. A study performed several years ago by the Southern California Federation of Scientists concluded that the only morally responsible disposal technique not violating fundamental engineering principles would be storage in multi-barrier and retrievable containers for a period of 10,000 to 30,000 years. Thus the building of any more nuclear power plants at this time would simply be downright irresponsible, let alone uneconomical, for the utilities. SHELDON C. PLOTKIN PhD, PE Los Angeles of the Los Angeles Times for similar stories. You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 10 Vermont Yankee wants auction of nuclear reactor [Reuters] Thursday February 15, 6:06 pm Eastern Time NEW YORK, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp. said Thursday it wanted to work with state regulators to sell the 510-megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor in an auction that will provide maximum benefit for electric consumers. Late Wednesday, the Vermont Public Service Board rejected AmerGen Energy Co.'s offer for the plant, ending, at least this phase of the company's two year quest to buy the plant. The Board said it found AmerGen's proposed purchase price did ``not reflect the fair market value of Vermont Yankee and thus cannot, as a matter of law, be found to promote the general good.'' AmerGen is a joint venture between Exelon Corp. (NYSE:EXC - news) of Chicago and British Energy Plc (*quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland*: BGY.L) of Edinburgh, Scotland. The reactor, which provides about one-third of all the electric power used in Vermont, can produce enough electricity to light about 510,000 average homes. Vermont Yankee said current market conditions favor an auction, especially the record prices recently paid for other nuclear units in the U.S. Northeast: Millstone in Connecticut sold for $1.2 billion, Nine Mile Point in New York ($1.0 billion), Fitzpatrick and Indian Point 3 ($1.0 billion) and Indian Point 2 ($602 million). Moreover, 2000 was Vermont Yankee's most successful year since it went on-line in 1972. The plant produced 4.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity at an average cost to customers of 3.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. This compares to an average clearing cost in New England of 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. One kilowatt-hour of electricity provides enough power to light one average home for about an hour. Vermont Yankee hopes to complete an auction by late spring or early summer and get regulatory approval by the end of 2001. AMERGEN'S QUEST On Oct. 20, 1999, Vermont Yankee Corp. and the two biggest owners of the reactor, Green Mountain Power Corp. (NYSE:GMP - news) and Central Vermont Public Service Corp. (NYSE:CV - news), petitioned the Vermont Public Service Board for approval of the sale of the plant to AmerGen. This proposal was described by the parties as ``break-even from a financial point of view.'' By Oct. 26, 2000, the Board was ready to reject the original petition as not in the best interests of the public when considered alongside the billion dollar, mega-deals done for other nuclear units in the Northeast. On Nov. 16, 2000, the plant's owners and AmerGen submitted a sweetened $23.8 million offer for the plant. On Jan. 12, 2001, Entergy Nuclear, a unit of Entergy Corp. (NYSE:ETR - news) of New Orleans, which was buying other nuclear units in the region, asked the Board to dismiss AmerGen's proposal. Entergy offered to buy the plant for $50 million in cash, more than twice the $23.8 million offered by AmerGen in its latest offer. And, Entergy offered to back its proposal with a $26.4 million bond, as security in case the final sale price was lower than AmerGen's offer. On Jan. 19, AmerGen filed a third and final proposal valued by AmerGen at $1.5 million more than Entergy's $50 million offer. The Board, with the support of the plant's joint owners, decided to reject all of the proposals because none provided a fair return to Vermont's electric customers. Only AmerGen disagreed with the Board's dismissal of its proposals. The four biggest players in the U.S. market for nuclear plants are AmerGen, Entergy Nuclear Constellation Nuclear, a unit of Constellation Energy Group Inc. (NYSE:CEG - news) and Dominion Energy, a unit of Dominion Resources Inc. (NYSE:D - news). Entergy, Constellation and Dominion have already said they would be willing to participate in a Vermont Yankee auction. AmerGen said its participation in an auction would ``depend on the timing and the process,'' AmerGen spokesman Bill Jones told Reuters. ``We want to own the reactor, but we don't want to get caught in another 12 or 18 months of negotiations with (Vermont Nuclear) and the Public Service Board,'' Jones explained. The owners of Vermont Yankee are Central Vermont (30 percent), National Grid Group Plc's (*quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland*: NGG.L) New England Power Co. (18), Montaup Electric (2) and Newport Electric (1), Green Mountain Power (17), Northeast Utilities' (NYSE:NU - news) Connecticut Light &Power (8), Public Service of New Hampshire (4) and Western Massachusetts Electric (2), the Vermont Group (7), other municipal and co-ops (5), Energy East Corp.'s (NYSE:EAS - news) Central Maine Power (4) and NSTAR's (NYSE:NST - news) Cambridge Electric Light (2). ***************************************************************** 11 TVA SEIS for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Operating License Renewal TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Summary: Washington, DC, Feb. 15, 2001 (FedNet via COMTEX) -- This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to address the environmental impacts associated with obtaining license extensions for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) located in Limestone County, Alabama. Renewal of the operating licenses will allow the plant to continue to operate for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the current operating licenses. The regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 10 CFR part 54 set forth the applicable license extension requirements. This SEIS will also consider the impacts of the possible restart of Unit 1, which has been in a non-operational status since 1985, with an extended operating license. At this early stage, TVA contemplates that the action alternatives in the EIS could include a combination of license renewal and restart of Unit 1. The no-action alternative considered is a decision by TVA to not seek renewal of the operating licenses for the BFN units. Public comment is invited concerning both the scope of alternatives and environmental issues that should be addressed as part of the SEIS.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: FedNet Government News Date: 02/15/2001 18:18 Price: Free Document Size: Very Short (255 words) Document ID: FD20010215120000559 Subject(s): Fdn; Alabama; Environmental Impact; Licenses; Nuclear; Regulations; Tennessee; Washington DC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FedNet Government News] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Operating License Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Story Filed: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:18 PM EST Washington, DC, Feb. 15, 2001 (FedNet via COMTEX) -- This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to address the environmental impacts associated with obtaining license extensions for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) located in Limestone County, Alabama. Renewal of the operating licenses will allow the plant to continue to operate for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration dates of the current operating licenses. The regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 10 CFR part 54 set forth the applicable license extension requirements. This SEIS will also consider the impacts of the possible restart of Unit 1, which has been in a non-operational status since 1985, with an extended operating license. At this early stage, TVA contemplates that the action alternatives in the EIS could include a combination of license renewal and restart of Unit 1. The no-action alternative considered is a decision by TVA to not seek renewal of the operating licenses for the BFN units. Public comment is invited concerning both the scope of alternatives and environmental issues that should be addressed as part of the SEIS. DATES: Comments on the scope of the SEIS must be postmarked or e-mailed no later than March 23, 2001 to ensure consideration. AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Notice of intent. Copyright FedNet *Copyright © 2001, FedNet Government News, all rights reserved.* ***************************************************************** 12 NRC Directs CP&L Not to Store Spent Fuel in Additional Storage Pools Pending Further Order NRC NEWS*** U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA No. 01-016 February 16, 2001 NRC DIRECTS CP&L NOT TO STORE SPENT FUEL IN ADDITIONAL STORAGE POOLS PENDING FURTHER ORDER The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed its staff to provide the Commission with additional information on a recently approved Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) license amendment and directed CP&L not to store spent nuclear fuel at its Shearon Harris Nuclear Power plant in Raleigh, N.C., in two additional spent fuel pools until the storage is approved by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) or another order is issued by the Commission. The NRC staff in December had approved CP&L's request to expand the capacity for storage of spent nuclear fuel by placing two additional spent fuel pools in service. As permitted by the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations, this staff action was taken even though a hearing by an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has not been completed because the NRC staff had completed its review of the request and the associated issues. The Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C., which is a party to the ASLB hearing, filed a petition for review and request for immediate suspension and stay of the NRC staff's issuance of the license amendment for spent fuel expansion. The five-person Commission that heads up the NRC, in an order issued Wednesday, rejected the Orange County petition, saying it is not permitted by NRC regulations, but said it would determine whether to exercise its discretion and review the NRC staff's decision that resulted in issuance of the license amendment. The Commission directed its staff to provide