***************************************************************** 08/19/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.199 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Dry Storage of Nuclear Wastes Planned at Athens, ALA., Nuclear Plant 2 Richland board made wise, tough decision 3 2nd plan offered for TVA nuclear plants 4 Moscow receives Urals nuclear alert 5 BNFL asks for more cash 6 Taking a stick to slipshod Sellafield 7 Impoverished Goshute Tribe Is Not Doing Only What It Must to 8 Nuclear Transit 9 Nevada N-Waste Battle Closely Tied to Utah's 10 New Orleans-Based Firm to Buy Fifth Nuclear Power Plant 11 LETTERS: Beltway gridlock 12 Palo Verde Unit 3 Shuts Down, Expected to Return to Service by 13 States grapple with nuke train trek 14 Seabrook Station to be auctioned 15 In unison governors call for energy conservation 16 Back to a Future of Atomic Energy / Why not nuclear? / We need it 17 Letters - Don't Even Think About Nukes for Power 18 Scientists see way to make nuclear waste safe 19 Siemens Won't Sell Nuclear Plant to Russians 20 Trittin Rejects Waste Proposals 21 South Carolina governor vows to block plutonium from state 22 Russians Warn of Nuclear Waste 23 GAO Criticizes Cheney's Silence 24 DOE postpones shipments, seeks talks to ease dispute NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Nuclear workers may get assistance 2 Navy heightens security around Trident subs 3 Hanford tanks removed from list 4 Los Alamos Tunnel Vision 5 Lab gets new test facility 6 Paducah plant workers discover old tank; tests to see if it only holds oil - 7 CHARADE - Bush should lift tainted recycling ban 8 Radiation found in water system 9 Oregon senator to visit Hanford 10 PNNL to receive $2 million in grants ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Dry Storage of Nuclear Wastes Planned at Athens, ALA., Nuclear Plant Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report Chattanooga Times/Free Press Knight Ridder/Tribune ( August 17, 2001 ) Aug. 16--The mounting pile of radioactive leftovers will soon have a new home at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant. Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority are expected next week to approve a $19.5 million addition to a contract to develop dry cask storage within the next four years for spent nuclear fuel rods at Browns Ferry near Athens, Ala. The proposed contract with Holtec International Inc. will expand the contractor's work already underway for dry cask storage of radioactive materials at TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant near Soddy-Daisy. "The purpose of these contracts with Holtec is to provide a safe and reliable method of storage between the time our spent fuel ponds fill up at these plants and the time a permanent waste storage site is ready," TVA spokesman Gil Francis said Wednesday. TVA and other nuclear utilities have paid more than $16 billion to the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a permanent storage dump for the radioactive wastes generated by commercial nuclear plants. DOE has been considering sites for a permanent repository since 1982 and has determined that the Yucca Mountain site 90 miles away from Las Vegas is the best site for the storage. But Nevada lawmakers opposed to the storage dump in their state have so far kept the necessary funding to develop the Yucca Mountain site bottled up in Congress. The soonest the Yucca Mountain site may now be prepared for storing nuclear wastes is 2010, according to DOE. Pending approval of regulators and TVA directors, the oldest fuel assemblies from the spent fuel pond at Sequoyah will be placed in the above-ground storage casks by 2004. Nuclear wastes from Browns Ferry are scheduled to be stored in the new casks by 2005. Ultimately, TVA expects to ship the casks to DOE's permanent waste depository. TVA directors will decide on the proposed Holtec contract for dry cask waste storage at Browns Ferry during their next meeting at 9 a.m., central time, Wednesday in Decatur, Ala. To see more of the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesfreepress.com (c) 2001, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News. ***************************************************************** 2 Richland board made wise, tough decision Published Aug. 17, 2001 What should have been a no-brainer decision for the Richland School Board at its Tuesday meeting unfortunately had to turn into an act of courage for board members. A majority of board members bravely stood up against an angry, passionate crowd and said no thanks to installing a 10-foot dummy bomb shell painted in Richland High School's green and gold colors at the school. Three school board members voted no, and two voted yes. Among the board members, the decision was a civil disagreement among reasonable elected officials that was an admirable example for the district's students of how government should work. Regrettably, the same can't be said for several in the 120-member audience, who cajoled, interrupted, threatened and booed board members who disagreed with the crowd. Indeed, 19 citizens testified in support of the bomb's placement on the high school campus and only one spoke against it. Some on the losing side threatened to vote out board members who voted against the bomb, accusing them of not listening to the will of the people. But board members represent all of the school district's citizens - including those who trust board members' judgment enough not to attend the school board meeting or who view this issue in a different perspective. Alumni proffered the gift, meant to honor the school's "Bombers" mascot, no doubt with good intentions. But the gift has ignited a community rift that is out of proportion to the issue at hand. No one has suggested that the Richland High's mascot be changed. No one has suggested removing the mushroom cloud in the entrance's foyer nor removing the gym's mural depicting a bomber similar to one paid for by Hanford workers' donated wages. And, more importantly, no one has suggested the community should be ashamed of the school's commemoration of Hanford's contribution to ending World War II. Hanford manufactured the plutonium that was in the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, Aug. 9, 1945. Soon after, Richland High's mascot was changed from the Beavers to the Bombers. Some who supported the dummy bomb's placement on campus argued that it was a monument to the community's proud history. But the shell bears no resemblance to the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, so its placement would be a distortion of history. We agree students should appreciate the role our community played during the war. The real question at hand is whether it's appropriate, in a school district with a no-tolerance weapons policy, to place even a dummy bomb shell on a school campus. School board members Meg Weiss, Phyllis Strickler and Jim Peterson are to be commended for balancing the passions of this small group against values they want the district to impart to its students. Although school board member John Steach voted to accept the bomb, he said it was not because he thought it was the right thing to do but because he wanted to get back to the district's mission of education. He also made an eloquent point that we hope is not lost on those who have gotten so fired up over a dummy bomb shell that has nothing to do with Richland's World War II connection. "I wish we had this many people come out and support the bond," Steach said, referring to the $76 million bond issue voters rejected recently. "I'm kind of embarrassed to have this many people show up for the bomb." Particularly in Richland, where the school board must develop a new plan to shore up its deteriorating schools, officials would be lucky to have that much energy directed toward better buildings and curriculum. The Richland School Board should be commended for having the courage to show leadership on this issue in the face of such passionate, yet misguided, opposition. What's your opinon? Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 3 2nd plan offered for TVA nuclear plants KnoxNews: State Atlanta man wants to handle financing By The Associated Press CHATTANOOGA - Tennessee Valley Authority officials have heard another proposal to finance work on its idled nuclear plants. It came this week from Cecil M. Phillips, an Atlanta businessman who has financed and developed more than 8,000 units of college campus housing, including the new dormitories for the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. TVA also has been approached by several other energy companies about possible purchase or joint ventures for its idled nuclear plants, officials confirmed this week. Phillips proposes to act as a financing conduit, allowing TVA to activate the mothballed plants without running up its own $26 billion debt. His plan is similar to one offered last week by developer Franklin Haney of Chattanooga, Under the proposals, TVA would pay the financiers' lease payments, which would not be counted as part of the utility's debt. "Competition is always good, and there certainly seems to be a lot of it for these plants all of a sudden," said Phillips, president of Place Collegiate Properties LP. "But I'm confident at the end of the day we can deliver the best package to meet the financial needs of TVA." Haney, who has proposed a $1.3 billion leaseback plan to help finance the restart of the Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama, said he would make a similar though bigger lease proposal next month to finance completion of the unfinished Bellefonte plant in Alabama. "In the past six months, there has been an increased interest in Bellefonte from the outside, partly in response to the electricity shortages in California and partly in response to President Bush's call for more nuclear energy," said Jack Bailey, vice president of engineering and technical services at TVA. "Nearly all of the new power plants being built today rely on natural gas, and when gas prices began to rise, the major players are much more interested in balancing their power portfolios with more nuclear." TVA and other utility officials declined to identify which companies have approached TVA about Browns Ferry and Bellefonte. One reactor at the Browns Ferry plant near Athens, Ala., has been closed since 1985 because of safety questions and an inability to meet regulatory standards. Bellefonte was mothballed in 1988 after the nuclear plant was more than half finished. At the time, TVA determined it wouldn't need the power from the plant. TVA is the nation's largest publicly owned utility, providing electricity to large industries and 158 distributors serving 8.3 million in seven Southeastern states. August 18, 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Moscow receives Urals nuclear alert Special report: Russia Ian Traynor in Moscow Saturday August 18, 2001 The Guardian Russian officials in the Ural mountains have warned the government in Moscow that the Arctic and the rivers of parts of Siberia risk turning into nuclear disaster zones from radioactive waste stored in reservoirs that are close to overflowing. A letter to the Russian prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov, from the governor of the Chelyabinsk region, which includes the huge Mayak plutonium-producing and nuclear waste-reprocessing plant, appealed for urgent action to avert disaster. "Open water reservoirs contain about 400m cubic metres of radioactively contaminated water. The levels of this water are about to become dangerous," warned the letter from Petr Sumin. "The Techa cascade of lakes is a major potential source of radiation disasters _ There is a danger that the dam will burst, causing catastrophic consequences for the rivers Iset, Tobol and Ob." The sprawling Mayak complex in the Urals produced a disastrous nuclear accident in the 1950s when an explosion spread radioactivity across an area of nearly 10,000 square miles. There was further calamity in the 1960s when an artificial lake filled with nuclear waste dried up and radioactive dust was spread across the region. The area is thought to be probably the most radioactively contaminated zone in the world. It is also the centrepiece of Russian plans to import the world's nuclear waste for safekeeping and local officials want to resume the building of a new nuclear power plant suspended in 1992 for lack of funds. The Sumin plea was sent to Mr Kasyanov last month and leaked this week to Vladimir Slivyak, a Green activist. President Vladimir Putin signed the unpopular nuclear import legislation last month. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 5 BNFL asks for more cash Guardian Unlimited Observer | Business | [UP] Oliver Morgan, industrial correspondent Sunday August 19, 2001 The Observer Atomic services group British Nuclear Fuels is asking the Government to pay it more for dismantling radioactive plants and disposing of waste in a bid to convert multimillion pound losses at its decommissioning and clean-up business into profit. The company is in discussions with the Ministry of Defence and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to renegotiate loss-making contracts to decommission buildings and plants at Sellafield in Cumbria. The renegotiations are vital for a turnaround in BNFL's financial fortunes; without this, Government hopes of a partial sell-off will be dashed. The company made a £210 million pre-tax loss last year, £66m of which was due to its decommissioning activities. BNFL agreed contracts with the departments to dismantle buildings at Sellafield, many of which date back to the programme for producing plutonium for the UK's nuclear arsenal in the 1940s and 1950s. It says these contracts do not allow it to make money. If they are not changed they could threaten BNFL's profits for years to come. BNFL wants to renegotiate those contracts in which technical risks are unclear on a 'cost plus' basis, and to include incentives for good performance. It believes this will benefit both BNFL and the Government by giving it incentives to work efficiently. Problems have emerged because the sites - such as original 'pile' reactors and redundant fuel storage ponds - are complex and were not designed with decommissioning in mind. Brian Watson, Sellafield's director of operations, said: 'It is very, very important that the company and its shareholders [Government now, private investors after PPP] get the financial situation for dealing with the waste on a proper footing. You need high levels of expertise to do it. 