***************************************************************** 05/19/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.124 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Nevada nuclear dump in federal appeals court 2 Letter: Losing faith in dishonest government 3 Nevada: from viva Vegas to nuclear dump 4 Bush Launches Energy Steps, As Critics Circle 5 Capitol Alert: Energy plan generates debate: California in peril 6 Davis cites lack of compassion in Bush's proposal 7 Bush accused of handing bonanza to oil industry 8 No plans to build nuclear power plants 9 Plant No. 1 project: A long-ago warning 10 Nuclear plant an asset 11 Judge denies Nevada's request to join with firm that sued DOE 12 Hyde: Dump site information gets wasted 13 Bush Unveiling Energy Plan 14 Coal and nuclear companies think the Bush energy plan will give 15 Energy titans keen on Bush 16 Environmental groups express dim views of Bush energy plan 17 Nuclear energy lobby sees bright prospects in Bush plan 18 Bush orders faster OK for power projects 19 Bush-Cheney Energy Policy: Cure Worse than Disease, Out of Step with 20 White House considering Yucca limit for radiation 21 Bush Touch Is a Big Boost to Nuclear Industry 22 Forbes.com: General Electric's Nuclear-Powered Returns 23 Leader: Bush's energy plans are outdated 24 The Age: Fury over energy plan 25 Greenpeace mounts protest against US President's energy plan 26 Power Online News for power industry professionals 27 Bush plan 'disastrous' for climate - UN climate chief 28 Two Decades After TMI, Nuclear Power Is Again a Consideration 29 Illinois energy firms applaud plan 30 Debate on nuke plant act is revived 31 Nuclear Power To the Rescue? 32 Worries about Bush may be well-founded 33 Bush's bold energy initiative 34 Millstone exec tapped for Dominion project 35 Even with a power crunch, Seabrook’s second generator not likely 36 Yankee wraps up refueling shutdown 37 Bush policy renews battle over nuclear dump in Nevada 38 Faulty valve to shut down nuclear plant 39 Undecided vote confuses N-plant poll 40 Lithuania nuclear plant reports minor waste mishap 41 Remapping, budget highlight next-to-last week of Nevada XGR 42 Finland weighs underground nuclear waste disposal 43 Greens Warn Bush of Opposition to Come 44 UK: Dounrey contract 45 European energy: A clean agenda - 46 France Launches Nuclear-Powered Ship 47 Fire Extinguished at British Nuclear Plant 48 Energy Plan Winners &Losers 49 Editorial: Case where haste does make waste 50 Columnist Jon Ralston: Look on the bright side, Nevada NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Lab promotions good news for diversity 2 December fluorine leak stalls K-25 demolition 3 Paducah plant alone in enriched production - By Joe Walker 4 Senior Management Team Named At LLNL 5 Ike kept nuclear strike orders secret from allies 6 THE MAN WHO DROPPED THE BOMB 7 UK Admits Military Personnel Deliberately Exposed to Nuclear 8 The Age: Compo call for Maralinga troops 9 The Age: Test cases 10 Pluthermal conversion plans remain focus of many doubts 11 Pak still has failed N-state image 12 Ammunition sales build up By Christopher F Foss 13 'Reckless' decision on raising Kursk 14 Russia signs new Kursk salvage deal ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Nevada nuclear dump in federal appeals court [tahoe.com] VIEWS Saturday, May 19, 2001 By Guy W. Farmer A case heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco last week will go a long way toward determining whether the federal government can locate a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite overwhelming public opposition in the Silver State. The U.S. Energy Department appealed a Feb. 2, 2000, decision by Nevada State Engineer Mike Turnipseed denying the feds the water they need to operate the proposed nuclear waste repository. It's a classic case of federal vs. states' rights. Oral arguments before a three-judge Circuit Court panel came a week after Vice President Dick Cheney said the Bush administration's preference for nuclear power as a long-term energy source requires a permanent nuclear waste dump. Yucca Mountain is the "furthest along and most advanced" nuclear waste repository, Cheney said in an Associated Press interview, although he acknowledged that a final decision hasn't been made. So there's no doubt where the Bush administration is headed despite Republican promises to the contrary during last year's presidential election campaign. And there's also no doubt that DOE is continuing its efforts to manufacture scientific data to support a political decision made by Congress in 1987 to put the nuclear dump in a sparsely populated western state with little political clout. In fact, Yucca Mountain is the only site being studied as a "temporary" dump for nearly 80,000 tons of radioactive waste. As the fastest growing state in the nation, however, we have more political clout these days and DOE bureaucrats and Washington politicians know they're in for the fight of their lives. During oral arguments in San Francisco, Federal Appeals Judge Milton Shadur summed up the dispute when he asked who had the authority - the state of Nevada or Congress - to set national policy on where to store the country's nuclear waste. "Isn't that really the question?" he asked. Government lawyer Jared Goldstein replied that Nevada is "interfering with a congressional mandate" by refusing to issue a water permit. But Nevada Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul Taggart countered that the state can't allocate water for Yucca Mountain until DOE environmental impact studies are completed and Congress approves the site. Moreover, he added, since Congress hasn't approved the site, the feds have no legal authority to order Nevada to issue a water permit. And he suggested that Nevada might deny water even if Congress approves the site later this year. Last September, Federal District Judge Roger Hunt refused to hear DOE's challenge to Turnipseed's denial of water rights to the Feds. Every Nevadan who cares about the future of our state should be supporting Taggart, Turnipseed, our congressional delegation and everyone else who's fighting against the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. As I wrote after attending a DOE public hearing in Carson City last year, "Although the waste dump would be a financial bonanza for the nuclear power industry and its lobbyists, the potential costs to Nevada and Nevadans far outweigh any benefits." And, as Gov. Kenny Guinn told Congress, "It (the dump) creates health and safety risks, not only for the people of Nevada but for all those whose homes and businesses are in the transportation paths of the deadliest substances known to mankind." You go, Kenny! It's also worth noting that Yucca Mountain is one of the nation's most seismically active regions with more than 620 earthquakes of magnitude 2.5 or more registered over the past 20 years. U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., who holds a master's degree in geology, has cautioned that if DOE doesn't "recognize these earthquakes as a (negative) signal, something is wrong with their approach to this matter." The whole thing reminds me of that old TV commercial where two kids feed what they don't want to eat to cute little Mikey, who doesn't know any better. Well, we know better, and we don't want what the feds are offering (a fistful of dollars). Thanks anyway. Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, has led the fight against the proposed Southern Nevada site in Congress. Earlier this year, the Nevada congressional delegation challenged DOE's handling of the Yucca Mountain project on grounds of "gross mismanagement." In their request for a General Accounting Office investigation, the delegation cited continually escalating costs including unnecessary travel expenses, lack of professional qualifications of senior managers and an "adversarial relationship" between DOE management and the Technical Waste Review Board. Earlier, Reid asked the Department's inspector general to investigate alleged bias resulting in waste, fraud and abuse, charging that DOE was collaborating with the nuclear industry to win approval for Yucca Mountain. On the state level, the Nevada Legislature is considering a bill that would make it illegal to ship nuclear waste within 10 miles of any city or town in Nevada. And Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, a high-powered criminal defense attorney, has threatened to sue the Energy Department to keep nuclear waste out of Nevada; Yucca Mountain is about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Meanwhile, DOE plunges ahead with its environmental impact studies in what appears to be a "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach to this sensitive issue. Only by sticking together and supporting our elected officials can we head-off the Yucca Mountain monstrosity and its potentially devastating impact on our state and its citizens. MEDICAL MARIJUANA: The U.S. Supreme Court last Monday handed pot smokers a major setback, ruling unanimously that there is no exception in federal law for so-called "medical" marijuana. The 8-0 decision is a decisive victory for those of us who oppose drug legalization. Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City. Back to Saturday, May 19, 2001 Front Page ***************************************************************** 2 Letter: Losing faith in dishonest government May 18, 2001 If the government's failure to provide Timothy McVeigh's defense team important documents was truly an oversight, it points to its incompetence. If it was a deliberate effort, it points to its duplicity. Too many times in the past few years we have come to learn that the government has withheld evidence, misrepresented its involvement in various activities or flat out lied. Can we really entrust decisions about Yucca Mountain to government bureaucrats? Can anyone really believe that high-level nuclear waste can be safely buried for 10,000 years? Can anyone really believe that high-level nuclear waste can be safely transported through the country for 20 years? It is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." I don't believe that anymore. I think many others share my view. That's why people don't vote anymore -- they have lost faith in the integrity of our leaders and our institutions. BARRY E. JACOBS All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 Nevada: from viva Vegas to nuclear dump Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | America's big new atomic waste site will be at Yucca mountain - unless a coalition of opponents can stop it Duncan Campbell in Amargosa valley, southern Nevada Saturday May 19, 2001 The Guardian The only sound is the humming of desert flies, the only movement is of lizards and ground squirrels, but in the wake of George Bush's stated intention this week to increase nuclear power and found a big national dumpsite for the resulting waste, this patch of other-worldly beauty in the Nevada desert is set to become the focus for a battle. Its name is Yucca mountain - six miles of flat-top ridge and some of the land around - and the fight will not only be about the future of the nuclear industry and the environment but also about the legal rights of native Americans and the authority of individual states that decide to challenge the federal government. "My energy plan directs the department of energy and the environmental protection agency to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste," President Bush said in announcing his new energy policy on Thursday. No one in Nevada has any doubt where that repository will be. For more than a decade, Yucca mountain - where, 90 miles north of Las Vegas, a smaller dump already exists - has been top choice for big storage site. Joe Colvin, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, has said: "There is ample scientific basis for making a decision to dispose of used nuclear fuel at Yucca mountain." Already $6.7bn (£4.7bn) of government money has been spent on the Yucca mountain project. The plan is that within 10 or 12 years, the country's nuclear waste, currently stored near nuclear plants in 31 different states, will be buried at a greatly expanded facility there. The attraction of the site is that it is deep in the sparsely populated Nevada desert; the adjoining area has been used by the military for missile and weapons testing for the past half century. But there is a growing coalition against the dump, and it includes not just environmentalists but everyone from the governor, Kenny Guinn, to local farmers, casino owners and tribal leaders. Legal fight John Wells is the southern representative of the Western Shoshone, a tribe of around 10,000 who have lived for hundreds of years on the land under dispute. A carpenter by trade - and a former rugby player who has toured England and Wales with his side - Mr Wells sees the battle over the dump as vital not only for the environmental but also as a test for Indian rights. He argues that because the Ruby valley peace treaty signed by the Shoshone and the US government in 1863 contains no nuclear reference, use of the area for that purpose is disallowed. "The treaty states quite specifically what is allowed - and storing nuclear waste is not allowed. Our consent has never been forthcoming," Mr Wells said over an iced tea at a grillhouse in Las Vegas where he lives. "This is our land. Our people have lived here and are buried here so it is sacred land." The tribe has a long-running campaign for compensation for a big expanse of the land it claims belonged to its ancestors - 23m acres, in which Yucca mountain occupies a corner. A settlement offer of more than $100m is on the table, and some in the tribe want to accept. No resolution has been reached since a meeting of tribes last year, when Carrie Dann was among Western Shoshone activists speaking out against acceptance. This existing land and compensation issue has become entangled with the nuclear one. According to Mr Wells, the majority of the Shoshone are opposed to the nuclear plan. He believes that the Indians have an unanswerable legal case when it comes to the land in question, and that Nevada could benefit from that if the battle goes to the courts, as it inevitably will. Others in the area have different reasons to fight the plan. Ed Goedhart, whose Ponderosa dairy farm in Amargosa valley has one of the largest organic herds in the country and provides Nevada with 25% of its milk, is only a brief journey from the proposed site. Sitting in his office with his Blue Heeler dog dozing at his feet and some of his 6,200 Holstein cows are being milked on another cloudless Nevada day, Mr Goedhart is deeply critical of the government's behaviour and its initial report on the economic impact of a nuclear-waste site in Nye county: it said 120 worked in agriculture, forestry and fishing in the county, while the true number, he said, was about 550. He is the area's biggest employer, with 100 people on his farm and 700 workers in related industries dependant on it, but no one contacted him before producing these simple figures, he said: "The whole thing is a charade, a joke." The authorities "have not dealt fairly with us and I could be put out of business", Mr Goedhart said. All it would take, he said, would be for a competitor to point out that Ponderosa milk was being produced next to a nuclear dump. Last year, he questioned the accuracy of the government's study at a public meeting. The next day, he alleges, three government registered cars were cruising up and down outside his property but their occupans did not come to talk to him. "I feel as an American that this is a justice issue. If a private company tried to do what the government's doing right now, the officers would be in prison." Contamination fear Kalynda Tilges, of the local Citizen Alert group, who pays many visits to the site in her ancient Dodge camper van, said that he group knew that as soon as Mr Bush became president the move towards the dump would accelerate. "Now Bush is in, the corporations and utility companies feel they have blank cheque but in the long run this may gal vanise the public on a national level. We're not saying 'not in Nevada' we're saying 'not anywhere'. As the Western Shoshone say, we all breathe the same air and walk the same earth. We need to phase out nuclear power." Judy Treichel of a campaign group called Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force said that it was clear that Yucca mountain was the intended site, though Mr Bush did not mention it in his speech: "They're only looking at one site. I found his speech outrageous." She suspects that members of congress who get financial backing from the nuclear industry are "already be at work on drafting legislation". A national organisation founded by Ralph Nader in 1971, Public Citizen, has alleged in a report that "if this permanent storage facility is built, it is certain to release radioactivity into the environment. No one can guarantee the integrity of waste storage casks for the 10,000-year period that their contents would remain dangerously radioactive." It also believes that radioactive mater ial could leak into the groundwater and, since there is some seismic activity in Nevada, the safety of nuclear storage in the state is open to question. But some locals see benefits in the scheme. They expect the nuclear site to bring work so that their children will not have be croupiers or lifeguards at the Las Vegas hotels. They also believe the project could increase the value of their property. Ed Goedhart is sceptical about a jobs windfall, saying that the project work so far and the adjoining military base has put little into the local economy. "All that money has gone somewhere else. It's lined the pockets of lobbyists and highly paid consultants who live in Denver, Colorado or some other yuppie place and the workers are flown in or shuttled in." In Shoshone lore, the Yucca mountain is a snake. If the government and the nuclear industry do press ahead with the waste dump scheme, as now seems inevitable, they could find that the mountain and its diverse supporters still carry a potent bite. For storage: 77,000 tons • Proportion of electricity in the US generated by nuclear power: 20% • Decision due on nation's main nuclear dump site: 2002 • When site could become operational: 2010 • Period that nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive: 10,000 years • Estimated total cost of Yucca mountain nuclear dump project: $58bn. Money spent so far is $6.7m • Quantity of nuclear waste to be stored: 77,000 tons • Official Nevada state web- site on issue: www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/ ***************************************************************** 4 Bush Launches Energy Steps, As Critics Circle Friday May 18 3:47 PM ET By Deborah Charles CONESTOGA, Pa. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) took action on his new energy plan on Friday and urged supporters to combat what he called unfair criticism of his blueprint for a ''brighter energy future.'' ``When you hear these folks -- it doesn't matter what side of the debate they're on -- who are willing to kind of castigate somebody who may have a good idea, stand up and let them have it,'' Bush said in calling for a civil debate. One day after unveiling the energy plan drafted by a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), Bush ordered federal agencies to speed up approvals for energy-related projects like refineries and power plants, and to prepare ''impact'' statements for regulations that restrict energy supplies. ``These two orders are the next steps toward a brighter energy future,'' Bush said at the dam of a Pennsylvania hydroelectric plant on the Susquehanna River, before signing two executive orders. Facing a craggy hillside covered with power poles and power lines leading to the plant, Bush defended his energy plan from attacks by Democrats and environmentalists. They charge that several provisions, including a recommendation that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be opened to drilling, are a threat to the environment. Critics also say his plan gives scant attention to conservation while focusing on oil, coal and nuclear power production. Although supporters lined much of the motorcade route as Bush went to the dam site, environmentalists protested, banged drums and waved signs along the road leading into the dam. GROWTH, ENVIRONMENT COMPATIBLE But Bush said economic growth and a sound energy policy did not need to come at the expense of the environment. ``We can do a better job of conserving in this country,'' Bush said. But he noted California -- whose governor has criticized the new energy plan -- was plagued by electricity blackouts despite having a strong energy conservation record. ''You cannot conserve your way to energy independence,'' he said. Many foreign governments protested the plan on Friday, saying it did not do enough to limit emissions from fossil-fuel burning that is thought to cause global warming. The European Commission (news - web sites) called some aspects of it ``very disappointing.'' ``This is not a solution to the problem we are facing in terms of climate change,'' said Environment Minister Kjell Larsson of Sweden, which holds the European Union (news - web sites)'s rotating presidency. Bush said the order to speed approval of energy-related projects requires projects maintain safety, health and environmental protections. An administration task force will be formed to seek ways to speed project permits. The directive for energy impact statements will require agencies to say whether a reasonable alternative exists to any regulation that would adversely affect energy supplies. ``The statement of energy impact is not a red light, preventing any agency from taking any action,'' he said. ``It is a yellow light that says pause and think before you make decisions that squeeze consumers' pocketbooks, that may cause energy shortages or that may make us more dependent on foreign energy.'' Among the plan's 105 recommendations were measures to encourage construction of new nuclear plants and to provide $10 billion in tax credits for energy conservation. Referring to criticism that drilling in the Alaskan refuge, known as ANWR, would spoil a pristine wilderness, Bush said, ''The debate about ANWR is one that is not based ... upon sound fact.'' He said only a small portion of the vast ANWR wilderness would be used for drilling and delicate tundra would be protected by allowing driving only when it was frozen solid. ``People have got to understand that it's possible that we could find, and likely find, 600,000 barrels of oil a day out of ANWR. That's what we import from Iraq,'' Bush said. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Capitol Alert: Energy plan generates debate: California in peril offered 'no relief,' governor says [SACRAMENTO BEE NEWS] By Emily Bazar and Carrie Peyton Bee Staff Writers *(Published May 18, 2001)* Gov. Gray Davis on Thursday declared President Bush's newly unveiled power plan an inadequate proposal that turns "a blind eye to the bleeding and hemorrhaging that exists in this state." The Democratic governor, who addressed reporters in Sacramento after Bush formally unveiled his proposal in St. Paul, Minn., said California will not conquer its power crisis unless the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission temporarily caps the price of wholesale electricity. The Bush plan -- which calls for opening more public lands to oil and gas exploration and tax credits for the purchase of fuel-efficient cars -- would do little for the state in the short term, when it needs help the most, Davis said. "For those of us who are already in immediate peril, it offers no relief," he said. "If those (federal) commissioners don't do anything to solve the problem ... then there will be a lot of blood on the floor and a lot of corpses along the way." In Washington, D.C., GOP congressional leaders vowed to speed key parts of the energy package to Bush's desk. But the strong and conflicting response to the 163-page report, crafted over four months by a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney, presaged an extensive debate on Capitol Hill. "We're going to have a crisis on our hands in the next two or three months," said Rep. Robert Matsui, a Sacramento Democrat. "I just wish the president had attempted to address that. If he doesn't like our idea of rate caps and price stability, then at least he should come up with an alternative to try to get us through the next 18 months." But Republicans like North Carolina Rep. Richard Burr, vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, were quick to praise the package. "This is the most aggressive, long-term energy policy our country has seen from an administration in a generation," Burr said. As in Washington, California lawmakers split down party lines in response to the president's energy plan. Democrats said the proposal would do little to help California in the short term, while Republicans applauded its focus on increasing the power supply through expanded reliance on nuclear energy and other sources. While environmentalists found several aspects of the blueprint troubling, utilities including Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and power generating companies said they were encouraged by the president's call to speed the process of building new power plants, transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. "It appears at first glance to be a very balanced document with combinations of conservation as well as the need to create new ... sources of energy," said Keith Bailey, chairman of Williams Co., which markets electricity from Southern California power plants owned by AES. PG, however, which is mired in bankruptcy proceedings because of runaway wholesale power prices, repeated its call for federally imposed price caps on wholesale electricity, something Bush has specifically rejected. On that one point, at least, the utility has found allies in Davis and other California Democrats. "I'm calling on you (Bush) to find some creative way to give us temporary price relief while our new plants come on line," Davis said. State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey and chairwoman of the Senate Energy Committee, echoed the governor's plea. "We can't just focus on the long term here," she said. "The patient will be dead before we get the life-support systems in place." Republican Secretary of State Bill Jones, who is running for governor, also commended the president for proposing a "comprehensive" plan with long-term vision. "What President Bush understands that Gray Davis does not, is that the time to propose solutions is not in the middle of a crisis, but before, when you see the warning signs and have time to plan a thoughtful course of action," he said. In one of more than 100 specific proposals, Bush urged the FERC to strengthen its role in electric grid reliability, partly through new laws that would let it oversee mandatory industry standards. Such a move could strip away some of the benefits of Davis' proposal to buy the state's transmission grid, because it could extend federal control to transmission lines owned by public agencies, said Michael Shames, head of the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network. It could also threaten the autonomy of municipal utilities such as the Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and would face a vigorous fight in Congress, Shames said. Other specifics of the plan, such as its recommendation to reassess offshore oil drilling, troubled environmental groups. The president is probably too realistic to move immediately to reinstate drilling off California's coast, but opponents will have to stay vigilant to prevent it, said Warner Chabot, a vice president of the Center for Marine Conservation. The plan was also blasted by the California Public Interest Research Group for over-reliance on new power plants, drilling on public lands and increased subsidies for coal and nuclear power, while the Sierra Club faulted the lack of proposals to raise fuel economy standards for cars and sport-utility vehicles. Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said such standards are "the biggest single step President Bush could have taken to cut our oil dependence and curb global warming." The Bee's Emily Bazar can be reached at (916) 326-5540 or ebazar@sacbee.com. *James Rosen of The Bee's Washington Bureau contributed to this report.* Sacramento Bee ***************************************************************** 6 Davis cites lack of compassion in Bush's proposal *Published Friday, May 18, 2001, in the Contra Costa Newspapers * POWER CRISIS By Andrew LaMar TIMES STAFF WRITER SACRAMENTO -- Using a two-pronged strategy, Gov. Gray Davis responded to President Bush's energy plan Thursday by assailing its lack of immediate help for California while at the same time making a plea for greater assistance. Davis implored Bush to reconsider pursuing price caps on runaway wholesale electricity costs and forcing generators to pay California billions of dollars in refunds. The governor made the pitch at a Capitol press conference, where he shifted between sharp rhetoric, characterizing the situation at one point as "a war" with Texas generators, and a tender appeal, describing Bush as a "practical person" who "could do the right thing." "Mr. President, you didn't create this problem, but you are the only one who can solve it," Davis said. "With all due respect, Mr. President, Californians want to know whether you're going to be on their side." Meanwhile, other Democrats, consumer advocates and environmentalists blasted the president's national energy plan, calling it irresponsible and unresponsive to California's pressing needs. Bush made public an energy policy that focuses on increasing production, from building nuclear power plants to drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He also called for creating a national power grid to better transmit electricity to where it is needed throughout the country. . "For big oil and other suppliers, the Bush energy plan is a dream come true," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a written statement. "But among those most left behind are the people and businesses of California, who have been under siege by electricity and natural gas marketers bent on gouging every cent they can from a broken energy market that the Bush administration has refused to help remedy." As for Davis, he encouraged federal regulators to order energy generators to pay back to California much of the $6 billion state officials claim the companies overcharged for electricity. And the governor asked Bush once again to consider some form of price caps despite the president's stated opposition to the idea. "I'm saying, 'Be creative. Find a way to keep the $27 billion bill we paid last year for electricity from going to a $50 billion bill this year,'" Davis said. Later, the governor added: "I think his long-term approach is basically on track, but for those of us who are already in immediate peril, it offers no relief." Republicans, on the other hand, lauded the Bush plan and said it sets the right course for the state and the country. Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine, said the president did precisely what he needed to do: develop a national policy. "The reality is California is having this problem now, not Arizona, not Nevada, not New Mexico, and the reason for that is that so much of what we have has been caused by policies in California," Campbell said. Consumer advocates and environmentalists, however, condemned the energy policy. Jay Watson, regional director of the Wilderness Society, said despite including some programs aimed at increasing conservation, the Bush administration has reduced conservation to "nothing more than a personal virtue." "We're looking at one of the gravest threats to America's public lands that we've seen in a long time," Watson said. Harvey Rosenfield, president of the nonprofit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said Bush has failed to break a cartel of energy companies that wield similar power over California as OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, did over the United States during the oil crisis of the early 1970s. "The federal government could stop this assault and order rate reductions and refunds of overcharges," Rosenfield said. "Instead, the Bush-Cheney plan calls for more deregulation, massive tax breaks for energy companies and the construction of multibillion-dollar boondoggles like nuclear power, all of which will benefit the same energy companies that are holding California hostage."* Mike Taugher contributed to this story. Andrew LaMar covers state government. Reach him at 916-441-2101 or alamar@cctimes.com.* ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 7 Bush accused of handing bonanza to oil industry Independent © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd 20 May 2001 23:33 GMT+1 Independent By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles 19 May 2001 The State of California launched a war of words against the Bush administration yesterday, accusing the president of promoting an energy policy that would line the pockets of his Texas oil industry friends while doing nothing to alleviate the acute power crisis confronting America's richest and most populous state. Using remarkably blunt language, several senior Californian politicians ­ joined by other prominent figures including the former president, Jimmy Carter ­ said the White House's plan to expand construction of oil-, coal- and nuclear-fuelled power stations was a politically expedient way of addressing the wrong problem. "This lengthy document will not provide one more kilowatt to California this summer, prevent one more minute of blackouts or keep one less dollar from being transferred from California into the hands of the Texas-based energy producers," said Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator. There were signs the energy crisis was creating the first significant fault line between the Bush administration and the rest of the country. Everyone agrees that California's power crisis is the result of a failed attempt at deregulation, and that the problems on the West Coast risk being replicated in other states. The White House has used the problem as an excuse to declare an energy emergency of 1970s-level proportions ­ a comparison Mr Carter finds ridiculous. By contrast, the Californian authorities, say they are the victims of a vicious price-gouging campaign by a "cartel" of energy producers who also happen to have been among Mr Bush's most generous presidential campaign contributors. "We are literally in a war with energy companies, many of which reside in Texas," California's governor, Gray Davis said. Addressing the president, he added: "You didn't create this problem. But you are the only one who can solve it. And with all due respect, Californians want to know whether you're going to be on their side." California's Public Utilities Commission, which oversees the energy sector, has issued a report in conjunction with the state attorney general's office presenting concrete evidence of price-gouging, accusing producer companies of deliberating closing down power stations to create an artificial crisis and then charging wholesale prices which Governor Davis describes as "obscene". One company singled out for opprobrium is Reliant Energy Services, based in Houston, which last week charged $1900 per kilowatt hour ­ more than 10 times higher than the already inflated rate California had budgeted for to get through the consumption peaks of this summer. Reliant was a major Bush campaign contributor. Californian officials have repeatedly urged the federal government to impose an emergency price cap to end the price-gouging. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has offered a limp form of price cap which West Coast experts say risks doing more harm than good. California is bracing for at least 30 days of rolling blackouts over the next few months when air conditioning is at a premium, and the state fears it will have to spend billions of dollars buying power on behalf of utilities that claim they are already on the verge of bankruptcy. Consumer prices are also expected to jump by as much as 80 per cent, not nearly enough to cover the anticipated wholesale costs. + BelfastTelegraph + LAM Online + FirstDown.co.uk + London ***************************************************************** 8 No plans to build nuclear power plants MAY 18, 2001, 01:30 PM Idaho's NewsChannel 7 As the President considers nuclear power options for the country, is it a realistic option for us here in Idaho? Thursday, the president of IdaCorp spoke to shareholders about the future of nuclear power in Idaho. Jan Packwood said the company has no plans to build nuclear power plants. Instead, it will rely on the continued use of hydropower and coal-powered plants. Another option is the proposed natural gas plant out in Middleton. But Packwood said he sees a real future for nuclear energy in other western states. Jan Packwood, IdaCorp president &CEO: "I do believe as I said in the meeting that there will be companies willing to invest in nuclear and willing to invest in coal, and we'll see that in the next three to five years." Packwood also told shareholders that IdaCorp had no immediate plans to build additional coal-powered plants. ©MMI Idaho Interactive Group, P.O. Box 7, Boise, ID 83707 Ranked #8 TV ***************************************************************** 9 Plant No. 1 project: A long-ago warning Published May 18, 2001 Evelyn Walkley of Kennewick called the other day to draw our attention to a nearly 20-year-old news clipping she found about a long-ago decision that, if it had been made differently, could well have attenuated the Northwest's current power crisis. Walkley is the daughter-in-law of the late Glenn Walkley, a former Washington Public Power Supply System board president and one of the first Franklin County Public Utility District commissioners. In the April 27, 1982, Herald interview headlined, "Ex-WPPSS president believes BPA wrong again," the retired Walkley railed strongly against Bonneville Power Administration's pressure on the WPPSS board to terminate construction of Plant No. 1, which was about two-thirds complete. The plant's dome had just been finished and, two days later, the board voted 16-5 to stop work on the plant. Walkley marveled that the agency that pressured WPPSS, now known as Energy Northwest, to build five nuclear plants, a project that ultimately resulted in what was a record bond default at the time, was about to terminate a nearly completed reactor north of Richland. Although the financial problems were mostly about overprojections of power needs and not about nuclear, the episode helped to sour the Northwest on that form of energy production. Acknowledging the problems, Walkley said a decision not to finish No. 1 was shortsighted nevertheless. He predicted the region, which had a fine tradition of public power, would eventually have to buy electricity from elsewhere "or walk around holding candles." Today, BPA officials say they've committed to providing 11,000 megawatts of power to customers - residential, commercial and industrial - which exceeds expected capacity of 8,000 megawatts. That means BPA will have to round up the power elsewhere at rates soaring because of a Western energy crunch. Mid-Columbia utilities are warning customers to expect energy bills to at least double - or worse - after Oct. 1. And this week, the North American Electric Reliability Council forecast the Pacific Northwest could see rolling blackouts this winter. Today, the one plant of the five completed has proved to be gold and there's even talk, and a study, of whether Plant No. 1 should be finished. Walkley, a man who devoted much of his life to public power and whose son, Van, continues the family tradition as a Columbia Rural Electric Association director, died in 1996. No doubt Glenn Walkley would be disappointed his predictions seem to be coming true. *Read the original Herald article on the Herald Web site at http://www.tri-cityherald.com/opinion/bpa/* What's your opinon? Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear plant an asset Published May 18, 2001 In a twisted sort of way, Columbia Generating Station's outage couldn't have come at a better time. Just as California's rolling blackouts continue and the water behind the Columbia River dams looks like it can't get any lower, Energy Northwest is preparing to pull its 1,150 megawatts off line tonight. The power produced at the nuclear plant since July 1 was worth $1.5 billion at market prices - but Northwest power customers got it at cost for nearly one-tenth the price. With the plant headed for a monthlong outage for maintenance and refueling, Bonneville has had to find enough replacement electricity to power the city of Seattle and its suburbs. Fortunately, the agency had enough notice to negotiate a reasonable price. Still, Columbia Generating Station's absence from the tight energy market won't go unnoticed. The work that is going into making sure the plant's outage is as short as possible highlights its importance to ensuring reliable and affordable power in the Northwest. Nuclear power could use just such a boost after the hubbub surrounding Energy Northwest executives' proposal to finish another nuclear plant at the site. They have yet to crunch the numbers on that one, but it can't hurt that their one finished nuclear plant has produced enough power in one year to justify nearly half the expected cost of finishing its neighbor, Plant No. 1. Perhaps the Northwest will better appreciate what it's got in Energy Northwest once the power is gone. What's your opinon? Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 11 Judge denies Nevada's request to join with firm that sued DOE May 18, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Nevada's request to became a formal ally of a law firm that has sued the Department of Energy was denied Thursday by a federal judge but the state will be allowed, however, to write legal briefs that will be considered at trial. The issue involves Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, which is under study as the nation's sole repository for nuclear waste. The Washington, D.C., law firm that Nevada wished to join as a formal partner, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene &MacRae, sued the DOE in 1999. The suit claimed that when the DOE needed an independent legal review of the licensing application for Yucca Mountain, it hired Winston &Strawn, a Chicago law firm with which the department had a longstanding relationship. LeBoeuf claimed that any work by Winston would be biased in favor of building the repository at Yucca Mountain, which Nevada has been fighting since 1987. U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina issued his 16-page decision Thursday. While he stopped short of allowing Nevada to actually join the law firm's suit, as it had requested, he did acknowledge that the state has a legitimate concern about safety. The repository would have a capacity for holding 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. The judge allowed the state to participate in the suit as a "friend of the court," which means the state will be able to submit briefs that will be considered in any decision. He recognized the state's major role as host to nuclear weapons experiments at the Nevada Test Site from 1951 until 1992. "Now, more than 50 years after the detonation of the first bomb, the United States is poised to recreate a nuclear landscape in Nevada," Urbina wrote. The judge made it clear the legal dispute does not deal with whether Yucca Mountain is suitable to bury the wastes. "The good news is that he recognized the state's interest in public health and safety," Nevada Deputy Attorney General Marta Adams said. The judge's ruling will allow the state to review Department of Energy records that must be filed in court by May 30, Adams said. Urbina, in a separate ruling Wednesday, denied the Department of Energy's request to extend the filing deadline. The state may also seek from the court full participation, including making arguments and filing briefs, according to the judge's order. DOE attorneys had not seen the decision late Thursday and could not comment on whether the case could delay progress on recommending Yucca Mountain as a repository site, a department spokesman said. The General Accounting Office investigated the alleged conflict of the Winston law firm at the request of Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., but said it lacked jurisdiction over legal and ethical questions. That led to the lawsuit. In February, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., asked the DOE's Inspector General's Office to investigate the contract conflict, but IG Gregory Friedman denied her request, citing the lawsuit in progress. LeBoeuf called the award of the $16.5 million review contract to Winston a conflict of interest because Winston worked for DOE's former main contractor at Yucca Mountain, TRW Environmental Safety Systems Inc. Federal rules prohibit such a conflict and require the DOE to hire an independent reviewer, LeBoeuf said. Both Winston &Strawn and LeBoeuf scored a perfect 1,000 on the DOE's contract review. The Energy Department said Winston offered a lower price. LeBoeuf's suit claimed that the DOE had explicitly told TRW when it was awarded the original $1 billion management contract in 1992 that it was not eligible to bid on the final review contract. The DOE claimed it had to seek legal help outside the federal general counsel's office because there was not expertise on what may be the largest federal project ever built. About 50 attorneys nationwide have technical expertise in nuclear issues. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 12 Hyde: Dump site information gets wasted Amarillo Globe-News: Opinion: By Scott Hyde Guest Column An article in the May 3 Globe-News reported on a bill seeking to gain approval in the Legislature for two sites in the Panhandle for the storage of radioactive waste. Given the long-term toxic nature of radioactive materials, I believe this is a matter of grave importance to all the people of this area. Personally, I would like to know much more than I do about the details of these negotiations and their possible long-term effects. The establishment of one of these sites is a foregone certainty due to a previous compact among Texas, Maine and Vermont, wherein Texas has agreed to store waste from all three states for payment of $25 million each from Maine and Vermont. This waste is to be stored at a privately owned and operated site in Andrews County (west of Lubbock on the New Mexico border). However, the May 3 article does not make clear whether this is a one-time deposit, how large the deposit will be, whether there will be ongoing waste shipments or whether there will be possible additional payments. At least this arrangement has some monetary benefit to all the citizens of Texas. The second site, however, as proposed by Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo (the companion House bill is sponsored by Rep. Warren Chisum), would allow the same profit-making company to store Department of Energy waste from outside Texas to little apparent benefit. And I believe it would pose a possible future risk to this area. The Sierra Club, a fairly mainstream environmental group, estimates that the DOE will have, over the next 10 years, roughly 90 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste to dispose of. Most of this waste is from old nuclear weapons production sites. Is all of this really "low-level" nuclear waste? And how much of it could end up in West Texas? Does the Bivins proposal specify any limit to the amount of waste to be stored at this site? Only a provision that the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission shall restrict the amount to the extent that it deems that the federal waste poses a threat to human health and the environment and the financial security and operational capacity of the facility. TNRCC is the "watchdog" that has permitted Texas to become the national leader in carcinogens and toxins - a "look the other way" watchdog. "Every nuclear waste dump in America has leaked," according to the Sierra Club. Also, according to the aquifer maps, this dump is situated over the Ogallala Aquifer. These assertions pose additional serious questions. If these dumps ever require cleanup, a 1999 DOE policy paper states that "the operator of a licensed commercial disposal facility takes title to the low-level waste placed in the facility, including title to any wastes sent there by the Department or another federal agency." Another DOE study estimated the 1998 cost of cleaning up a 1.5-million-cubic-foot radioactive waste dump at $370 million. Could a for-profit waste storage company absorb such costs? Or will we once again see the state or federal government scrambling for another very, very expensive solution to a previous ill-considered "solution." I urge the Globe-News to seek and report additional information on these serious questions. I personally believe that this subject is worth coverage similar to the newspaper's excellent four-part series on the Tulia drug arrests. Of course, it is possible that by the time this column appears in the newspaper, SB 1541 already may have been rammed through the Legislature. Whether that is the case or not, I think we should still be informed on these nuclear waste issues because they will be with us for many years to come, and they must be resolved with sensible, long-term solutions. Neighbors of the Three Mile Island nuclear energy plant learned during their crisis that it is naive to depend entirely on the reassurances of politicians and a nuclear-based industry. A vigilant and objective press provides a vital and more reliable source of information. Scott Hyde is an Amarillo photographer. www.amarillonet.com ***************************************************************** 13 Bush Unveiling Energy Plan 5/17/2001 7:10:00 AM WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, calling the country's energy shortages the most serious since the 1970s, is unveiling a plan aimed at boosting supplies of oil, gas and nuclear power. The energy blueprint, crafted by a Cabinet-level task force, aims to correct ``the fundamental imbalance between supply and demand,'' but proposes little to address this summer's soaring gasoline prices or Western electricity shortages. And it includes several proposals sure to trigger sharp debate in Congress, including drilling for oil in an Arctic wildlife refuge and possibly reviving nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was abandoned in the 1970s as a nuclear proliferation threat. ``America faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s,'' the 163-page report says as it outlines 105 recommendations from speeding up construction of power lines and development of clean coal technology to reviewing whether to tighten vehicle fuel economy standards. Twenty of the recommendations would require congressional action and 42 would ``help increase conservation, environmental protection and use of alternative fuels,'' the White House said. Another 35 recommendations are directed at increasing supplies and improving energy infrastructure. The report includes $10 billion worth of tax credits over 10 years for conservation and energy development, but about half those credits either already exist or had previously been proposed in the budget the president submitted to Congress in February. The task force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, acknowledged the recommendations are primarily aimed at developing ``a long-term energy strategy'' and puts heavy reliance on new technologies to increase both energy production and efficiency. Suggesting there are no short-term solutions, the report declares: ``Our energy crisis has been years in the making and will take years to put fully behind us.'' Bush, who kicks off a campaign to sell his energy proposals Thursday in speeches in Minnesota and Iowa, has frequently said there is no ``quick fix'' to the country's energy problems. The report, key parts of which were released by the White House late Wednesday, supports that theme, providing few specific proposals that would reduce the threat of blackouts in California this summer or reverse the recent spike in gasoline prices nationwide. But the report asserts that if energy supplies are not increased to meet demand ``this imbalance ... will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security.'' The president's plan calls for easing regulatory barriers to building nuclear power plants, expanding oil and gas development, and improving the nation's inadequate and sometimes precarious electricity grid. As for conservation, the task force recommended about $6 billion in tax credits over 10 years to reduce energy use, mostly to spur the sale of hybrid gas-electric vehicles and development of co-generation power plants that waste less energy because they produce electricity and heat. Even before the report's release, the general thrust of Bush's energy strategy came under attack from Democrats who said it would increase air pollution, open pristine federal lands to development and do too little to promote conservation. The president's proposals provide ``lip service to the problems we have in the short term,'' said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. ``We need more than lip service.'' Democrats have argued that Bush should urge temporary price controls to rein in the Western electricity prices and call for more aggressive investigation of circumstances surrounding the sudden recent spike in gasoline prices. But Bush told reporters Wednesday that ``Price controls do not increase supply, nor do they affect demand.'' The Bush report will be sent to Congress, where it will be a central part of energy legislation to be proposed by the Republicans. Democrats already have vowed to fight some of its key provisions and have introduced legislation of their own. Among the report's most controversial recommendations is to lift the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Democrats have vowed to block any legislation freeing the refuge to development. Another proposal to allow the federal government to take private land for power lines is expected to meet sharp opposition from property rights advocates. The report also recommends that nuclear reprocessing be given another look as part of a package of proposals to promote commercial nuclear power. Reprocessing, in which plutonium is chemically salvaged from used reactor fuel to be used again in a reactor, was abandoned in the 1970s in the United States because of nuclear proliferation concerns, although it is still embraced in Japan and Europe. Some nuclear power advocates favor reprocessing because it reduces the amount of highly radioactive reactor waste that needs to be disposed. Nonproliferation advocates have strongly opposed reprocessing because they fear the plutonium could be diverted to make a bomb. Among other key recommendations in the report: -An executive order to require federal agencies to consider the impact on energy supplies whenever issuing a regulation. -Direct the Interior Department to review all federal lands to determine their potential for oil and gas development -Streamline regulatory approval for energy facilities, including power plants, hydroelectric dams, refineries, and transmission lines and natural gas pipelines. -Provide or extend tax credits for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines, organic waste energy plants, or methane landfills that produce energy as well as purchase of solar panels. -Expedite government approval of a pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska's North Slope, if such a permit is requested. -Provide $2 billion over 10 years for research into clean coal technology, to assure the future of coal as a major energy source. -Direct the Environmental Protection Agency to examine ways to give refineries more flexibility in producing gas and work with states to eliminate ``boutique'' fuels that cause distribution problems. ***************************************************************** 14 Coal and nuclear companies think the Bush energy plan will give them a newfound respect Friday, May 18, 2001 By Frank Reeves, Post-Gazette Staff Writer Westinghouse Electric Co., the world's largest builder of nuclear plants, and Consol Energy, one of the nation's biggest coal producers, yesterday predicted that the Bush energy policy would boost the fortunes of the much-criticized coal-mining and nuclear-power industries. CMU committed to use wind-generated power Signaling its commitment to clean and efficient power, Carnegie Mellon University intends to buy 5 percent of its electricity next year from a wind-powered generating plant in Western Pennsylvania. "Developing new technologies, policies and practices to protect and enhance our global environment is one of our strategic priorities," said CMU President Jared L. Cohon. "Our university is committed to using our research and education programs -- as well as our campus practices -- to improve environmental quality." CMU plans to buy 4,778 megawatt hours of electricity from the Exelon-Community Energy Wind Mill Farm at Mill Run. This is enough electricity to provide power for about 650 homes per year. As a result, CMU will become the largest single retail purchaser of wind-turbine generated electricity, university officials said. The wind farm, which is still under construction, is about 40 miles southeast of Pittsburgh in Springfield and Stewart, Fayette County. Environmental groups praised CMU's decision, saying they hoped it would encourage other organizations to opt for "green power." They said use of wind-generated power, as opposed to electricity generated in coal-fired plants, would mean that thousands of tons of pollutants won't be emitted into the air. Cohon said the wind-turbine generated electricity is more expensive than electricity produced by fossil fuels. He said to compensate for the added expense, the university would initiate programs to encourage innovative ways to improve energy efficiency and reduce demand. "If the full potential of the [Bush administration's proposals] are realized in the United States, BNFL will be positioned to provide nuclear reactor technology and associated fuel, equipment and other services through Westinghouse," said Hugh Collum, chairman of British Nuclear Fuels PLC, parent company of Monroeville-based Westinghouse. Thomas Hoffman, vice-president for investor relations for Upper St. Clair-based Consol Energy, praised President Bush for proposing an energy plan that not only attempts to boost U.S. supplies, but recognizes coal's key role in meeting the soaring energy demand. Coal production and nuclear power, much criticized by environmental groups, are at the heart of the energy policy debate. Coal is relatively dirty and dangerous to produce and coal-fired electric power plants pollute the environment. Nuclear power poses daunting problems. It is difficult to dispose of nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for thousands of years. And the risk of reactor accidents, such as the one at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979, is vivid in the public mind. And traditionally, nuclear power plants are expensive to build and maintain. But in the wake of the California energy crisis, coal and nuclear power appear to be riding a wave of popularity. Nuclear power advocates, for example, took heart in a Newsweek poll released in April showing that 53 percent of Americans favor building nuclear power plants to help the United States meet its energy needs. But other polls, including some commissioned by the industry, show that many Americans would be reluctant to have a nuclear power plant near their community. Others are concerned about the hazards of spent nuclear fuel. Yesterday, Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert praised the administration for signaling its commitment to finding a site to dispose spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear industry advocates have said that, unless a depository is found, it is unlikely nuclear plant construction will proceed in the U.S. This has proven to be difficult. Nevada political leaders and residents opposed a federal proposal to build a nuclear fuel depository in Yucca Mountain. And Congress was unable to muster enough votes to override former President Bill Clinton's veto of legislation that designated the Nevada site as a nuclear fuel depository. The Bush plan also calls upon Congress to reauthorize legislation that limits industry liability from a nuclear accident. Also significant, Gilbert said, has been the decision of many electric companies to seek to renew 20-year operating licenses for aging nuclear power plants that seemed slated for extinction. Tougher air-pollution standards, coupled with rising natural gas costs relative to nuclear fuel, have begun to shift the equation in favor of nuclear power, Gilbert said. Nuclear power plants, like natural-gas-fired power plants, emit less pollution than coal-fired and oil-fired power plants. But in the short run, the Bush energy plan isn't likely to cause an immediate upsurge in jobs at Westinghouse. The company has about 9,000 workers worldwide, including 3,000 in southwestern Pennsylvania. Currently, there are no plans to build a nuclear plant in the United States. "Clearly, a new order to build a nuclear power plant would generate several thousand jobs for Westinghouse and our suppliers," Gilbert said. Should that day come, Westinghouse thinks it is ready. The company hopes its nuclear power plant designs, such as the AP 600, will meet the demand. It contends that the plant can be built in three years, at much less cost and time than conventional nuclear plants. And although the cost for such a plant is still higher than gas-fired power plants, Westinghouse officials believe the high cost of natural gas relative to nuclear fuel makes the AP 600 economically competitive. About 90 percent of the coal produced in the United States is sold to electric power plants. Most of the electricity in this country is produced by coal-fired plants. In Pennsylvania, the nation's fourth-largest coal-producing state, 60 percent of the electricity comes from coal-fired generators. So it wasn't surprising that yesterday, coal executives such as Consol's Hoffman were as interested in what the Bush plan said about electric generation as it did about coal production. The two industries are inseparably linked. Like his counterparts in the nuclear industry, Hoffman said the president's plan isn't likely to lead to a quick upsurge in employment in coal mining nor a rapid opening of new mines. Opening new mines is costly and would require strong demand among electric producers for new coal-fired plants. Consol has about 7,000 employees, mostly in the Eastern United States and western Canada. Currently, Hoffman said, the company's mines are operating at about 65 percent to 75 percent capacity. At most, production in the existing mines could be boosted to about 85 percent, given the need for down time for mine maintenance. In the short run, Hoffman sees an increase in production at existing mines. At some mines, additional workers might have to be added. To hire another shift would entail bringing on another 80 or so miners. Many electric utilities have opted for gas-fired plants, as a way of meeting tough air pollution standards and because gas-fired plants are easier to put on line when demand for electricity is high. The Bush plan also would provide tax breaks for developing so-called clean coal technologies. ***************************************************************** 15 Energy titans keen on Bush Saturday, May 19, 2001 Back The Halifax Herald Limited U.S. players expect windfall *The Associated Press * Residents of the Hunter Trace subdivision in Soddy-Daisy, Tenn., live in the shadow of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The Bush administration's energy policy calls for re-authorizing a law that limits industry liability from a nuclear accident. *The Associated Press * U.S. President George Bush speaks about his energy policy at the Safe Harbor hydroelecric plant in Conestoga, Pa., on Friday. By Brad Foss / The Associated Press New York - The Bush administration's energy proposal is packed with so many features that everyone in the industry expects to benefit financially, though oil and gas drillers clearly stand to make out better than, say, builders of wind farms. Top executives from the petroleum, coal and nuclear industries have embraced the plan's emphasis on increasing America's domestic fuel supply and improving the infrastructure needed to move it around. Companies that produce and sell wind and solar energy, however, remain less sure about their lot. Linn Draper, chairman of Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Company Inc., the nation's biggest coal burner, lauded the policy because it will "keep coal in the energy mix in a big way." Coal accounts for more than 50 per cent of all electricity produced in the United States, though cleaner-burning natural gas has gained importance in recent years. Draper said he was glad the plan included incentives for people interested in using energy from renewable sources, such as solar panels and fuel cells, but that those interests were properly given less weight than more traditional sources of power. "It looks to me like it was written by people who really know something about energy," Draper said. But Jesper Michaelsen, sales manager for wind turbine manufacturer NEG Micon USA of Rolling Hills, Ill., couldn't disagree more. Michaelsen was disappointed the plan didn't set any specific goals for increasing the amount of power generated from renewables. Wind and solar account for just two per cent of the nation's total electricity market, although states such as Iowa and Minnesota are considering laws that would mandate