additional information and views on the issues within 14 days. The Commission said it "will entertain no further filings on this issue from any party other than the NRC staff." To preserve the status quo while the Commission considers the additional information to be provided by the staff, it directed the licensee not to store spent fuel under the license amendment. CP&L may continue necessary pre-storage activities if it so chooses. The Harris plant, located 21 miles southwest of Raleigh, N.C., was originally designed for four reactors, but only one was completed. However, the plant's fuel handling building has four spent fuel pools, as originally planned. The NRC operating license for Harris issued in 1987 authorized CP&L to use two of those pools for storage of spent fuel from the Harris plant and from the company's other nuclear power reactors, Brunswick Units 1 and 2, near Southport, N.C., and H.B. Robinson, near Hartsville, S.C. In December 1998, CP&L asked the NRC for a license amendment to approve placing the two additional spent fuel pools in service at Harris in order to provide spent fuel storage capacity for all four of its nuclear units through the end of their current licenses. In February 1999, the Board of Commissioners of Orange County, N.C., filed a petition to intervene and requested a hearing related to CP&L's request. The NRC granted the petition, and established an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to review Orange County's contentions. The ASLB's review is ongoing. However, under NRC regulations, the NRC staff may issue an amendment immediately effective in advance of the holding or completion of a hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards considerations are involved. A proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff made a final determination that the amendment for Harris involved no significant hazards considerations and issued an immediately effective amendment on December 21. The basis for this determination was contained in a safety evaluation issued with the amendment. The amendment was subject to modification or other action that may result from the ASLB's decision on the completion of the adjudicatory proceeding. The ASLB is currently considering legal filings from the parties to the hearing (Orange County, CP&L and the NRC staff) as to whether it is necessary to conduct an oral hearing - - in which the Board would take evidence and hear witnesses - - as opposed to making a decision on the existing written record regarding whether the staff has to conduct a further environmental evaluation. ***************************************************************** 13 NK Completes N Waste Storage for Taiwan Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English About Korea 02/16(Fri)19:58 North Korea has almost completed a storage facility for nuclear waste from Taiwan in a disused coal mine shaft in Pyongsan, Hwanghaepukto according to the Yonhap news agency Friday. Taiwanese officials said that the Taiwan Power Corporation had determined there was no problem with safety after studying blueprints and documents related to design and construction. They continued that officials from the island's administration's Nuclear Commission would visit North Korea prior to shipment to inspect the storage site. Officials added that the North was being encouraged to improve technology with regard to waste storage. They said that the Nuclear Commission was more conservative than the corporation about storage facilities. The waste to be sent to the North is between 60,000 and 200,000 barrels; the final amount will be determined after the first shipment of 60,000. The officials said that the Taiwanese government had never abandoned its plan to store the waste in North Korea since an agreement signed in 1997, and that several meetings had been held this year in relation to this. Copyright (c)1995-2001, Digital Chosun All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 DPP to lead anti-nuclear street rallies TAIWAN'S ruling Democratic Progressive Party will take to the streets in protest against the cabinet decision to resume construction of the island's fourth nuclear plant, according to media reports. Wednesday's decision to immediately resume the nuclear project ended a three-month political stand-off with the opposition-dominated parliament but angered many long-standing members of the ruling party. DPP chairman Frank Hsieh Chang-ting announced yesterday that the party supported island-wide anti-nuclear demonstrations, scheduled for Saturday next week, being organised by anti-nuclear groups. Mr Hsieh, speaking in the southern city of Kaohsiung - where he is mayor, said he had assigned DPP secretary-general Wu Nai-jen and five members of the party's policy-making central standing committee to take leading roles in the protests. He also urged DPP members in the civil service and the public to take part in the demonstrations, the state-run Central News Agency (CNA) reported. However, Mr Hsieh said that because of his role as party chairman he would not participate - in order to avoid ``embarrassment''. Mr Hsieh stressed that the decision to back the anti-government protests had been made by the central standing committee. As an opposition party for almost two decades, before assuming the reins of power last year, the DPP often took to the streets to protest against policies of the former Kuomintang (KMT) government. The DPP now had to act as an opposition again - against a government elected on a party platform - because the cabinet decision ran counter to its own anti-nuclear policy plank, Mr Hsieh said. The cabinet had pulled the plug on the US$5.5 billion (HK$43 billion) nuclear plant last October. It made a U-turn on Wednesday after facing concerted opposition pressure both within and without the Legislative Yuan for the decision to be rescinded. Mr Hsieh declined to comment when asked whether the U-turn meant President Chen Shui-bian and Premier Chang Chun-hsiung had become anti-party. In a regular meeting of the central standing committee, some DPP legislators had openly called Mr Chen a ``traitor'' and demanded Mr Chang's resignation, CNA said. After the meeting, secretary-general Mr Wu said the cabinet would have to announce a referendum on the nuclear issue by the end of this year as demanded by the party platform. If parliament failed to approve a referendum ``within 10 days, the cabinet would apply its administrative power to announce a referendum [on the nuclear project] be held at the end of the year'', the *China Times*' website quoted Mr Wu as saying. Mr Wu's remarks angered KMT and other opposition legislators. [Top] RA Home Page This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters ***************************************************************** 17 Trittin under pressure over transport of nuclear waste Handelsblatt.com Deutsche Ausgabe HB/aie. Germany's environment minister Jürgen Trittin (Greens) on Thursday came under renewed pressure over shipments of nuclear waste which were approved in 1998, before the present coalition government of Greens and SPD came to power, and in 2000. The transportation of spent fuel from German atomic power plants to France was banned by then environment minister Angela Merkel (CDU) in May 1998 after it came to light that radiation thresholds had been exceeded. Trittin faces severe criticism from the opposition CDU, from the ranks of his own party, the Greens, and from its coalition partner the SPD, after it was revealed on Thursday that radioactive material was shipped from a former nuclear fuel factory in Hanau, Germany, to French retreatment plant Cogema, La Hague. "Discrete" security measures" were said to have been taken, raising charges of secrecy. Responding to the accusations before parliament, Trittin said the eight shipments in question had not been kept secret. Approval for the shipments had been preceded by public hearings, he said. "I am surprised that MPs claim not to have known of the shipments," he said. Nor did the shipments come under the remit of the 1998 ban on the transport of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants. The shipment in question consisted only of non-irradiated production waste, he said. The BfS Federal Office for Nuclear Safety had approved the shipments, he went on. Michaele Hustedt, spokeswoman for the parliamentary Greens on energy matters, accused the environment ministry of having reacted too late. Michael Müller, deputy chairman of the parliamentary SPD, said the environment ministry's commitment to abandon nuclear energy would have been more credible had it published details before the shipments were carried out. Greens chairperson-designate Claudia Roth called on the ministry to publish details of all outstanding nuclear fuel shipments. HANDELSBLATT, Donnerstag, 15. Februar 2001 ***************************************************************** 18 Power play Guardian Wind of change for nuclear generator Nicholas Bannister Friday February 16, 2001 The Guardian British Energy, reviled over the years by environmentalists because of its nuclear power stations, yesterday announced plans to move into wind power. The country's biggest nuclear generator has set up a joint venture with Renewable Energy Systems to bid for an offshore wind farm site, and plans to look for other renewable energy sources. Appropriate offshore sites are to be leased out over the next four years by the Crown Estate, which administers the seabed. A British Energy spokesman said that the new venture, called Offshore Wind Power, had pre-registered for a site "so we are not ruled out at the first hurdle". The nuclear group is aiming to produce up to 2% of its electricity from wind power by 2010, the year when electricity supply companies have to obtain 10% of their energy from renewable sources. Britain's first offshore wind farm, at Blyth in Northumberland came into operation last month. The project, owned by a consortium including Powergen, has two 2MW turbines. British Energy is intending to build a project, with up to 30 turbines delivering a total of 90MW. A site of that size would require investment of about £20m. The company chose RES as its partner, because it was the largest UK-based wind energy developer, and because its parent company, Robert McAlpine, has experience of offshore construction. RES is planning to build the world's largest wind farm in Texas, with a capacity of 280MW. The company already has more than 1,100MW of capacity on its books in the US, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 19 Museum fined over radioactive exhibits BBC News | UK | Friday, 16 February, 2001, 21:29 GMT HSE inspectors visited the museum A top UK museum that exposed visitors and staff to radioactive materials has been given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £6,305. The Natural History Museum in South Kensington, London, exposed members of the public and one member of staff to radioactive rocks in its geological exhibits. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive revealed the blunder and last December museum trustees admitted breaching health and safety laws. We are not dealing with something as emotive as Chernobyl Malcolm Fortune QC Those in charge of the minerals gallery said they simply had no idea some of their exhibits should not have been on show to the public. London Blackfriars Crown Court heard that the question of museum exhibits containing uranium and thorium had resulted in the removal of some 2,000 mineral specimens from public display as long ago as 1976. Officials believed that had removed any risk that might have existed. Indeed, visits by Health and Safety Executive representatives six years later, and again in 1987, raised no further concerns. However, readings taken in early 1999 showed that all was not as it should be. Safe storage It also heard that a lone employee later spent five months transferring the offending items to safe storage. Readings had shown some of the exhibits had a radiation level of 60 microsieverts - compared to the museum's benchmark figure of one. Sentencing, Judge John Samuels QC said the case had to be seen in its "proper" context. He said the museum had been independently advised that the maximum dose which a member of the public might have received from the minerals gallery "was on a worse case basis, no more than 45 microsieverts in any one calendar year". That had to be seen against regulations which said that no-one should receive more than 5,000 microsieverts of radiation over a 12-month period from all sources. Justice That meant that, at most, the museum's minerals gallery would have been responsible for less than 1% of that figure. It was also worth noting that a kilo of brazil nuts possessed 40 microsieverts while a similar amount of mussels had a reading of 60, the judge added. "In my judgement, justice will be done if I impose a conditional discharge for one year," he said. Malcolm Fortune QC, defending, told the court that those he represented wanted to make it clear that everything had been done to resolve the situation and there was absolutely no reason for any visitor or employee to be concerned. "We accept the concerns of the Health and Safety Executive ... but the limits (of radiation) that members of the public may have been or were exposed to were low, but not as low as reasonably practicable. "We are not dealing with something as emotive as Chernobyl." ***************************************************************** 20 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH: Nuclear industry turns to renewable energy [M2 Communications Ltd.] Feb 16, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Today's announcement by British Energy, the UK nuclear power generator, that it is to begin developing large-scale offshore wind power is a victory for common sense says Friends of the Earth. British Energy has formed a joint venture company with the successful UK based wind power developer, Renewable Energy Systems Ltd. The new partnership is seeking to be amongst the first group of companies to win Government approval later this year for up to a dozen new offshore wind farms. Mark Johnston, Friends of the Earth's Climate Solutions Campaigner said: Today's announcement by British Energy is a tremendous victory for common sense. It is also a tacit admission that nuclear power is uneconomic and debunks the tired claim that new nuclear power stations are required to limit the emissions that threaten dangerous climate change. Renewable energy has enormous potential. It makes economic and environmental sense and is the best way to tackle the causes of global warming. The UK has the biggest resource in Europe, approximately 40% of the total and enough to meet the UK's electricity requirements three times over. The UK's first ever offshore wind farm opened last year near Newcastle and further eight to twelve sites are expected to be revealed by the summer. Further information from: www.british-energy.comwww.res-ltd.com CONTACT: Friends of the Earth Tel: +44 (0)20 7490 1555 Fax: +44 (0)20 7490 0881 e-mail: info@foe.co.uk WWW: http://www.foe.co.uk M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.neton the world wide web. Inquiries to info@m2.com. Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD *Copyright © 2001, M2 Communications Ltd., all rights reserved.* ***************************************************************** 21 Cape is becoming a 'nuclear highway' Southern Cross Magazine - Your Link to the Southern Hemisphere ISSUE 643 February 14 th 2001 CAPE TOWN - Greenpeace activists claim the Cape of Good Hope is becoming a "nuclear highway" with two ships transporting cargoes of deadly plutonium rounding the Cape on Monday. Although the South African government had asked the ships to stay out of its economic exclusion zone and opposes the shipments, Greenpeace spokesman Mike Townsley said its response to the shipment was not strong enough. "What we are going to see is the Cape of Good Hope turned into essentially a nuclear highway," he said. He said on Monday that Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Teal, en route from France to Japan, would be out of South African waters by Tuesday. Greenpeace says an accident involving the ships could have catastrophic environmental consequences and calculates another 78 similar shipments will pass South Africa. ***************************************************************** 22 Waste facilities, recycled dumps boost health toll Toxic Utah: Trash, troubles are piling up [deseretnews.com] Friday, February 16, 2001 By Lucinda Dillon and Brady Snyder Deseret News staff writers Utah faces a heap of toxic garbage concerns both real and imagined — and in some regards, residents of the Beehive State are their own worst enemy. ['Image'] Klint Woolsey undergoes chemotherapy at the Huntsman Cancer Institute. The Woolseys' Layton home is less than a mile from a large trash incinerator. [''] *Ravell Call, Deseret News* With our big families and lackluster conservation efforts, Utahns generate trash. Lots of it. And that trash production contributes to a larger environmental problem. Throughout the state, well-publicized incidents show growing concern about the health toll of incinerators, landfills and the parks and properties built on top of dumps: + In Davis County, a group of residents is investigating what they consider to be a grave community danger — the plant where tons of their own garbage is burned. Some residents believe excessive dioxin emissions from the state's only household and commercial waste incinerator are giving them brain cancer. The Davis County Health Department, under urging from the public and activists, has initiated an investigation into residents' claims. + In an unprecedented declaration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services last month upgraded dioxin, which is produced at the Layton incinerator, to a "known human carcinogen," intensifying fears of residents and activists who have long worried that the chemical is hazardous to communities. + In Utah County, residents have sued a developer who built a community of manufactured homes on the old Spanish Fork Landfill, which closed a decade ago. Syringes, medicine bottles, tires, asbestos and foul odors have emerged from the old dump site through the lawns and landscaping of Spanish Fork Ranch residents. + This month the Utah County Health Department issued a strong warning about long-lasting landfill dangers. "It should be recognized that any dwelling placed on top of an active biological system, such as a landfill, is fraught with hazards," according to a department statement, which says this should be done "only as a last resort." + In other areas, state officials are monitoring dumps where tests have given rise to concerns about groundwater contamination. Who is to blame? For years, Klint Woolsey enjoyed the peas and tomatoes, squash, radishes, corn and carrots he grew on his Layton property. Now he believes the produce might have been harmful instead of healthy. Less than a mile away, two tall stacks from a Wasatch Energy Systems incinerator emit into the air byproducts from tons of trash burned every day — and some of those byproducts are toxic. The 72-year-old Woolsey didn't connect the incinerator to his own life until a year ago, when he began stumbling while on vacation in Arizona with his wife. He was falling down, Woolsey said recently from his daughter's Layton home. Not acting himself. "Pretty soon, I didn't know anything." A CAT scan showed a shadow on his brain. Two days later, doctors removed 90 percent of a brain tumor as big as an apple. The cancer has caused Woolsey, his family and other residents to look to the incinerator and ask questions. ['Image'] Klint Woolsey, who has gliosarcoma, a brain cancer, sits with his daughter Louise Love in her Layton home. [''] *Ravell Call, Deseret News* Four times in the past six years the plant has failed state-mandated tests of dioxin emissions. The incinerator currently has no way to regulate dioxin. The plant repeatedly appeals its failed tests, and it has asked the state to double the amount of dioxin it is allowed to release. The state Air Quality Board has not ruled on this request. These repeated emission failures and residents' perception the plant is dragging its feet about addressing the problem have led to a grass-roots effort to link the incinerator to gliosarcoma, the type of brain cancer Woolsey has. The idea is that dioxin travels into the ground and air nearby — it gets absorbed into the soil, inhaled by residents and eaten by animals that graze in Davis County. "We've had a garden and we've been eating out of it for 13 years, so I don't know . . . " Woolsey said. Woolsey's daughter, Louise Love of Layton, has done her own research. "I have no proof right now. But how am I going to get any until I get someone out here to do a study?" A hand-drawn map shows 30 cases of gliosarcoma Love has tracked down among friends, neighbors and residents within a three-mile radius of the incinerator. Karen Keller, epidemiologist for the State Department of Health, said 30 gliosarcoma diagnoses would be extremely high for such an area, but her office hasn't been able to verify all 30 cases. Without verification — from individual doctors who are reluctant to divulge patients' histories or pin cancers and problems on a specific source — Keller's hands are tied. Woolsey's physician, Dr. Deborah T. Blumenthal, director of the division of neuro-oncology and assistant professor of neurology at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, says this case does not illustrate a connection as strong as that between smoking and certain types of lung cancer. She has seen Love's list of 30 people with brain tumors and knows Woolsey as well as two other residents who died of "GBM" or glioblastoma. She has not confirmed the other cases of gliosarcoma, a rare type of GBM. She said she is concerned about the list and says it is appropriate to encourage a cancer cluster study. "From what I could find out about dioxin, I didn't see a link with brain cancers," Blumenthal said. She did see lab evidence that chronic dioxin exposure in rats causes lung lesions, ovarian tumors and liver tumors. Davis County officials, meanwhile, have followed the notion that dioxin is less harmful than other, ever-present environmental hazards of disposing solid waste. "Yeah, there's people in Layton with cancer," said Layton Mayor Jerry Stevenson, who also chairs Wasatch Energy's board. "Did the incinerator cause it? I don't think so." Burning vs. burying Burning trash has an upside. It reduces landfill waste, kills bacteria that might otherwise seep into groundwater and potentially reduces ozone-depleting gases emitted by decomposing trash. And every year Utah must find someplace to stuff the 4 million tons of solid and hazardous waste — enough to fill the Delta Center 18 times — its residences and businesses generate. Most of that garbage is put in landfills, and about 4 percent is burned at the Layton incinerator. Landfill problems are obvious in Spanish Fork, where a master-planned residential community was built on a former dump. Residents living on the site now suffer headaches, nausea and hair loss, and the county health department has ordered all homes on the former landfill moved. ['Photo'] The Salt Lake County Landfill at about 6000 West and 1300 South accepts thousands of tons of trash each month. The physical symptoms in Spanish Fork are most often blamed on methane gas, which is constantly emitted from landfills. The ground above the old landfill has also tested positive for asbestos, which is linked to lung cancer. "I don't dare take a drink of water or turn on the heater. I'm afraid our house is going to blow up," Spanish Fork resident Erin Dodge said last month. "We shouldn't have to live there." To bury or not to bury. To burn or not to burn. Sentiment is varied on all sides of the garbage issue. And many residents see Utah as the nation's favorite dumping ground. A new 2,400-acre landfill in east Carbon is touting successes. Buried there are dregs from New York Harbor, tons of contaminated soil from a northern California railyard, shredded car parts from General Motors plants. "We're willing to take waste from anywhere," Kirk Treece, ECDC general manager, told lawmakers last fall during a tour of the site. Within the garbage discussion, the Layton incinerator has been under nearly constant fire. LeGrand Bitter, executive director of Wasatch Energy, is a perpetual cheerleader for the incineration industry, and he frequently notes how dangerous everyday landfills can be. "Some places have been able to just dig a hole in the ground," he said. Bitter is quick to offer statistics that indicate dioxin emissions aren't as evil as advertised. He maintains two families of four burning their waste in a backyard barrel would produce as much dioxin as his incinerator, which burns 400 tons of trash per day and has no dioxin control measures. A presenter told him that at a conference, he says. "I have no reason to doubt that representation." Trashing Utah Certainly, Wasatch Energy reduces landfill space. "There is no 100 percent environmentally safe way of disposing of garbage — whatever you do," said Stevenson. "We have to reduce that garbage as much as we can." But Utahns don't reduce. Statewide, consumers contribute mountains to a trash disposal problem that is at best disconcerting and at worst a full-fledged health hazard. We barely recycle. We rarely conserve. We fill up our trash cans and watch their contents disappear into the backside of garbage trucks that carry their loads to places most people have never seen. "The state doesn't have a mandated recycling goal," explained Ralph Bohn, solid waste section manager for the state Division of Solid Waste Management. So the state doesn't track recycling. The best recycling data Bohn has comes from BioCycle Magazine, which conducts a yearly national recycling survey. The magazine reports that Utah recycles 15-20 percent of its waste. In comparison, Arizona recycles 26 percent of its trash, Oregon 30 percent, Maine and New York, 42 percent. Along the Wasatch Front, West Jordan and Sandy are the only cities with mandatory recycling, which means residents pay for curbside recycling service even if they don't use it. Recycling proponents say more cities need to follow the two cities' lead. "They say they're able to reduce their waste by half," said Brad Mertz, marketing manager for recycler BFI. "It reduces what they have to pay for trash." Recycling does reduce trash costs, says Jim Jones, Waste Management's business development manager. But for many cities, falling trash prices can't make up the extra recycling fees. ['Photo'] Le Grand Bitter Recycling markets are fickle and Waste Management sometimes has a hard time finding buyers for recyclables. Often, Utah has to ship recycled goods to places like California where there are more buyers, said Jones, which boosts Utah cost to recycle. "You don't get into recycling to make money. Basically the reason people do it is because it's the right thing to do," Mertz said. "Everywhere we've implemented recycling the response has been incredible. People know it's the right thing to do and they want to do it." But Utah clearly isn't there yet — throughout state, 18 landfills each accept 20 tons of trash every day. Landfilling is popular here because it's cheap, $22 a ton versus four times that for recycling. Groundwater is tested beneath half of these big landfills, and the rest are exempt from this testing for various reasons. In Grand County for example, the landfill is built on a 5,000-foot layer of impermeable shale, so there is no groundwater within the dump's reach that can be contaminated. "Our No. 1 concern with landfills and garbage is groundwater contamination," Bohn said. Methane gas emissions and rodent control are also major headaches for Bohn's department. Four landfills — including a dump in Davis County operated by the same group that runs the incinerator there — have failed preliminary groundwater tests and are under close observation by state environmental officials. In Washington County, Duchesne, the Trans-Jordan Landfill and Davis County, officials have discovered high levels of metals and organic elements, and inappropriate "water chemistry," Bohn said. All four sites are being assessed by the division. In Spanish Fork, waterfowl living in Utah Lake marshland became sick in areas near its landfill turned master-planned community. Test results of water draining from the landfill into the wetlands show contamination. Arsenic. Lead. Chromium. Cadmium. The state recognizes these concerns. Bohn says there are dozens of unlined landfills statewide that could allow poisonous leachate — groundwater contaminated by underground garbage — to seep into lakes, streams and drinking water. "We do have landfills out there," Bohn said, "that are polluting and that have impacted the groundwater." Dioxin and cancer But landfills have not seen scrutiny like Wasatch Energy's incinerator. Wasatch Energy has initiated some health-risk assessment tests and taken samples of from soil and a milk-producing goat nearby. The tests, all funded by Wasatch Energy, are designed to ease public fears and prove the plant's dioxin emissions are not damaging the public health. The tests and health assessments, however, are written in scientific jargon and aren't well understood by the general public. State Department of Air Quality director Rick Sprott has been central in Utah's dioxin debate. His department is criticized both by residents who say the state is too lax with Wasatch Energy and incinerator officials who say they are unfairly targeted. "There has been a lot of public concern," he said. The brain cancer issue is two-fold: Is there a cancer cluster around the incinerator, and, if so, is dioxin to blame? Evidence to support the first concern has streamed in from nearby residents. Love's list of 30 residents who say they have the same kind of brain cancer that Woolsey has is one example. But the Utah Department of Health and the Utah Cancer Registry, however, can't confirm such a claim. According to the health department's bureau of epidemiology, a cancer cluster is, "three or more cases occurring within a certain location or geographical area and time period." Despite the apparent frequency of gliosarcoma in Layton, state epidemiologist Keller says the health department has never been notified of the cluster. Her office is usually notified of such clusters by county health departments or individual residents. Richard Harvey, former director of the Davis County Health Department and vice chairman of Wasatch Energy's board, said he never notified the state because he could never substantiate the existence of a cluster. "We've examined these types of things in the past and our experience has been that there has not been the amount of problems that people make out," Harvey said. However, Harvey's replacement, Lewis Garrett, who has no affiliation with Wasatch Energy and has been on the job only a month, has initiated an examination into brain cancer rates in Layton and Davis County. Garrett said he will begin looking at Utah Cancer Registry data and then expand his investigation. Melanie St. Claire, another Layton resident, has also been in touch with residents in the area around the plant. "We just want someone to look into it," said St. Claire, who lives two miles from the plant. "The plant has had all these failed tests. They clearly are dragging their feet," St. Claire said. "Something has to be done to see that this isn't the cause of this sickness." *E-MAIL: lucy@desnews.com; bsnyder@desnews.com* © 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 23 Measures to Head Off N-Waste Appear to Have Smooth Sailing ** *Friday, February 16, 2001* BY DAN