'The company deserves to make money on that and, historically, contracts have not left the option for this.' Watson confirmed that the company was in the 'latter stages' of negotiations with the MoD and UKAEA. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 6 Taking a stick to slipshod Sellafield Guardian Unlimited Observer | Business | [UP] Brian Watson has imposed harsh discipline at the giant nuclear site, but it's a tough job, he tells Oliver Morgan Special report: Britain's nuclear industry Sunday August 19, 2001 The Observer Brian Watson is a gorilla with a big stick. Appointed in April 2000 to head Britain's most controversial six square kilometres of land - the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria - he has applied harsh discipline to the 10,600 British Nuclear Fuels workers and contractors who operate it. 'He likes to use the stick,' says one BNFL worker. 'He wants people to know who's boss.' The saturnine geordie himself says: 'When people don't comply with basic rules I go bananas. I am told when I go bananas it is worth seeing.' Watson has plenty of reason for anger. He was appointed at a nadir for Sellafield. BNFL had lost the confidence of its customers - nuclear generators in Japan, Germany, Switzerland, who send their spent nuclear fuel to the UK to be reprocessed into radioactive waste, uranium and plutonium oxides, at Thorp. More worrying still is the effect this could have on their willingness to buy reprocessed fuel made at a £480m plant, yet to be licensed by the government, from the separated uranium and plutonium oxides (known as MOX). The slump in confidence forced the Government to delay plans for a £1.5 billion sell off of 49 per cent of BNFL. The cause of the crisis was a group of workers who forged quality control records for MOX fuel at a prototype facility at Sellafield in order to cut corners. This was followed by three damning reports by the regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, criticising the management and prevailing safety cultures. Before Watson, no single person had been accountable. He was appointed by BNFL's then new chief executive, Norman Askew, and charged with purging Sellafield of its slipshod ways. It is a mammoth task. Sellafield is one of the most complex and dangerous industrial sites in the world, with hundreds of buildings, some dating back to the Fifties, for receiving, dismantling, storing, and separating out the elements of spent fuel from nuclear reactors. It does this by cutting the fuel up and dissolving it in boiling nitric acid. Watson, a Sellafield veteran, says: 'The MOX fabrication incident gave us a jolt. It happened because a small group of individuals did not understand how important quality is to our customers. 'Safety is the top priority. What the episode told us is that our approach to quality has to be on the same level as our approach to safety.' BNFL is paranoid about safety - and rightly so. On a tour of the plant, where workers observe processes through foot-thick windows in the steel walls of processing 'caves', everyone is at pains to demonstrate how well they are protected from radioactive harm, and that they work by the book. Watson points out that there has been progress - recommendations from two of the three NII reports have been followed, and he believes work to achieve the third will be completed by October next year. But he recognises that what is needed is cultural change - and that managing highly technically trained people who are used to autonomy is difficult. He talks of reorganising the site and 'refreshing' the people. 'If we feel people are not up to their role, we move them on to new duties.' For those who transgress even the most basic regulations, there is hell to pay. 'There are very severe consequences, including dismissal, for not complying with things that affect people on the site.' Speed limits - 20 mph on the site - are strictly observed. 'If you go above 40 you are gone; 30 is a final warning; 20 is a warning.' There are barriers on plant entries, where shoes are changed, overalls put on, and radioactivity checked on exit. Smoking, drinking, eating, even taking snuff, are banned. 'There were people who were found chewing food on the wrong side of the barrier. It drove me mad.' More serious transgressions do persist. 'Some years ago there was an issue with the handling of a flask of hydrogen, which ended in a deflagration [explosion]. 'About 10 days ago we had a compliance problem with our safety regulations. There were safety checks imposed on the flasks, and these were missed.' But it is not simply the safety culture that challenges Watson. Sellafield does not make any money. BNFL made a paltry £3m from it last year. BNFL's nuclear decommissioning business, which involves dismantling old sites, lost £66m. Watson says the problems, which involved the closure of Thorp and another plant for processing fuel from Magnox stations (B205) were caused by two incidents at facilities that deal with liquid waste generated by these processes. He closed Thorp and B205 so these could be sorted out - in the hope of impressing the NII. But this lost six months' working time. These problems underline the complexity of running interdependent plants at Sellafield. He believes that both facilities could meet their targets of reprocessing 700 tonnes of fuel this year - although he will not offer guarantees. And there are more problems ahead: B205 has suffered from lack of maintenance. And there are bottlenecks at the plant that turns high-level waste into glass form for storage. Both of these, plus problems with decommissioning, could undermine a Sellafield recovery. On top of this, Watson needs the MOX plant to get the go-ahead. 'That is fundamental to us. It is where we will make money.' If these problems are not overcome, Sellafield looks like a commercial donkey. The chances of selling BNFL would diminish. Watson would be in receipt of the stick. He hopes, and believes, he can avoid that. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 7 Impoverished Goshute Tribe Is Not Doing Only What It Must to Survive The Salt Lake Tribune -- Sunday, August 19, 2001 BY REINARD KNUTSEN In a piece entitled, "The impoverished Goshute Tribe Is Only Doing What It Must to Survive," a reader raises some very important and valid points. It is true that the Goshute Tribe as well as all other Native American nations have suffered centuries of genocide, displacement, bigotry and prejudice. The reader also highlights the apparent hypocrisy of Utah's government in saying what deadly toxins (radioactive and otherwise) are allowed where, and whose pockets are allowed to be filled by the millions of dollars in profits. Just as Private Fuel Storage's targeting of the impoverished Skull Valley Reservation is an act of environmental racism, so, too, is the state's unwillingness to help in meaningful economic development of the Goshute people. The problem I have with the article is that it does not talk about the widespread debate among tribal members about this issue. It is an often-overlooked fact that not all of the Goshutes want this nuclear dump, and there is in fact a belief among many tribal members that the Tribal Council acted illegally when it signed the secret lease agreement with PFS. Much of this lease agreement continues to be kept secret even from the tribal members, especially the money situation and who within the Tribe (outside of the Tribal Council of three) will receive benefits from this agreement. PFS is manipulating the tribe financially and its policies are pitting family against family. There are Goshutes living on and off the reservation who are working hard to stop this nuclear dump from becoming a reality. They have intervened in the NRC licensing process and are pursuing other lawsuits as well. Margene Bullcreek, one of the most outspoken Goshute opponents of PFS, recently wrote in a letter to tribal and anti-nuclear organizations around the country: "We must uphold our traditional values as the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, which is to consider our land, animals, plants, water and air as being sacred. We know that the nuclear dump will not only threaten our lives but also the lives of all the living things out here. If we accept this waste, we will be losing our traditions, our way of life. That is where our real sovereignty lies." Margene will be hosting the Nuclear Free Great Basin Gathering on her land at Skull Valley, Oct. 6-7, and invites everyone to come and learn more about the nuclear policies of the U.S. government and the energy industry. If Utah really does not want this nuclear waste within our borders then we must begin to address the very real issues of economic development within not only the Skull Valley Reservation but all of the Native American nations within our state. It is unfortunate that we had to wait until now to address economic concerns of the tribe. But those of us who are committed to stopping the nuclear dump from being built near Salt Lake City have to join the crusade for economic development of the Goshutes and start treating them as our friends and neighbors rather then our enemies. It is time for us all to work on behalf of our future generations! Reinard Knutsen lives in Salt Lake City and operates the Nuclear Free Great Basin Campaign. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 8 Nuclear Transit The Salt Lake Tribune -- August 19, 2001 The call of Western governors for the federal government to re-examine the risks of nuclear waste transportation may not discourage plans to store the stuff in the Great Basin, but it certainly will not hurt the efforts of Utah and Nevada to keep the stuff out of their states. This is an encouraging sign. At the behest of Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt and Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, the Western Governors Association recently backed a resolution calling on the federal government to update its studies on the risks of transporting nuclear waste near or through major population areas. Nuclear power advocates are pushing to stow the nation's nuclear wastes in facilities proposed for Utah and Nevada. Neither state, naturally enough, is keen on this. Both have been trying everything they can think of to kill the proposals. Unfortunately the issue is such that even the Western states have gone it alone rather than present a solid front. For example, Nevada's congressional delegation has fought its political rearguard defense against federal plans for a long-term nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain mostly alone. Ditto for Utah's efforts to stymie a scheme by a consortium of electric power utilities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel on the Goshute Reservation in Tooele County's Skull Valley. The fact that the Western Governors Association sees and can agree that nuclear waste is a common issue is a salutary step beyond the parochialism that previously has dominated the states on this matter. The Western Governors' resolution points out that it can be dangerous hauling potentially lethal waste past the homes of 50 million Americans on its way to national disposal and storage sites. Indeed, a 1970s report estimated that a spent fuel shipment sabotaged in an urban area could cause hundreds of early fatalities and thousands of latent cancer deaths, and billions of dollars in economic costs. These are legitimate concerns. They ought to be part of any decision to transport and store nuclear waste anywhere. And to get the most accurate picture possible on the dangers, the federal government should reassess the risks of nuclear waste transportation in light of potential terrorist sabotage. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 9 Nevada N-Waste Battle Closely Tied to Utah's The Salt Lake Tribune -- August 19, 2001 [PHOTO] Two miles deep within Nevada's Yucca Mountain, scientists check an alcove where nuclear waste would be stored. (Paul Fraughton/The Salt Lake Tribune) BY JUDY FAHYS Nevada's Yucca Mountain casts a long shadow across the political landscape to Utah's Skull Valley. The Nevada hills where the U.S. Energy Department wants to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste are separated by nearly 600 miles of highway from the Indian reservation in Utah's west desert where eight utilities hope to park the waste until a permanent repository is ready, maybe at Yucca Mountain. But from Washington, D.C., both desert sites in the West look similarly appealing. The U.S. Energy Department needs a waste storage site that was supposed to be ready for the nuclear industry three years ago. Nuclear utilities need a place they can send spent fuel immediately so they can remove it from reactor-waste storage pools in 31 states and extend the lives of their power plants. While the Nevada site would solve long-term problems, and the Utah site short-term ones, both states have dug in. Neither wants the discards of electricity its citizens don't use. Neither wants to harbor radioactive waste that is lethal for 10,000 years -- even though the industry will seal and store it in casks billed as practically indestructible. A Tough Battle: Advocates and opponents are bracing for rough going. Because the Energy Department's final recommendation on Yucca Mountain is expected by year's end, both sides are maneuvering for another Yucca Mountain fight in Congress next year. They also await a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decision on a temporary repository at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. Leaders of the 125-member tribe want the waste storage for its economic value. Utah political leaders are unified against Skull Valley, but not Yucca Mountain. While U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, the freshman Democrat, has not yet taken a position, the four other Utahns in Congress, all Republicans, have supported nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in past votes. Their thinking? Send it to Nevada right away so there is no need to park 40,000 metric tons of waste temporarily on an 820-acre corner of the Goshute reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City in Tooele County. Since the state has no control over what a sovereign nation does within its boundaries, helping secure permanent disposal is seen as Utah's best strategy against a Skull Valley site, the thinking goes. That's what Rep. Jim Hansen told the Utah Legislature during an appearance at the Capitol last winter. The Republican congressman has a key Washington role in the state's fight. In 1997, he got three paragraphs pared from a bill urging the NRC to fast-track the Utah facility. As chairman of the House Resources Committee, the gatekeeper for bills dealing with energy and Indian affairs, Hansen reportedly has his staff drafting nuclear waste legislation. "I don't think anything will get through his committee that will [make high-level waste] end up in his district," Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt said. And as the House leader on the Bush administration's energy plan, Hansen is pushing to help the nuclear industry overcome its waste-storage problem and expand its 22 percent share of electricity generation. Hansen, who declined to be interviewed for this article, can expect Senate resistance against any proposal to open the Yucca Mountain repository. Nevada Sen. Harry Reid is part of the Senate's new Democratic majority leadership, which won't allow a national disposal site in Reid's home state. "As long as we are in the majority, it's dead," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle during a recent visit to Las Vegas. Chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Energy Department's budget, Reid was able last month to slash 2002 funding for Yucca Mountain by $125 million. And while a Bush White House may not veto plans to develop the Nevada site, as Clinton did last year, Reid still might have the majority needed to block Yucca Mountain plans. Neighbor Partner: Nevada sees Utah's fight as its own. The neighboring state has coached Utah on legal, political and administrative roadblocks to high-level waste. "You don't let it get a foothold anywhere," said Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Nuclear Waste Project Office. Stored in Skull Valley, the waste "is one step closer" to Yucca Mountain. In contrast, Nevada does not look for help from Utah's congressional delegation. "There's no reciprocity there," said Steve Erickson of the Utah-based anti-nuclear group Citizens Education Project. "Our leaders [in Utah] are still part of the 'Screw Nevada' contingent even though they are willing to accept the support of the [Nevada] delegation." "It's our strong position we need to hang together with our neighbors," he said, because "these two proposals are wedded together." Meanwhile, Leavitt and Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn worked together last week to rally Western state governors around an in-depth study of nuclear-waste transportation, particularly the risk of sabotage or terrorism. The move is intended to raise public awareness of -- and possibly fears about -- hauling spent nuclear fuel over the roads and tracks that pass about 50 million Americans on their way to the proposed storage and disposal sites. Shared Destiny: Leavitt, who says the waste should stay where it is until a permanent solution is found, noted that his state and Nevada sometimes have common interests, but not always. "It's a high-stakes discussion," said Leavitt. "It involves billions of dollars and the potential of having high-level waste in our state." Curiously, both industry and anti-nuclear activists agree short-term storage is needed, even if Yucca Mountain opens. About three-fourths of the nation's 103 nuclear plants will run out of spent-fuel storage between 2004, when the Utah site could be ready, and 2010, the earliest Yucca Mountain could be ready, according to the industry. Yucca Mountain's fate "certainly affects our proposal," said Scott Northard of Private Fuel Storage L.L.C., the consortium that proposed the $3 billion Skull Valley facility. "There have been so many delays in the process up to this point that there will be a need for the Skull Valley facility, regardless." PFS has hired a Washington lobbying firm to visit congressional offices on behalf of the Goshute facility. "It's part of an integrated approach to getting a solution," Northard said. Anti-nuclear activists also are stepping up their lobbying. The watchdog group Public Citizen published a white paper on the Skull Valley project echoing Leavitt's view that "temporary" storage is sure to become permanent. Even if Yucca Mountain is approved, it has too little space for all the nuclear waste headed there, the group said. "At this point there is no 'Plan B' for nuclear waste disposal," said Public Citizen's Lisa Gue. "We are certainly going to advocate congressional action to stop the PFS proposal." Whether Yucca Mountain or Skull Valley flies, or if both do -- the uncertainty keeps all eyes darting the vast desert between both places. Said Nevada's Loux: "You can roll the dice a number of ways." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 10 New Orleans-Based Firm to Buy Fifth Nuclear Power Plant Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report David Smith , Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock Knight Ridder/Tribune ( August 18, 2001 ) Aug. 16--New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. agreed Wednesday to buy its fifth nuclear power plant in the Northeast in the past two years. Entergy will pay Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. $180 million for the Vermont Yankee facility in Vernon, Vt., the largest power generator in the state. It will be the 10th nuclear reactor Entergy owns, including two near Russellville. Entergy agreed to sell all of Vermont Yankee's power to the plant's owners through 2012, the year the facility's operating license expires, at a cost of $39 to $45 a megawatt hour. The plant is owned by 12 New England utilities, including Central Vermont Public Service Corp., which owns about 31 percent of the facility. The $180 million price includes $145 million for the plant and $35 million for nuclear fuel. Wayne Leonard, Entergy's chief executive officer, said in a prepared statement that Entergy should be able to realize certain operating efficiencies with the Vermont Yankee plant and the company's plants in Plymouth, Mass., and Oswego County, New York. All three use boiling water reactors designed by General Electric, so many parts, safety practices, group purchasing, technical skills and management can be shared. Entergy will keep the plant's 450 employees at their same salaries and comparable benefits. The purchase agreement was made after an auction conducted by J.P. Morgan Chase &Co. The purchase is a continuation of Entergy's strategy of purchasing nuclear facilities in the U.S. "We want to be one of the leading national operators of nuclear power plants," Carl Crawford, Energy's manager of nuclear communications, said Wednesday. "We have just about attained that goal. We feel that nuclear energy is one of the solutions to the energy problem. It does not emit air pollution or carbon dioxide global warming gases. It has a stable American fuel in uranium -- stable in price and plentiful. These plants are too valuable to shut down." This was the third time Entergy had bid on the plant, Crawford said. Entergy's bid wasn't accepted in 1999, but the winning offer was only $30 million, including $35 million in nuclear fuel. In essence, the company making the offer would have been paid $5 million to take over the plant in 1999. "That was at a time before the power shortages in California," Crawford said. That bidder couldn't close the deal and the facility was put up for sale again, Crawford said. Entergy bid again last year, but Vermont Yankee eventually decided to hold an auction for the plant. Crawford said Entergy expects the Vermont Yankee purchase to close in the second quarter next year. The plant supplies about 30 percent of the electrical power used by Vermont consumers. It has a capacity of 510 megawatts, enough power to supply about 510,000 homes. It is about one-third the size of the 1,652-megawatt Nuclear One reactor near Russellville. Entergy has spent almost $1.6 billion for four nuclear power plants in the Northeast since 1999. Before the Vermont Yankee agreement, its most recent purchase was Consolidated Edison's Indian Point 1 and 2 reactors in New York at a cost of $601 million. Entergy also owns the Grand Gulf nuclear facility in Port Gibson, Miss., Riverbend in Louisiana and the Waterford nuclear reactor near New Orleans. Crawford said Entergy also expects to be competitive in bidding for the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire later this year. Entergy is the largest electric service provider in Arkansas, serving approximately 643,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers. --Information for this article was contributed by Bloomberg News. To see more of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.ardemgaz.com (c) 2001, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune ***************************************************************** 11 LETTERS: Beltway gridlock [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Sunday, August 19, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Ensign couldn't vote because he was stuck in a D.C. traffic jam To the editor: Jane Ann Morrison's July 31 political notebook raised concerns about Sen. John Ensign's absence during a recent vote on nuclear waste. I want to set the record straight on John's behalf. Washington, D.C., traffic snarls prevailed over Sen. Ensign's attempts to return to the Senate to cast his vote. Many members of Congress have been helplessly stuck in gridlock while votes took place. Sen. Ensign was very supportive of my efforts as chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee to make sure the Energy and Water Appropriations Act protects the interests of the people of Nevada. The bill passed 97-2; John's supporting vote would not have changed the outcome. I have no doubt Sen. Ensign would rather have been on the Senate floor casting his vote, instead of sitting in his car, stuck in traffic. HARRY REID WASHINGTON, D.C. The writer, a Democrat, represents Nevada in the U.S. Senate. ***************************************************************** 12 Palo Verde Unit 3 Shuts Down, Expected to Return to Service by Late Next Week Friday August 17, 7:34 pm Eastern Time Press Release SOURCE: Arizona Public Service PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 17, 2001--Operators at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station this afternoon began shutting down Unit 3 because of a small water leak into the containment structure. In accordance with plant and regulatory procedures, operators are manually shutting down the 1,270-megawatt unit (APS share = 380 megawatts) to repair a small leak from a valve on the inside of the containment wall. The valve is at one end of the canal that is used to move fuel in and out of the containment structure. The water leaked into a well that collects containment water. The leak has no impact on the health and safety of the public. It is expected that the unit will return to service by late next week. Units 1 and 2 continue to operate at full power. In the meantime, APS has adequate supply to meet customer needs. ``Our reserves are sufficient to meet customer needs during this short outage,'' said Jim Levine, executive vice president of APS Generation. APS, which operates Palo Verde on behalf of the station's six other owners, is Arizona's largest and longest-serving electric utility and serves more than 857,000 customers in 11 of the state's 15 counties. APS, with headquarters in Phoenix, is the largest subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (NYSE: PNW- news). Contact: Arizona Public Service, Phoenix Jim McDonald, 602/250-3704 - office 602/321-3738 - cell Sheri Foote, 602/250-2363 - office 602/684-1332 - cell Website: www.aps.com More Quotes and News: Pinnacle West Capital Corp (NYSE:PNW - news) Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 13 States grapple with nuke train trek Las Vegas SUN August 17, 2001 By Benjamin Grove and Mary Manning Politicians and protesters who oppose a federal plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain conjure up frightening images of rumbling trucks and trains hauling thousands of tons of waste to Nevada. Now the Energy Department is offering a sneak preview of that future. The DOE is finalizing plans for one of the most complicated train shipments of high-level nuclear waste ever devised: a secret, cross-country trek from New York to Idaho before Oct. 31. Yucca critics say the shipment is an eerie glimpse of a future when up to 10 truck and train shipments a day would bring waste to Yucca. In fact, the waste bound for temporary storage in Idaho is slated for permanent burial in the Nevada desert. But DOE officials say the imminent shipment, while unusually large and traveling unusually far, was meticulously planned, will be extremely safe and will not foreshadow Yucca. "Emphatically, no," DOE spokesman John Chamberlain said. "This isn't a forerunner of spent-fuel shipments to the (Yucca) repository." The train, which for weeks has been ready to roll at the DOE's former waste-reprocessing center in West Valley, N.Y., is headed for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory for temporary storage. High-level waste