higher levels of renewables. "If the (federal) government is not taking renewable energy seriously, then why should a utility take it seriously? At the end of the day, if they don't feel the need to buy that power, then there is no market for it," Michaelsen said. The thrust of the Bush plan is to give petroleum and coal companies easier access to public lands, to speed up the review process for proposed refinery and power plant expansions and to renew the nation's long-term commitment to nuclear power. These steps and a commitment to a diverse mix of fuels, the plan states, are necessary to provide American consumers with abundant energy and stable prices over the long term. The net benefit for providers of renewable energy was less clear. On the one hand, tax incentives were proposed for people who purchase solar panels, but the policy gave no indication that the $200 million US for clean energy research cut from the federal budget would be restored, as some renewable energy executives had sought. Allen Barnett, who heads solar panel maker AstroPower Inc. of Newark, Del., said he was thankful that any attention at all was given to "green" energy companies given the fact that many Bush advisers previously held top positions at oil and gas companies. "It's the most we could hope for," he said. "I didn't expect them to abandon their roots." The Bush administration has set a goal of building up to 1,900 new power plants over the next 30 years to keep pace with rising demand. With the federal government promising power plant manufacturers everything from tax breaks to relaxed regulatory procedures, perhaps the biggest challenge for the industry, executives say, will be finding enough pipefitters, boilermakers and electricians to get the work done. ***************************************************************** 16 Environmental groups express dim views of Bush energy plan The Oakland Press By: BOB GROSS, News Reporter May 18, 2001 Environmental groups had few nice things to say about the energy plan the Bush administration unveiled Thursday. "You can put a tutu on a pig, but it doesn't make it a ballet dancer," said Lana Pollack, president of the Michigan Environmental Council in Lansing. Others were as harsh, if not as colorful. "Unfortunately, the whole overall plan seems to be heading in the wrong direction," said Megan Owens of the Ann Arbor-based Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. "The Bush energy plan moves backwards. It focuses on dirty and dangerous technologies that have failed in the past." The Bush plan centers on drilling for more oil and gas and rejuvenating nuclear power. It also seeks to increase energy supplies by easing restrictions on oil and gas development on public lands, including a wildlife refuge in Alaska. Bush also wants to give the federal government power to seize private property for the use of transmission lines. The overall plan does have supporters, however. Bill McCormick, chairman and chief executive officer for CMS Energy Corp., the parent company of Consumers Energy, praised both the plan and the president for focusing on energy so early in his administration. "I think it's a very comprehensive plan," he said. "It addresses both supply and conservation, and it has a number of elements that are very, very badly needed." Carl Just, a spokesman for Detroit Edison, noted the plan has 105 recommendations. "Further analysis of the details of the plan are necessary, and we will be doing that over the coming weeks to determine impacts on our state, our company and our customers," he said. Environmentalists, however, say the plan focuses to its detriment more on petroleum production and power plant construction than on conservation and efficiency. "Building thousands of new power plants while the current power plants we have are causing health problems doesn't seem to us the right way to go," said Owens. Her organization has released several reports critical of power plant emissions. Pollack said the Bush plan would subsidize investments by companies that would extend the lives of "dirty old coal-fired power plants" now mostly exempt from the Clean Air Act. McCormick defended the older plants. "There's no reason why older power plants can't extend their lives as long as they meet clean air regulations," he said. Andrew McLemore Jr., a Detroit businessman and a member of a group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, said coal is the right choice for generating electricity. Using natural gas, he said, has increased the price of natural gas for home heating. "A lot of technology has been put in place today so you don't have a lot of the same pollution issues from the use of coal," he said. "There is an abundancy of coal in the United States. It would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it would help us more wisely use our natural gas and reduce some of that burden." Pollack, however, said the proposal should consider more alternatives such as wind and solar power. "Coal is dirty," she said. "Talking about clean coal is like talking about healthy cigarettes." McCormick said conservation and alternates alone won't fill the country's energy needs. "I think the plan has a number of elements on conservation and renewables and alternates and so forth ... but it does place a significant emphasis on supply, really because supply has been ignored in the past 10 years and the growth in demand has been outstripping the supply by a wide margin," he said. "California is a good example; they haven't built a new power plant in California in 12 years," McCormick said. "I think it's appropriate that the president's program recognizes that we are behind in getting our supply to keep up with demand." Tim Eder of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Office in Ann Arbor said the plan does not consider global warming and what effect industrial activities and pollution have on the earth's climate. "By failing to deal with the issue of climate change, the president's plan jeopardizes the Great Lakes in a couple of ways," he said. Some scenarios suggest that lake levels - already falling from highs in the 1990s - could drop another 5 feet in the next decade, damaging Michigan industries such as tourism and boating, he said. More importantly, warming could cause drought in other areas, he said. "That's going to put more pressure on other parts of the world that don't have adequate fresh water, and we have to be concerned they are going to come here looking for fresh water to quench their thirst," he said. The plan calls for reviewing all public lands for their energy development potential, including areas previously off limits, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. "Basically, drilling under the Great Lakes, off the coasts of California and Florida and even in pristine wilderness places like the Arctic refuge only threaten these important places without solving any of our energy problems," said Owens. "It will extend our reliance on fossil fuels for a couple of extra months but it won't solve anything." Pollack said the government should be promoting fuel efficiency. "If we were to impose a simple mile and a half, 1.5 miles per gallon, improvement on every vehicle every year starting in 2003, we could save 90,000 billion barrels a day as soon as 2004, and that is more than one full refinery could put out," she said. Such fuel efficiency improvements could be made using available technologies, she said. "We don't need rocket technology, but we do need modern technology, and Bush did not deliver that with his speech," she said. *©The Oakland Press 2001* I agree with the opinion that Bush's energy plan is going backward which is dangerous for our planet and for the reputation and integrity of the US. Europe increasingly advances over the US in technology, communications and now more so in energy. Bush is quickly breaking down diplomatic relations which have been built up by previous administrations over the years. He is creating ill will and disbelief among other nations. His style is ancient and dangerous. I can't believe Americans will stand for this behavior at the risk of their international reputation. I believe alternative fuel research and development plus energy conservation education is key to the future. Americans must look beyond their own interests at home and start behaving like a global citizen. This mentality will take time to evolve and Bush is not the right person to encourage it. We must lose the "supercop" image in the world and join the intelligent idealogy of working together as global neighbors. This way we can concentrate more efforts on peace than power. Copyright © 1995-2000 PowerAdz.com, LLC. Zwire!, AdQuest, ***************************************************************** 17 Nuclear energy lobby sees bright prospects in Bush plan Sun Herald (Biloxi) | Nation_World May 19, 2001 | NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -"Busy, busy, busy - hundreds of details." That is how Angelina S. Howard, executive vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, described her frenetic schedule of interviews on the day President Bush unveiled his energy plan. The nuclear energy industry is back in the spotlight, cited in the report of the National Energy Policy Development Group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney as one of the cornerstones of a broad, national effort to produce more power. Suddenly, nuclear power plants have become respectable again, and Howard and her colleagues at the institute, the industry's lobbying and public relations arm, were in demand for television appearances from 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening on Thursday. Bush has called for the consideration of building new nuclear power plants and the resumption of reprocessing nuclear fuel. And the nuclear power industry got one clear concession in the plan: a tax break that would eliminate the double taxation of money put aside for decommissioning plants. Those taxes, industry experts said, have been a deterrent to buying and selling nuclear plants. Bush's plan to re-evaluate nuclear reprocessing, in which nuclear waste is converted into reusable fuel, is also expected to draw attention to the industry. Britain and France reprocess fuels, but it has not yet proven profitable, group officials said. Anti-proliferation organizations have long argued that reprocessing creates bomb-grade nuclear fuels that could be converted into nuclear weapons. In fact, Bush's report noted the problem and urged an examination of "more proliferation-resistant" fuels. While the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl damaged the reputation of the industry, Joe Colvin, the institute's president, said the Bush energy plan presented a welcome chance to talk about more recent advances in nuclear power. "What we have done in the past two decades in the nuclear energy industry has made tremendous progress in improving the safety and the reliability and reducing the cost of nuclear generation," he said. "And we have a tremendous story to tell. In fact, what we have the opportunity to say through this administration and their leadership is to have nuclear energy be looked at as part of the solution to our nation's energy needs." Howard, the group's vice president, said that the time was right to engage the public in the energy process. Other countries, she said, including Japan, Korea and China, are looking to the United States to be a leader in the nuclear industry. "I had a 64-year-old grandmother call me after I was on the radio this morning, and say this stuff is interesting," she said. There are 103 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. And the institute has nearly 300 member organizations in 15 countries. In addition, the group has assembled a task force on new nuclear deployment, which has met four times to draw up a business plan for new reactors. The task force will meet again this summer. The industry plans to discuss its strategy for building new nuclear facilities over the next 20 years at its annual meeting here next week. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Sens. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., are expected to speak at the meeting. Cheney has also been invited, but has not confirmed whether he will attend. "A couple of weeks of publicity is nice to have, but this is a longer road we're on, and we realize that," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the institute. [ height=] © 2001 Sun Herald. All rights reserved. Any copying, ***************************************************************** 18 Bush orders faster OK for power projects The Seattle Times: Nation &World: May 19, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific By Ron Hutcheson *Knight Ridder Newspapers* WASHINGTON - Promising fast action on energy needs, President Bush signed two executive orders yesterday giving energy producers more clout in dealing with federal regulators. Bush directed government agencies to speed up permits for energy projects and ordered federal bureaucrats to consider the energy impact of any major new regulations. The president's actions underscored his determination to ease environmental restrictions and other regulations as part of a new national energy policy. The energy plan, which was formally released Thursday, is intended to boost energy supplies across the board while encouraging conservation, according to the administration. In signing the executive orders, Bush said he wanted to reassure Americans that his energy report will not be just another document gathering dust on government bookshelves. The report offers 105 proposals, some specific, some vague, to help meet the nation's energy needs. At least 20 of the recommendations require congressional action. More than 70 others are directed at federal agencies. Administration officials said the executive orders are intended to make sure that federal regulators balance environmental concerns and other issues against the need for more energy. The new requirement for an energy-impact statement when new regulations are proposed mirrors the existing requirement for environmental-impact statements. Bush said forcing regulators to consider energy would serve as "a yellow light that says, pause and think before you make decisions that squeeze consumers' pocketbooks, that may cause energy shortages or that may make us more dependent on foreign energy." Regulatory experts differed over the effect of the president's directives, but the executive orders cheered energy producers and worried environmentalists. Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington environmental group, said requiring an energy-impact statement for new regulations "could end up meaning weaker pollution controls in the future." For example, O'Donnell said, the Bush administration could use the requirement to challenge new vehicle-emissions standards scheduled to go into effect in 2004. The standards will dramatically cut emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur but could also reduce fuel efficiency in some cars and trucks. Energy-industry officials said the change could have helped them head off the Clinton administration's policy closing access to potential oil and gas fields in federal forests. The decision was driven by environmental concerns, and the effect on energy was not considered until late in the process. "Our concern has been that a lot of decisions have not considered the impacts on energy production," said Mark Rubin, who oversees energy exploration issues for the American Petroleum Institute in Washington. "Ultimately, good regulation will end up balancing the need to protect the environment with the need to have energy supplies." White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said the presidential order "takes energy out of the basement and into the living room so it can be considered on an equal basis with other issues." Bush promoted the plan yesterday during a visit to an environmentally friendly hydroelectric plant near Conestoga, Pa. The Safe Harbor power plant has a fish lift that helps shad and other migratory fish get past the plant in the Susquehanna River. Although White House media planners picked the backdrop to highlight the plan's environmental initiatives, the location - less than 30 miles from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant - gave environmental groups a convenient platform for challenging Bush's support for nuclear power. The Pennsylvania nuclear plant was nearly destroyed in an accident in 1979 that sent radiation into the atmosphere and forced widespread evacuations. The Sierra Club marked Bush's Pennsylvania visit with ads in local newspapers suggesting that he should have gone to Three Mile Island instead of the hydroelectric plant. Bush made no mention of the 1979 accident in urging Americans to take another look at nuclear power, which supplies about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. "We've got to understand the power and promise of nuclear energy," he said. "We've got to be able to discuss nuclear power and recognize that nuclear power is much safer than it's ever been." ***************************************************************** 19 Bush-Cheney Energy Policy: Cure Worse than Disease, Out of Step with Pennsylvania Environmental News Network - ENN Direct From Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) Friday, May 18, 2001 HARRISBURG, PA — Hanger, a former member of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), detailed the underlying fallacies behind the Bush-Cheney plan. “The President claims that ‘this is the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargo of the 1970s,’ yet that is patently untrue,” said Hanger. “Like the rest of the country (excepting California’s dysfunctional energy market), there is no electricity crisis in Pennsylvania. Here as elsewhere, strong federal environmental protections and enforcement are not barriers to affordable, reliable electricity supply or to building new power plants. Pennsylvania has an ample supply of electricity, with an 18% reserve margin above the projected summer peak, and prices have fallen – to 1% below the national average in 2000 after being 15% above it in 1996. “The Administration also claims that new power plants are not being built, mostly due to environmental constraints, yet that is also belied by the facts,” continued Hanger. “Indeed, on the supply side, the electricity market is working and does not need a big government Washington solution. Nearly one power plant per day is being built; by the end of 2002,we will have built 25% of the power plants that Vice President Cheney argues must be built by 2020. None of the new generation is nuclear. Almost none of it is coal. Increasing numbers are wind plants, and most of them are gas plants. And every plant being built meets environmental laws. The huge new investment in clean generation and natural gas that we are seeing both nationally and in Pennsylvania demonstrates that environmental protection and enforcement do not impede affordable, reliable electricity supply or new power plants. “Despite this, the Administration’s proposed policy provides a financial and environmental bailout for the mature coal and nuclear industries, while cheating emerging technologies like renewable energy and fuel cells,” said Hanger. “But 2,200 Pennsylvanians died last year from soot pollution from old coal-fired power plants, and Pennsylvanians – more than any other Americans – know how terrorizing a nuclear accident can be. Yet Vice-President Cheney has been extolling nuclear technology while calling for exempting nuclear plants from liability in case of an accident. Those of us who live within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island melted core would like to know why such governmental intervention and insulation is necessary if nuclear power is so safe.” Hanger continued, “In fact, the Bush-Cheney approach to energy reveals that the Administration is not so much committed to conservative ideals as it is committed to rewarding their financial backers. The Bush-Cheney energy policy intervenes in markets or refuses to do so, depending on which philosophy bails out industry allies. Hanger called upon Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, U.S. Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, Attorney General Mike Fisher and other federal and state elected officials to urge President Bush to protect Pennsylvanians from dirty air from out-of-state power plants by continuing the federal lawsuits filed by the previous Administration against these plants. He also called upon the state to join New York’s elected officials and file their own lawsuits against these plants, in case the federal government drops or settles the existing suits. Further, Hanger urged the Pennsylvania government to reject the proposed GPU-FirstEnergy merger unless FirstEnergy cleans up its notorious Sammis plant, the target of a federal clean air lawsuit. “It’s time for Governor Ridge and other elected officials to defend Pennsylvania’s economy and environment,” continued Hanger. “They must put the interests of Pennsylvania first. Tomorrow, when they meet with President Bush at his local photo-op, they should speak up against the Bush-Cheney plan. “Finally, if the Bush Administration really wants to cure the disease and not cripple the patient, they must go after the real problems, and not use price spikes as an excuse to bail out their friends and destroy our environment,” said Hanger. They must give consumers access to new technologies, from personal power sources to meters and devices that will help them control their demand, and they must intervene to prevent price gouging in the wholesale marketplace. But as their plan now stands,” he concluded, “there is little in it that will actually help the folks who are paying the bills.” PennFuture, with offices in Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, is a statewide public interest membership organization, which advances policies to protect and improve the state’s environment and economy. PennFuture’s activities include litigating cases before regulatory bodies and in local, state and federal courts, advocating and advancing legislative action on a state and federal level, public education and assisting citizens in public advocacy. ### For more information, contact: Jeanne Clark Director of Communications Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture) 412-258-6680 ***************************************************************** 20 White House considering Yucca limit for radiation May 18, 2001 By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is still mulling a controversial radiation release limit standard for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, three state officials said Thursday. But a decision is "imminent," Bush aides told Gov. Kenny Guinn's chief-of-staff, Marybel Batjer, she said Thursday. Guinn dispatched Batjer, state Yucca watchdog Bob Loux and lobbyist Mike Pieper to meet with White House officials. At the 45-minute meeting were eight Bush aides, including officials from the president's Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency. At issue is Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the only site under consideration for the nation's nuclear waste burial ground. Guinn sent his aides to deliver a strong message that people in Nevada support a proposal by the EPA that would limit radiation release from waste stored at Yucca Mountain to 15 millirems, with a 4 millirems standard for ground water. A chest X-ray is roughly 5 millirems. That limit is so strict it could be impossible to meet and threatens the project, which is one reason why Nevada officials like it. Officials with the EPA, project managers with the Energy Department, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have been involved in private meetings on whether to make the standard official -- or to consider a less strict standard. NRC officials support a less strict standard. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said the NRC has been inappropriately pressuring the EPA to set a less strict standard. "I tried to put a human face on the problem," Batjer said. "People need to understand that the aquifer that this ground water standard would apply to is already used by humans in the Amargosa Valley." That's the valley downstream from Yucca that is home to dairy farms. White House officials would not say if they were preparing to adopt the proposed EPA standard or another one, the Nevadans said after the meeting. The officials asked pointed questions about whether Las Vegas' population was spreading toward Yucca. The Nevadans replied that was the direction of growth in Clark County, Loux said. Meanwhile Thursday aides to Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said he had received an e-mail from a senior White House official confirming that President Bush is committed to letting the EPA set the standard. The EPA has that authority under the law. Gibbons also has stressed to Bush officials that Nevadans back the EPA standard as proposed. Pieper said Guinn is preparing to pursue "every legal and political path he can" to block the Yucca plan. The radiation standards could be grounds for a lawsuit, said Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "We'll get ready to sue if things don't go our way," Loux said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 Bush Touch Is a Big Boost to Nuclear Industry Saturday, May 19, 2001 But he may be reigniting old protests. By AARON ZITNER, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON--It has been 28 years since a company last ordered and built a nuclear power plant in the United States, but the nuclear industry has been quietly laying the groundwork for new growth. Its engineers have designed new reactors that they say are safer and cheaper to build. Regulators have streamlined a costly licensing process that often lasted beyond a decade. Now President Bush is proposing what could be the final elements needed to rejuvenate the long-stagnant industry--as well as the anti-nuclear movement that was a feature of the political landscape in the 1970s and 1980s. Bush on Thursday called for speeding up the permitting needed to build new plants and to extend the life of existing reactors. He proposed reviving studies of a controversial technology that might reduce the nation's stockpile of radioactive waste. And he encouraged Congress to extend existing liability protections for the industry in the case of nuclear accidents. The protections expire in 2002. Those proposals could give a boost to the early-stage plans for new plants being drawn up at several companies. Four utilities have started talks recently with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about submitting applications for new plants, the first such talks in 20 years. "The president's proposal moves all this along," said Don Kirchoffner, spokesman for Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based utility that runs 17 nuclear plants and aims to build more. "There's a distinct possibility that you'll see new construction within five years." The proposals can "provide greater certainty for power producers as they consider new nuclear power plant construction," said Joe F. Colvin, president of the Nuclear But Bush may also be sparking the revival of the anti-nuclear movement. Nuclear power opponents fear that the president will help the industry cut costs by cutting safety features. Even before Bush asked for a faster permitting process, they say, regulators had already accelerated the licensing process by reducing opportunities for the public to challenge plant permits on safety and environmental grounds. "What's going on amounts to deregulation of the most dangerous technology on Earth," said industry critic Daniel Hirsch, president of the Los Angeles-based Committee to Bridge the Gap. Another industry opponent, the Nuclear Information Resource Service, plans an "action camp" outside an Illinois plant in August to "refocus and revitalize the opposition to nuclear power." Today the nation's 103 nuclear plants account for about 20% of electricity generation. But since 1973, no company has ordered a nuclear plant that it eventually completed. High construction costs, as well as public protest after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Harrisburg, Pa., stopped the industry's expansion. That incident is considered the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history, causing 140,000 to flee the area in fear of a meltdown. In recent years, however, the cost of natural gas and other energy sources has climbed, while the cost of uranium--the fuel for nuclear plants--has fallen. At the same time, the NRC has changed its permitting process. Companies can ask for construction and operation permits at one time, where before there were separate sets of hearings that often lasted for years and ran up costs. Moreover, the agency has pre-approved three new designs for power plants. Companies that choose one do not have to go through a separate design review. Companies can also ask the agency to pre-approve the site for a nuclear plant well before they know what type of plant they intend to build. It is widely believed that companies will seek to build new plants at the site of existing reactors, an effort to minimize costs and public protest. The president's report says that many U.S. nuclear sites were designed to host four to six reactors, but most operate only two or three. The four companies that have talked with the NRC about possible new plants are Exelon, Dominion Resources Inc., Southern Co. and Entergy Corp., said Jerry Wilson, an NRC official. Beyond changes that the NRC has already adopted, Bush has made several proposals that might encourage new plants. Bush's plan asks Congress to extend the Price-Anderson Act, which spreads the cost of a nuclear accident to the industry as a whole and requires Congress to consider using taxpayer money to cover all damage claims above $9.5 billion. The industry says that the act, which expires in 2002, enables plant owners to get private insurance and ensures that the public will be compensated in the case of an accident. But industry opponents say the act should not be renewed. "On the one hand, they say that nuclear power is safe, but on the other hand they want taxpayers to pick up the tab if there's an accident," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the national lobbying office for the California Public Interest Research Group (CalPIRG). "It doesn't make any sense." The administration plan highlights one much-touted new technology, called a "pebble-bed" reactor, and says its design has "inherent safety features." Exelon is hoping to build a pebble-bed reactor in the United States and has invested nearly $8 million to help another company build one in South Africa. Depending on its success there, the company says it could have a similar plant operating in the United States by 2006. Exelon says pebble-bed plants are small and can be built quickly and inexpensively. The reactors contain more than 300,000 "pebbles" of enriched uranium oxide fuel, which are covered with graphite to form a sphere the size of a tennis ball. Supporters say the reactors are inherently safe because the fuel never reaches the temperature at which a meltdown could occur. The plants are cooled with helium, which supporters say is less corrosive than the water used in traditional plants. But industry opponents have attacked the pebble-bed design because it does not include the spherical containment dome, a hallmark of many existing plants, which aims to trap escaping radioactive material in case of an accident. Industry officials say the design contains other containment features. The NRC has not yet approved a pebble-bed design. The president's plan is silent on how to resolve the two-decade-old debate about whether to build a repository for the nation's spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But the plan does call for reexamining a technology called reprocessing, which it says might help with the waste problem. Reprocessing is a set of methods for extracting plutonium and other material from spent nuclear fuel that can be used again in nuclear plants. After reprocessing, the spent fuel is slightly smaller in volume and remains toxic for fewer years, several people in the industry said. Reprocessing is a part of the nuclear industry in Japan, France and Britain, but President Carter ordered it halted in the United States in 1977 because of fears that it would create a market in plutonium, which might supply nuclear weapon programs abroad. Critics said those arms control concerns are even more valid today. They also complained that reprocessing turns solid nuclear waste into a liquid, which is harder to control. "It's always been a kind of Xanadu, but it's nuclear alchemy," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime industry critic. He said the Department of Energy estimated in 1999 that it would cost $280 billion to develop the technology. The Bush plan makes several proposals aimed at boosting production from existing power plants. It encourages the NRC to relicense existing plants that meet safety standards. Today's plants are operating under 40-year licenses, and many if not all operators are seeking 20-year renewals well before the old licenses expire. Michael Wallace, a consultant and former nuclear utility official, said the administration had helped the industry merely by making it safe to talk again about boosting capacity. "It's probably not an exaggeration to say that you never heard the previous president utter the word 'nuclear' when he talked about electricity generation," said Wallace, of the Barrington Energy Partners, a consultant firm. But Markey said Bush's plan won't revive an industry that long ago scared away Wall Street investors. "It's doomed. They can pass a program of benefits to put nuclear power on artificial respiration, but it will never be a vibrant, growing industry again. They can prop up the corpse, but they can't reanimate it." Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 22 Forbes.com: General Electric's Nuclear-Powered Returns Tara Murphy, Forbes.com, 05.18.01, 2:30 PM ET NEW YORK - President Bush's energy plan sounds like a renaissance for nuclear energy, proposing to increase reactors at U.S. licensed plants. The plan is a vision covered in red tape, but won't likely impact investors' wallets in the near term. Most experts don't see a new nuclear plant being built for decades due to the onerous licensing process and environmental issues, such as storing radioactive waste. But Bush wants to add reactors to current plants and that may clear the bureaucracy faster. U.S. companies haven't been building plants here, but they've been active in more nuke-friendly countries and are ready to reap the benefits in the U.S. when the time comes. "If the U.S starts building nuclear plants in significant numbers, that would have to be looked at, but we're pretty active," says John Redding, manager of marketing and public affairs of GE Nuclear Energy, a unit of General Electric (nyse: GE - - people). GE, which supplied many of the reactors when U.S. plants were being built in the 1970s and 1980s, is building two plants in Taiwan and constructed two nuclear plants for Tokyo Electric Power, which have been running for four years. The company doesn't expect any major changes in U.S. nuclear operations in the next one to two years. However, if Bush's nuke plan comes to fruition, GE is ready with its licensed Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) nuclear plant design, which was completed in May 1997, says Redding. GE Nuclear Energy is a segment of GE Power Systems, which raked in $15 billion in revenue for the company in fiscal 2000. The parent company's sales were $129.8 billion in 2000. GE is an energy heavyweight even without nuclear energy, says Lawrence Horan, analyst at Parker/Hunter, tagging their natural gas energy turbine generators as a breadwinner after capturing a 70% market share in the U.S. "GE is sold out for two years, and probably about 85% sold out for the third year, referring to 2003," says Horan, who considers GE's nuclear prospects a "small, long-term positive," given the public opposition that it faces. Nuclear options could buffer GE's balance sheet from future weakness, says Bear Stearns analyst John Inch, who agrees that the resurgence of nuclear energy is a long-term process. "By the time some of these plans and actual revenue come[s] into the build cycle, this might be a very nice offset to some of GE's other power businesses," says Inch, postulating if GE's strong turbine shipments ever begin to wane. By building at current sites, Bush's plan avoids many complex issues associated with building new plants. Since several of the plants could operate four to six reactors but only have two or three, it's feasible. Also, obtaining a design license and then operating and construction licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might be easier, says Jennifer Weeks, director of a research project at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. However, the need for energy environmental issues, including nuclear waste disposal, would still be addressed, she says. Exelon (nyse: EXC - - people), the largest nuclear operator in the U.S., stands to get a leg up from a nuclear comeback. The holding company, which was formed through the merger of Unicom and PECO Energy, is co-developing a design for a Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in South Africa and says it will apply for a design license in the U.S. in 2001, if it passes feasibility testing. On May 3, Corbin MacNeil, Exelon's chairman and chief executive, testified in front of a senate committee that the PBMR, which has been used in Germany, is safe and economical, costing $125 million to $150 million for a 125-megwatt plant and $1,100 per kilowatt to construct. The last generation of reactors cost $3,500 per kilowatt, according to Daniele Sietz, analyst at Salomon Smith Barney. Due to its small size, the PBMR can also be constructed in 18 to 36 months, whereas large reactors take four to six years. Exelon hopes to score an operating and construction license for the PBMR by 2003. But those projections might be jumping the gun. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process is typically two to three years, says Harvard's Weeks. Here's the bottom line: Nuclear solutions must be able to be price competitive with other forms of energy, says Weeks. "Until the industry can make new plants absolutely competitive, the capital of cost building a new nuclear power plant competitive with the capital cost of building combine gas turbine plants, the issue of building new plants isn't going to come up." Weeks doesn't see that happening for about 20 years. Bush says he sees nuclear energy as a viable energy source, but the Texas oilman is proposing cutting research and development funds in 2002. According to Weeks, Bush's budget proposal slices the Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Initiative's slim $35 million budget by 48%, and radioactive waste management by 30%. "The Bush Administration has said they want to rely on the science for a lot of their environmental decision, but they don't have very much science appointees and they're cutting science research essentially across the board, except for defense and health," says Weeks. ***************************************************************** 23 Leader: Bush's energy plans are outdated Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Simply the wrong policy Special report: George Bush's America Saturday May 19, 2001 The Guardian Exxon's $1.2m pre-electoral contribution to the Republican party must rank as the most cost-effective political gift of all time, judging by the Bush administration's new profligate energy policy. Having recklessly abandoned the Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 5% by 2010, President Bush has now gone gung-ho for a vast expansion of the oil, nuclear and coal industries, coupled with some tactical concessions in the direction of serious energy conservation. The gas-guzzling US has 5% of the world's population yet is responsible for 40% of fossil fuel consumption. If the rest of the world demanded to match America's per capita consumption, then the planet might have to shut for business. The fundamental problem with the Bush plan is that it is all about boosting supply and not about curbing demand. Even when he appears to make concessions to the environmental lobby - as with the $1.2bn for funding renewable energy resources - it is tied to royalties from the administration's highly controversial plans to start drilling for oil and natural gas in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The US needs to expand energy supplies and to establish a national electricity grid to alleviate regional problems, such as the ongoing California black-outs. But it would not need to build anything like the 1,300 new nuclear, gas and coal fired stations it is planning if it were to act dramatically to increase spending on renewables and reduce US citizens' divine right to use as much energy as they want while paying as little as they can get away with. If the energy history of the 20th century was all about hydrocarbons and nuclear power, the 21st century will be about harnessing energy from wind, solar power - of which the well-endowed US has abundant resources - and hydrogen. By burying itself in the sand, the US will enrage other countries that have signed up to the Kyoto targets and increase US isolationism. It will also give the rest of the world a competitive edge in developing alternative sources. Of course, it may not turn out as bad as it looks. Some enlightened companies, such as Ford, are accepting corporate responsibility for global warming in a way that shames the politicians. Also, if the US starts building nuclear power plants in large numbers after a freeze of over 20 years then this will make a contribution, albeit unintended, to the Kyoto targets because nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases. The objection to nuclear plants is this: even if their formidable safety problems can be overcome (which is possible) they still have to prove they are not hopelessly uneconomic requiring hefty and continuing public subsidies from the taxpayer that would be better spent on renewables. The Bush proposals will rightly face fierce opposition in Congress from Democrats and environmentally minded Republicans and, maybe, even greater opposition from voters not prepared to have pylons or oil pipelines anywhere near their properties. The provisions have been carefully crafted so that only 20 out of 105 principles need congressional approval - but that is enough to make a battlefield. What America really needs is a carbon tax, the proceeds of which could be channelled into a really serious exploitation of renewable resources. If solar and wind power - both of which can provide solutions to local energy shortages without needing to be part of a national grid - had been given even half of the research budget that went into ill-fated experiments with nuclear power, then US attitudes to energy today might be very different. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 24 The Age: Fury over energy plan By GAY ALCORN UNITED STATES CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON Saturday 19 May 2001 President George W.Bush unveiled his long-awaited energy plan yesterday, warning of a "darker future" unless the United States aggressively drilled for more oil and increased its gas, coal and nuclear power supplies. The plan, developed by Vice-President Dick Cheney, provides $US10 billion ($A19 billion) in tax credits for environmentally friendly measures such as hybrid cars and solar panels on houses, but its emphasis is on increasing the supply of energy from fossil fuels to keep up with America's galloping demand. The US uses 25 per cent of the world's oil, while comprising less than 5 per cent of its population. "America in the year 2001 faces the most serious energy shortage since the oil embargoes of the 1970s," the report said. Without quick action, shortfalls "will inevitably undermine our economy, our standard of living and our national security". Environmental groups reacted with fury, saying the conservation sweeteners were a smokescreen for a generous hand-out to the energy industry from a president and vice-president who both once worked in the oil business. The report was printed on glossy paper with pictures of bears in forests and happy fishermen, and the Democrats dismissed it as being "fully of pretty colored pictures". "It really looks like the Exxon Mobil annual report," said Democratic House leader Dick Gephardt, "and maybe that's really what it is." "It's a page from our past," said Democrat Senate leader Tom Daschle. "The Bush-Cheney plan basically ignores conservation. It ducks tough issues like global warming. We need action." Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada grumbled that the GOP - the Republican Party's nickname - now stood for "Gas, Oil and Plutonium". The debate is politically charged because of rising petrol prices and power blackouts in California, partly due to a bungled deregulation several years ago. The Democrats want short-term solutions to California's problems, while Mr Bush criticises the Clinton administration for failing to develop a comprehensive energy plan. "If we fail to act, we could face a darker future, a future that is unfortunately being previewed in rising prices at the gas pump and rolling blackouts in California," Mr Bush said as he unveiled the 163-page plan, with its 105 recommendations. But there is no consensus on whether the US is even suffering an "energy crisis" as the administration contends. Petrol prices are not as high as they were in real terms in the 1970s and industry groups are already hurriedly building power plants and laying gas pipelines. Mr Cheney's report calls for immediate action to increase supply. It says there is a need for at least 1300 new power plants in the next 20 years and pledges to expedite approvals for energy projects, considering eliminating environmental reviews before power plant upgrades and opening up federal lands to oil exploration. It calls for drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which conservationists oppose, and which faces defeat in Congress. It also urges an expansion of the nuclear industry as "a major component of our national energy policy". The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979 virtually halted America's nuclear industry, and no new plants have been built since. "If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts," Mr Bush said. "If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom who do not share our interests." He stressed that new technologies make energy exploration and production much cleaner than in the past. "The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities." Industry groups mostly welcomed the proposals, many of which they have advocated for many years. But environmentalists said the plan was a throwback that proved the administration did not take global warming seriously. In March, Mr Bush rejected taking part in the Kyoto global warming treaty. He has promised to announce his response within months. The head of the United Nations forum on climate change, Jan Pronk, said the new energy strategy was a "disastrous development" in efforts to slow global warming, which scientists believe is caused by increasing carbon dioxide emissions, especially from the burning of fossil fuels. Environmentalists in the Pacific reacted with horror to the US plan. Among the most vulnerable to climate change, a group representing Pacific islanders complained the region's concerns were being ignored, even though some of its tiny, low-lying nations faced obliteration if sea levels rose too far. "I'm overwhelmed. I don't really know what to say about Bush's plans," said Patrina Dumaru, climate officer for the Fiji-based Pacific Concerns Resources Centre, a regional umbrella group for non-government organisations. "If the worst comes to the worst, if it comes to the crunch in climate change, some communities and cultures here will cease to exist. It's totally unjust." The conservation incentives in Mr Bush's plan were "a thin green veneer", said Greenpeace Australia climate change campaigner Shane Rattenburg. "The US position is bitterly disappointing, it's very irresponsible, and we're equally appalled by the fact that the Australian government has been supportive." Ms Dumaru said she was also alarmed at Mr Bush's plan to increase nuclear power output. The Pacific was a leading testing ground for US and French nuclear bomb tests from the 1960s to the mid-1990s and opposition in the region to nuclear power is fierce. "If nuclear power output grows, then they will be looking for nuclear waste dumps and I fear the place they will look will be the Pacific," she said. "We're tired of everything they dish out on us." - with REUTERS Copyright © The Age Company Ltd 2001. Any unauthorised use, copying or ***************************************************************** 25 Greenpeace mounts protest against US President's energy plan ABC News - 20/05/01 : The environmental group, Greenpeace, has dumped a mound of coal and oil barrels outside US Vice-President Dick Cheney's official residence in a protest against the Bush administration's energy plan. The Greenpeace protest came as US President George W Bush unveiled recommendations of an energy task force led by Mr Cheney, which increases energy production and encourages conservation. Several tons of coal and a handful of oil barrels blocked an entrance to Mr Cheney's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory in north-west Washington and activists carried banners with slogans such as "Bush/Cheney Energy Scam". "The Bush/Cheney energy plan is not an energy plan, it's an energy scam. The Bush/Cheney plan could have been written by the oil industry, the coal industry and the nuclear power industry," said Greenpeace activist Andrea Durbin. Police observed the truck dumping the coal and took down the names of those involved. There were no arrests. A spokeswoman for Mr Cheney declined comment on the incident. In Amsterdam, earlier today, Greenpeace International slammed the Bush energy plan, saying the measures would increase the US output of global warming gases. Greenpeace climate policy director Bill Hare described the conservation measures as "window dressing" and said the call to increase fossil fuels use ran counter to efforts in other industrialised states to reduce "greenhouse gas" output. A UN scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming of the earth's surface. That, in turn, will lead to higher ocean levels, dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms. "This plan is going to substantially increase US greenhouse gas emissions at a time when most of the industrialised countries are trying to reduce them," Mr Hare said. In March, Mr Bush drew an international outcry by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which calls on industrialised countries to cut output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, by an average of 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels by 2010. Mr Bush said he rejected the pact, which has not been formally adopted by the international community, because it did not require emissions cuts by developing nations and would damage the US economy. Mr Hare, who described the new Bush plan as "profoundly depressing," said Greenpeace would still push for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol without the United States. ***************************************************************** 26 Power Online News for power industry professionals For the Rest of Us by Rod Adams: “N” (nuclear) word no longer taboo -->5/17/2001 The whispering is becoming a roar. In the six months since the first “For the Rest of Us” column, there have been hundreds of news stories indicating that the “N” (nuclear) word is no longer taboo. Of course, it would be unrealistic to think that there is any cause and effect relationship between my rosy predictions for the future of nuclear energy and the growing political acceptability of frank statements supporting new nuclear plants. Instead, the lion’s share of the credit has to be given to Vice President Dick Cheney who started a rush of articles and commentary in March when he stated, “If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants, because they don’t emit any carbon dioxide. And they don’t emit greenhouse gases.” It was certainly nice to hear someone in a position of power state that rather obvious fact in a public forum. In subsequent interviews and public statements, the Vice President has mentioned support for renewing the licenses of existing plants, for extending the Price-Anderson Act that limits liability for nuclear plant owners, for resolving the Yucca Mountain impasse and for investigating the possibility of building new nuclear power stations. He has stated that meeting predicted energy demands over the next decade will require the construction of approximately 1300 new power stations and that some of those should be fueled with uranium. Objective news stories stimulated by these comments have been balanced, recognizing the economic benefit of uranium fueled machines at a time when natural gas prices are soaring and frankly discussing the environmental benefits of a fuel source that creates heat and controllable power without releasing any greenhouse gases. Of course, there have been plenty of quotes from familiar anti-nuclear spokesmen like Ralph Nader, David Lochbaum, Paul Gunter and Hunter Gunter, who have not changed their tune in almost 30 years. All this positive news should make a self-described “nuke” overjoyed, but I have a few warnings for nuclear industry people before they get too excited. (There are plenty of readers that are not nuclear industry people, but I these thoughts may be of interest to them as well.) I do not want to be a killjoy, but healthy skepticism is often warranted when politicians get involved in big money issues. First of all, higher natural gas and gasoline prices have provided a wonderful opportunity for nuclear industry spokesmen to get the attention of people not normally interested in energy issues, but current prices cannot be the main justification for new power stations. The somewhat surprising result of the oil crisis of 1973-74 was that nuclear plant orders came to a screeching halt as electric demand dropped in the subsequent recession. (As an aside, please understand that the nuclear construction business was already nearly moribund by 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident occurred.) One thing that can be predicted about energy prices is that they are rarely stable over the decades that power plants will operate. Next, a close look at the proposed budget figures for Department of Energy fission research programs like the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative show that the Bush Administration is actually recommending a significant reduction in funding compared to last year’s budget. I freely admit that government funds are often wasted in research efforts, but this decision provides an indication that positive words are not always backed up with positive actions. Be aware that other energy producers will seek to obtain research funds at the expense of fission; one of the problems with relying on public dollars for such an effort is that political clout can be more important than technical merit when bureaucrats craft a budget. There are a lot of coal, oil, and gas people being assigned key roles in the Bush Administration; as far as I can tell there have not been any strong nuclear supporters invited to the centers of power. It is easy to say nice things about nuclear power and still work to push the technology to the fringes. Other energy producers have to recognize that any hurdle that slows the deployment of new nuclear power plants or prevents existing plants from producing more power will have a positive impact on their market share. Key decision makers in companies that produce commodities are well versed in the fact that their prosperity increases whenever they sell more of their product, especially if they can sell it at a higher price because they have fewer competitors. One comment that frequently surfaces in discussions about a resurgent nuclear building program is the assertion that there must be an agreement regarding a final solution to nuclear waste. Every nuke I know recognizes that it will be difficult – or impossible in some states – to build a new nuclear plant without addressing the waste storage plan. Nuclear competitors are fully aware of this fact; I predict that the issue will remain contentious for quite some time. The industry should tell Americans that there is no need to rush into a final solution since there is no foreseeable danger from our current methods of storing spent fuel. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry seems locked into the idea of making fuel byproduct storage a crisis that must be quickly solved. Even under the current system of paying twice for spent fuel storage – once to the government and once to the manufacturers of dry storage containers – waste storage represents about 10% of the total production cost of the average nuclear plant. It is much less than 5% of the average price of electricity sold in the United States. In the last couple of decades, political leaders have passed at least three bills that purported to include a reasonable solution to nuclear waste disposal. In each case, a change in the government policy prevented the solution from being implemented. Perhaps it would be best to work to get the government out of the business of providing waste storage services; there are too many powerful competing interests for a lasting political decision to ever be reached. I am encouraged by the fact that politicians have realized that favoring nuclear power can benefit their career. I am also cheered by the fact that there are now several companies that have decided to focus on uranium fueled power plants. With fewer internal conflicts of interest between supporters of various fuels, perhaps their marketing departments will be able to more aggressively tout the virtues of nuclear power. If they decide to put more effort into informing the American people that uranium is a superior replacement for fossil fuel, I would be ecstatic. About the author Rod Adams is currently working on a master’s degree in national security affairs through the Naval War College. He served as a nuclear submarine officer for almost 13 years, including a tour as Engineer Officer on a 27-year-old ballistic missile submarine. He now serves as an active duty naval officer at the U.S. Naval Academy where he serves as an associate chair in the Weapons and Systems Engineering Department and also teaches Moral Decision Making for Military Leaders and Environmental Systems Engineering and offshore sailing. He can be reached at AtomicRod@aol.com. Copyright © 2000-2001, Vert Tech LLC. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Bush plan 'disastrous' for climate - UN climate chief NETHERLANDS: May 18, 2001 AMSTERDAM - The head of the U.N. forum on climate change Jan Pronk yesterday dubbed President George W. Bush's new energy plan a "disastrous development" for international efforts to slow output of global warming gases. Pronk, who is also the Dutch environment minister, told a Dutch television news program the Bush plan would "undoubtedly" lead to increased output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, although he still awaited proposals from the world's biggest polluter on how to cut emissions. In a speech earlier yesterday, Bush called for increasing U.S. reliance on oil, coal and nuclear power, while offering $10 billion in tax credits for conservation measures. "In terms of the possibility of forming an integrated policy (to cut emissions), this is a disastrous development," Pronk said. A United Nation's scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming of the earth's surface. That in turn will lead to higher ocean levels, dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms. In March, Bush drew an international outcry by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which calls on industrialised countries to cut output of carbon dioxide by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2010. Bush said he rejected the pact, which has not been formally adopted by the international community, because it did not require emissions cuts by developing nations and would damage the U.S. economy. Pronk reiterated earlier statements that he would press other countries to move forward with the Kyoto pact without the United States, but hoped to draw the country back into the treaty at later date. "I'm trying now to keep the rest of the group together," he said. Negotiations to add teeth to the Kyoto Protocol broke down in November in The Hague after the European Union balked at U.S. proposals to use forests and farms as 'sinks' to soak up carbon from the atmosphere. Those talks are set to resume in Bonn in July, although many countries are showing reluctance to join the pact without the United States. Pronk said he would travel to Japan on Saturday to try keep the U.S. negotiating partner in the talks on board. "If that is successful then we have a good basis for an agreement with Europe and Japan which can pull in other countries. But if that fails, then there isn't really any reason to start the Bonn conference," he said. Pronk also took aim at the U.S. administration's claim that cutting carbon dioxide emissions to slow global warming would be too expensive. "The cost of prevention is much lower than the cost of the consequences from a worsening of the climate," he said. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 28 Two Decades After TMI, Nuclear Power Is Again a Consideration Roll Call: Opinion May 17, 2001 [Karlyn Bowman] In 1999, around the time of the 20th anniversary of the nuclear reactor problem at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the Gallup Organization asked people whether they could remember the name of the nuclear power plant where the incident occurred. Thirty-eight percent said they could, 3 percent gave an incorrect response and 47 percent said they couldn't remember. The passage of time and the absence of serious nuclear reactor problems on U.S. soil may explain some of the findings of current polls about nuclear power. Most recent polls have shown somewhat greater support for, than opposition to, nuclear power. In response to a March Gallup question, 20 percent strongly favored the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, 26 percent somewhat favored it, 28 percent were somewhat opposed to the idea, and 20 percent were strongly opposed. The April Los Angeles Times poll found 52 percent support "increased use of nuclear power as a source of energy in order to prevent global warming," with a third opposed to it. In a May 7-9 Gallup question that asked people about things that could be done to deal with the energy crunch, investments in new sources of energy, such as solar, wind and fuel cells, topped the list (91 percent were generally in favor of these strategies). At the bottom of the list were "increasing the use of nuclear power as a major source of power" (48 percent were generally in favor; 44 percent were generally opposed) and "opening up the Alaskan Arctic Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration" (38 percent were in favor; 57 percent were opposed). In the May 9-10 Fox News-Opinion Dynamics poll, 49 percent favored building more nuclear power plants as a way of meeting the need for electric power, while 40 percent were opposed. To understand what role attitudes toward nuclear power might play in the energy policy debate today, it is useful to review opinion before and after the Three Mile Island incident. Before this scare, most polls showed support for nuclear power, though, as always, question wording was important. A Los Angeles Times question in December 1978 began this way: "Some people say that the nation needs to develop new power sources from nuclear energy in order to meet our needs for the future. Other people say that the danger to the environment and the possibility of accidents are too great." The results of this query were that 52 percent favored building more plants, and 36 percent were against this solution. However, a September 1978 NBC News-Associates Press question that emphasized safety produced a different result. Fifty-seven percent agreed that "No more nuclear power plants should be built in this country until questions about safety are resolved, even though this will mean energy shortages within 10 years." Forty-three percent disagreed. Questions asked by Roper Starch Worldwide and ABC News-Harris in the 1970s produced different pictures of safety concerns. In 1977, 39 percent told Roper that atomic energy plants were "completely safe," while 47 percent said they "present dangers and hazards." A question asked by ABC News-Harris interviewers in April 1979 (after the TMI incident) revealed that 21 percent of Americans surveyed believed nuclear power plants that produce electric power are very safe, 46 percent considered them somewhat safe, and 30 percent thought they were not so safe. When Gallup updated the ABC-Harris question in 1999, 24 percent said nuclear power plants were very safe, 57 percent said they were somewhat safe and 17 percent called them not so safe. Sixty-five percent told Associated Press interviewers in 1999 that nuclear power plants were safer than 10 years ago; 18 percent disagreed. Support for building more plants dropped after Three Mile Island, but it didn't melt down completely. Writing at that time, pollster Mark Schulman said, "[I]t is clear that in the aftermath of TMI, public opposition to nuclear power has soared to record levels. But the bigger headline is that even so, the public is unwilling to declare a moratorium on new development." Schulman argued that two factors cushioned the public's reaction: First, most Americans had already factored safety considerations into their own assessments of nuclear power. Second, they were aware of the country's appetite for energy and the need for power supply. All this isn't to say people want a plant in their back yards. In March, when Gallup asked those who supported the use of nuclear energy whether they would favor or oppose the construction of a nuclear energy plant in their area, 34 percent were in favor, but 63 percent were opposed. Copyright 2000 © Roll Call Inc.All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 Illinois energy firms applaud plan Chicago Tribune | Print Edition -- Results may take years to show up By Melita Marie Garza Tribune staff reporter May 19, 2001 * The Bush energy plan is likely to affect local companies in a variety of ways--helping Exelon Corp. in its nuclear plant expansion plans, for instance, and helping ethanol producers expand their already lucrative franchise. But it will take years for the changes to kick in. While the Bush plan seeks to eliminate many regulatory hurdles and make it easier for companies to get at the sources of energy, it is still a time-consuming process to choose a site for a power plant, refinery or electric transmission line, design the new facility and build it. "Expanding our nuclear capability [for example] is probably a 10-year process, even if the administration was able to say tomorrow that it was able to facilitate licensing," said Peggy Jones, managing director of utility research for Blaylock &Partners in New York. Still, companies in the energy business cheered the Bush plan, saying it gives them tools they've long sought to bring more energy to market, even as environmentalists continued to deride it as a destructive boondoggle for the power industry. The Bush plan unveiled Thursday would, among other things, provide tax breaks for new nuclear power reactors, provide incentives for construction of other kinds of power plants, seek more production of coal, oil and natural gas and ease restrictions on construction of power transmission lines to make it easier to move power around. Oliver Kingsley, president of Exelon Nuclear, said the administration's support for nuclear power research and licensing would help the utility bring its state-of-the-art pebble bed modular nuclear plants to the U.S., including Illinois. Exelon is building a prototype plant in South Africa in collaboration with Eskom, a South African utility, and British Nuclear Fuels. The Bush plan, Kingsley said, "supports more resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, licensing of nuclear power plants, and encourages resolution of the high-level nuclear waste issue." The Bush plan also provides a boost to Downstate utility Illinois Power, in that the administration proposes giving federal regulators eminent domain powers to grab land for installation of transmission lines that seemed most promising. Illinois Power, a unit of Houston-based power trading company Dynegy Inc., thinks current transmission constraints could block the building of new power plants. "We've had a number of generation companies approach us with the desire to put additional generation in our territory," said David Butts, chief operating officer and senior vice president of Illinois Power. "To do that, you'd likely need new transmission to interconnect with the rest of the system and ... gaining the right of way to do that could be very difficult. This policy would help ensure to some degree the ability to site new transmission facilities." For Decatur-based Archer Daniels Midland Co., which produces 50 percent of all ethanol in the U.S., the Bush plan's policies on renewable fuels are likely to lead to increased business. "The plan made broad statements to spend additional dollars on ethanol research and to continue the tax incentives for the production and marketing of ethanol," ADM spokesman Larry Cunningham said. ADM produces 850 million gallons of ethanol per year and is expanding its Peoria facility to add 50 million gallons of production. Still, not everyone in the power industry is thrilled about the Bush plan. "This is not a bad plan; it is just largely unnecessary," said Keith Hannigan, a Chicago attorney who represents power-plant manufacturers. "I don't think there's a need for central planning right now. There is a huge power plant construction boom under way. We are going to have another 90,000 megawatts of power by 2002," Hannigan said. Bill O'Grady, vice president for energy futures at A.G. Edwards &Sons in St. Louis, disagreed. "State and local regulations have kept the market from doing what it needs to do, and lowering those barriers, as the Bush plan proposes, would allow the market to produce more energy." ***************************************************************** 30 Debate on nuke plant act is revived May 18, 2001 Bush would renew caps on liability in case of accident By Benjamin Grove and Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Congress should renew an obscure act that provides affordable insurance rates to nuclear power plants, according to one recommendation in President Bush's newly released National Energy Policy. The Price Anderson Act, approved in 1957, was just one of 105 recommendations in Bush's strategy outline. But it is a vital to his goal of expanding nuclear power in America -- which Nevada policymakers oppose because the state is the proposed home for the nation's nuclear waste. The act protects nuclear power companies from paying sky-high accident insurance premiums by capping liability policies at $200 million per reactor. Nuclear utility officials say that without the law they'd be forced to seek private insurance and forced to pay exorbitant rates -- possibly to be driven out of business. But critics say the act amounts to handing the industry a government subsidy. Environmental and consumer group Public Citizen called it "corporate welfare." Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to muster a diverse coalition of lawmakers, including green-leaning Democrats and free-market Republicans, to oppose the act's renewal this year, Reid spokesman Nathan Naylor said. "This is an incentive to build ... nuclear power plants," Naylor said. "In the case of a catastrophic accident, the American taxpayer gets caught holding the bag." Here's how the act works: * Cost estimates for a worst-case nuclear accident are nearly impossible to predict, but the Chernobyl accident in 1986 cost about $200 billion for clean up, evacuation and other long-term expenses, the Associated Press said. Environmental groups say the cost of a nuclear accident could be as much as $300 billion. * Under Price Anderson, companies that own the nation's 106 nuclear reactors (three are closed and inactive) carry insurance policies capped by the government at $200 million. So if an accident occurred, the company would pay up to $200 million for damages. * After that, owners of the other 105 reactors, by agreement, would share the cost of additional damages -- up to about $88 million per reactor. If the accident were bad enough that the companies owning the 105 other reactors had to ante up their $88 million each, it would add up to nearly $9.5 billion in compensation. * But what if accident liabilities cost more than that? Taxpayers would pay. "Our concern is that no other special interest in Washington gets this kind of assurance," said Keith Ashdown, spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We don't think taking on this kind of liability is the role of the federal government." Congress has renewed the act three times, and lawmakers again must consider renewal because it expires in August 2002. If the act were not renewed, plants already under steam would still be covered, but any new plants would be on their own to find insurance, congressional sources say. Proposals to renew the act already are hemmed into three energy bills pending in Congress. For emphasis, Vice President Dick Cheney also recommended it in the Bush adminstration's energy strategy, which he drafted. "It needs to be renewed," Cheney said in a Reuters interview this week. If not, he said, "Nobody's going to invest in (new) nuclear power plants." But Price Anderson is controversial. Taxpayers for Common Sense is gearing up a lobby campaign to convince Congress not to renew it. "There are a lot of conservatives in Congress who believe the free market needs to work when it comes to energy policy," Ashdown said. Consumer and environment groups say Price Anderson is evidence that nuclear power is dangerous. "Our whole argument is: If these plants are so safe, why should we need a taxpayer-backed insurance plan?" said Anna Aurilio, scientist with U.S. Public Interest Research Group. But others disagree. Nuclear power is enjoying a resurgence in public opinion and in Congress, pro-nuclear groups say. Price Anderson should be renewed "indefinitely," Oliver Kingsley, president of the nuclear utility Exelon Corp., told a Senate panel this month. Industry officials argue that the chances of a nuclear accident are remote. Despite decades of nuclear power production, only about $180 million has been paid in claims and legal transactions in Price Anderson money since the law was enacted, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group. About $70 million was paid as a result of Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island accident in 1979, although no one died. Proponents add that even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the body charged with regulating nuclear plants, says that no new plants could be constructed without renewing Price Anderson. "Price Anderson is up for reauthorization during this Congress, and we must address liability and disaster-preparedness issues to send a signal that new nuclear plants are welcome in this country," Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a key lawmaker on energy issues said at a congressional hearing in March. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Nuclear Power To the Rescue? washingtonpost.com: Saturday, May 19, 2001; Page A22 History provides the answer for the energy crisis we are facing, and especially the question of rolling blackouts. In the '30s there was a severe blackout in Tacoma, Wash., so the USS Lexington was sent in response. Her massive generators powered the city for more than a month. The nuclear powered USS Enterprise is scheduled for retirement soon. Why not connect it to California, and let its nuclear reactors generate power? It produces about 5 percent of the output of a full-scale, land-based nuclear power plant, but that could be improved. In the meantime, a new class of ship-borne nuclear power plants could be constructed for a similar purpose. Because they are offshore, they would escape the land-based restrictions. They also would be mobile, so they could move where needed along our coast, or even give the United States a new ability to export electrical power overseas. Countries that need the power, but are not to be trusted with nuclear secrets, could still have that power supplied in this way, while we kept the technology to ourselves. LOREN D. BISHOP Tulsa, Okla. • The May 12 editorial "Nuclear Comeback" overlooked a serious proliferation problem created by nuclear power -- weapons-usable plutonium -- and perpetuated the false claim that nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming. Nuclear power reactors produce weapons-usable plutonium from the fuel originally placed in them. About 1 percent of all spent fuel coming out of a reactor consists of plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons once removed from the fuel. Sens. Frank Murkowski and Pete Domenici have introduced legislation to establish an Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research, which would be charged with investigating "processing and separations" techniques for removal of plutonium and other isotopes for reuse. A move in this direction, also called for in the Bush energy plan, would reverse U.S. policy not to reprocess spent fuel and could threaten the United States with the dilemma now faced by France, Britain, Russia and Japan, all of which have vast stockpiles of excess weapons-usable plutonium. Second, enrichment of uranium, a process that boosts the percentage of the fissionable uranium isotope found in natural uranium, depends in large part on coal-fired electricity plants. While operation of nuclear power plants may not directly produce greenhouse gases, nuclear electricity generation would not take place without preparation of nuclear fuel for use in reactors and without fossil fuel inputs into management of nuclear waste far into the future. TOM CLEMENTS *The writer is executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute.* © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 32 Worries about Bush may be well-founded [deseretnews.com] May 19, 2001 By Thomas L. Friedman President Bush is not responsible for America's energy crisis, its current economic slowdown or even for *all* the tension between the United States and China and the United States and certain allies. What he is responsible for, though, is managing these situations. And that is what's worrying. It's not worrying because the Bush folks are incompetent. They are not, as they showed in deftly managing the spy-plane crisis. What is worrying is the combination of three factors that could produce a perfect political storm: First, the Bushies came into office with the attitude that everything Bill Clinton did — everything — was wrong and needs to be reversed. Second, they came into office bearing Republican theological positions on tax cuts, the environment and missile defense — positions that were hatched in conservative think tanks and chanted with religious devotion but were never tempered by the real world as it has evolved over the last eight years. Yet early signs are that the Bushies will say or do anything to get their radical tax cuts made, their oil wells drilled and their missile shield built — no matter what's going on in the world. Finally, they came into office controlling the Senate, the House, the White House and the Supreme Court, so there are no brakes. Let's look at all this in detail. Although Bush made the obligatory nod to conservation in his energy speech, we know that his real views were voiced by Vice President Dick Cheney. Judging from his sneering remarks about conservation, Cheney believes that conservation should be a misdemeanor, akin to smoking marijuana. Real men drill wells. Former President Jimmy Carter properly ripped Cheney apart in The Washington Post on Thursday for the vice president's put-downs of conservation. Cheney's dismissals, Carter indicated, only revealed an ignorance of what conservation and energy efficiency have done since the late 1970s to reduce America's energy bills — let alone what they could do in the future with some vice presidential leadership. On the tax cut, we again have the Republican theology that all problems can be solved by slashing taxes. This view completely ignores the fact that the bipartisan fiscal discipline of the last eight years, which was produced by the Clinton team and the Republican Congress and eliminated the deficit, is the centerpiece of everything good that has happened with the U.S. economy. It freed up private capital that financed the biggest investment boom in our history — just when the information revolution happened to occur — which has produced a burst of innovation, productivity and wealth that has revolutionized the American industrial landscape. In doing so, it has increased our economic power in the world and our ability to lead. Clinton may have lied about his sex life, but he, Bob Rubin and Larry Summers told the truth about numbers. On foreign policy, the Bushies are so besotted with the idea of building a Star Wars missile shield now that they are telling the public that it's worth building even if it doesn't fully work. Meanwhile, in their latest budget, they have slashed $100 million from Nunn-Lugar and other programs that help Russia properly dismantle its old nukes and safely store nuclear materials. What kind of "realist" is it who is ready to spend $100 billion on a defense system that may not work against the least likely threat — a rogue missile — but won't spend $100 million on the most immediate threat: loose nukes spewing out of Russia to terrorists? That is a realism lost in theology. I'm not here to refight the election. Bush won, and he's entitled to push his policies. But we are entitled to be worried. Because there are no brakes here. But guess what? There is a wall. Several, actually. They are called the bond market, the allies and the world at large. And if these guys keep going in the radical directions they are going, at the speed they are traveling, they are going to hit something real hard. Normally, I wouldn't mind. It would serve them right — except we're all in the back seat. *New York Times News Service* © 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 33 Bush's bold energy initiative [deseretnews.com] May 19, 2001 Deseret News editorial Energy producers are pleased with President Bush's energy policy, which calls for increasing the supplies of oil, gas and nuclear energy. Environmentalists view it quite differently, claiming too much emphasis is on production and not nearly enough on conservation. Both sides have good arguments. But what they are debating now should have been the subject of serious discussion at least a decade ago. The energy chickens have come home to roost — particularly in California — because dialogue and forward-thinking energy policies have been put on hold far too long. Because of that, more decisive action is required now to keep the United States from becoming too dependent on foreign sources for its energy needs. Escalating prices at the gas pump show the need for an updated energy policy. America's dependence on foreign oil renders it vulnerable to the possibility that producing nations could withhold supplies or push up crude oil prices. Despite that, until Bush's proposal the United States had done little to encourage domestic oil production or the development of alternative forms of energy. Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt believes the policy is a balanced one — that it addresses both more production and continued conservation while focusing on new technologies. In other words, it is a policy that meets 21st century needs. As Utah has 600 million tons of known coal reserves, the state's low-ash, low-sulfur and high-BTU coal could become more marketable as a result of the policy. A critical issue is where the new exploration takes place. Energy advocates say being able to tap into energy resources such as oil and natural gas in national monuments and other public lands currently off limits is needed to meet energy needs. Environmentalists claim the opposite, saying that what Utah needs can be accommodated in the Uinta Basin rather than in wilderness areas. Conservation needs to play a considerable part in any energy initiative. A balance can and should be struck. Government can establish standards for energy-efficient appliances, automobiles, lighting fixtures and building construction, to help curb energy use. Tax incentives could be offered to industries to encourage the development of alternative forms of energy. And the federal government needs to lead by example. If it could reduce its own energy consumption by 20 percent, that would result in a $1 billion savings on the government's annual energy bill. These are times that require boldness. Bush has given the country a bold initiative to contemplate. © 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 34 Millstone exec tapped for Dominion project TheDay.com: Local and National News By Paul Choiniere - More Articles Published on 5/19/2001 Waterford — A top Millstone Nuclear Power Station executive has been tapped by Dominion Energy to take part in a special project that is looking into the potential of new nuclear power plant construction, though Millstone is not a site under consideration for new development. Eugene S. Grecheck, 48, vice president of nuclear operations at Millstone, was named Friday as vice president of nuclear support services in Richmond, Va., home base for Dominion. Grecheck will oversee support services, licensing, emergency preparedness, training, and security at Dominion's four nuclear plants, which are located at two separate power stations in Virginia. In addition to those duties, Grecheck also will be taking part in the nuclear industry's early site permitting project. Dominion is one of several utilities that have joined the Nuclear Energy Institute in researching what would be needed to gain site approval and a permit for new nuclear plant construction. Richard Zuercher, a company spokesman, said Dominion's Virginia stations are being reviewed as possible locations for additional nuclear plant construction. Millstone, home of two operating and one closed reactor, is not under consideration, Zuercher said. Applications for new nuclear plant construction ended with the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. An adverse political climate, opposition in the environmental community, and the high cost made the industry conclude that new nuclear plant construction was not feasible. Recent changes have renewed industry interest in the potential for plant construction. Newer technologies raise the potential for less expensive plants that can be operated with larger safety margins. The industry also contends that nuclear, because it does not burn fossil fuels, is a good choice for generating electricity without contributing to global warming. More recently, the idea received a political boost when the administration of President Bush released its energy plan that recommends the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major part of the strategy to meet the nation's energy needs. Any effort to apply for new plant construction, however, would be expected to generate opposition, in large part because the nation has yet to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear waste disposal. In other changes announced Friday, Raymond P. Necci, 49, was named vice president for nuclear operations at Millstone. He has served as vice president for nuclear technical services. He will be responsible for plant operations and maintenance, training, nuclear documents and procedures, safety and security. J. Alan Price, 46, will succeed Necci as vice president for nuclear technical services. Price is currently director for nuclear engineering at Dominion's North Anna and Surry nuclear stations in Virginia. Dominion purchased Millstone station from Northeast Utilities for $1.3 billion. It assumed ownership in April. The personnel changes are effective June 1. © 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 35 Even with a power crunch, Seabrook’s second generator not likely to be revived May 18, 2001 White House mistaken: New York could suffer power blackouts, not N.H. New England wholesale electric market to be studied Conflicting stories emerge on N.H. energy picture SEABROOK, N.H. (AP) — President Bush’s plan to revive nuclear power isn’t likely to include the abandoned second reactor at the Seabrook nuclear plant. Plant spokesman David Barr said there are no plans to revive Unit 2, which was canceled because of rising costs after it was partially built in 1984. The unit’s fate will rest with whoever buys the plant in the next few years, but completing its construction won’t be an option, he said. "There is no way it could be finished as originally designed," he said. "It will not be completed." As part of the state’s plan to bring competition to its electric industry, state regulators are arranging an auction of the Seabrook plant and site. With the nation’s overall energy supply tight, there are expected to be plenty of potential buyers, and the plant’s value is believed to have skyrocketed in recent years. A spokeswoman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said if Seabrook’s owners wanted to build a new reactor at the site, they would have to apply for a new permit, even though one was approved decades ago for the existing plant. Diane Screnci said it’s possible that the commission would be more likely to approve a site near an existing plant. "That’s what I’ve been reading," she told The Union Leader. "People in the industry are saying that it’s more likely there would be approval for a site where there is already a reactor because there would presumably be less public opposition." Barr said it makes sense that the nuclear industry would take advantage of existing sites because emergency planning research already would have been done. "But I suspect there are probably places around the country with less local opposition than Seabrook," he said. The plant was the site of several large demonstrations in the 1970s and 1980s. Barr said plant property is large enough to support another reactor, but a new one would have an entirely different design that would not be compatible with what is left of Unit 2. For now, the unit’s containment and turbine buildings are used to store non-nuclear supplies and many of its parts were sold or used as spare parts for Seabrook Unit 1. © 2001 Geo. J. Foster Co. ***************************************************************** 36 Yankee wraps up refueling shutdown The Rutland Herald Online - May 19, 2001 By SUSAN SMALLHEER Southern Vermont Bureau BRATTLEBORO — The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant could go back on line to the New England power grid as early as tonight, as crews at the reactor were wrapping up the final details of its 2001 maintenance and refueling outage. It was the shortest refueling outage in the reactor’s history. Vermont Yankee spokesman Robert Williams said that the reactor is likely to be back on the power grid late tonight, although it will be a couple of days before the 560-megawatt reactor is up to full power. Vermont Yankee, which is up for sale and is expected to be auctioned off later this summer, shut down for its regularly scheduled outage on April 27. At the time, Yankee said it expected the outage would be completed by mid-May. During the outage, Yankee installed $15.6 million worth of new nuclear fuel made by General Electric Co., about one-third of all the fuel in the reactor. It also spent $22.5 million on maintenance and other repairs. The outage drew about 700 additional workers to the Vernon reactor. There was one incident reported to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the shutdown when a valve in the high pressure coolant injection system, which was undergoing testing, failed to shut properly. It was checked and fixed, Williams said. Refueling outages at Vermont Yankee have followed a trend of being shorter and shorter, and nowhere is the adage “time is money” more true than during refueling outages. The last outage lasted 34 days. The one before that lasted two months, but that was only because the plant’s workers ran into a lot of unexpected problems while doing a major refurbishing of the torus, a key element in the reactor. Meanwhile, Vermont Yankee was the subject, once again, of national media attention this week as ABC News did a story on the reactor, which is attracting a lot of interest from international power companies interested in a share of the New England market. The Vermont Public Service Board earlier this year ordered an auction of Vermont Yankee and Yankee’s owners have hired JP Morgan to handle the sale. AmerGen Energy Co., which had bid only $10 million for the plant in 1998, is still interested in Yankee, along with at least four other firms which have stated their interest. ***************************************************************** 37 Bush policy renews battle over nuclear dump in Nevada May 18, 2001 LAS VEGAS (AP) - Tourists in 1950s Las Vegas donned sunglasses to watch nuclear mushroom clouds over the horizon at the Nevada Test Site 90 miles away. Today, the city and state fear the idea of trucks and railroad cars hauling radioactive waste back to a corner of the Test Site - past glittering new gambling palaces and a relic from that 1950s era, the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign. "One accident, no matter how minor, could create hysteria," the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce says in its official position against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. That opposition gained momentum this week after President Bush called for a national nuclear waste repository as part of his federal energy plan. Bush also called for licensing new nuclear power reactors and speeding the re-licensing of existing plants to ease the nation's power woes. The president didn't specifically name Yucca Mountain, but the reference sent shivers through the ranks of those fighting plans to store all the nation's nuclear refuse deep beneath a wind-swept ridge at the edge of the Test Site northwest of Las Vegas. "I think we are reaching critical mass," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a lobbying group on the forefront of the fight against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. "There should be no expansion of nuclear power until we have a way to dispose of the waste for years to come without harming the public," she said. Since 1987, Yucca Mountain has been the only site studied to become the geologic graveyard for the nation's 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste. "We're getting a lot of attention right now with the unveiling of the president's national energy policy and the subject of nuclear energy," Gayle Fisher, Department of Energy spokeswoman for the Yucca Mountain project, said Friday. After $7 billion worth of study and site testing, approval is at least a year away. The earliest the first load of nuclear waste could arrive is 2010. The project is expected to cost $58 billion over 100 years. Decision-making will be at a crucial point this summer, with developments on many fronts. The DOE is taking public comment on federal environmental and site suitability studies before forwarding its recommendation next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Abraham will make a recommendation to Bush. If Nevada opposes it, as expected, the decision will be sent to Congress for debate and a vote. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding hearings next week in Las Vegas and the rural community of Pahrump on a construction permit for the site. The Department of Justice last Monday asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to order Nevada to grant the site water rights. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Public Works, has been holding up Bush administration nominations to environmental and public works posts until the Environmental Protection Agency sets radiation standards for the site. The four-member Nevada congressional delegation is united and active in opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump. "We don't think we ought to start generating more nuclear waste until we have ways to deal with nuclear waste we have," Reid spokesman David Cherry said Friday. "Every nuclear power generator in the country has the ability to safely store the material onsite," Cherry said. "We're talking about shipping 77,000 tons of waste so deadly that a particle the size of a grain of sand can cause cancer." Dusty Las Vegas of 1950 had fewer than 25,000 residents. In 1980, two years before a nuclear waste disposal site selection process began, the Las Vegas Valley had 165,000 people. The state had 800,000. Today, Nevada has nearly 2 million residents - including 1.3 million in and around Las Vegas, the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the country. The city draws 30 million visitors a year. Most of the city's 125,000 hotel rooms are on the Las Vegas Strip, looming over Interstate 15 and the Union Pacific Railroad main line to Yucca Mountain. The city and state are usually conservative and business-friendly. They went for Bush-Cheney in the November election. But few support the Yucca Mountain plan. "No matter what face you attempt to put on it," Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said, "Yucca Mountain is bad for Las Vegas, bad for Nevada and bad for the nation." Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican, is asking the Nevada Legislature to spend $5 million on an outside-the-state advertising campaign to block the dump. The measure has yet to pass, but prospects are good. "That would allow us to tell other states the proposal includes sending nuclear waste by truck and train right past the schools and parks and homes of people in Colorado and Illinois and Utah," said Jack Finn, the governor's spokesman. Robert Loux, director of Nevada's state Agency for Nuclear Projects, said 43 states would be affected by the transport of nuclear waste to Nevada. "Transportation is the Achilles heel of the project," Loux said. "When we ask people in St. Louis, Omaha, Missouri or Indiana if they've thought about accidents and property values, they generally start calling their congressional representatives." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 Faulty valve to shut down nuclear plant [St. Petersburg Times Online: Citrus County news ] The problem has limited the amount of water that can be made into steam, preventing full output. By Times staff writer © St. Petersburg Times, published May 18, 2001 CRYSTAL RIVER -- Florida Power Corp. will shut down its nuclear plant this morning to replace a faulty valve that restricted water flow to a steam generator. The facility will remain off-line through early next week, spokesman Mac Harris said. The problem was discovered after a fire control system for the output transformers malfunctioned last weekend. There was no fire, Harris said, but fans that cool the transformers were automatically turned off. To avoid overheating, the plant was reduced to 65 percent of normal output. The fire control problem was fixed and as the output was increased, technicians noticed the feed water system was not working correctly, Harris said. "It was getting water to the steam generators, but they noticed a difference in the output pressure of the two pumps, and that indicated something was restricting part of the system," Harris said. Since then, the plant has been operating at 85 percent because of the lack of water that can be made into steam. The steam spins the turbine that drives the generator, which produces electricity. Harris said the nuclear facility is occasionally shut down for maintenance and despite the production loss, consumers will not notice the difference. "From a power supply standpoint, it's a nonevent," he said. ***************************************************************** 39 Undecided vote confuses N-plant poll Daily Yomiuri On-Line Takashi Yoshidaand Atsushi Miyazaki Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writers A referendum by residents of Kariwamura, Niigata Prefecture, on whether their village should accept a pluthermal project at a local nuclear power plant, looks set to result in confusion. Residents will not only be able to vote for or against the project, but they will be able to vote "undecided." Debate has already surfaced about how undecided votes should be interpreted. On Thursday, the village government announced that the referendum was set for May 27. The Tokyo Electric Power Co. nuclear power plant is on the border between Kashiwazaki, Niigata Prefecture, and Kariwamura. Those for and against the project are divided over how to interpret the undecided votes. Takeo Sato, the chairman of a local residents' group, said such ballots should be counted as opposition to the plan since being undecided clearly differed from supporting the plan. On the other hand, Yukio Irisawa, the chairman of another civic group supporting the project, said it should be interpreted that such voters trusted the village chief to decide whether the project should go ahead. Irisawa is appealing for local residents to support the plan or check undecided. Such division was not a factor in the last 10 local referendums held across the country. The Kariwamura village government ordinance stipulates that voters should circle undecided if they think they should do so. Three versions of the referendum have been tabled in local assembly sessions. The first version drafted by local residents in 1999 gave voters an option to check undecided. However, detailed regulations were set over the way such votes would be handled. Voters could abstain from making their final judgement only until the central government outlined the nuclear fuel cycle. This bill was based on another, filed by a Kashiwazaki civic group. Tamotsu Honma, 50, a medical practitioner and one of the leading members of the Kashiwazaki group, said the rule was necessary because the group thought the pluthermal project would go ahead only after the central government decided the nuclear fuel cycle. However, local assembly members opposed to the pluthermal project said the undecided vote was unacceptably vague. After the rejection of the first version, debate resumed, but due to appeals from neutral assembly members the undecided option remained in the second version. It was maintained that the undecided option was needed because local residents did not have sufficient information on the pluthermal project. However, it was still unclear how and who would determine the timing to outline the nuclear fuel cycle. This became a sticking point at a local assembly session. Therefore, in the process of drawing up the third version of the bill, part of the regulations that said "until the central government outlines the nuclear fuel cycle" was removed. However, this confused further the best way to handle undecided votes. Hiroo Shinada, the village chief who favors the pluthermal project, said as long as the undecided option remained the referendum was more like an opinion poll than a final judgement. Copyright The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 40 Lithuania nuclear plant reports minor waste mishap LATVIA: May 17, 2001 RIGA - Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear power plant said yesterday it had spilled contents from a container of medium-level nuclear waste, but no change in radiation levels had occurred. "Yesterday, we transported some containers with waste...after maintenance," a spokeswoman told Reuters. "It is medium-level waste. One of the containers fell from the truck and some waste was spread on the road." The spokeswoman could not immediately say how much of the material was spilled. She said the accident occured within the territory of the plant and the site of the accident had been cleaned and the spilled materials were stored in a waste disposal site. Tests showed no changes in radiation levels had occurred, she said. She added the event ranked as a "One" on the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) and was considered an "anomoly". INES ranges from zero to seven and categorises events from minor mishaps and anomolies to full-blown nuclear disasters. REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 41 Remapping, budget highlight next-to-last week of Nevada XGR May 18, 2001 CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Nevada lawmakers start the second-to-last full week of their 120-day session on Monday - facing a batch of complex issues ranging from reapportionment to balancing the state budget. Republicans are expected to have their reapportionment plan ready for introduction in the state Senate. The Democrats' rival plan already is moving through the Legislature. There are major differences between the two plans for the shape of the Legislature, Nevada's congressional districts and the districts for university regents and state Board of Education members - and they're supposed to have those differences resolved by next Friday. Also Monday, the state Division of Health will give the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee an update on a leukemia epidemic linked to Fallon. Fourteen cases of childhood leukemia have been confirmed, and the division is looking into an unconfirmed 15th case. Senate Commerce and Labor will take up AB349, a bill creating an energy assistance fund for poor and fixed-income Nevadans; and AB133, a construction-defect measure. Senate Taxation will review a bill taking half the vehicle privilege taxes now going to local governments in larger Nevada counties to fund teacher salary increases. AB457 recommends local governments recoup the lost revenue by raising property taxes. Assembly Education will review SB127, to let Nevada's school districts use class-size reduction money to establish 22-to-1 pupil-teacher ratios through the fifth grade. The measure would expand a program that now goes to the third grade. But the current program caps class size at 16 and 19 students per teacher. And Assembly Health and Human Services will review SB367 which provides activities to prevent or delay early sexual activity and reduce the rate of pregnancies among unmarried teen-age girls in Nevada. On Tuesday, Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance members will meet jointly for their first attempt to resolve differences over the $3.85 billion spending plan they've been reviewing for several months. Also Tuesday, Senate Judiciary discusses a late-developing tax plan that would help erase a $121.5 million budget shortage and fund raises for Nevada's public school teachers. The plan calls for a $500 franchise fee that would be collected mainly from out-of-state firms that are incorporated in Nevada. But it's being revised following complaints that many small Nevada companies could face higher taxes under the plan. Also on Tuesday, Senate Transportation will discuss several resolutions dealing with the issue of possible nuclear waste storage at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. And Assembly Elections, Procedures and Ethics considers a proposal for a major study on the death penalty in Nevada. Lawmakers have rejected another plan to impose a moratorium on capital punishment pending completion of the study. Wednesday's meetings include money committees on more budget-closing activity and discussion of bills with fiscal impacts, including SB366, a proposed a court program for mentally ill offenders. Senate Government Affairs is scheduled to discuss reapportionment and redistricting, along with a proposed constitutional change to allow for limited annual legislative sessions. More budget hearings are scheduled for Thursday; and Assembly Elections, Procedures and Ethics considers plans for redrawing the lines for university regent and state Board of Education districts. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 Finland weighs underground nuclear waste disposal FINLAND: May 17, 2001 HELSINKI - The Finnish parliament yesterday began debating a controversial proposal to bury waste from Finland's nuclear power plants at a site 500 metres (1,640 ft) underground. The debate will test the cohesion of the coalition government since most European countries are now moving away from nuclear power with public opinion increasingly opposed to use of atomic energy and worried about nuclear waste disposal. The government decided in December to give its support in principle to plans by waste group Posiva, a unit of power groups Teollisuuden Voima and Fortum, to build an underground disposal facility at Olkiluoto in western Finland. Environmental group Greenpeace said any parliamentary decision should wait for further research, and argued that the waste tanks could be kept under better supervision in temporary storage units. Greenpeace activists set up 500 crosses on the lawn in front of Parliament House to protest against the building of the final waste dump. Each cross represented 10 generations that would inherit the problem, the organisation said. If parliament endorses the proposal, Posiva plans to begin excavating in 2003-2004 and to start building the final nuclear waste disposal plant in 2010, officials said. The country's two nuclear plants at Olkiluoto and Loviisa annually produce 70 tonnes of nuclear waste, which is temporarily stored on the plant grounds. The government says that final storage below ground would be safer than long-term temporary storage. Last November TVO filed an application for a permit to build a new nuclear reactor, which would be the country's fifth and would put this Nordic nation at odds with a broad international trend away from nuclear power. If parliament passes the government proposal, Finland will be the first country in the world to decide to go ahead with deep underground disposal of nuclear waste, though several others are considering it. According to the International Energy Agency, Korea, Japan and Finland are the only members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) considering building new nuclear power stations. The dangers of nuclear waste are one of the arguments environmental organisations present against a new nuclear plant. Finland last shipped nuclear waste to Russia in 1996 after passing a law requiring it to be disposed of domestically. The nuclear power issues threatens to upset cooperation in the government as the Greens, a junior partner in the five-party coalition, have vowed to pull out if the government and parliament allow industry's plans for a new reactor to go ahead. Story by Heli Suominen REUTERS NEWS SERVICE ***************************************************************** 43 Greens Warn Bush of Opposition to Come By Jason Hopps LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Green Party has warned President Bush (news - web sites) his plan to tackle the U.S. energy crisis would face a barrage of criticism at a European Union (news - web sites) summit next month. Jean Lambert, Green Party spokeswoman and European Parliament member, said on Friday Greens across Europe would martial their forces to blast Bush's energy policy. ``Bush's plans to increase drilling for fossil fuels and increase nuclear capacity are potentially disastrous,'' Lambert said at the launch of the Green's campaign for Britain's June 7 general election. ``He is taking the completely wrong direction and should be concerned with reducing demand for energy, not with producing more of it. We will certainly focus on Bush and his environmental policies at the summit in Sweden,'' Lambert said, referring to the Gothenburg meeting set for June 13. While the Greens have yet to make headway in mainstream British politics, they are a political player in parts of continental Europe, and have become a potent force in Germany. Bush, who has been slammed by international environmental groups over his plans to expand U.S. coal, oil and nuclear power production, is scheduled to attend the summit. He has called his energy strategy a remedy to ``the most serious energy shortage'' since the 1970s. But the European Commission (news - web sites) unveiled its own strategy earlier this week to put environmental protection at the heart of all its policies and to make the EU the world leader in sustainable economic development. Europe and the United States have locked horns over environmental policy since Bush pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto climate change deal in March. European Commission President Romano Prodi will submit his paper, ``A Sustainable Europe for a Better World,'' to EU Leaders at the summit. The Green party, which is fielding 140 candidates in the campaign for the June 7 British election, is touting policies of fairer taxation, increased petrol duty and a ban on genetically modified foods. ***************************************************************** 44 UK: Dounrey contract THE UK Atomic Energy Authority yesterday signed contracts worth £15m for the next phase in decommissioning Dounreay's prototype fast reactor as part of the £4bn plan to restore the whole site. All that should be left in 60 years is the famous Dounreay golf ball or dome and a few buildings in green fields. The 250 megawatt PFR, which operated from 1974 to 1994, used 1500 tonnes of liquid sodium metal to cool the reactor core and transfer the heat to a steam-generating plant for electricity production. All the nuclear fuel was removed from the PFR after it closed, leaving the sodium to be treated. A £17m sodium disposal plant built in the former turbine hall is currently being commissioned and will treat the bulk of the sodium by 2003. It uses a process that removes radioactive contamination and converts the sodium to a salt which can be discharged into the sea. The next phase, announced yesterday, is to develop a process known as water vapour nitrogen, to remove all residual traces of sodium in the reactor. Bob Mathews, head of decommissioning at Dounreay, said: "To complete the safe decommissioning, we must ensure all traces of sodium are removed from the reactor and cooling circuits before we can dismantle the reactor vessel itself." There was particular satisfaction at Dounreay that a local firm, JGC, of Harpsdale in Caithness, would be undertaking the work along with Baptie, Ingenco, and Alstec. *-May 17th* ***************************************************************** 45 European energy: A clean agenda - CNN.com - May 18, 2001 Many European countries are trying to phase out nuclear power By CNN's Douglas Herbert LONDON, England (CNN) -- Faced with many of the same energy dilemmas as the United States, Europeans are taking a different tack. The stress on this side of the Atlantic, with few exceptions, is on trying to keep energy prices to a minimum, while reducing emissions of the Greenhouse gases seen as a primary culprit behind global warming. European policy papers are laced with references to "clean" and "renewable" energy, alongside ambitious targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and phasing out forms of energy seen as dirty or inefficient. In cases where market imperatives clash with environmental concerns, some Europeans - the Dutch, for instance - have proven willing to dip a little deeper into their pockets for their energy. Against this backdrop, George W. Bush's blueprint for averting a "darker future" for America reads like a primer on how to destroy decades of shared progress on energy policy. Even the most diplomatic reactions betray a hint of consternation at the sight of the world's largest and richest energy consumer veering so sharply off that course. "We are all a little afraid of the future and the Greenhouse effect, and each country that goes in the wrong direction, we look at that as a problem," said Per Ingvar Sandberg, head of energy technology at the SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, in Boras, Sweden. Sweden is one of several countries in Europe that has been struggling to phase out nuclear energy, which currently generates about half of the country's electricity. The debate over the nuclear phase-out has been stymied, however, by problems finding ready, and ecologically acceptable, alternatives. Natural gas and coal have been ruled out on environmental grounds, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. Meanwhile, another attractive alternative - using Sweden's rivers to generate more hydroelectric-power - is limited by the fact that most rivers have already been harnessed to maximum potential, according to Sandberg. That leaves wind power and solar energy. Yet even if Sweden were to build 2,000 windmills, as one proposal suggests, they would still generate only 7 percent of the needed electricity, Sandberg said. The Netherlands is grappling with similar challenges - made even more daunting by the country's strong commitment to environmental integrity. The Dutch have committed themselves to reducing Greenhouse emissions by 50 million tonnes by 2010. The country has also pledged to raise its share of renewable energy resources from 1 percent in 1995 to 10 percent in 2020. These targets will be tackled even as the Netherlands prepares to open its gas and electricity sectors to more competition, in 2004. The electricity market was opened to competitors in 1998. "The challenge the government must now overcome to meet its renewables target lies on the supply side," the IEA wrote. "It must raise the acceptance of renewable installations in a small, densely populated country. Some of the solutions carry significantly higher cost and are controversial, such as the off-shore wind parks now planned in some locations." Ironically, the one European country that Bush turned to for inspiration in drawing up his energy strategy - France -- is also the one on which the U.S. administration has often found itself most at odds. The Bush blueprint's emphasis on expanding the use of nuclear energy is in line with France's own energy priorities. Nuclear energy provides 80 percent of France's energy needs - the highest share of nuclear power in the world, according to the IEA. The policy, the agency said, is a product of two global oil crises that threatened the security of energy supplies that is a hallmark of French policy. Nonetheless, France has committed itself to scaling down on its use of nuclear power in the near future. Denis Clodic, the associate director of the Centre d'Energétique in Paris, suggested it was premature to pass judgement on Bush's energy proposals. But he expressed surprise at the speed with which Bush unveiled the sweeping new energy plans, so soon after the U.S. abandoned its commitment to the Kyoto Accord. Clodic said Bush appeared very attentive to the wishes of influential people around him. "When I hear the succession of declarations from Bush, I get the impression that he does what the sponsors and lobbyists ask him to do." © 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ***************************************************************** 46 France Launches Nuclear-Powered Ship May 18, 2001 PARIS (AP) - After a three-year delay, France officially launched the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle on Friday, its first new carrier in nearly 40 years. The vessel, France's first nuclear-powered carrier, cost $2.7 billion to build, making it Europe's most expensive piece of military hardware, a French naval spokesman said. "We are not going to crow about it, but we are proud to give France the ability to intervene when needed anywhere in the world," said Lt. Cmdr. Jerome Erulin. The go-ahead for the new ship, which has been plagued by woes including a broken propeller, a runway too short to accommodate some planes and engine trouble, comes as military leaders in France debate whether to seek a sister ship for the costly new vessel. Defense Minister Alain Richard has said he expects a decision within the next year on whether to build a second carrier, which the navy says would cost about $1.8 billion. "The belief is that we need to have two so that at least one will always be ready," Erulin said. Nuclear-powered carriers need frequent maintenance, making operable for only 70 percent of the year, he said. The vessel fills a hole in France's naval arsenal after the sale last year of its only other operational aircraft carrier, the Foch, to Brazil. The new ship is 240 yards long with a displacement of 40,000 tons, making it roughly 50 percent larger than the Foch. It can carry as many as 40 planes - bombers, fighters and surveillance planes - and hold a crew of 2,000. It will be based in the Mediterranean port city of Toulon. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 Fire Extinguished at British Nuclear Plant Saturday May 19 10:00 AM ET LONDON (Reuters) - A fire broke out at a nuclear power station in southeast England on Saturday but was quickly extinguished with no damage done to the plant's two reactors, a spokesman for the plant said. The blaze began in a turbine alternator connected to one of two reactors at the Dungeness power plant, some 60 miles southeast of London on the Kent coast. Fire fighters extinguished the fire within an hour and have left the power station operated by government-owned British Nuclear Fuels, spokesman Robin Thornton said. ``It was nothing to do with anything radiological,'' Thornton said ``Nobody was in any danger.'' Each of the station's two reactors have two turbine alternators connected to them. The devices are used to transform nuclear reactions into electrical power. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 Energy Plan Winners &Losers May 18, 2001 Some of the groups who consider themselves winners or losers under the Bush administration energy plan, and why: Winners: Coal: National Mining Association -The plan would provide $2 billion over a decade to fund research of "clean coal" technology that turns coal into a clean-burning gas for use by power plants. -It would offer a new credit for power produced using both biomass and coal. -It asks the Environmental Protection Agency or Congress to examine letting coal-burning power plants conduct routine maintenance, including anti-pollution upgrades, without facing environmental reviews as currently required. -It would establish a flexible, market-based program to reduce and cap emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants. --- Electric: Edison Electric Institute -The plan seeks to expand energy transmission systems, in part by ordering federal agencies to expedite permits. -It seeks establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal site. -It would streamline and speed relicensing process for hydroelectric facilities. --- Labor: Teamsters -The plan would help energy-based companies to succeed and avoid job cuts due to higher energy prices. -It would create more union jobs, in part through increased oil exploration on federal land such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. --- Natural Gas: American Gas Association - The plan would speed approval of pipeline construction. - It would not impose price caps. --- Nuclear: Nuclear Energy Institute -The plan would extend legislation due to expire next year that sets the minimum liability coverage nuclear power plants must carry in case of an accident. -It would make sure decommissioning funds - money nuclear plant owners must set aside to handle any contamination if their plants eventually close - are not taxed when plants change hands. -It seeks establishment of federal nuclear waste site. --- Oil: American Petroleum Institute -The plan would speed permitting, including providing access to nonpark federal land for oil exploration and production, in the Rockies and other areas in the lower 48 states, offshore in areas still available and in Alaska, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. -It would diversify the nation's sources of crude oil by increasing the supply from abroad, in part by re-examining countries now under U.S. economic sanctions. -It would expand the nation's refining/pipeline/distribution infrastructure to meet demand for gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuel, in part by making environmental permitting more flexible to encourage faster expansion. --- Losers: Energy Efficiency: Alliance To Save Energy -Energy efficiency is not a major part of the plan. -The plan doesn't abandon a proposed cut in federal funding for energy efficiency-related research and development. --- Environmentalists: Natural Resources Defense Council -The plan fails to recognize energy efficiency as the largest, fastest, cleanest, cheapest resource. -It would not reduce smog and global-warming pollution. -It focuses heavily on increased production of fuels such as coal and oil. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 49 Editorial: Case where haste does make waste May 18, 2001 President Bush, in announcing his national energy plan, on Thursday said he hoped there would be a civil discourse regarding his proposals. "Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new tone in discussing energy and the environment; one that is less suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous," Bush said. "We've yelled at each other enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and to act." No one could dispute the sentiments the president expressed. Sadly for Nevadans, however, Bush's views on nuclear waste storage affirm the contempt that Congress and the nuclear power industry have shown previously in targeting Nevada alone as a possible repository for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Indeed, this often has been a one-way street, with the views of Nevadans shut out. So there is a hollow ring to it when Bush says we need an energy policy that is "less punitive." In the only optimistic note on nuclear waste storage from the energy report, there is an acknowledgement that alternative technologies should be explored that could render nuclear waste less harmful. But the president still is insisting that a single repository be built to store nuclear waste. And since Congress has dictated that only Nevada is under consideration for a nuclear waste dumpsite, that is hardly encouraging news. That's not all. The president said "sound science" should be used in the investigation of Yucca Mountain's suitability, but that is a meaningless sop to Nevadans. What shouldn't be ignored is that Bush also said that the government should move "expeditiously" to find a permanent repository for nuclear waste. The energy report's findings are weighted heavily in favor of energy producers, with short shrift given to environmental or public health and safety concerns. In the case of nuclear waste storage, this emphasis could be disastrous for Nevada. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 50 Columnist Jon Ralston: Look on the bright side, Nevada May 18, 2001 Jon Ralston hosts the public affairs program "Face to Face" on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the Ralston Report. His column for the Sun appears on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com --- EVER SINCE 1987, whenever I hear the Nevada delegation talk about nuclear waste, I am reminded of the final scene in "Life of Brian," Monty Python's hilarious and blasphemous film. The climax features a mass crucifixion, but those upon the crosses are singing a merry tune: "Always look on the bright side of life." If you are a delegation member, you have little choice but to look on the bright side. Since Bennett Johnston played the role of Pontius Pilate 14 years ago, nuclear waste has been a cross to bear. The mantra, the spin is always the same, a variation on a theme: It could have been worse. This is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. We lost, but we won. We won the battle, but the war goes on. So it was no surprise that Sens. John Ensign and Harry Reid claimed that the administration's energy package released last week had been watered-down on the subject of nuclear waste after Ensign had complained. The language of the nuclear waste sections of the Bush energy report is part a rehash of campaign rhetoric -- "use the best science" -- and part a repetition of the policy of the Clinton-Gore administration: Keep on studying Yucca Mountain. Oh, it invokes alternatives -- reprocessing and transmutation. But they are mentioned blandly and surely to mollify Ensign. But which do you think is more important: What is in the report or what Bush said about nuclear waste when he announced the energy plan Thursday morning? Notice the hardly subtle difference in this excerpt from Bush's remarks: "And my energy plan directs the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste." Expeditiously, as in quickly, as in swiftly, as in as soon as possible. As in, perhaps, let's get this done this year. Cue the chorus: "Always look on the bright side of life." Ensign takes heart in that Bush did not mention Yucca Mountain by name. Must have been that other permanent repository they are considering. The junior senator also insisted Friday that original language in the report, which was read to him over the phone by Cheney's office earlier in the week, would have indicated a presumption that Yucca Mountain would be the dump. Ensign says that language was similar to that advocated earlier this year by the latest Pilate-like senator, Alaska's Frank Murkowski. Ensign also latched onto the mentions of the new technologies -- he is a transmutation adherent -- and the lack of any mention of interim storage. Sing along: "Always look on the bright ..." Ensign and Reid also have adopted a new, seemingly paradoxical paradigm vis-a-vis the Bush energy policy that makes the hoary "Nuclear testing good, nuclear waste bad" look logical. Ensign and Reid both see Bush's advocacy of nuclear power and erection of more nuclear plants as potentially the ticket to undo Yucca Mountain. Really? More plants means more waste but doesn't mean that the feds will then move even more -- let me think of a word -- expeditiously to ship waste here? Ensign and Reid believe that the administration will need all the help it can get to persuade members of both parties to sign onto measures that could result in nuclear plants being built in their districts. So, they posit, if they persuade their colleagues to support nuclear plants to help Bush, maybe the president will help them by choosing an alternative to Yucca Mountain. The Pythonites couldn't have conjured up this skit. And again: "Always look ..." Crooning a rare dissonant chorus among the delegation foursome, Rep. Shelley Berkley had this to say about the idea that the administration might relent on Yucca Mountain as it promotes nuclear power: "I don't buy it for a minute. This country is bent on putting the nuclear dump in Nevada." Even Ensign acknowledged that the administration is moving, yes, expeditiously, to set safety standards for the dump. It will happen soon, and if the Bush EPA successfully lowers those radiation standards, it will accelerate the licensing process and move the repository forward. Ensign says no one thinks that with lawsuits and other delaying tactics, the dump could be ready to accept waste before 2015. And "a lot can happen in 14 years," he added, mentioning new technologies and unforeseen developments. What you won't hear in the wake of the ominous Bush energy policy are any of the thoughts still deemed heretical -- benefits for the dump, making a deal while the state still can. If you say anything like that in Nevada, you are likely to be crucified. So sing it: Sorry, my voice has gone hoarse. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Lab promotions good news for diversity *Published Saturday, May 19, 2001, in the Contra Costa Newspapers * + Selections for the senior management team at Lawrence Livermore include two women and an Asian-American man By Peter Felsenfeld TIMES STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE -- Two women and an Asian-American man have been tapped for positions on Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's senior management team. The six associate directors and new deputy director announced Friday by Bruce Tartar, the lab's director, represent an unprecedented step toward diversity in top-level positions. "I think there was a conscious effort to ensure we had a diverse candidate pool," said lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton. "But it would be erroneous to suggest the final decisions were based on ethnicity or gender." Cheng-kong Chou, former head of the lab's Fission Energy and Safety Systems Program, will take over as associate director of energy and environment. The laboratory has never had an Asian-American associate director. Janet Tulk, a laboratory counsel since 1985, will serve as the lab's associate director for administration, and Dona Crawford -- a computation program director at Sandia/California National Laboratories -- will become the associate director for computation. The only female associate director in the lab's history was Mary Tuszka, who served as the associate director for administration from 1983 to 1985. Other appointees include Michael Anastasio, deputy director of strategic operations; Dennis Fisher, associate director for safeguards and security; William Goldstein, associate director for physics and advanced technologies; and Steve Hunt, associate director for laboratory services. Lab employees recently have come forward with allegations of race and gender-based inequities regarding salaries and promotion schedules. A lawsuit alleging systematic pay and promotion discrimination filed by six current and former female lab employees gained class action status in January. Lawyers for the plaintiffs estimated more than 10,000 women could seek damages under the suit. However, Crawford and Tulk said they always have been treated justly. "I believe there are fair opportunities at the laboratory," Tulk said. "I've certainly had the opportunity to grow and develop throughout my career. Now I'm looking forward to helping other people find those avenues." Asian-American lab employees have reported widespread discrimination and suspicion, especially after Los Alamos, N.M., worker Wen Ho Lee was accused of spying for China. Chou, who was working in Washington during the Lee scandal, said he has focused on science and not social issues during his 23-year career at the lab. "I'm not saying my experience is the same as everyone's," Chou said. "But I've been treated fairly and my experience has been positive." Chou said he looked forward to seeking long-term solutions to shore up the nation's energy supply. The lab likely will work to develop advancements in nuclear energy and high-tech energy distribution systems. Other Asian-Americans at the lab feel say they feel overlooked when it comes to promotions and raises. Dick Ling, a lab architect for the past 20 years, said the lab administration is in denial about prevalent racial profiling against Asian-Americans. "I have not been promoted as fast as similarly or even less-qualified non-Asian employees," he said. "I talked to management and filed a complaint, but very little has been done about it." Houghton said the lab evaluates promotions and raises on an individual basis, and makes an effort to treat all employees equally. The lab recently has distributed a survey to gauge employee opinions on a variety of quality-of-life issues, Houghton said. As deputy director for strategic operations, Anastasio will occupy a new position created to oversee all operational aspects of the lab and facilitate communication between the lab, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the Department of Energy. A lab employee since 1970, Fisher will manage the environmental, safety, health and security aspects of the laboratory. Hunt has been the acting associate director for laboratory services since January, and will take on his new permanent position right away. Hunt has served as the lab's business manager, and will manage the laboratory's business and plant engineering functions.* Peter Felsenfeld covers the national labs. Reach him at 925-847-2184 or pfelsenfeld@cctimes.com. ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 2 December fluorine leak stalls K-25 demolition May 19, 2001 By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer December fluorine leak stalls K-25 demolition OAK RIDGE -- Five months after a fluorine leak forced an emergency evacuation at the government's K-25 site, Oak Ridge authorities are still trying to resolve a potentially hazardous situation. John Schlatter, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs Co., said the leaks have been plugged and conditions stabilized at Building K-1302, a World War II-era facility once used as a storage facility for fluorine gas. However, an investigation team is still documenting the K-1302 hazards and completing other plans before turning the building over to a contractor for cleanup and, eventually, demolition, Schlatter said. "We don't want to put anybody in an unsafe situation," he said. Following the mid-December emergency, the Department of Energy and its Oak Ridge contractors launched a fact-finding probe that produced mixed results. At first, investigators thought there was little, if any, fluorine or hydrogen fluoride left in the building's five storage tanks. But subsequent tests showed there was a significant amount of residual gas in some tanks. Schlatter said the current estimate is 67 pounds. It may be two more months before Bechtel Jacobs, DOE's environmental manager, transfers the cleanup authority to MACTEC Inc. MACTEC, based in Colorado, was awarded a $5 million contract last year for the cleanup and demolition of 10 buildings, including K-1302. The company is expected to hire a specialty subcontractor to handle the fluorine removal. Schlatter said the cleanup effort also will involve removal of asbestos and perhaps some radioactive contamination in the building. It's possible that K-1302 could be demolished before year's end, although there is no timetable yet available, he said. Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. ***************************************************************** 3 Paducah plant alone in enriched production - By Joe Walker The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Saturday, May 19, 2001 By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--*270.575.8650* Now that its sister plant in Ohio has stopped production, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant has quietly become the nation's only producer of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. Word came without fanfare Friday as the United States Enrichment Corp., which operates both plants, announced it shut down production at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant May 11, about a month earlier than projected. USEC said it sent a letter Friday to the Department of Energy, which owns the plants, formally notifying the agency of the development. "The Portsmouth employees have shown a strong commitment to safety and a high degree of professionalism in their work to conclude enrichment operations at the plant," said William "Nick" Timbers, USEC president and chief executive officer. USEC, which has leased the plants from the Energy Department since 1993, announced last year that it would stop production at the Ohio plant in June, leaving Paducah as its only uranium enrichment facility. The decision was made amid drastic cost-cutting measures, including massive layoffs at both plants, because the firm was struggling financially. Earlier this week, Timbers visited the Paducah plant and held a community reception celebrating Paducah's work to become a stand-alone facility. During the past year, thousands of work hours went into being able to produce reactor-grade uranium hexafluoride for direct shipment to nuclear power plants. Until now, the material had to be sent to Portsmouth to finish the process. The Energy Department plans to build a pilot facility at the Portsmouth plant to explore replacing the outdated, expensive gaseous diffusion process with gas centrifuge. That work is slated to start this year and be finished by 2005. ***************************************************************** 4 Senior Management Team Named At LLNL Friday May 18, 2:41 pm Eastern Time LIVERMORE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 18, 2001--Six new associate directors and a new deputy director were named today to join the senior management team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. C. Bruce Tarter, director of LLNL, announced the selections. The appointments were confirmed by the University of California Regents and by the National Nuclear Security Administration. ``Our search process has been successful,'' said C. Bruce Tarter. ``These individuals are leaders in their fields.'' Dr. Michael R. Anastasio assumes the position of Deputy Director - Strategic Operations, a key laboratory position that serves as the principal point of contact for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Anastasio, a 21-year employee of LLNL, has served in a number of senior management positions, most recently as Associate Director for Defense and Nuclear Technologies. Anastasio was the recipient of the Department of Energy Weapons Recognition of Excellence Award in 1990. In his new position, Anastasio will be responsible for all operational aspects of LLNL. He will also serve as the chair of the Council for National Security and chair of the Council for Strategic Operations. ``This is an important time for Livermore,'' said Anastasio. ``I am looking forward to working with both the NNSA and the University of California on the issues and challenges facing our laboratory and to ensuring that the lab continues to meet the needs of our nation.'' Dr. Cheng-kong Chou has been named Associate Director - Energy and Environment. Chou will be responsible for developing and leading a strategic mission to address key national energy and environmental needs. Chou joined LLNL in 1978, but since 1999 has served on assignment to the Directors of the Department of Energy Offices of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Nuclear Energy and Non-proliferation. Chou is leading the development of The International Center for Geological Repository Science and Technology, a five-member international organization interested in joint geological research. Chou will begin his new assignment in early June. Dr. William H. Goldstein has been named the Associate Director for Physics and Advanced Technologies. In his position, Goldstein will be responsible for managing a diverse portfolio of research and technology development programs in the basic and applied physical sciences. He has served as the Lab's Acting Associate Director for Physics and the Principal Deputy Associate Director for Physics and Advanced Technologies and has been employed at LLNL since 1985. Goldstein is the recipient of numerous grants and awards -- including a 1994 Department of Energy Weapons Excellence Award. Dona L. Crawford has been appointed as the Associate Director -- Computations. Crawford has been employed with Sandia National Laboratories since 1976 and most recently served as the Program Director of Simulation Enabled Product Realization. She has also held several other positions including Director of Distributed Information Systems, Director of the National Information Infrastructure Research and Development Center and Scientific Computing Director. She has served on a number of national committees and is the recipient of the National Information Infrastructure Testbed (NIIT) Vision Becomes Reality Award. In her new position, Crawford will be responsible for the Lab's critical computing enterprise -- including the world's fastest computer, the ASCI White. Crawford will begin work at LLNL on July 3. Dr. Dennis K. Fisher will lead the Safety, Security and Environmental Protection Directorate. In his position as Associate Director, Fisher will be responsible for providing environmental, safety, health and security support to the laboratory. Since he joined the lab in 1970, Fisher has served in a number of key management positions -- most recently as acting deputy director for operations. Janet G. Tulk has assumed the position of Associate Director - Administration, a directorate combining the administrative support functions of the laboratory such as Audit and Oversight, Human Resources, Legal, Industrial Partnerships, Public Affairs, Affirmative Action and Contract Management. Tulk joined LLNL in 1985 and since 1994, has served as Laboratory Counsel -- a position she will hold concurrently. J. Steven Hunt has been named associate director for Laboratory Services. Hunt, who has been acting associate director in this position since January 2001, joined LLNL in 1986. Prior to his temporary appointment as Associate Director, Hunt served as the Laboratory's Business Manager. Hunt will be responsible for managing the laboratory's business and plant engineering functions. The position of Associate Director, Biology and Biotechnology Research is expected to be filled shortly. A new search will also begin for the Associate Director, Defense and Nuclear Technologies. In addition, Dr. Lee W. Younker has accepted the position of Associate Deputy Director for Science and Technology. Younker, a lab employee since 1980, most recently served as Acting Associate Director, Energy and Environment. In his new role, Younker will take on a number of science and technology assignments in the office of the Deputy Director for Science and Technology. ``The appointment of our positions today represents a new era for Lawrence Livermore Lab,'' said Tarter. ``I look forward to working closely with our new management team as our lab addresses the opportunities of the future.'' Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national nuclear security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. The National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California. NOTE: Photos and biographies of the new managers may be viewed at the following URL: Laboratory news releases and photos are also available electronically on the World Wide Web of the Internet at URL and on UC Newswire. *Contact:* Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Susan Houghton, 925/422-9919 Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 5 Ike kept nuclear strike orders secret from allies By Ron Kampeas, Associated Press, 5/19/2001 00:57 WASHINGTON (AP) President Eisenhower kept secret from U.S allies his orders that authorized military commanders to launch retaliatory nuclear attacks from their territory, declassified documents reveal. The instructions to the commanders, declassified last month and published Friday by the independent National Security Archive, authorized nuclear strikes to repel a major invasion of U.S.-occupied territory by conventional forces. Such a scenario could have turned a theater war in Europe into a nuclear conflict. It has long been known that Eisenhower was the first president to ''predelegate'' nuclear authority to senior U.S. commanders in cases where they could not contact him in time to authorize nuclear counterattacks. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson maintained the practice. The newly declassified documents are the first to include a set of instructions and the first to attach Eisenhower's signature to such an order. In a Nov. 2, 1959, letter to Deputy Defense Secretary Thomas Gates, Eisenhower reviews his original May, 1957, authorization, and in the process he stresses the need for secrecy. ''I cannot overemphasize the need for the utmost discretion and understanding in exercising the authority set forth in these documents,'' he tells Gates. He urges him to brief the commanders ''in a small symposium, consisting only of the commanders concerned.'' Among those listed as authorized to issue such commands are commanders of U.S. forces in Europe, the Caribbean, the Atlantic, the Pacific and, in some cases, commanders of naval forces in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. At a June 27, 1958, meeting, Eisenhower and others in his Cabinet express their fears that European allies would expel U.S. forces should they learn of the ''predelegation.'' Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, certain the information would be leaked to the Europeans, worried that ''foreign governments will take action to curtail (the authorization), whether by eliminating our forces from those countries or subjecting them to civil authority,'' according to a declassified summary of the meeting. The prospect of sharing authority with the Europeans was anathema to Eisenhower, who spoke of the ''weakness of coalitions'' at the meeting. A memo summarizing a similar meeting Dec. 19, 1958, quotes the president as saying, ''It is most important that word of any delegation from the president be withheld from our allies.'' Still, the memos show that Eisenhower wanted to ensure that commanders understood they should exhaust efforts to contact him and inform the leaders of the countries they were in before carrying out the ''predelegation'' to launch nuclear retaliation. He instructs Gates to add the clause ''subject to the limitations in accordance with international agreements'' to the instructions to commanders. A January 1959 revision of the instructions begins by emphasizing the very narrow circumstances under which the commanders could authorize nuclear weapons use. ''Only when the urgency of time and circumstances clearly does not permit a specific decision by the President or other person empowered to act in his stead,'' the instructions say. Further on, the instructions outline three broad scenarios in which a retaliatory nuclear strike would be justified: A submarine or surface craft launches missiles against the United States; A Sino-Soviet bloc launch of missiles, bombs, air-to-air attacks or strafing ''against a major U.S. force in international waters or foreign territory.'' ''Sino-Soviet bloc ground, paratroop or other forces make a major assault and thereby effect a significant penetration of an area occupied by major U.S. forces in foreign territory,'' a definition that would have included U.S. forces stationed in Germany at the time. The George Washington University-affiliated National Security Archive originally applied for declassification of the documents in 1993. Parts of the instructions to the commanders have been blacked out. Previously declassified documents show that the practice of ''predelegation'' persisted through the Johnson administration. It is not known whether any president subsequently revoked the orders. On the Net: National Security Archive: http://www.nsarchive.org ***************************************************************** 6 THE MAN WHO DROPPED THE BOMB Journalstar.com: Nebraska BY AL J. LAUKAITIS Lincoln Journal Star WILLIAM LAUER/Lincoln Journal Star Retired Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets stands in front of a B-29 at the SAC Museum Friday. The aircraft is similar to the Enola Gay, which Tibbets flew to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima during World War II. Tibbets and his navigator, Retired Lt. Col. Dutch Van Kirk, are in Nebraska this weekend to help the museum celebrate Armed Forces Day. Enola Gay pilot recounts flight Retired Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, and his navigator, retired Lt. Col. Dutch Van Kirk, will be featured guests at the Armed Forces Day celebration at the SAC Museum today and Sunday. Here is a schedule of events: TODAY Museum opens at 9 a.m. and closes at 6 p.m. Free admission. Ceremonies performed by Bellevue East ROTC at 10 a.m., 11 a.m., 1 p.m., 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. Dedication by Eagle Scout Joel Basye, Wagon Wheel District, at 10 a.m. Book signing by Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets and Lt. Col. Dutch Van Kirk, noon to 3 p.m. Featured exhibits from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. include "Legacy of the Wall" on loan from the Nebraska Humanities Council; "Doolittle Over Tokyo"; walk through the EC-135 and C-119 aircraft; plus entertainment, self-guided museum tours and simulator rides. SUNDAY Tibbets and Van Kirk will share their World War II flying experiences at 2 p.m. Museum general admission charge only. Check out these sites for more infor­mation on Retired Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets and the mission of the Enola Gay: www.theenolagay.com. ASHLAND - In some eyes they could be viewed as mere boys. The oldest member of the Enola Gay crew was 29; the youngest 19. President Harry S. Truman gave them a terrible but important mission shrouded in secrecy. They were under strict orders never to breathe the word "atomic" for fear that somehow the enemy would sabotage their historic flight over Hiroshima in a silver B-29. But these young men were no boys. They were all chosen from the best air crews. Some, such as pilot Paul Tibbets, already had dropped bombs and seen action in Europe and North Africa during World War II. "At 29 . . . I was so shot in the ass with confidence there wasn't anything I couldn't do," said Tibbets, now a retired brigadier general. He's 86. He wears two hearing aids. A friend attributed his hearing loss to the relentless noise from the piston motors of all those prop-driven aircraft he flew during his distinguished career as an aviator. He may be hard of hearing, but his memory is strong. Tibbets can tell you stories about how he flew the first B-17 across the English Channel when the Allies fought in Europe or recount details about his bombing runs in Northern Africa, including the time he had to ask directions to a certain city. But most people who meet Tibbets want to know about THE mission - the one where he flew the plane that dropped the world's first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It is as unavoidable as the giant, billowing mushroom cloud that hung over the devastated Japanese city on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. Tibbets, who now lives in Columbus, Ohio, doesn't appear to mind. He's answered those questions over and over again to reporters and people he meets on his speaking engagements around the country. He does about two a month now, accompanied by an agent. This weekend he is at the SAC Museum near Ashland to help celebrate Armed Forces Day, sign books and tell stories about his World War II experiences. With him is his former navigator on the Enola Gay, retired Lt. Col. Dutch Van Kirk. They, along with Richard Nelson, the radio operator, are the only survivors of the Enola Gay's 12-member crew. If Tibbets has any regrets about dropping a bomb that killed more than 71,000 people - and some say up to 200,000 because of radioactive exposure - he doesn't share it with a stranger. "I never lost a night's sleep," he said while sitting on a bench in front of a B-29 in one of the museum's hangars. "If you gave me the same conditions, I would do it over again gladly." Tibbets explained that people who ask such questions probably don't have a clue as to what it was like living in those perilous times when this nation's freedom hung in the balance. "I am as polite and courteous as I can be. I give them the most sensible answer I can," he said. "In my mind these are people that never had a worry. . . . They don't understand. . . . They don't know anything about Pearl Harbor. How can you give them a good answer?" Tibbets said the veterans who fought in World War II made it possible for Americans to enjoy the good life they have today. "Over 2 million casualties and over 1 million dead. . . . I guess you could say that they gave a lot," said Tibbets matter-of-factly. The young pilot also was under orders from his commanding officer. "In my day, you didn't refuse orders," he said. "In face of the enemy, you couldn't refuse orders. You would face a firing squad." But the pilot, already a veteran of dozens of combat missions, was not a reluctant soldier. "When I first heard that (about the important mission) I said 'I want that job!' I knew damn well I could do it," he said. And do it he did. From selecting the Enola Gay, to overseeing the plane's refitting, to organizing and training a crew for the B-29 mission, Tibbets had his hand in it. The Enola Gay was one of 15 new B-29s he chose to prepare for the mission. It was built at the Glenn L. Martin Co. bomber plant near Omaha. Tibbets said he also did a 10-day stint in the Hastings-Grand Island area during the war. The B-29 Superfortress was the most advanced aircraft of its kind at the time. With its four massive propellers, the plane could reach a maximum speed of 360 mph and reach an altitude of more than 25,000 feet. Tibbets had the plane stripped to make it lighter. He and his crew dropped the atomic bomb, nicknamed "Little Boy," over Hiroshima at 31,700 feet. "Altitude was my safety factor," he said. The Enola Gay caught the Japanese off-guard. Tibbets claimed that they had never seen a U.S. plane fly that high. Even their best fighters couldn't touch it. Tibbets recounted the last few minutes before the atomic bomb was dropped. He said he worried about all the repairs and modifications he made, and wondered if he had made any mistakes. "When the bomb exploded I was relieved as hell I had not made a mistake," he said. "It was the most boring flight I ever made. Everything went right - nothing happened." In the aftermath of the bombing, Tibbets has encountered Japanese people on his travels and speaking engagements. He cited two instances where Japanese people have thanked him for liberating their country and giving them a better life. He said one compared his act to Abraham Lincoln's freeing the slaves. Tibbets knows he and his crew killed many innocent people. But he makes no apologies. "Yes, I did. I knew there would be ancillary damage," he said. "In wartime - dropping bombs - there is no discrimination." *Reach Al J. Laukaitis at 473-7243 or alaukaitis@journalstar.com. * Copyright © 2001, Lincoln Journal ***************************************************************** 7 UK Admits Military Personnel Deliberately Exposed to Nuclear Tests Environment News Service: By Jim Green, Ph.D. SYDNEY, Australia, May 18, 2001 (ENS) - The British government has admitted that British, Australian and New Zealand military personnel were used in radiation experiments during the nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga in South Australia in the 1950s, but claims that clothing was being tested, not humans. Confirming statements made repeatedly by veterans over the years, the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged on May 11 that it used military personnel from Britain, Australia and New Zealand in various experiments. [Hoon] Geoffrey Hoon is Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom. (Photo courtesy UK Ministry of Defence) A statement released by the British government said that military personnel were "transported to or walked in various uniforms to an area of low-level fallout." The admission followed publicity surrounding a document found in the Australian National Archive in February by Sue Rabbitt Roff, a senior research fellow from Scotland's Dundee University. The October 12, 1956, document on an "Australian Military Forces - Central Command" letterhead refers to the Buffalo series of four atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at Maralinga in September and October, 1956. The document names 70 Australian military personnel and one civilian, plus five New Zealand officers, all listed as exposed to radiation following a September 27 nuclear test. "As far as can be determined the individual dose for round one was received over a period of two to three hours while the various indoctrinee groups were touring the target response area. ... Certain people were exposed to radiation on dates other than 28 and 29 Sep, during clothing trials or for a limited number during a tour of the contaminated area after round two," the document says. At least 26 of the 76 people named as being exposed to radiation from tests in 1956 received a dose greater than the "maximum permissible exposure" of 0.3 roentgens in a week; the highest exposure was 0.66 roentgens in a few hours, the central command document reveals. [Valiant] During Operation Buffalo in October 1956, two 49 Squadron Valiants dropped Britain's first atomic bombs on Maralinga range, Australia. (Photo courtesy UK Ministry of Defence) Some men were chosen for "clothing trials" from an "indoctrinee force" of British, Australian and New Zealand military personnel. The men walked, crawled and were driven through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga. Roff dismisses the British government's claim that it was testing clothing, not humans, and says that thousands of Commonwealth military personnel not directly involved in the nuclear tests at Maralinga were required to be outdoors to observe the detonations. Roff said the central command document contradicts claims by the British government in the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 that no humans were used in experiments in nuclear weapons trials; a claim which enabled the British government to successfully defeat compensation claims. "I was in the court in 1997 when the government denied using humans [in] studies of the effects of radiation," Roff said. "In fact the government said it would be 'an act of indefensible callousness to have done so.'" The European Court of Human Rights was presented with a 1953 memo issued by the British "Defense Research Policy Sub-Committee of the Chiefs of Staff Committee." The memo, titled "Atomic Weapons Trials" and marked "Top Secret," stated, "The army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosions on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection." Veterans of the Maralinga tests have described trucks speeding past to raise dust to make sure military personnel "got a bit of the fallout over the top of us," and being ordered to uncover equipment shelters located 100-150 meters (325-490 feet) from ground zero about one hour after a test, without protective clothing. Men have described being ordered to roll in the dust about five kilometers (three miles) from ground zero after a test; ship and ground crews washing down equipment and themselves with irradiated water; and drinking contaminated water and eating contaminated food. Ric Johnstone, national president of the , referred to the military personnel at Maralinga in a July 2000 statement. "They were provided with little or no protective clothing and seldom badged while some badges and dosimeters were falsified or not recorded because of high readings. In spite of this long lived dangerous level of radioactivity, the Australian Government expect us to believe that the test participants were exposed to only minimal non-hazardous levels of radiation." Thirty Australian veterans are seeking compensation from the federal government as a result of weapons tests at Maralinga and on the Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia. Buck-passing between successive British and Australian governments has for many years been a familiar ploy to avoid responsibility for the nuclear tests. Another ploy has been to stall for time in the expectation that the political controversy will fade away as veterans die. A large majority of the people involved in weapons tests in Australia have already died. [Scott] Australian Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Bruce Scott (Photo courtesy government of Australia) Bruce Scott, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, responded to Roff's release of Australian archives by saying that his office has contacted Roff in Scotland to ask her to forward the documents. But the documents are held in the national archive in Canberra, Australia, and Scott has access to further information which still remains classified. In 1999, the federal government announced it would compile a "nominal roll" of veterans, Aborigines and others who may have been exposed to radiation from the Maralinga tests. The roll is expected to be complete in June or July 2001. A cancer incidence study is promised following compilation of the roll. An offical from the Veterans' Affairs department said in a Senate hearing in May 2000 that the cancer incidence study would be complete by the end of 2000 - yet it has not even begun as at May 2001. Ric Johnstone said in his July 2000 statement that the government's procrastination was "... just another stalling tactic as the government are now fully aware that time is on their side." Scott says that issues raised by Roff in recent weeks will only be pursued if "there is any new material in these documents that hasn't been raised before in the context of the royal commission." The McClelland Royal Commission inquiry into the British weapons tests in Australia did raise the issue of clothing trials in its 1985 report, possibly basing its findings on the same document uncovered by Roff. [Johnstone] Ric Johnstone heads the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association (Photo courtesy ANVA) Johnstone derided the government's claim that victims are being adequately dealt with under the Military Compensation Scheme. "The onus of proof is on the claimant and not on the government as it is under the Veterans Entitlement Act. So go ahead and prove it if you can, knowing full well that since all of the tests were done under maximum secrecy - some aspects of the tests will never be revealed - and that all records are held by the Australian or the British governments, it is going to be almost impossible for a claimant to prove the relationship between radiation exposure and illness, disease or death without their help, which has been constantly refused." The government has consistently refused to provide funding for medical tests to assist in the determination of past radiation exposure. The radioactive contamination remains at Maralinga - much of it from so-called minor trials which did not involve fission explosions but scattered about 24 kilograms (53 pounds) of plutonium nonetheless. The last of four cleanups was completed last year, but a leaked email from Geoff Williams, a senior officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), complained about "a host of indiscretions, short-cuts and cover-ups." ARPANSA chief executive officer Dr. John Loy describes the clean-up as "world's best practice." The radioactive materials were buried in unlined trenches. More thorough clean-up options were debated and discarded. [trenches] Trenches at Maralinga in which plutonium contaminated soil was buried. An American company, CH2M Hill, won the contract to ensure the cleanup meets appropriate health physics criteria. (Photo courtesy ARPANSA) Alan Parkinson, a nuclear engineer with over 40 years experience and a former government adviser on the Maralinga clean-up, wrote in the April 16, 2000, Canberra Times, "Is Dr. Loy saying that a hole in the ground, without any treatment or lining is world best practice? That isn't even world best practice for disposal of household garbage, let alone a long-lived hazardous substance such as plutonium." Parkinson said a temporary storage pit should have been dug and lined with concrete for use until a permanent storage technique would be devised to immobilize the plutonium. The Aboriginal owners of the land have been adversely affected by the nuclear tests. The Menzies government did not seek permission from traditional owners before the tests. Some Aborigines in South Australia were given one way train tickets to Karlgoorlie; others were herded into a camp at Yalata, a mission station 150 kilometers (93 miles) west of Ceduna. Others others remained in the testing range during the tests, a fact known to the Australian government at the time. The McClelland Royal Commission concluded about the Buffalo series, "Overall, the attempts to ensure Aboriginal safety during the Buffalo series demonstrate ignorance, incompetence and cynicism on the part of those responsible for that safety." A 1996 government report on the Maralinga cleanup said, "The project is aimed at reducing Commonwealth liability arising from residual contamination." Having appropriated and polluted Aboriginal land, the federal government now wants to "reduce Commonwealth liability" by giving the land back to the traditional owners, the Tjarutja. The government's maneuvring to avoid future responsibility may continue for some months or years and will involve the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The ongoing scandals surrounding the Maralinga project are of interest to the vast majority of South Australians who are opposed to the federal government's plan to build a national radioactive waste dump in South Australia. The same bureaucrats are involved, the same minister, the same regulatory agency. And the same game plan - dump the waste in unlined trenches while insisting that this is "world's best practice." © 2001. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 The Age: Compo call for Maralinga troops By MARK FORBES DEFENCE CORRESPONDENT Saturday 19 May 2001 Troops exposed to radiation during atomic tests in the 1950s should be immediately granted a veterans' pension and free medical treatment, the RSL has demanded. This follows revelations this week on the use of soldiers at Maralinga to test radiation's impact on clothing. Until now the RSL has opposed granting blast veterans the same benefits as war veterans. But acting national president Rusty Priest said evidence of clothing tests and exposure to radiation meant the Federal Government could no longer argue that service at the blasts was not hazardous. Mr Priest also attacked delays in compiling a register of those at the tests and said the government should begin medical studies. "They must as a matter of extreme urgency establish mortality studies," he said. Mr Priest said justice required that troops exposed to radiation were provided with medical treatment. Thousands of Australian soldiers and civilians attended the British tests near Maralinga. Documents detail some troops being used in "clothing trials" and that troops were marched through radiation zones without protection. Mr Priest called on the government to adopt a recommendation of the 1984 royal commission into the blasts that the onus of proof for those claiming compensation be reversed. This would force the government to prove veterans' illnesses were not related to the tests, he said. "These people have been exposed to various doses of radiation," he said. "No one could say it wasn't hazardous. This must all be addressed as a matter of urgency. The health and welfare of these blokes has got to be addressed." Australian Nuclear Veterans Association president Ric Johnstone welcomed the RSL's change of heart, and also called on Veterans' Affairs Minister Bruce Scott to grant pension and medical rights. Copyright © The Age Company Ltd 2001. Any unauthorised use, copying or ***************************************************************** 9 The Age: Test cases Mark Forbes explores the background and credentials of the woman fanning the Maralinga debate."> ** By MARK FORBES Saturday 19 May 2001 *Facing away, the bright white flash seemed to light your head from within, then came a heat that rose above the stifling desert temperature, as if a glowing radiator was placed just behind the nape of the neck. Troops such as Ric Johnstone turned to see a 300-metre fireball gradually collapse and a huge pillar of dust rise into the sky, transforming into the trademark mushroom cloud of a nuclear blast. "Then you heard what sounded like 5000 locomotives coming through the desert," Johnstone said. "This bloody great roar. You feel like you've seen the end of the world, you feel like an ant."* Facing away, the bright white flash seemed to light your head from within, then came a heat that rose above the stifling desert temperature, as if a glowing radiator was placed just behind the nape of the neck. Troops such as Ric Johnstone turned to see a 300-metre fireball gradually collapse and a huge pillar of dust rise into the sky, transforming into the trademark mushroom cloud of a nuclear blast. "Then you heard what sounded like 5000 locomotives coming through the desert," Johnstone said. "This bloody great roar. You feel like you've seen the end of the world, you feel like an ant." Forty-five years on, the heat of those blasts in the South Australian desert lingers. For some of the troops, many little more than boys, working on the British atomic tests meant a part of their world did end. Still they feel like ants, victims of an unseen giant's backyard experiments, claiming a legacy of cancer and illness. Lawsuits and royal commissions have come and gone, but today one woman remains almost solely responsible for fanning the debate. Three years ago Sue Rabbitt Roff, a senior research fellow with Dundee University's medical faculty, who is sometimes referred to as "Dr" in print, produced a report showing that UK veterans of the blasts and their children had accelerated rates of radiation-caused cancers. Last week she announced that uncovered documents proved that troops were used as guinea pigs, made to march through radioactive dust to test the protection provided by their clothing. British and Australian governments had lied, she said, forcing an admission from the UK of the "clothing trials", but a denial of deliberate human testing. It also provoked both governments into a whispering campaign to undermine Roff's credibility while publicly professing concern. On examination, Roff's credentials and the evidence she so effectively publicised are not what they first seem. The Australian-raised researcher has no medical qualifications and no PhD, describing herself as a "medical sociologist" with a political science degree from Monash University. For 10 years she has been employed as a researcher at Dundee, coming from a background of anti-nuclear activism. She had spent years in the US, fighting plans to deploy nuclear weapons on the tiny Pacific Island of Palau. "I am a long-term anti-nuclear person," Roff told The Age. "I was active in the legal campaign of the people of Palau to resist the US putting nuclear weapons in there." The Australian Government hired an epidemiologist, Professor John Kaldor, to evaluate Roff's 1998 report linking the blasts to cancer cases. He found her research had "substantial limitations". Yes, Roff concedes her methods were attacked, "but the bottom line was Roff's report should be investigated further," she said. "This is what you expect when you put your head above the parapets and try to embarrass the government." Roff's methodology may be at times scientifically suspect, but her nose for publicity is impeccable. On Friday last week, she appeared on the agenda-setting AM radio program to reveal her evidence of government lies. "This document lists 24 Australian personnel who were used directly for clothing trial experiments to see what sort of clothing would be more protective to men in a nuclear war situation," she said. "They were asked to walk through ground zero some hours and days after the detonation of nuclear and atomic weapons at Maralinga in order to see whether any of their clothing would give them any sort of protection." Australian media rushed to follow the story, but it was already late evening in the UK. With no copies of the document available, journalists over the weekend could only rely on Roff's descriptions, while the UK and Australian government's back-pedalled, stating they had not seen the documents and would investigate. Back in 1997, counsel for the UK was successfully defending compensation claims in the European Court of Human Rights. "There was never any intention or plan or conspiracy on the part of those responsible for the tests to expose anyone to the harmful effects of radiation," the lawyer said. "To have used their own servicemen as guinea pigs in what I described earlier as an appalling scientific experiment designed to test the effects of exposure to harmful radiation on man would have been an act of indefensible callousness." Last weekend, the UK Government issued a statement that it "had not used these servicemen as guinea pigs to test the effects of radiation on them". But, it said, to test the protection offered by military clothing in a fallout area consenting officers were "transported to or walked in various uniforms to an area of low-level fallout". Roff said the new document was located during a six-week search of the Australian archives late last year. This week The Age inspected the files and located a memo stating: "Certain people were exposed to radiation ... during clothing trials, or for a limited number during a tour of the contaminated area." It lists 80 men called "indoctrinees" exposed to radiation, not 24, with no descriptions of the trials or walks through ground zero (the centre of the blast). At least 26 received more than the allowable dose of radiation. When questioned, Roff confirmed this was the document she had identified, but admitted some of her comments about it were based on "anecdotal" stories, not words on the page. "The 24 is really from my general knowledge of what people are saying," Roff said. The walk through ground zero? "It's again the men telling me what they did. I have heard for years about these activities, then a document appears on my desk which confirms it." Asked if she had misrepresented the document, Roff responded: "But the British Government came back with a wider admission than what I said." Roff appears to have bluffed, but won an embarrassing concession. And her claims are supported by those at the tests and evidence given to Jim McLelland's Royal Commission into the blasts in 1984. Ric Johnstone, now president of the Australian Nuclear Veterans' Association, was a RAAF mechanic posted to Maralinga's Operation Buffalo blasts in 1956. Just 21, like many of the troops, he said he was "just a stupid kid. There was no question of ever saying no, you just did what you were told". "We had a health team who said to us we were guinea pigs and they wanted us to test this protective clothing. Everybody laughed it off." Ordered to salvage equipment from the "hot zone" near the blast site, he remembers three types of protective suits he wore, all with rubberised gloves and headpieces. "It was so hot and we had to work so nine times out of 10 we took off the gloves and the headpieces." Medical staff in full protective gear entered the hot zone where Johnstone worked and saw them working unprotected, he said. Even intact, the suits were flawed. "None of it really protected you anyhow, you were still breathing in the dust. "There were a whole lot more than 24 used as guinea pigs, there were men sent into the hot area with and without protective clothing." Johnstone remembers the indoctrinees, a group of officers sealed in a nearby bunker during the blast, who were then "walked into the hot area". Another veteran, Terry Toon, who worked as a sapper during the blasts, also remembers the indoctrinees. "There were British, Australians and New Zealanders, even a few Canadians. "They took them out to near Marcoo (a blast site). We were in protective clothes, but all the indoctrinees were in their uniforms and had to crawl around in the bulldust." Johnstone says Roff's revelations were old news. "How come nobody looked at it when it came out at the royal commission. It was put into the transcript and the whole thing was buried." Minister for Veterans' Affairs Bruce Scott has ordered an investigation and requested that the UK open its files, but maintains the matter will only be pursued if "there is any new material in these documents that hasn't been raised before in the context of the royal commission". Investigations by The Age establish that it was; the files where the document were located were the commission's files, stored at the archives. The commission's report refers to the clothing tests: "Some members of the indoctrinee force were required to undertake further work on day 3 after the detonation, where volunteers were marched through specified areas of levels of radiation to assess the degree of protection afforded by military clothing." The report discusses allegations that the troops were being used as guinea pigs, claims contested by Australian and UK authorities. Contradictory evidence was given about whether indoctrinees wore protective clothing when they visited the blast site. Despite the huge amount of scientific data generated by the tests, there appears to be no documents detailing indoctrinees' trips to the hot zone and no reports of the clothing trials themselves. Although Bruce Scott appears to be placing his faith in the adequacy of the commission's investigation, some of its recommendations are yet to be implemented, still opposed by his administration. Recommendation one was a reversal of the onus of proof for blast veterans claiming benefits, forcing the Commonwealth to prove their illnesses were not related to the tests. Scott is still refusing troops at the blast sites access to pensions and health care enjoyed by war veterans. Service in the blast zone was not hazardous, he claims. Of those forced to sue, only Johnstone has won a public court case, although the Commonwealth has settled several others to prevent open-court hearings. To win they must not only have a radiation-linked cancer, but prove it was contracted during the blasts. Essential to linking the blasts to higher cancer rates is a register of the 16,000 Australians exposed, the commission's second recommendation. Sixteen years on, it still hasn't been completed. Scott announced he would proceed with the register in July 1999, with a draft version to be finalised next month. Only then, 45 years after that first blast, will official health studies begin to evaluate the claims of widespread cancers. All the while, the ranks of blast veterans are thinning. "All the guys I did the (hot zone) job with are dead except for me," said Johnstone, who has radiogenic diseases including heart disease, vascular disorders, leukaemia, numerous carcinomas, calcified tendons and prematurely aged skin and sweat glands. "Nearly all of the blokes I lived with at Camp 43 (a compound about eightkilometres from the epicentre of the blast) are dead. I only know of two out of a couple of hundred who are still alive. "Since '56 there have been royal commissions, court cases, because the government wants to stretch it out until we are all dead." *Mark Forbes is The Age's defence correspondent.* Copyright © The Age Company Ltd 2001. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 10 Pluthermal conversion plans remain focus of many doubts asahi.com news May 19, 2001 Kariwa, a village along the Niigata Prefecture coast of the Sea of Japan, about 220 kilometers northwest of Tokyo, is to hold a referendum later this month on a controversial proposal to use plutonium-based fuel for a nuclear power plant. Kariwa residents will say how they feel about the pluthermal program of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), to use a mixture of enriched plutonium, chemically recovered from spent fuel, and uranium compounds, to power its reactors. Pluthermal technology involves recycling the plutonium produced in reactors that burn uranium compounds. The original plan was to use plutonium-based mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in two nuclear power stations-in Takahama, Fukui Prefecture, operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. and in Fukushima run by TEPCO-in the 1990s, eventually expanding to pluthermal generation in 16 to 18 reactors by about 2010. But that program was put on hold after a 1999 revelation that quality control data on MOX fuel sets made by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for the Takahama plant had been falsified, which startled local government officials. Renewed concern about the pluthermal program prompted the Kariwa referendum. The local and central governments should respect the outcome. The biggest concern is safety of the technique, which has never been used on a large scale in Japan. They also harbor doubts about the quality of the fuel produced abroad and still-fresh memories of recent domestic nuclear accidents. The uncertain status of the program in relation to overall nuclear power-generation policy has done little to make the people of Kariwa or anyplace else with a similar program in the works any more willing to accept it. Industrial nations once raced to establish a nuclear fuel cycle in which the plutonium created in the reactor process is reused in fast-breeder reactors to create more fissionable material than they consume. But the high costs and other problems involving use of plutonium-which, unlike uranium, could be refined for weapons use-convinced most of them to abandon the effort. The need to reduce the amount of plutonium to be disposed of has led to the spread of pluthermal programs for about 50 reactors in nine nations, most of them in Europe. Japan, unlike most industrial countries, has continued to work on a nuclear fuel cycle involving commercial-scale use of fast-breeder reactors. The government has a huge nuclear fuel reprocessing plant to recover the plutonium used in fast-breeder reactors. But the plan for such a fuel cycle is moribund. The prototype Monju fast-breeder reactor, cornerstone of the plan, has been shut down since a serious sodium-leak in 1995. High costs of fuel reprocessing are expected to keep the fast-breeder reactor from becoming an economically viable alternative, at least in the near term. Even so, the government has refused to concede, continuing to reprocess all spent nuclear fuel. There is no prospect of using reprocessed plutonium in a fast-breeder reactor. But it must be turned into MOX fuel to be used in existing reactors and at higher cost. All these factors raise doubts about the future of the pluthermal program. The governors of Fukushima, Niigata, and Fukui prefectures, where many nuclear power plants are in operation, have asked the central government to find a national consensus on the entire nuclear fuel cycle plan. They have good reason to do so. But given the fact that the spent Japanese fuel is reprocessed in Britain and France, with a large amount of recovered plutonium, it might be better for Japan to retain the pluthermal technology, with sufficient safeguards. Whether Japan needs more huge reprocessing plants to refine plutonium in greater quantity is also a matter of debate. The future of pluthermal programs should be developed in the context of a broader nuclear power policy. Copyright 2001 Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No ***************************************************************** 11 Pak still has failed N-state image 19 May 2001 : The Times of India LONDON: Pakistani military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, has failed to dispel the notion that his country is a "nuclear failed state" run by "an ever more insular yet disempowered cohort of generals," according to a strategic survey published here. The annual Strategic Survey, published this week by London's International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), in its 11-page assessment of India and Pakistan, notes that at the end of 1999 India was credited with the means to make 65 nuclear weapons against 39 for Pakistan. Strategic Survey asserts that Pakistan does not seek to maintain nuclear parity with India and probably could not do so but goes on to say the relative balance in nuclear capabilities in the subcontinent has been clouded by press reports claiming Pakistani advantages in missiles, nuclear weaponization for missiles and command and control arrangements. On the other hand Pakistan's sources for nuclear components, North Korea and China, have been affected by US contacts with both Pyongyang and Beijing. Although the survey does not go into any detail of why North Korea and China might in future hold back from helping Pakistan, it is common knowledge among Western strategic analysts that Washington has been seeking a trade off with Pyongyang in particular to stop it from exporting critical technologies. Pakistan's Shaheen missiles, which Islamabad claims have a range of 750 miles, have been heavily dependent on technology from North Korea. Such imports could slow down dramatically if the US implements its promises to provide economic assistance to the Pyongyang regime. *(IANS) ***************************************************************** 12 Ammunition sales build up By Christopher F Foss Jane's Consultancy at IDEX Jane's Consultancy services are customised to individual client needs and can be provided as a one-off or as part of an ongoing relationship. No less than three countries have now adopted the German Rheinmetall Weapons and Munitions fifth-generation 120mm Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilised Discarding Sabot - Tracer (APFSDS-T) round, which is designated the DM53 by the German Army. The first customer for the DM53 was Switzerland, which placed an order for some 20,000 rounds for use with its fleet of Leopard 2 series tanks. More recently, Germany has ordered 27,000 rounds and the Netherlands has ordered 16,300 rounds. In addition to being used with the Leopard 2 tank fitted with the standard 120mm L/44 barrel, it is used with the latest 120mm L/55 barrel fitted to the Leopard 2A6. Under current plans, the German Army is to fit a first batch of 225 Leopard 2 series MBTs with the 120mm L/55 barrel. The first of these was handed over recently at the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann facility in Munich. The Netherlands has decided to upgrade 180 of its Leopard 2s to the Leopard 2A6 configuration, while the 219 Spanish Leopard 2 tanks will be fitted with this from the start. The Krauss-Maffei Leopard 2 MBT is now the most widely used tank in Europe, and Germany is also hoping for sales of the vehicle to Greece and Turkey. The first Spanish-built Leopard 2E will be completed late next year. The 120mm DM53 APPFSDS-T round is now being offered to other countries equipped with tanks armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun. In addition to being fired from the Leopard 2 it can be fired from the 120mm armed M1A1/M1A (USA), the Leclerc (France) and the Ariete (Italy). Exports of the DM53 are approved by the German Government on a case-by-case basis. According to Rheinmetall, its 120mm DM53 has high penetration characteristics against threat armour using a non-depleted uranium penetrator. The USA still relies on a DU penetrator that is no longer politically acceptable in many countries. To replace the current 120mm HEAT-MP-T (High Explosive Anti-Tank Multi Purpose - Tracer) round, Rheinmetall is developing the 120mm HE-T (high explosive - tracer) range which is optimised for engaging battlefield targets such as anti-tank teams and fortifications. Considerable interest has already been shown in the HE-T round by a number of countries, including the Netherlands. With the cancellation of the German Army New Generation Platform (NGP), the German Army is expected to continue to upgrade the vehicles in the key areas of armour, mobility and firepower. For the export market, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is offering the Leopard 2A6, which as well as having the 120mm L/55 barrel, has a number of other improvements including an auxiliary powerpack. Late this year, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is due to complete its DEMO II feature, powered by the latest 1,650hp EuroPowerPack, which will give the Leopard 2 not only improved performance but also reduced fuel consumption. 120mm main armament for the Leopard 2 MBT. Top: the older L/44 barrel. Bottom: the latest L/55 barrel for the Leopard 2A6 The Leopard 2A6 is fitted with the 120mm L/55 gun The 120mm Rheinmetall ammunition family includes the latest APFSDS-T round DM53 (left) and the new HE-T round (second from right © 2001 Jane's Information Group. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 13 'Reckless' decision on raising Kursk ISSUE 2185 Saturday 19 May 2001 By Marcus Warren in Moscow THE delicate operation of raising the Kursk, the Russian nuclear submarine that sank with the loss of 118 crew, was plunged into controversy last night after Russia hired a firm with little experience of sea salvage. The Dutch company Mammoet, which claims to have "over 30 years of experience of heavy lifting and transportation", has won the contract ahead of an international consortium. But Mammoet's record at sea appears to be confined to work with a pleasure yacht and salvaging the remains of a mammoth. Although the crew of the Kursk shut down both its nuclear reactors in the minutes after the unexplained disaster in the Barents Sea in August, what will happen if they are moved is unpredictable, as is the condition of its munitions. Moscow claims the submarine was not carrying nuclear weapons. A retired Russian rear admiral described the announcement as "theatre of the absurd", while another former naval officer said the decision was "reckless". President Putin had promised that the Kursk would be raised this year. On Thursday, the international consortium that had been working since last year on plans to raise the 17,000-ton wreck was told that its services were no longer required after it refused to begin the operation until next year and insisted on being paid in advance. + After three days of bombing, Russian jets smashed an ice dam yesterday on the River Lena that had caused the town of Lensk to be submerged by floods. However, as the water began to fall by an inch every two minutes, Yakutsk, the largest city in the region, was under threat from the torrent. © Copyrightof Telegraph Group Limited2001. Terms & Conditionsof ***************************************************************** 14 Russia signs new Kursk salvage deal BBC News | EUROPE | Friday, 18 May, 2001, 17:36 GMT 18:36 Russia has controversially signed a contract with a Dutch company to help raise the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk a day after breaking off an earlier deal. Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, who is in charge of the project, signed the agreement in Moscow with Netherlands-based Mammoet Transport BV. Mammoet is a major operator of heavy-lift cranes, but has no experience in raising vessels. The deal comes a day after Russia said it would no longer co-operate with a consortium of Dutch and Norwegian companies, which said the operation could not be safely undertaken until 2002. The Kursk sank in the Barents Sea last August in unexplained circumstances, with the loss of all 118 men on board. Safety fears On Monday, Mr Klebanov said a deal would be signed within days with the consortium of Dutch firms Smit International and Heerema, and the Norwegian arm of the US firm Halliburton. The companies will under no circumstances endanger their workers or equipment, nor the wreck, the victims or the environment Smit International Three days later Russian officials formally broke off the talks, refusing to fulfil the companies' demand to delay the lift until next year. Smit responded with a statement saying that the consortium would not "endanger their workers and equipment, nor the wreck, the victims or the environment by conducting a hurried salvage operation this year". Niels Burmer from the Bellona Foundation, an environmental organisation based in Norway, said the decision was worrying, as it meant Russia was determined the raise the Kursk before the end of this year, disregarding the risks. He accused Mammoet, which he says has had no experience in heavy lifting, of agreeing to go ahead with the deal for publicity. He added that Mammoet had lowered the price of the deal from $70 million to $50 million and agreed to a $500 million liability plan in case something went wrong. Norwegian divers helped retrieve bodies from the Kursk However, David Weber, a spokesman for the Kursk Foundation, which is committed to minimising the damage caused by the sunken submarine, said the foundation welcomed any progress, but would continue to insist on safety. "A contract has been signed with Mammoet as the lead company. It is not certain whether other companies will now be invited by Mammoet to participate in a new proposal. "Clearly if there were companies from the old consortium who had a role within a new consortium, this would indicate a continuity that would be welcomed by the international community," Mr Weber said. Missiles A dozen bodies have already been retrieved by Norwegian divers. But the rest of the crew, as well as two nuclear reactors and roughly 22 missiles are still on the 14,000-tonne submarine which lies at a depth of 100 metres. Some relatives of the victims do not want the remaining bodies brought to the surface, while environmentalists fear the submarine will break as it is lifted, causing a leak of radiation. There is simply no time to prepare Rear-Admiral Yuri Senatsky On Thursday a Russian admiral said he thought it would be hard to find any partner to agree to lift the submarine this year. Rear-Admiral Yuri Senatsky, the Russian Navy's chief engineer, said: "There is simply no time to prepare, especially as some serious preparatory work, involving unique technical equipment, should be done." European states are ready to contribute a significant amount, once agreement has been reached on a wider programme of co-operation to clean up nuclear pollution left over from the Soviet Union. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************