HARRIE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Gov. Mike Leavitt's "over-my-dead-body" legislation to keep high-level nuclear waste out of the state is on its way through the Legislature. And there is little doubt it will pass. "It seems to be wired," said David Bird, an attorney for Private Fuel Storage, which is attempting to locate a waste storage facility in Skull Valley. "We knew that it was going to be a political monster," said Leon Bear, chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes. The tribe has signed a contract with Private Fuel Storage to locate the facility on tribal lands. Thursday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved a trio of bills aimed at fighting off the spent nuclear fuel rods. Senate Bill 81 is the centerpiece of the package. It prohibits high-level nuclear waste from coming into the state, then goes on to say if the federal government overrides that ban the state will impose a raft of restrictions. Among the provisions: a cash deposit of between $11.5 billion and $234.7 billion within 30 days of the facility's location; a 75 percent tax on any business that provides goods or services to the project; and an outright ban on Tooele County from providing police, fire, water or other services. Department of Environmental Quality Director Dianne Nielson testified for the bills, saying the proposed 40,000 metric tons of fuel rods pose a substantial health and liability risk to Utahns. Sponsoring Sen. Terry Spencer, R-Layton, put it more bluntly: "We don't want somebody else's garbage here." Senate Bill 198, which appropriates $1.6 million for legal fees associated with the nuclear waste fight, and Senate Bill 199, which appropriates $2 million to the Goshutes for economic alternatives to the nuclear-waste dump, also passed the committee unanimously. ***************************************************************** 24 State rejects using Oak Ridge for Ohio nuclear waste storage [Beacon Journal Photos] 5:33 a.m. EST Thursday, February 15, 2001 OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) -- The state has rejected an overture from the U.S. Department of Energy to use Oak Ridge facilities as a temporary storage site for western-bound nuclear waste. ``This is not an option,'' Gov. Don Sundquist said in a letter Wednesday to the DOE manager who oversees waste operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. ``Tennessee will not become an interim radioactive waste storage facility for the DOE complex.'' The DOE was considering the possible shipment of so-called transuranic waste from Battelle Laboratories in Ohio to Oak Ridge for storage. Transuranic waste is a particularly hazardous category of nuclear waste, involving radioactive materials such as plutonium. Walter Perry of DOE's Oak Ridge office said the agency was interested in storing the Ohio waste in Oak Ridge until it could be treated, packaged and sent to the New Mexico disposal facility. It's not clear how many shipments would be involved, although a DOE letter indicates the storage needs involve about 100 drums or 10 truckloads. However, the Oak Ridge treatment plant currently under construction by Foster Wheeler Environmental is not expected to begin operation until late 2002, with initial shipments in early 2003. That means the transuranic waste from Ohio probably would be stored at Oak Ridge for at least a couple of years. ``It's an outrage,'' Justin Wilson, the policy deputy to Sundquist, said Wednesday evening. ``We're not going to be a dumping ground for DOE. ``We want very much to work with the Department of Energy wherever possible on national solutions. But, to this, the response is real simple: No. We're not going do it.'' In his letter to DOE, Sundquist said the state would consider treating and packaging out-of-state waste on a ``case-by-case basis'' once the Oak Ridge treatment plant is operational and once Oak Ridge waste is being routinely shipped to New Mexico. --- DOE's Oak Ridge Operations:www.oakridge.doe.gov/ AP-CS-02-15-01 0124EST --> ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Cuts opposed on cleanup at Paducah plant - By Bill Bartleman The Paducah Sun Friday, February 16, 2001 Paducah, Kentucky By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--*270.575.8650* The Bush administration is considering cutting $1 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy's budget, including $400 million intended for cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities such as the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield pledged to fight to retain funding for work at the Paducah plant, which this year is scheduled to receive more than $90 million for cleanup and worker compensation programs. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the administration is considering the cuts in the 2002 budget soon to be presented to Congress. Exactly how the cuts would affect cleanup work here was not clear. McConnell has said he wants to meet with Bush soon to discuss cleanup funding and Department of Energy needs here. Late Thursday, in response to the Wall Street Journal article and inquiries from reporters, McConnell issued a statement: "The cleanup effort in Paducah remains one of my top priorities. Just as we did under the previous administration, I expect to work with Senator (Jim) Bunning and Congressman Whitfield to secure as much funding as necessary to get the job done quickly and safely." Gov. Paul Patton said last year that at least $100 million would be needed in each of the next 10 years to meet DOE commitments to clean up the plant by 2010. Patton has threatened a lawsuit against the federal government if the commitments aren't met. The cleanup work involves contaminated buildings, soil, groundwater, old landfills and scrap piles. Whitfield and eight others who make up the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus sent a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham this week asking that cleanup funds be increased, not decreased. "We are concerned by recent press reports that this (environmental management) program may receive a funding cut or level funding that will not move the program forward, threaten the environmental health of our regions, and subject the department to lawsuits from our states," the letter stated. An increase in funding is needed for the 2002 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 to meet legally binding cleanup commitments made to states, the letter stated, adding that delays would only mean greater costs later. The letter said the cleanup program "is at a critical point next year" and adequate funding is vital. The Wall Street Journal said the president's budget office is proposing the cuts, but that Abraham opposes the cuts and has argued for aggressive cleanup. Should executive branch cuts take place, Congress could still restore funding during budget deliberations. ***************************************************************** 2 Radiation Resistant Microbe Featured in Cleanup Research EarthVision Environmental News* * RICHLAND, WA, February 14, 2001 - When scientists sequenced the DNA of a supremely hardy, radioactive resistant microbe in 1999, its entire genetic makeup was laid bare for scientific investigation. However, what the researchers didn't find out until just recently is that *Deinococcus radiodurans*, the most radiation resistant microbe yet discovered, can reduce radioactive and metal contaminants such as uranium, technetium, and chromium anaerobically. According researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, *D. radiodurans* was thought to behave as a strictly aerobic organism, or one that needs oxygen to live. This is good news, because microbes that are able to live in anaerobic conditions and metabolize contaminated substances may prove to be valuable for cleaning up contaminated environments, which may be oxygen-deficient. The work on this microbe is being undertaken by the Energy Department's Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program. The Energy Department is interested in *D. radiodurans* because the department must clean up contamination at 18 facilities across the US resulting from the production of weapons-grade nuclear materials between 1945 and 1986. Among the most common inorganic contaminants at these sites are the elements uranium, plutonium, technetium, and chromium. Additionally, some contaminated sediments and soils at the sites, particularly beneath leaking waste storage tanks, can have radiation levels that exceed those tolerated by most microorganisms. But scientists are hopeful that *D. radiodurans* can help because it can withstand radiation levels up to 1.5-million rads (500 rads is lethal to humans). It might be the only known microorganism that can survive such conditions and may someday be used to remediate highly radioactive waste. Researchers are now working on understanding the biology of the microbe and seeing how it could be used in these tough remediation cases. ***************************************************************** 3 Uranium Found In 6 More Wells Thursday February 15 08:00 PM EST Uranium Found In 6 More Wells DHEC Testing Shows High Levels in 6 Of 46 Tests Tests on almost 50 drinking-water wells in southern Greenville County have turned up more instances of abnormally high uranium levels. After tests on wells in three homes along Jenkins Bridge Road near Simpsonville turned up high uranium levels last week, the state Department of Health and Environmental Control ordered the tests. When the results came back, six of the 46 additional wells showed similarly high levels of the radioactive element. "The others are in that same vicinity but they are not all together," DHEC spokesman Thom Berry told WYFF News 4's Brad Willis. "There's one that may have a hit and then the other residences are not having a problem." Resident Kenny Burny got good news Thursday. "Now that it's been tested, we have a nice low reading," he told News 4. "It gives you a little bit more feeling of security, especially since we've been drinking the water for the last four years. I know there are some houses about a half mile away that had pretty high readings." Residents of the 40 homes without high levels of uranium in their water have been told that they may resume drinking from their wells. The rest have been told to stick with bottled water. "Our next step is to determine how to best get these (nine) residences onto a public water supply," Berry said. "Long-term drinking of the water can result in kidney problems, so the better course of action is to get off of that well as a source of drinking water." Berry said that DHEC is talking to water suppliers and the state budget and control board about how to pay for running a municipal water line to the area. Long-term exposure to uranium has been shown to cause cancer and kidney problems. DHEC scientists says that the uranium most likely comes from pockets of the substance that occur naturally in the area. The agency will hold an open meeting next Tuesday night at 7 p.m. at Bryson Middle School in Simpsonville. Environmental workers will be available to answer questions. Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! and . ***************************************************************** 4 Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE) files friend of the court brief in Carson v. DOE Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE) files friend of the court brief in Carson v. Dept. of Energy whistleblower appeal at U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD Joseph P. Carson, Appellant 865-300-5831 versus Department of Energy, Agency Docket Number: AT-1221-01-0025-W-1 Date: February 15, 2001 AMICUS CURIAE (FRIEND OF THE COURT) BRIEF OF THE COALITION FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT (CHE) I. Statement Per 5 CFR 1201.34 the Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE), a non-profit organization incorporated in Tennessee, respectfully submits an amicus curiae brief. CHE does so because of its deep concern that the reprisal the Department of Energy has, for many years, taken against the appellant, Joseph P. Carson, P.E, evidences a conspiracy between DOE attorneys, personnel specialists and DOE line managers. Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE), of which I'm President, developed from the need of a support and research group involving the illnesses of workers at the Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities (K-25, X-10 and Y-12) and citizens of Oak Ridge, Tennessee and the surrounding area. We are interested in helping those who have been harmed by the contamination and operations of the Department of Energy facilities. This includes DOE safety professionals, like Mr. Carson, who risked and sacrificed much in putting professional duty ahead of economic self-interest, for the cause of workplace and public health. CHE has provided much educational outreach about the need for legislative relief for past and present DOE workers, their families, and others impacted by DOE. Many are deceased, disabled, or diseased because of unsafe and unhealthy conditions in DOE sites. In large part the existence and persistence of these unsafe conditions was enabled by the "success" of the unlawful, unethical, arrogant, and unaccountable 3-D legal tactics -Defame, Deny and, above all else, Delay - of DOE and DOE contractor attorneys in contesting any claim of a sick worker, no matter how well-founded. As the attached "December 7, 2000, Statement of the President" shows, the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000, is intended to compensate thousands of DOE workers who sacrificed their health, due to workplace hazards they were neither informed of nor protected from, in building the nation's nuclear defenses. In CHE's opinion, DOE attorneys, and their "scorched earth" legal tactics, are a principal cause for the harms now being compensated. It is CHE's opinion that if DOE attorneys are found to have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy against Mr .Carson, it could have significant impact on ongoing efforts to improve the scope and benefits of the compensation provided by this law. President Bush has, under the law, an opportunity to recommend expanding the new law to cover covers more impacted people more fully. CHE hopes to bring to President Bush's attention the "compassionate conservatism" of Joe Carson, P.E., in stubbornly and persistently done his duty, at great personal and professional cost, risk, and sacrifice; in the hope he will decide to recommend increasing the compensation available. I did not go to work for a DOE contractor at a DOE owned facility to serve my country. I was a contractor employee, not a public employee as Mr. Carson. I had already served my country in the military. I applied for and got a job to provide for my family - I was assured I was in a safe working environment. It turned out I was lied to in fact my health was destroyed - my dreams for my retirement were also destroyed. I am sentenced to the rest of my life in bad health, financial poverty and a burden on my wife and family. My story is only one of many. I only wish someone like Joe Carson had been at my DOE facility when I worked there. Maybe I'd be healthy today - I could have quit DOE and I would have, had I know of the workplace risks I faced and DOE's unwillingness to identify them, let alone correct them. I've had a number of conversations with Leah Dever, the Manager of Oak Ridge Operations, it seemed to me that she wanted me to trust her, that she wanted CHE's support. I'm quite disillusioned that she denied Joe Carson's repeated requests for an opportunity for a transfer, detail or reassignment to Oak Ridge Operations when his program was abolished, and that she even added "insult to injury" by describing his request as "fundamentally unfair" - after he prevailed in a Final Board decision as a whistleblower and despite DOE's polity of "zero tolerance for reprisal!" I think everyone concerned about health and safety in DOE also has reason to be offended by Ms. Dever's "fundamentally unfair" characterization of Mr. Carson's reasonable request, particularly given the October 2000 Recommendation of Judge Vitaris, who agreed that DOE, regardless of its "zero tolerance for reprisal" policy, owed Mr. Carson just what he had asked of Ms. Dever in March 2000. I understand Ms. Dever is DOE's "Deciding Official" in this case. I think she should immediately direct that Joe Carson be promoted to a management position in Oak Ridge Operations. I and others in CHE cannot think of anyone else whose promotion to a management position would be more welcomed by more people in this community It would be a beacon to hope to many who have much cause for despair. What's "fundamentally unfair" about that? The overall administrative record shows Mr. Carson has "prevailed" - he obtained attorneys fees, if nothing else - as a result of no fewer than seven whistleblower appeals or petitions for enforcement of Final Board Orders in his whistleblower appeals (Judge Vitaris' October 2000 Recommendation of non-compliance still pends before the Full Board, but the agency did not contest it.) The record shows he has obtained almost $400,000.00 in attorney fees and costs as a result with over $100,000.00 in his attorney fees, costs and consequential damages still in litigation. The record doesn't show how much money the agency has spent defending its unlawful actions against Mr. Carson, it's probably well over a million dollars. = Yet, Mr. Carson still alleges reprisal involving key present and former agency managers, including the present Oak Ridge Operations Office Manager, Leah Dever, the past manager, James Hall, and the past Deputy Manager, Steve Richardson. CHE understands that Ms. Dever is scheduled to testify at the hearing and subpoenas will be issued to obtain the testimony of Mr. Hall and Mr. Richardson. CHE considers this case, as his previous related cases, to demonstrate, clearly, an outrageous abuse of authority by involved DOE officials, including its attorneys, personnel specialists, and line managers. CHE thinks the case has most troubling implications for workplace and public health and safety in DOE's Oak Ridge facilities and for the safeguards and security of America's nuclear stockpile and nuclear weapons secrets. Certainly, Mr. Carson's allegations and the administrative record of his case make an open lie of some of the pretexts by which this agency has operated, including the oft-repeated DOE Secretarial pledge of "zero tolerance for reprisal." Additionally, if he is successful in forcing DOE to admit such a conspiracy exists or in demonstrating it to this Board, it could have quite significant implications on the willingness of Congress and the President to substantively improve the existing Energy Employees Compensation Act, bringing hope, relief, and a fuller measure of justice to many who were abused, just as Mr. Carson has been, by this agency. II. Conclusion CHE is filing this amicus curiae brief at this point, instead of later, because Board rulings in the near future about the scope of the attorney-client privilege may prove crucial in allowing the appellant to substantiate his allegations, via discovery, of conspiracy. CHE calls for DOE employees and managers, with whom the attorney-client privilege resides, to waive it freely, as is their right, instead of using it to cloak possibly unlawful actions of DOE attorneys. If they won't freely waive it, we respectfully request the Board to consider the extraordinary circumstances of this appeal and direct the attorney-client privilege be revoked as necessary. Additionally, I respectfully request an opportunity for myself and other community members to testify at this hearing about Mr. Carson's singular qualifications for promotion and how his promotion to a management position in Oak Ridge Operations would be beneficial to the entire community. If the Board desires supporting declarations from me and/or other CHE members to accompany this amicus curiae brief, we will respectfully and promptly provide them. Respectfully Submitted, Harry Williams, President, CHE ***************************************************************** 5 Japan Calls Sub Findings 'Outrageous' Las Vegas SUN February 16, 2001 ASSOCIATED PRESS UWAJIMA, Japan (AP) -- Amid rising anger and distrust, Japan's defense minister on Friday called it "outrageous" that civilians were at the controls of a U.S. Navy submarine when it smashed into a Japanese fishing vessel off Hawaii. The U.S. Navy "is slack" in allowing civilians to sit at control stations in the sub, said Defense Agency chief Toshitsugu Saito, whose post is equivalent to defense minister. "It is outrageous," he said. The Japanese public shared his anger, particularly in this remote southwestern fishing village, home to students still missing from the disaster. Ietaka Horita, principal of the high school that owned the boat, said Friday that he was "enraged" to hear that civilians were at the sub's controls and that he found out about it from media reports, not government investigators. U.S. Navy officials said Friday that submarine commanders have been ordered not to perform emergency surfacing drills with civilians aboard, pending the outcome of