shipments in America are common -- about 2,900 shipments have been made since 1964, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a leading trade group. Most shipments involve the Energy and Defense departments hauling waste from site to site, typically on short trips. But this shipment will travel roughly 2,300 miles on a route specially chosen by the DOE. The shipment involves four rail companies hauling about 47 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel rods from commercial -- not government -- nuclear reactors. The DOE began making plans for the complex shipment two years ago and budgeted $16 million for the job, Chamberlain said. "This is a fairly (unusual) move," Norfolk Southern railroad spokeswoman Susan Bland said. Nevada officials are interested in it because waste stored at the Idaho facility is destined for burial in underground tunnels at the proposed Yucca repository, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Yucca Mountain is the only site under study by the DOE as a potential national nuclear waste dump and is not expected to open until after 2010. If completed, 77,000 tons of waste would be shipped by train and truck to Nevada from the nation's 103 nuclear reactors and Energy and Defense department sites. If Yucca was to open, more than 11,000 train shipments of waste would pull into Nevada over three or four decades -- roughly one a day, according to one DOE-commissioned study. Nevada officials often emphasize the dangers of transporting nuclear waste as part of their strategy to drum up nationwide opposition to a Yucca repository. The DOE's extensive preparations for the New York-to-Idaho shipment give no solace to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., he said. "I'm glad that everyone is watching this shipment -- but what about all the ones they're not watching?" Reid said. "We're talking about moving more than 70,000 tons of nuclear waste to Nevada. To think that they will all be like this one is a joke." But moving high-level waste is always carefully planned, DOE and nuclear-industry officials say. Nevada leaders use unfair scare tactics, Nuclear Energy Institute officials say. If regular shipments are made to Yucca Mountain, planning and shipping waste would become a far more efficient operation, Chamberlain said. "Some of this has been breaking new ground," he said. Shipment history The waste has been sitting for years at the DOE's West Valley reprocessing plant, which operated from 1966 to 1972 when the government "recycled" waste from nuclear reactors. West Valley, about 40 miles south of Buffalo, N.Y., was the only private plant in the United States to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The plant closed for renovation in 1972, but never reopened. President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s halted reprocessing spent nuclear fuel because of security risks. As part of waste reprocessing, workers chemically separated and recovered plutonium, which Carter said could fall into the wrong hands. The government started cleaning up West Valley in 1982 and should complete the project soon. The waste is being shipped to Idaho, where it could be kept in dry-storage casks for 30 years -- at least until a permanent repository opens. Reasons for moving the spent fuel before November are weather-related -- the DOE wants to avoid blizzards or tornados, Chamberlain said. The shipment consists of 125 bundles or "assemblies" of 7- and 14-foot-long radioactive rods, filled mostly with solid uranium pellets once used as fuel inside nuclear reactors. The assemblies were inserted into two 77-ton, dumbbell-shaped casks, each with 9-inch steel walls, Idaho facility spokesman Tim Jackson said. The casks, both roughly 20-by-11 feet, with 85 assemblies in one and 40 in the other, have been secured on two rail cars, he said. Satellite tracking DOE officials will use TRANSCOM, a satellite positioning system, to track the shipment, Jackson said. A three-member DOE team, including a TRANSCOM operator, a veteran radiological technician to monitor for radiation release and an emergency-response expert, will accompany the shipment, Chamberlain said. The train will travel through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming on its way to Idaho. It will take nearly five days, with about 10 to 12 stops, including three to hand the train over to another crew. The train's eight cars will not change on the trip: two locomotives, including a spare; two flatbed waste cars; a passenger car; and three cars filled with crushed stone to act as "spacers," Chamberlain said. The rail companies are required to put a security officer or railroad policeman, who may be armed, on the train, Chamberlain said. Other details about security are not being released, he said. The DOE has notified emergency-response crews in each state on the route and will notify a governor-designated point person in each state seven days before the shipment. Special requirements for the rail companies complicated contract negotiations. For instance, the DOE insisted its crew be on board and required that it -- not the rail companies -- choose the route. The rail companies -- Buffalo &Pittsburgh, CSXT, Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific -- were concerned about protesters damaging or blockading freight lines, Chamberlain said. CSXT last week was the last to sign the contract, he said. The DOE notified the FBI so that it could be on alert in case protesters threaten the shipment, Chamberlain said. "All of these special requirements make it a real challenge for (the rail companies) to integrate this into their traffic flow," Chamberlain said. Alert activists Anti-nuclear activists are getting ready. The Washington-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service is holding next week in Chicago an international "action camp," where up to 300 activists will discuss possible protests along the route, organizer Kevin Kamps said. A blockade of some kind "will definitely be discussed at the action camp," Kamps said. But he said it wasn't likely that demonstrators would interfere with the shipment beyond peaceful protests along the route. Washington-based Public Citizen, a watchdog group, is in touch with groups along the route, spokeswoman Lisa Gue said. Because the shipping date is secret, it is difficult to plan a specific protest, she said. "There is concern," Gue said. "Imagine this times 100,000, which is the number of shipments being proposed for Yucca Mountain." Tri-Valley Care, a citizens group in northern California, has signed a national letter protesting the shipment even though the train will not enter the state, spokeswoman Marilia Kelly said. "The DOE and the nuclear industry are playing a shell game, putting nuclear waste on the road, rather than involving the community in a technical, scientific discussion of disposal alternatives," she said. Activists in Indiana, which has no nuclear plants, resent the waste traveling through their state, but don't plan to blockade the shipment, said Chris Williams, executive director of Citizens Action Coalition. But they'll be watching the DOE closely, he said. "They want to make sure this goes off without a hitch, given all the attention and concern people have shown around the country," Williams said. "They really want this to go right." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Seabrook Station to be auctioned August 18, 2001 By DAN TUOHY N.H. Statehouse Writer The state is preparing to auction off Seabrook Station. However, it's likely a sale won't occur for at least a year because of required state and federal approvals. One officials Seabrook may fetch as much as $800 million. (Craig Osborne/Staff photographer) CONCORD — For sale: nuclear plant, good as new. As Seabrook Station comes to the auction block, state and utility industry leaders see a seller’s market for several factors. President Bush’s embrace of nuclear power, greater operating efficiency, and this year’s energy crunch make the 1,150 megawatt plant on the shore of Hampton Harbor a hot buy. The state is about to pick an asset specialist to conduct the sale, and the Public Utilities Commission just received 10 proposals from firms interested in managing the process. A sale won’t occur for at least another year because of bidding steps and required state and federal approvals. Per state deregulation law, Public Service of New Hampshire must sell its share in the plant. If other transactions are any bearing, the plant could fetch a high price. Millstone, a nuclear plant in Connecticut, recently sold for $1.3 billion. The higher the sale price the more benefit to New Hampshire consumers, said Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, an architect of the state’s plan to restructure the electric industry. Northeast Utilities, the parent of PSNH, owns 40 percent of the nuclear plant. Of that share, PSNH has 36 percent and fellow subsidiary Connecticut Light and Power has 4 percent. PSNH had owed about $600 million for its investment in the plant, but that was paid down to $100 million through a refinancing plan. If the company gets anything above $100 million for its share, it will go toward lowering what its customers otherwise pay. Through the deregulation agreement, customers pay for stranded cost investments over the next decade. Those investments are upgrades and expenses that the company made into its system that would be lost, or "stranded," in a restructured market. In a hypothetical sale of the entire plant, if Seabrook Station sells for $1 billion, the company’s share would be $360 million. That would pay off PSNH’s $100 million investment and consumers would see the benefits of the $260 million difference. However, that is a big hypothetical, since the nuclear plant likely won’t sell for $1 billion. The Millstone plant, two units, sold for $1.3 billion, but the Connecticut facility is much larger than Seabrook Station. Earlier this year, Bradley said Seabrook could fetch $700 million to $800 million, and $200 million or $250 million for PSNH’s share of the nuclear plant. Bradley thinks Seabrook will garner a good sale price because of supply and demand, the cost of electricity across the country, and the potential for more federal controls on coal-burning power plants. "With California, people are taking a second look at nuclear. There are still some risks. There’s disposal, risk, and reliability," Bradley said. He said other areas of the country are more receptive to nuclear power and that it’s probably a stretch that people would embrace a new plant in New Hampshire or the construction of Seabrook’s Unit 2, which was scrapped in the 1980s. Another plus for nuclear power, as cited by the Nuclear Energy Institute, is the development of new designs and better technology to enhance safety and increase efficiency. Under deregulation, consumers can choose their power supplier. The settlement ratified last year provided an average 16 percent cut in electric rates for PSNH’s 430,000 customers. PSNH will become a transmission and delivery company, distributing energy from generators and independent sellers. The company is also selling its fossil-fuel plants, such as Newington Station. Martin Murray, a spokesman for PSNH, said the deregulation law directs the PUC to expeditiously initiate and complete the sale of Seabrook Station to take advantage of the market. "We’re in a period of time when well-operated power plants are fetching a very good price," he said. PUC Executive Director Thomas Getz said the state is approaching its first significant step in administering the sale of the plant. He said one of the 10 firms interested in conducting the sale will be selected by the end of August. PSNH recommended that J.P. Morgan, an investment banking firm, be chosen for the job. J.P. Morgan handled the record sale of the Millstone plant in Connecticut. In its divestiture plan, PSNH summarized the hot market: "The Millstone transaction, and other recent transactions, clearly demonstrate that now is an ideal time to achieve maximum proceeds from a divestiture of a large nuclear plant of recent vintage in the Northeast." Bradley said that a trend is for larger companies to own more than one nuclear power plant — or even a fleet of plants, to reduce costs and maximize efficiencies. Based on recent transactions and trends, potential bidders could be Dominion Resources, Entergy, Exelon, Duke Energy, or AmerGen. PSNH expects three to six bidders. The PUC, with the asset sale specialist, will pick the winning bidder. Companies responding with proposals to manage the sale are J.P. Morgan, APB Energy, Arthur Andersen, Fieldstone, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch with HGP, Morgan Stanley with Stone & Webster, Navigant Consulting, Salomon Smith Barney, and UBS Warburg with Pierce Atwood and Energy Advisors. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission awarded Seabrook Station its operating license in 1990 after two decades of controversy. The project was announced in 1972, but protests, labor strikes, financial difficulties, and litigation delayed construction. It was finally completed in 1986. These days the nuclear plant provides electricity to 1 million homes in New England. The operator still celebrates its milestone in 1997 — the conclusion of a 463-day run of generating electricity, the longest continuous run ever by a New England nuclear plant. The plant is powered by a 1,150 megawatt Westinghouse Electric Corp. pressurized-water nuclear reactor. Its operating license is good until 2026. The plant has 11 owners and is operated by North Atlantic Energy Service Corp., a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities. As part of the sale, the NRC will conduct a review of the facility and the winning bidder, or bidders, to ensure that the facility will continue to be run to its full potential, said Diane Screnci, a public information officer for the NRC. The review usually takes six months. It covers whether the plant will continue to be run safely and whether owners can assure funds for decommissioning. NRC regulations prohibit foreign ownership or control of nuclear plants. The federal agency approved the first complete sale of a nuclear plant, from one entity to another, just three years ago. "Over the past several years there have been several," Screnci said. With the advent of deregulation nationwide, the commission has reviewed more than 60 license transfer requests in the past five years. Nuclear popularity contest According to the NRC, of 131 nuclear plants built in America, 28 have closed and in addition 65 were canceled before construction. Last year, the commission granted its first license extension to a nuclear plant in Maryland, signaling to the energy industry that nuclear generation is here to stay. The commission has approved renewal applications for six reactors, is processing license renewals requests for 12 additional reactors at six sites, and owners of 28 other reactors have expressed their intent to file for license renewal over the next six years, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. The institute promotes nuclear energy. While advocates say nuclear power is cleaner than fossil-fuel generators, their push for nuclear power is now reinforced by greater operating efficiency rates. Nuclear plants now operate at about 80 percent efficiency, the NRC reports. It is efficient, reliable, and clean, said Melanie White, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, on the popularity of nuclear power. "We’ve sort of had a resurgence in the past year," she said. "We have no emissions. No CO2 going into the air." The nuclear power industry provides 20 percent of electricity needs in America, and plants operate at an 89 percent capacity factor, White said. The first nuclear plant sale was in 1998. Since then, 13 plants have been sold. The fleets of nuclear plants, as described by Bradley, are notable. Entergy owns 14 nuclear plants. Exelon controls 21 plants. Nuclear plant owners have also increased donations to political candidates in recent years. The nuclear power industry gave more than $13.8 million to federal candidates and political committees in 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Two-thirds of that money went to Republicans. A CRP rundown of some donations in the 2000 election cycle: In the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., received the fourth most money from the nuclear power industry. He was given $72,500. Smith was chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Now he is the ranking Republican on the committee. President Bush got $290,209 for his presidential campaign. Southern Company, which operates three nuclear plants in the South, gave more than $1.4 million, mostly to Republicans. Dominion Resources, an owner of nuclear plants in Connecticut and Virginia, gave more than $1.1 million. Exelon, which owns the largest fleet of nuclear plants in the country, gave more than $850,000. Action on Capitol Hill shows the national embrace of nuclear power. Congress is working on legislation to encourage more production of nuclear energy and new plants, fund research and development of new technology, and promote the field of nuclear science for students. There are no applicants for a new operating license, or for early site permitting or design certification, but the NRC is conducting preapplication reviews for Westinghouse regarding their AP1000 reactor design and for Exelon for a new pebble bed modular reactor design. The last nuclear plant licensed? Seabrook Station. (Not) In my back yard There’s no mistaking the skyline over Hampton and Seabrook Harbor. Looking west from Route 1A, the dome of the nuclear reactor commands the view. When construction of Seabrook Station began almost 30 years ago, thousands of people protested nuclear power out of concern for irreversible environmental damage. The protests have subsided, but the protesters still live in the area, offering warnings about the risks of nuclear power. A key and as yet unresolved issue is how to safely dispose of nuclear waste, they say. Yet, far from those notorious protests in the 1970s, many area residents have accepted the nuclear plant in their back yard. Some are only resigned to the fact that it is there, as they look forward to its decommissioning. One reason for any apathy is pocketbook politics. "I don’t think people really care. They want cheaper energy," said Sen. Burt Cohen, D-New Castle, who was arrested in the 1970s for protesting the plant. Cohen thinks most people in the Seacoast have buried their concerns about the nuclear plant because it has operated without incident. However, if there is ever an accident at the plant, there is no real evacuation route, he said. There is still no way to dispose of nuclear waste, so it is not economical in the long run, he said. Cohen said the country needs to focus more on renewable energy. White, at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said nuclear waste is properly stored and handled to ensure that there are no threats to the public or the environment. (Congress is still considering an underground storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.) "The way we see it, nuclear waste is the best managed in the world," she said. "People get more radiation flying across the country." But such comments reflect the industry’s neglect of solving disposal issues, according to Gary Gilmore, a critic of the Seabrook facility. Gilmore, a Democratic state representative from Dover, said that any hot sale of Seabrook Station will benefit PSNH more than consumers. He echoes concerns cited by the Campaign for Ratepayers Rights that deregulation is soaking consumers for the utility’s outstanding debt and mismanagement. (The Campaign for Ratepayers Rights sued to block deregulation, arguing that forcing consumers to pay for stranded cost investments was an "unconstitutional taking of property." The group’s petition was rejected by both the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The state court found that benefits to consumers in the form of rate reductions outweighed any ‘taking of property.’) Gilmore said the idea that nuclear power is growing in popularity is the product of industry marketing and a president beholden to the energy industry. "When someone goes forward and gets private financing, then we’ll see if its popular," he said. A fear factor in play continues to be the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl meltdown. State Rep. Ben Moore, R-Seabrook, doesn’t believe a meltdown is possible at Seabrook because of effective controls in place. He lives a half mile from the plant. Most people don’t know or care that the plant is there, and most won’t know it will soon have new owners, he said. Moore, 72, anticipates a smooth transition based on the plant’s past performance and the oversight of the state. "It’s one of the safest plants in the country. Their safety record is excellent," he said. The operating record is one reason for public confidence in nuclear power, he said. He recalled a protester coming to his door years ago. "This guy knocked on my door and said, "I’m here to save you.’ I said, ‘I can save myself, get off my step.’" On the Net: www.psnh.com– Public Service of New Hampshire. www.state.nh.us– The state of New Hampshire’s Web site, which includes a link to the PUC. www.nrc.gov– Nuclear Regulatory Commission. © 2001 Geo. J. Foster Co. ***************************************************************** 15 In unison governors call for energy conservation - 8/17/2001 - ENN.com Friday, August 17, 2001 By Environmental News Network [Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack chairs the NGA Natural Resources Committee.] Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack chairs the NGA Natural Resources Committee. The governors of the 50 states, 3 territories, and 2 commonwealths have adopted a comprehensive national energy policy emphasizing conservation. At the closing session of the 93rd Annual Meeting of the National Governors Association last week in Providence, R.I., the governors sent a message to the White House that state and local authorities must have input into the nation's energy plans. "The policy sends a clear message that solving our nation's energy problems demand more conservation, especially utilizing renewable fuels like ethanol," said Iowa Gov. Thomas Vilsack, chairman of the association's Committee on Natural Resources. Ensuring "environmental quality" comes second in the list of 10 principles embodied in the governors' energy plan. Number one is "adequate, affordable energy supplies and services." "Our goal should always be to assure American families and businesses their energy prices will be stable," Vilsack said. The new policy is in direct response to the Bush administration's National Energy Policy issued in May, which emphasizes fossil fuel and nuclear power development and consumption, although some conservation and renewables-friendly measures are included. The governors' policy recognizes that periodic shortages in oil, gas, and electricity can cause hardship for consumers and businesses. Also, these energy and environmental challenges facing the United States could harm the economy and reduce national security. "The United States' dependence on foreign sources of oil is at an all-time high while demand for energy continues to rise," said Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, vice chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and past Chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. In a bid to secure seats for the governors at the the national energy strategy table, Keating said, "Energy issues must be addressed nationally, but state and local authority over energy and environmental matters also needs to be maintained. It would be a mistake to develop a national energy policy without full cooperation and partnership with the states and their governors." In his speech accepting the NGA chairmanship for the next year, Michigan Gov. John Engler pledged to make the association "a unified voice for bold action that will return power and authority to the states and local government." Although energy efficiency is projected to continue to improve, both the governors' policy and that of the Bush administration recognize that demand for energy continues to grow. "Even with more conservation, innovation, and new technology," the governors' resolution states, "the United States will need more energy supplies." "We must expand and upgrade the transmission networks to move energy from the source to the consumer," said North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven. "Improving energy transmission will impact conservation, efficiency, and supply." Hoeven urged the Environmental Protection Agency to provide flexibility in meeting standards and requirements to encourage use of "innovative strategies in providing energy solutions." The National Governors Association, founded in 1908, is the body through which the nation's governors collectively influence the development and implementation of national policy and confer on direction of state issues. Copyright 2001, Environmental News Network ***************************************************************** 16 Back to a Future of Atomic Energy / Why not nuclear? / We need it Alan Ross Sunday, August 19, 2001 In the search for solutions to California's energy woes, nuclear power is back on the table -- and so is the debate over whether it's good or bad. Alan Ross, a nuclear industry consultant, and Rochelle Beckner, president of the board of directors of TURN, give their views. Just outside Sacramento each morning, representatives of the Independent System Operator attempt to divine how much electric power will be needed that day. Then they embark on an often frantic (and sometimes unsuccessful) search to find t Less than 30 miles to the south sits a facility capable of generating 930 megawatts -- enough electricity to power almost 100,000 households across the state. In Oregon, a similar facility that as recently as 1992 was capable of generating over 1,000 megawatts sits virtually dismantled. In Satsop, Wash., a partially completed facility that would have been capable of generating 2,600 megawatts sits abandoned. Had these and similar facilities remained in service or been completed, there would be no such thing today as an electricity shortage in the West. But these facilities are nuclear-fueled power plants that were either "retired" before the end of their useful lives or were never completed due to environmental opposition and the related increase in costs. Why has the United States missed out on the promise of nuclear power, while other industrialized countries, such as France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Taiwan have taken advantage of this nonpolluting power generation option? Rapidly escalating costs is the most common reason cited. Often not mentioned is that a significant portion of that cost escalation was due to the lengthy opposition to these facilities mounted by the same organizations that now cite the high costs. In the United States, the potential for delay and associated increased costs is exacerbated by a "two-step" licensing process that plays into the hands of nuclear opponents. In great part, it is the increased costs associated with these delays, not increases in the cost of the concrete, steel and cabling, that adversely affected nuclear power's competitiveness. Opponents also cite the dangers of accidents at nuclear power plants, the nuclear waste "problem," and a general fear of radioactivity and technology as other reasons nuclear plants should not be built. These arguments are specious. Despite the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the safety record of nuclear power plants in the United States is exemplary. This is due to the redundancy designed into the plants, the quality assurance programs employed in their construction and operation, the overall maturing of the industry, and to the lessons learned from Three Mile Island. The bottom line is that no member of the public has ever been killed or injured as a result of a release of radioactivity from a U.S. nuclear plant. Technical solutions to the perceived "waste problem" exist. However, the nation has not demonstrated a willingness to take the politically contentious steps necessary to implement a solution. If high-level radioactive waste storage is addressed as a national problem, it may be possible to assuage local opposition and establish a national nuclear waste repository. Fear of radioactivity and complex technologies in general will never be totally overcome. However, society has learned to live with risk in everything, from getting in an airplane to climbing out of the bathtub. We accept these risks and choose to live with them if the associated benefits are sufficient. Given the potential adverse economic impact and societal upheaval, especially in California, resulting from a lack of a reliable electricity supply, the potential benefits of nuclear power are great. The positives of nuclear power must also be accorded the same attention that is often focused on the perceived negatives. Nuclear power plants do not contribute to the environmental pollution that leads to the greenhouse effect. Nuclear power plants are capable of producing cost-competitive electricity regardless of weather conditions or other variables associated with other technologies. Finally, nuclear facilities lessen our reliance on a single fuel -- such as the current panacea, natural gas -- that is often subject to wide price swings and may need to be imported from areas of the world where constant unrest and strife are a way of life. For too long, the operative political philosophy has precluded building power plants of any kind in California while the demand for power has increased dramatically. If we are to continue to enjoy the good things in life, it is time for our approach to become more balanced. The only question is whether we and our elected leaders have the foresight and fortitude to overcome misperceptions and unwarranted emotional prejudices and move forward. Alan Ross has been a consultant to the nuclear industry since the 1960s. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle   Page D - 8 ***************************************************************** 17 Letters - Don't Even Think About Nukes for Power Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report The Providence Journal ( August 17, 2001 ) The Journal is right to point to power plants as a key source of toxic emissions of mercury (The mercury menace, editorial, July 28). The Brayton Point power plant in Somerset emits over 200 pounds of mercury into the air every year over 200 pounds of a substance so toxic that a teaspoon can poison an entire lake full of fish! The editorial errs, however, in suggesting that a reconsideration of uneconomic and environmentally and socially suicidal nuclear power is in order. In a few years, the backbone of New England's power supply will be the fleet of modern natural-gas power plants that have recently come on line or are in construction or permitting. The failed economics of nuclear power can be seen in France, a nation highly dependent on nuclear power and consequently living with electricity rates roughly double what we pay in the United States. It is bad enough that their (and our) descendants will have to live with the lethal waste from the expensive and heavily subsidized nuclear plants built already. We should not add to this burden. New England is on a course to slash not only mercury emissions, but also greenhouse gases and the nitrogen oxides behind much summertime smog by developing a diverse power-plant fleet centered around natural gas plants, promoting energy conservation and developing long-term solutions like renewable energy. We are leading the nation in the right direction, and the last thing we should do is make an about-face and revisit old pipe dreams about costly and dangerous nuclear power. SETH KAPLAN Boston The writer is director of Rhode Island Advocacy for the Conservation Law Foundation. Editor's note: The editorial merely said nuclear power "might" be reconsidered. (C) 2001 The Providence Journal. via ProQuest Information and ***************************************************************** 18 Scientists see way to make nuclear waste safe © 2001 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd 20 August 2001 05:42 GMT+1 Severin Carrell 19 August 2001 Physicists believe they are close to the Holy Grail for the world's nuclear industry, a solution to the critical problems posed by its growing stockpile of nuclear waste. In what seems like an unlikely act of modern alchemy, an elite group of nuclear physicists believe they can "transmute" highly radioactive nuclear waste into lower grade radioactive waste. The technique involves firing high-energy beams of protons in particle accelerators at nuclear waste or spent fuel, releasing the remaining energy as heat. The process should result in waste of much lower radioactivity, with a half-life of several hundred years rather than tens of thousands of years. It also eliminates weapons-grade plutonium in the fuel. Research into the technique, which is still at least 10 years from being fully tested, is being led by American scientists at the Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge laboratories, by the Japanese and by a Franco-Italian team. The technique has also been backed by the Organisation of Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). Its global science forum in December said it was "a promising technology whose potential benefits deserve the attention of policymakers in all countries" with nuclear programmes. And, for the first time, the British Government has indicated that it wants to support the research. In a "strategic road-map" document on physics research written by the DTI's Office of Science and Technology this summer, ministers have been urged to fund the construction of larger and more powerful particle accelerators at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, and to back more European research. Building the more powerful accelerator at RAL, the report states, "would give strong synergistic support to UK needs in particle physics, potential interest in waste transmutation, isotope production and radioactive beam developments". But ministers could also invest heavily in a nuclear accelerator based at Grenoble, France, to maintain a foothold in the field. Other similar projects are being worked on in Germany and Austria. In a clear attempt to pressurise ministers, the report warns that failure to invest in advanced particle physics technology will mean "current European dominance in the field will be significantly challenged" by the US and Japan by 2015. The technique is still unproven. With research and development costs of tens of billions of dollars, the OECD believes it could take until 2050 to establish on a commercial basis. Scientists admit there are still formidable technical problems to be solved. The particle accelerators need to be of much greater power than at present, and to be able to work uninterrupted for long periods. Finally, coping with the vast heat and molten nuclear waste involved will challenge engineers. But Dr Ian Corbett, head of programmes at the UK's Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, said the technique had immense potential: "The problem of waste from nuclear energy is well-known. The transmutation process offers very good prospects of dealing with this problem in an environmentally safe way. "It has the potential to transform the future of nuclear power generation." ***************************************************************** 19 Siemens Won't Sell Nuclear Plant to Russians F.A.Z. - English Version20. Aug. 2001 Aug. 20, 2001 F.A.Z. HANAU. Siemens says it will no longer maintain its plutonium processing plant ready for export to Russia, thus ending a project aimed at providing Russia with Siemens' Mox technology to reprocess its weapons-grade plutonium for civilian use. After last month's G-8 summit meeting in Genoa again failed to produce a breakthrough on the financial aspects of the project, Siemens felt no further obligation to maintain the facility, the director of its reconstruction division, Helmut Rupar, said in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. The Munich-based engineering and technology giant spent DM1 billion ($470 million) to build the never-used Mox plant in the Hesse city of Hanau, which became superfluous when Siemens stopped producing fuel rods here in 1995. Since then, Siemens has been offering it to Russia and the United States for converting weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel rods for use in nuclear power plants. Siemens never wanted to make money with the plant but tried to keep open the possibility for the German government to contribute to "a political project," Mr. Rupar said, adding that the company had spent about DM2 million annually -- DM10 million to date -- on maintaining the plant. He said the cost of building a Mox facility in Russia using equipment from the Hanau plant would cost about DM2 billion, but up to now the United States and France made commitments totaling only DM500 million. Siemens is now looking to sell off individual parts of the plant and is to begin scrapping the unnecessary operational components as soon as possible, Mr. Rupar said. Dismantling the facility will take about six months, he explained, adding that Siemens wanted the buildings that currently house the reprocessing equipment gutted and ready for some other use by no later than October of next year. After repeatedly warning the G-8 participants that Siemens could not keep the facility open forever, he said, the company concluded that the German government did not back the plan to export it to Russia. Aug. 19, 2001 © Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2001 ***************************************************************** 20 Trittin Rejects Waste Proposals F.A.Z. - English Version20. Aug. 2001 Aug. 20, 2001 F.A.Z. HANNOVER. German Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin has rejected proposals to permanently dispose of German nuclear waste at sites outside of Germany. In an interview with the daily Hannover Presse published on Friday, Mr. Trittin called such suggestions "unrealistic," adding that there was a consensus that permanent disposal of the highly toxic material was a "national responsibility" and likely to remain so. The issue of nuclear waste disposal has been highly controversial in Germany. Two months ago, the government and top energy company officials agreed to gradually shut down the country's 19 nuclear power plants, with the last one closing by 2021. But their deal failed to clarify where the nuclear waste would be stored. Russia's offer last year to serve as a storage site for the world's spent nuclear fuel was unacceptable, according to Mr. Trittin, who added that it would only be possible to store waste there for a limited time. Currently, Germany has its spent nuclear fuel reprocessed in Britain and France, but is obliged to take back the resulting waste. Germany has yet to build a permanent disposal site, and is instead relying on three main temporary sites in Gorleben, Ahaus and Greifswald. But although there would be considerable opposition to making Gorleben a permanent storage site, as has been proposed, Mr. Trittin said that "sooner or later, we have to take back our waste." Aug. 17, 2001 © Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 2000 ***************************************************************** 21 South Carolina governor vows to block plutonium from state Published Saturday, August 18, 2001, in the Akron Beacon Journal. Controversy highlights problems in getting rid of radioactive material BY JUDITH GRAHAM Chicago Tribune DENVER: In a stand that could threaten plans to clean up several nuclear sites across the nation, an angry Southern governor has vowed to block shipments of weapons-grade plutonium into his state. South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges says the U.S. Department of Energy has reneged on promises made when his state agreed to process the plutonium into safer forms. In particular, he contends the department has not adequately funded facilities to handle the radioactive material in South Carolina, nor has it found a permanent storage site elsewhere for the waste. Now the governor fears that if his state accepts the plutonium shipments that are scheduled to start from a nuclear complex in Colorado this fall, the waste will remain in South Carolina indefinitely, a toxic threat to residents. ``I'm willing to stand in front of the trucks if I have to,'' the Democrat said. The controversy is the latest example of the nation's problem in the disposal of radioactive material: Years after the Cold War, tons of plutonium and uranium await safe, permanent disposal. But no state wants to become a nuclear dumping ground. Hodges' threat does not appear hollow. Last week, he ordered state officials to begin planning road blocks to prevent plutonium shipments from arriving at the Savannah River Site, a 310-square-mile nuclear complex near Aiken. Hodges' opposition threatens one of the Energy Department's showcase projects, the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, a complex 15 miles northwest of downtown Denver that made triggers for nuclear bombs. Getting plutonium off the premises as soon as possible is a key component of plans to shut the site by 2006. Rocky Flats is scheduled to become the Energy Department's first major nuclear complex to be shuttered, saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The Energy Department is committed to the Rocky Flats cleanup, and it plans to ship plutonium as soon as it is ready for transport, probably in October, said Joe Davis, a department spokesman. The shipments to South Carolina are part of an Energy Department plan to consolidate dangerous materials from nuclear sites throughout the country at a few locations, where they can be processed and protected more