investigations into the collision. Submarine commanders also are not allowed to permit civilians at control stations, the officials said. On Friday, the Foreign Ministry's second-highest official, Seishiro Eto, met at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Rudy de Leon. The Coast Guard gave Eto a rundown of its response to the accident, including the rescue of 26 people and efforts to find those still missing, Pentagon spokesman Craig Quigley said. Eto was to hold talks at the State Department later Friday. Horita, who returned from Hawaii on Thursday night, said it was painful to come back with nine people still missing from the collision. "The top priority for me is to see that they are rescued, and I need to know who is responsible," he said, wiping away tears with a handkerchief. The Japanese are urging the Americans to continue searching for those missing since the Feb. 9 accident: four 17-year-old students, two teachers and three crew members. "Even though it might eventually become clear that there's little hope, families want to actually see their dead and hug them, to help them come to terms with it," Horita said. The USS Greeneville, practicing a quick surfacing maneuver, rocketed into the Ehime Maru, which was carrying Japanese high school students on a fisheries training mission, and sent it to the bottom of the sea. Of the 35 people aboard, 26 were rescued. U.S. regional Consul-General Robert Ludan visited Ehime state Gov. Moriyuki Kato on Friday to apologize. He was the first U.S. official to visit the state and issue a public apology. They met privately afterward. "We are determined to find out what actually happened," Ludan said in Uwajima. "We are committed to investigating the cause as quickly as possible. We'll do our best to make sure it never happens again." The governor gave him a letter for U.S. Ambassador Thomas Foley demanding recovery of the ship, utmost efforts to find the missing and a full and thorough explanation to the families of what happened. Ludan said he could not comment on the issue of compensation. "Although the United States says it is doing its best in the investigation, we cannot trust that claim," the Uwajima-based Ehime Shimbun newspaper said in an editorial Friday. Kono demanded information on exactly what the civilians did at the controls, and asked why U.S. officials did not inform Japan that civilians were taking part in the maneuvers, the ministry said. Civilian John Hall told U.S. television broadcaster NBC on Thursday that he pulled control levers just before the emergency surfacing drill began, with a crew member right next to him. Another civilian, Todd Thoman, told NBC that a periscope was "most definitely" used to check the ocean surface before the drill. The captain checked through the periscope and saw no vessel, Thoman said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 McClellan Residents Upset Over Plutonium Friday February 16 01:30 AM EST McClellan Residents Upset Over Plutonium Meeting Over Clean-Up Becomes Heated McClellan Air Force Base residents pressed officials at a public meeting Thursday night for answers about the discovery of buried plutonium. The meeting held near McClellan was supposed to focus on how environmental experts planned to implement a $38 million clean-up of a landfill on the base. Officials hoped concerned residents would comment on a plan to erect a large tent over the approximately one-acre area due to be excavated. But instead, angry residents -- surrounded by sheriff's deputies -- wanted to know what activities the military had performed that included the use of plutonium. Officials would not comment on any military actions, saying that the information is classified. "Evidently, there's big secrecy here and (they) need to cover it up and they don't want the public to know about it," Dell Calloway said. Officials would only say that the proposed clean-up of the site poses no health threat for residents. "There is no danger to the public from the clean-up of this site," McClellan spokesperson Linda Geissinger said. But some residents aren't as sure. "These people are lying to you, every one of them," shouted Patricia Axelrod. Officials said that they were unsure what remained buried at the site and their goal was to protect the public. Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! and . ***************************************************************** 7 U.N.: No Plutonium Shell Health Risks February 16, 2001 ASSOCIATED PRESS GENEVA (AP) -- Rounds of depleted uranium fired by NATO warplanes in Kosovo two years ago contained deadly plutonium, but at "very low" levels that pose no health risks, U.N. officials said Friday. Laboratories in Switzerland and Sweden found "traces" of plutonium on four spent rounds of ammunition collected by a U.N. team in November, the U.N. Environment Program said. "The amount of plutonium found in the depleted uranium penetrators is very low and does not have any significant impact on their overall radioactivity," the U.N. statement said. The U.N. team is trying to determine whether any danger could be associated with the leftovers from the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Serb forces. "According to an assessment by the Swiss AC-Laboratory Spiez, these newest findings about the composition of the depleted uranium only lead to a minor change in the overall radiological situation and should therefore not cause any immediate alarm," said UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer. The U.N. study was continuing, he said. Earlier Friday, the Swiss Defense Ministry released results from the Spiez laboratory showing the findings of about one part plutonium per billion parts of depleted uranium. "The plutonium found so far thus poses no additional risk," the ministry said. The U.N. statement said the Swedish and Swiss labs were working with three other European facilities to analyze 340 soil, water, and other samples taken during the November field mission. Depleted-uranium ammunition has come under intense scrutiny because of fears it was associated with cases of leukemia in some NATO peacekeepers who served in the Balkans. The presence of plutonium had been predicted by Swiss scientists after earlier testing found traces of enriched uranium in the samples. Depleted uranium, a heavy, dense metal usually left over from making fuel for nuclear reactors, is used for some ammunition because it can penetrate tanks and other armored vehicles. The discovery by the Spiez laboratory a month ago that limited amounts of enriched uranium were in the samples indicated the metal used in the ammunition had come from nuclear reprocessing plants and therefore might also contain the more hazardous plutonium, scientists said at the time. NATO says its studies have shown no connection between depleted uranium munitions and cancer among soldiers who served in the Balkans. Scientists say plutonium is about 200,000 times more radioactive than uranium and the radiotoxicity is about a million times higher. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology says that even less than a thousandth of a gram of plutonium in the lungs could cause serious health problems, such as bone and lung tumors. The Spiez tests found a much smaller amount -- between 0.4 and 1.3 billionths of a gram of plutonium per gram of depleted uranium, said the ministry. NATO has said the alliance had always accepted that there were trace amounts of plutonium in depleted uranium, but they caused almost no additional radioactivity. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 UNEP confirms plutonium found in DU ammunition UNEP Balkans > Press Release > 16 February 2001: UB Home > Press Releases > 16 February 2001 For use of the media only; Not an official document. UNEP confirms plutonium found in DU ammunition Geneva, 16 February 2001 - Traces of plutonium have been detected in the DU penetrators found at sites in Kosovo that were investigated in November 2000 by the United Nations Environment Programme's Depleted Uranium Assessment Team, which included the International Atomic Energy Agency, UNEP reported here today. The existence of plutonium was confirmed by the two laboratories tasked with analysing the penetrators - the Swiss AC-Laboratory Spiez and the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute (SSI). Together with three other European laboratories, these labs have been analysing a total of 340 soil, water, and other samples taken during the November field mission. The traces of isotopes Pu-239/240 were found in four different penetrators (ammunition tips). The amount of plutonium in the penetrators varied from 0.8 to 12.87 Bq/kg. In January, UNEP confirmed that some labs had also found the uranium isotope U-236 in the penetrators. (Note: Bq = becquerel, a measure of radioactivity.) The presence of these transuranic elements in the DU indicates that at least some of the material has been in nuclear reactors. However, the amount of plutonium found in the DU penetrators is very low and does not have any significant impact on their overall radioactivity. "According to an assessment by the Swiss AC-Laboratory Spiez, these newest findings about the composition of the depleted uranium only lead to a minor change in the overall radiological situation and should not therefore not cause any immediate alarm," said UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer. "As we stated earlier*, UNEP's recommendations on what steps should be taken next will be based on the full set of laboratory analyses, which are still ongoing, and will be presented in early March in the report on the environmental effects of DU in Kosovo." Note to journalists: For more information, please contact UNEP Spokesperson Mr. Tore Brevik at +254-2-623292 or tore.brevik@unep.org; UNEP Depleted Uranium Assessment Team Chairman, Mr. Pekka Haavisto at +358-40-588 4720 or pekka.haavisto@upi-fiia.fi; or UNEP Press Officer Mr. Michael Williams at +41-22-9178242, +41-79-409-1528 or Michael.williams@unep.ch. See also http://balkans.unep.ch. * See press release of 25 January 2001 at balkans.unep.ch Copyright 2000-2001 - UNEP Balkans United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP tél: +4122 917 86 16 fax: +4122 917 80 64 email & contact Hosted by: UNEP Geneva Last update: 16 February, 2001 ***************************************************************** 9 Russia selling atomic know-how, says US ISSUE 2093 Friday 16 February 2001 By Toby Harnden in Washington and Marcus Warren in Moscow RELATIONS between America and Russia deteriorated sharply yesterday after the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, accused