efficiently. The nation's surplus plutonium is scheduled to go to South Carolina; highly enriched uranium is earmarked for the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons complex in Tennessee. Cleanup plans at many nuclear sites, from the Hanford facility in eastern Washington to the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, depend on the shipments. South Carolina agreed to become the national processing center after the federal government promised to build several facilities at Savannah River -- one to turn high-grade plutonium into fuel for nuclear reactors, and another to encase lowergrade plutonium in highly radioactive glass logs that would go into permanent storage, either at Yucca Mountain in Nevada or another location. Hodges questions the Bush administration's commitment to fulfill those promises. ***************************************************************** 22 Russians Warn of Nuclear Waste Las Vegas SUN August 17, 2001 MOSCOW (AP) - Liquid radioactive waste accumulated during the half-century of the Russian nuclear weapons program could drain into the Ural Mountains region's rivers with disastrous environmental consequences, a regional governor warned. Artificial lakes containing more than 14 billion cubic feet of waste from the Mayak nuclear processing plant are filled to capacity and within a few years may leak into the region's rivers, Gov. Pyotr Sumin of the Chelyabinsk region in the Ural Mountains wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. "The Techa cascade of lakes is a major potential source of radiation disasters and catastrophes," Sumin said in the letter, a copy of which was sent by environmentalists to The Associated Press on Friday. "There is a danger that the dam will burst, causing catastrophic consequences for the rivers Iset, Tobol and Ob." Mayak, a major nuclear weapons plant during Soviet times, has been the site of several accidents, including a 1957 waste facility explosion that contaminated 9,200 square miles. The region has been called the most radioactive place on the planet due to accidents and Soviet-era nuclear waste dumping into lakes and rivers. The vice governor of the Chelyabinsk region, Gennady Podtyosov, said in a telephone interview Friday that the water level in the lakes is just 12 inches below the limit. If action is not taken, contaminated water could burst the dam within three to four years, he said. "It would be a major catastrophe," Podtyosov said. "Waste would pollute rivers and flow into the Arctic Ocean." Besides nuclear weapons programs, Mayak is also expected to house and process nuclear waste imported from abroad under a recently passed law. President Vladimir Putin signed the law last month despite protests by liberals and environmentalists, who insist it will turn the country into the world's nuclear dump. Proponents say it will create jobs and bring in money to state coffers. Podtyosov said processing waste would require dumping more radioactive water into the overfilled lakes. In his letter, Sumin urged the government to earmark funds to avert the threat of massive radioactive leaks. Podtyosov said the problem could be solved by expanding the lakes, installing filters that would clean the contaminated water before letting it flow into rivers or by completing a partially built nuclear power plant that could use some of the water and lower the lakes' level. Local officials believe the construction of the nuclear power plant, which was suspended in 1992, would be the most feasible way to deal with the problem. Besides dealing with the waste, the plant would also help solve the region's energy shortage, Podtyosov said. He said Kasyanov had ordered the Nuclear Power Ministry to analyze the problem together with regional officials. Russian environmentalists assailed the idea of building a nuclear power plant, saying it would exacerbate the region's problems. "Sumin proposes to avert the disaster by building another potentially catastrophic facility," said Vladimir Slivyak of the Echo Protection group. "Nothing can be more absurd." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 GAO Criticizes Cheney's Silence Las Vegas SUN August 17, 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) - Triggering a showdown with President Bush, the investigative arm of Congress on Friday criticized Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to disclose the role of corporate executives and lobbyists in shaping the administration's energy plan. "The vice president's representatives have shown no interest in reaching any accommodation" by identifying the people Cheney and his aides consulted with, Comptroller General David Walker wrote in a 10-page letter to Congress. "We strongly disagree with the vice president's positions." The General Accounting Office's report to the House Speaker now puts the issue on the president's desk. Within 20 days, Bush must turn over the information, take no action or declare that releasing the data would substantially impair the operations of government. If Bush takes no action, the GAO can sue in federal court. "The Bush administration is demonstrating an unhealthy instinct for secrecy," said Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, who has been seeking the information since April. "I hope the president will do the right thing and release this." The battle over Cheney's energy task force may be headed for the Democrat-controlled Senate, which could ultimately subpoena the information. "It is likely we would have to refer the matter to the Senate if the president certifies that releasing the names of CEOs and lobbyists would substantially impair the operations of government," said Phil Schilero, minority staff director of the House Government Reform Committee. There was no immediate comment from the White House. Cheney's lawyers say the GAO is unconstitutionally interfering with the executive branch. The GAO has forced such a showdown with the executive branch only four times in the past 21 years. Cheney was involved in one of those battles, in 1990 when he was secretary of defense. "We are scaling back the records we are requesting to exclude" minutes and notes of meetings, wrote Walker, who heads the GAO. "The information we are seeking is factual and non-deliberative in nature." Environmental groups have complained that the Bush White House shut them out of the information-gathering process on the energy plan. Announced in May, the administration's plan would expand oil and gas drilling on public land and rejuvenate nuclear power. On the Net: General Accounting Office: http://www.gao.gov/ All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 24 DOE postpones shipments, seeks talks to ease dispute The Associated Press COLUMBIA -- The U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to delay shipments of plutonium to South Carolina, but officials say it is because of problems with packaging the material and not because of Gov. Jim Hodges' plan to block the waste at the state line. ''We're trying to work out the issues and concerns with the governor,'' DOE spokesman Joe Davis said Thursday. ''But, basically, when our shipments are ready, we're going to send them.'' South Carolina's top lawyer, however, said Thursday he is preparing to sue the federal government next week to block permanent shipments. ''South Carolina is tired of being the place where the federal government always looks to store hazardous material,'' Attorney General Charlie Condon said. ''The federal authorities must keep their promise made to South Carolinians that they will not dump on us.'' Condon's remarks came days after Hodges threatened to lay down in the highway to block shipments of plutonium that now are scheduled to arrive in October. Hodges has set an Aug. 29 date for the state Department of Public Safety, which includes Highway Patrol troopers, to practice roadblocks and other procedures to keep the highly radioactive material out of the Savannah River Site near Aiken. SRS had an agreement with the Clinton administration to temporarily store surplus plutonium. A $1 billion plant planned for SRS would take the material and process it to be used in commercial nuclear reactors. Any plutonium unfit for that mixed-oxide fuel process would be converted into glass logs and shipped to Yucca Mountain, Nev., for permanent storage. But Hodges and other South Carolina officials now think the Bush administration wants to permanently store the radioactive material at SRS after cutting at least $159 million from the U.S. Department of Energy's budget. Nevada's Sen. Harry Reid, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. Senate, also has raised opposition to opening the Yucca Mountains to the waste. ''The deal was simple. In September of last year, we signed an agreement to take weapons-grade plutonium (at SRS) from reducing our nuclear arsenal,'' said U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., whose district includes SRS. However, ''the governor's concern and my concern is they are rethinking the program,'' Graham said. ''We're not set up to be a permanent storage site.'' DOE's Davis denied that SRS will be a permanent solution. ''It will not stay in the state,'' Davis said. ''We have no plans to keep it there.'' Davis said the agency is attempting to negotiate with the state and hopes ''we can resolve the concerns before any roadblocks or legal actions on behalf of the state are necessary.'' Davis said the department had planned to send a shipment in April to SRS, but that plan was pushed back to October because of delays in the packaging procedure. Hodges said he will pursue two lines of defense: meeting next week with President Bush's administration while continuing preparations to block possible shipments to SRS. Condon and Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler -- both vying for the Republican gubernatorial nomination next year -- say they agree with the Democratic governor that the state should fight the shipments, but they said the threat of roadblocks is illegal and does nothing to resolve the situation. Hodges, meanwhile, disagreed with Condon that a lawsuit was the appropriate step to stop the shipments. ''Plutonium is too dangerous to leave to a legal roll of the dice,'' Hodges said. ''We must be prepared to take the strongest means possible to ensure the health and safety of South Carolina.'' Condon said he expects next week to file the lawsuit that also asks the Energy Department to detail the environmental effect plutonium would have if it was stored long-term in South Carolina. ''It is high time the federal government tells South Carolina once and for all exactly what it plans to do with this deadly plutonium,'' Condon said. Once those questions are answered, Condon said he'll stop the fight against the shipments. ''As you know, there are no jobs in storing, but there are in processing,'' Condon said. Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes and U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., also expressed concern about the plutonium shipments. The SRS complex sits just east of the Savannah River, which marks the border between Georgia and South Carolina. The first proposed shipments to SRS would come from the West, requiring a trip through Georgia. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Nuclear workers may get assistance Worcester Telegram &Gazette Online Friday, August 17, 2001 By Richard Nangle Telegram & Gazette Staff WORCESTER-- In the fight to compensate workers who developed cancer and other illnesses through their jobs at nuclear weapons plants, a coalition of workers, unions and community groups is pushing the federal government to process their claims quickly and fairly. Yesterday the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health set up shop at City Hall to help guide former weapons company workers through a bureaucratic maze. “This is not going to be easy with this (Bush) administration,” said Richard Miller, a Holyoke-based policy analyst who joined MassCOSH officials yesterday. Last year Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a law authorizing up to $2 billion in payments for nuclear weapons facility workers who have cancer and other diseases. Mr. Miller was the lead lobbyist for the legislation. While the Labor Department has been holding its own set of hearings, organizations such as MassCOSH are gathering public comment to make the new law work as well as its advocates envisioned. Several of the workplaces in question were in Central Massachusetts, and workers from those facilities are filing claims. Individuals are eligible for up to $150,000 for compensation and medical expenses. For many of the 20 who attended yesterday's hearing, exposure dates back 30 years or more. Some handled radioactive weapons materials and beryllium at the Norton Co. in Worcester in the 1940s and at Wyman-Gordon Inc. in Grafton from 1959 to 1965. But for some, the experience was more recent. Two people said they had been diagnosed with cancer after helping dispose of radioactive materials at Norton Co. no more than five years ago. The U.S. Department of Energy has identified 20 plants in Massachusetts and one in Rhode Island where workers may be eligible for payments under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. According to the Labor Department, the list includes these in Central Massachusetts: + Wyman-Gordon Co. of Grafton, now owned by Precision Castparts Corp. From 1959 to 1965, the company supplied beryllium powder forgings and beryllium blanks. + Reed Rolled Thread Die Co. of Holden, now known as Reed-Rico, which is also owned by Precision Castparts. In 1955, the company was scheduled to thread roll plant slugs for National Lead Co., operator of a uranium-processing plant in Fernald, Ohio. + Heald Machine Co. of Worcester, which closed in 1992. In 1960, National Lead drilled a few uranium slugs on a machine it intended to purchase from Heald. + Lapointe Machine Tool Co. of Hudson. In 1956, National Lead conducted a single test involving the use of uranium metal on a broaching machine and an