Moscow of selling nuclear technology to Nato's enemies. Mr Rumsfeld, a Cold War veteran who first led the Pentagon in 1976, dismissed Russian concerns about the "Son of Star Wars" National Missile Defence programme, one of President Bush's defence priorities. He said: "Russia is an active proliferator. They are part of the problem. They are selling [weapons to] and assisting countries like Iran and North Korea and India which are threatening . . . the United States and Western Europe." Russian officials reacted angrily, saying that Mr Rumsfeld had no evidence to support his statement. Gen Valery Manilov, Russia's first deputy chief of staff, said: "These words are on the conscience of Mr Rumsfeld. Russia has not violated, does not violate and will not violate its obligations, including in the area of non-proliferation." Mr Rumsfeld said Russian objections to NMD were "not really serious" and that he was sure Europe would fall into line on the issue. "There is no question in my mind but that we will be able to evolve a system that will be able to deal with ballistic missiles." His comments followed testimony in Congress from George Tenet, the CIA director, about Moscow's sale of weapons and nuclear secrets. Russia, Mr Tenet said, was trying to revive its status as a world power and "continues to value arms and technology sales as a major source of funds". The Kremlin has known for months that Mr Bush is a keen advocate of NMD, but the tone of the new administration's rhetoric on Russia has been far tougher than it expected. Moscow has rejected American assurances that the system is aimed only at foiling surprise missile strikes by rogue regimes and complained that NMD undermined the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the whole concept of strategic disarmament. Along with France and Germany, Russia is also sceptical of the likelihood of any nuclear attack from Iran, Iraq or North Korea in the foreseeable future. Gen Leonid Ivashov, chief of the Russian Defence Ministry's international co-operation department, said: "Even America's allies do not believe in the fairy tales about the threats from other states which Rumsfeld talks about." Sergei Ivanov, the influential head of Russia's Security Council and a close associate of President Putin, issued an appeal for a rational exchange of views on the issue of missile defence. He said: "I hope and assume that calm dialogue between us and the USA lies ahead, in which all factors will be taken into account, including the character of threats and the consequences." Mr Bush's determination to build a missile shield is only one of the irritants in the Washington-Moscow relationship. He has already indicated that the rapport between his predecessor, Bill Clinton and Mr Putin's, Boris Yeltsin, is a thing of the past. The President says that corruption in Russia is of particular concern and that further Western aid to the country will be conditional on it being rooted out. Reports from Washington that American spy satellites had confirmed that Russia had deployed tactical nuclear weapons to its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland, also heightened tensions. Marshal Igor Sergeyev, Russia's defence minister, said the claims were nonsense, "fantasies which have no foundation whatsoever". The reports coincided with a trip to the city by an EU delegation, including Chris Patten, the European commissioner for foreign affairs. Hong Kong, which Mr Patten governed before its return to Chinese rule, has often been cited as a model for Kaliningrad. But the region, which is cut off from the rest of Russia, lacks the former colony's entrepreneurial zeal. Local officials admit that its outstanding problems are an epidemic of drug addiction and HIV. ***************************************************************** 10 Russia: Torpedo blast sank Kursk BBC News | EUROPE | Thursday, 15 February, 2001, 19:46 First Russian acknowledgement of torpedo blast A senior Russian naval officer says a torpedo explosion sank the nuclear submarine Kursk last August in the Barents Sea, killing all 118 aboard. Vice-Admiral Valery Dorogin said a small explosion was followed by a large one in the torpedo area of the submarine. It is the first time the government commission investigating the tragedy has acknowledged that a torpedo caused the accident - the view widely held in the West. But Vice-Admiral Dorogin said the cause of the first blast had not been established, leaving open the possibility that the Kursk struck another vessel or a mine on 12 August. He said there were three possible explanations for the first blast: + an internal malfunction + a collision with a foreign submarine + impact from a mine He said the third cause was highly unlikely. Liquid fuel ''It is evident that we will never know what the cause of the first explosion was,'' he told a news conference. The Russian Government has previously focused on the theory that the Kursk was hit by a foreign ship, and played down the view of international experts that the most likely cause was a torpedo malfunction. United States officials say that there were two explosions on board the submarine, the first equivalent to that of a torpedo warhead. The Kursk was carrying torpedoes powered by a liquid peroxide fuel, a substance tried by Britain's Royal Navy in the 1960s but rejected for being too unstable. It is believed that a torpedo may have misfired on the Kursk, and exploded in the tube. Salvage plans Britain and the US had submarines in the general area of the Russian naval exercise at the time, but insist that they were not near the Kursk. Earlier this week, the Russian Government said it was finalising plans to raise the Kursk, a project expected to begin in April. The bodies of 12 sailors were recovered in November before salvage efforts were abandoned because of the dangerous conditions. ***************************************************************** 11 Lab tests uranium level in workers Study to assess area's background exposure *February 15, 2001* By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE -- A group of about 50 Lawrence Livermore Laboratory workers is expected to participate in a voluntary testing program to help determine the level of naturally occurring uranium in the Livermore area. The study, which began this month, is part of an ongoing effort to analyze uranium in the urine samples of a random group of lab workers. Samples of water from the workers' homes also will be collected. The samples will be compared with urine samples from lab researchers who work directly with uranium. By understanding environmental or "background" levels of uranium, lab researchers are hoping to better assess job-related exposure to uranium at the lab. The testing program is voluntary, and employees receive no pay for their participation. Uranium, a mildly radioactive element that can be mechanically enriched to create a highly radioactive form, occurs naturally in the environment. Its concentration in the soil and water varies around the world. The enriched form of uranium is a component in nuclear weapons and fuel for nuclear power plants. "We want our monitoring program to be based on data that reflects the areas where our employees actually live," said Gordon Yano, a lab spokesman. The current study, the lab's largest to date, will be conducted for one to three years, with samples collected every three months, on average. In October, lab researchers reported that past studies show fluctuations in naturally occurring levels of uranium. One individual had a uranium concentration that was about 36 times higher in August than it was in June, for example, the researchers reported. The researchers also found that the level of uranium found in workers' urine can be significantly different than uranium concentrations in their water supply. Some food products also contain uranium. The data from the tests could lead to a revision in policies at the lab that govern worker exposure to uranium. Yano said that the testing program has improved its capability for uranium analysis over time. "The monitoring program keeps improving, as analytical techniques, hardware and software advance," he said. "We may need to conduct additional studies in the future as analytical technology advances." Story last updated at 1:43 p.m. on Friday, February 16, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff Modernizing Oak Ridge National Laboratory would increase its research capabilities and reduce overhead costs while posing no major environmental impact, a report indicates. Released this week, the Department of Energy's draft assessment on the proposed modernization analyzes the potential environmental consequences of the action and three alternatives. "Most of the current ORNL facilities are aging and need to be replaced or upgraded in order to support ORNL's long-term research missions," the assessment states. "The declining condition of facilities increases overhead costs due to additional controls required to ensure worker safety, high energy consumption, increased maintenance requirements and research inefficiencies." Up to 24 new facilities could be constructed under the preferred alternative including 16 DOE-funded structures, four state-funded buildings and four funded through the private sector, according to the assessment. The new facilities would encompass a total of 1.2 million square feet of space and include areas for biological, computer and neutron sciences research. Proposed construction sites are in Bethel Valley near the main ORNL entrance, near the west portal in Melton Valley and within the recently established "footprint" for the Spallation Neutron Source. These are "brownfield" sites that were previously contaminated and/or developed areas. Over a 10-year period, the modernization effort would also move ORNL staff from off-site locations -- the Y-12 National Security Complex and leased commercial spaces -- back to the lab. As for the three alternatives, one of them proposes remodeling six existing buildings, constructing no new facilities and deactivating five structures, with the potential of demolishing four of them. Also addressed in the environmental assessment are a "no action" choice and a proposal to build the new facilities on natural, undeveloped areas. DOE has scheduled a public meeting on the draft environmental assessment for 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 28, in the Oak Ridge Mall Club Room. The document is available in the DOE Public Reading Room, 230 Warehouse Road, and the deadline for submitting comments is March 20. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************