arbor press. Lapointe closed in 1972. + The Norton Co., now owned by Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. of France. From 1945 to 1949, Norton did a large volume of business with the Atomic Energy Commission involving the manufacture of refractory products from boron, beryllium, uranium and thorium. According to the Department of Energy, Norton was using 5,000 pounds of beryllium oxide per month in the late 1940s. Beryllium, a silver-white, metallic element, is used to form strong, lightweight alloys. Beryllium disease is an inflammation of the lungs that can occur when a person is exposed to beryllium fumes, dusts or powder. Federal officials estimate that about 650,000 workers were employed in the nuclear weapons industry by the government and its contractors and subcontractors. “For a half a century, the federal government denied that any of its nuclear facilities had harmed any workers, and they fought tooth and nail whenever an employee tried to get compensation for radiation-related cancer or other illnesses,” said Aaron Wilson, executive director of Western MassCOSH. “The government has finally conceded that workers were indeed harmed. The compensation being offered is the least that the federal government can do for the thousands of dedicated Americans who sacrificed their health and lives building our nuclear defense.” “The workers deserve a voice in the rule-making process for this program,” said Marcy Goldstein-Gelb, executive director of MassCOSH. “The secretary of Labor needs to listen to worker and public concerns about how the Department of Labor rules on this program will impact deserving claimants. We urge the secretary to open up a dialogue with the workers and their families on how the interim regulations can be improved, before they are set in stone.” MassCOSH and Western MassCOSH are nonprofit organizations that promote safety and healthy work conditions. Under the law, workers, contractors and subcontractors for the Department of Energy -- formerly the Atomic Energy Commission -- who became ill from exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica are eligible. Payment will be issued if the diseases are shown to have at least a 50 percent chance of being caused by the exposure to radiation or beryllium. Spouses and other surviving kin of deceased workers also are eligible. The U.S. Department of Labor is accepting public comment until Aug. 23. Workers and family members can call (866) 888-3322, a toll-free number, for more information. Claim forms can be downloaded from the Labor Department's Web site: www.dol.gov. Mr. Miller said there are several problems with the law. For example, he said, the Labor Department wants an unlimited time period to process claims while advocates of the law want a 30-day or 60-day time frame so that the government cannot “wait you out to death.” He suggested that aggrieved families write not only the Labor Department, but their U.S. representatives and senators on the matter. ***************************************************************** 2 Navy heightens security around Trident subs HeraldNet - A service of The Herald of Everett, Wash. Published: Friday, August 10, 2001 Associated Press BREMERTON -- The U.S. Coast Guard is enforcing 300-yard security zones around Trident nuclear submarines traveling through Northwest inland waters in response to a "real, credible and immediate threat," government documents say. The heightened security, detailed in a new Coast Guard rule, was imposed under an emergency provision that allows the government to bypass normal rule-making procedures to preserve national security. Security zones also have been expanded along the waterfront at Naval Submarine Base Bangor, about eight miles north of Bremerton on Hood Canal, where the subs are based. "The Navy is concerned about possible terrorist acts," said Lt. Paul M. Stocklin Jr., chief of the waterways branch at the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Seattle, which oversees the zones. "That potential threat still exists." According to a notice published July 9 in the Federal Register, potential threats were detected after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 sailors. "The attack ... precipitated U.S. Navy security reviews, which have determined that immediate threats exist to naval bases and submarines in Puget Sound," the Federal Register notice said. It's not clear how the threats were detected or what they are. The notice said it would be "contrary to the public interest to disclose the exact nature of the current threats ... as this information is highly classified, and if divulged would greatly damage U.S. intelligence sources and security postures." But it said the threat "is real, credible and immediate." "Immediate action is necessary to safeguard U.S. naval bases and submarines from sabotage, other subversive acts, or accidents and otherwise protect naval assets vital to national security." Security was not increased for surface Navy vessels based in Everett and other Puget Sound home ports, though Stocklin said that's under discussion. "I know the Navy is concerned about security for all of its assets," he said. "I don't know if the threat was specifically against ballistic missile submarines." In interviews with The Bremerton Sun on Wednesday, Navy officials denied there had been any specific threat. In Seattle, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Kim Marks said the measures were among those taken to "safeguard against terrorist actions" after the attack on the Cole. Navy officials could not explain the apparent contradiction between her statement and the one in the Federal Register. "We appreciate the assistance of the U.S. Coast Guard, who have been providing increased security since this past June for naval forces operating in the Puget Sound region," Marks said. Each of the eight Trident subs based at Bangor carries 24 long-range ballistic missiles capable of launching as many as 192 thermonuclear warheads. Each sub is powered by a nuclear reactor, and the base has bunkers full of nuclear warheads in storage or undergoing maintenance and repair. Under a recently implemented consolidation plan, the base's Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific is the only place on the West Coast where nuclear weapons are stored. The Federal Register announcement said no public meeting was planned to explain the new precautions. It set a deadline of Sept. 7 for interested parties to comment or request a public meeting. Seattle lawyer Dave Mann said he'll request such a meeting. He sued the Navy in federal court this summer on behalf of a coalition of activist groups over planned installation of new, more powerful missiles on Bangor-based subs. The first are expected in October 2002. Mann has also filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking additional information from the Navy about any potential threat. "What's the basis of this emergency?" he asked. "I'd sure like to find out what's going on. ... This troubles me on all levels." Mann said his Federal Register search turned up no notices for similar enhanced precautions for any other vessels or any other U.S. bases. "I live in Seattle," he told the Associated Press on Thursday. "It's a little bit scary to know the Coast Guard and the Navy consider there to be an imminent threat." Under the new security measures, no person or vessel is allowed within 300 yards of any Navy submarine traveling through Puget Sound or the Strait of Juan de Fuca. There were no previous restrictions. In addition, no person or vessel is allowed within a security zone extending about 500 yards from the waterfront at the Bangor base. The new base security zone extends about 200 yards farther than the old one. "We're trying to help the Navy protect their forces, and we're trying to accomplish that objective with the least amount of impact for the public," Stocklin said. The rules are likely to become permanent, he said. Copyright ©2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright © 2001 The Daily Herald Co., Everett, Wash. If you ***************************************************************** 3 Hanford tanks removed from list Saturday, August 18, 2001 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER NEWS SERVICES The final 24 nuclear waste storage tanks at Hanford were removed from a congressional "watch list" yesterday, capping a decade of work to keep the radioactive contents from exploding. The list -- established by a law written by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in 1991 -- itemized 60 tanks with the potential to explode or burn. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation made plutonium for nuclear weapons, and 53 million gallons of the most dangerous wastes from that work are stored in 177 huge underground storage tanks. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattle-pi.com ©1999-2001 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 4 Los Alamos Tunnel Vision The Salt Lake Tribune -- Utah's Statewide Newspaper Saturday, August 18, 2001 The Los Angeles Times Wen Ho Lee, a scientist fired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, spent 279 days in solitary confinement while the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried vainly to build a case that would convict him of espionage or, failing that, coerce a confession that he had spied for China. That the FBI made a mess of its three-year-long investigation into an alleged theft of nuclear secrets comes as no revelation. But a Justice Department review of the case, completed 14 months ago and now partially released in heavily censored form, details more clearly than ever how the Energy Department's own bungled inquiry "misled" the FBI and "compromised and undermined" its investigative efforts. The review faults the FBI for too readily buying into the conclusion of Energy Department investigators that Lee was the only person who had "opportunity, motivation and legitimate access" to the nuclear weapons information that might have been leaked to China. In fact, while Lee might reasonably have been considered a suspect, he was only one of hundreds of people, civilian and military, working for private contractors or the government who had access to data about the W-88, a nuclear warhead that may have been copied by Beijing. The Energy Department's investigation, the review says, "should have been a sieve resulting in the identification of a number of suspects." Instead, "it ended up as a funnel from which only Wen Ho and [his wife] Sylvia Lee emerged." It was a textbook example of investigators fixating early on one suspect with one presumed motive and closing their minds to any alternatives. By focusing narrowly on Los Alamos as the only place from which secrets may have been taken and on Lee, a naturalized American of Taiwanese origin, investigators stalked and harassed a man against whom they found it impossible to construct a credible legal case. They may also, in their zealous single-mindedness, have let a spy or spies escape. But while the Lee case is effectively over, it must not be forgotten. The government is capable of wielding enormous power over the lives of Americans. It is also fallible. In the Lee case it conducted a startlingly inept investigation that left it looking incompetent, foolish and -- most disturbingly -- implacably ready to go where it wanted to go, whatever evidence or possibilities might contradict its preconceptions. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 5 Lab gets new test facility Published Tuesday, August 14, 2001 + Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's site in the Altamont hills will cut noise and nuisance of past tests, which were outdoors By Daphne Hsu CONTRA COSTA TIMES TRACY -- Scientists conducting diagnostic explosives tests first had to build tents to shelter those explosives. But they now have a new building in which to conduct their tests. This fall, the Contained Firing Facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's Site 300 will be ready for testing explosives. Lab officials said these tests, conducted in the Altamont hills between Livermore and Tracy, help ensure the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons in the stockpile. Outdoor explosives tests have been performed since 1955. In the past, the blasts from the outdoor detonations could cause nearby car windows to shatter; windows were rolled down and car keys remained in ignitions in case the scientists' cars needed to be moved prior to experiments. Although outdoor experiments will continue, tests done in the $49.7 million facility have several advantages. The new facility will reduce noise, blast pressures and hazardous waste. Also, tests can be done regardless of weather conditions or time of day. Precision experiments also will be easier to set up. The contained center replaces the existing open-air testing area. The building can handle explosions using up to 60 kilograms of "high explosives," stronger than dynamite, according to Mark Sueksdorf, construction project manager. That amounts to the world's largest operational amount. The new facility can withstand forces equivalent to the detonation of 2,000 hand grenades. "[We] validate simulations ... by carefully diagnosing real experiments," said Bruce Goodwin, associate director for defense and nuclear technology. "Without that check on reality, science is basically a whole lot of fancy thinking." Detonations at Site 300 are carefully monitored using X-ray radiography and cameras capable of recording 2.5 million frames per second among other instruments. The X-rays used at the site are one hundred billion times stronger than a dental X-ray. A linear accelerator, needed to make the X-ray beam, removes electrons from a piece of black velvet and throws them at a target, which scatters high-energy light particles. The light will not go through dense areas of explosives. Thus, the radiography film is not exposed in those areas. The scientists use velvet because of "the fuzziness of it." It's like "lots of little lightning rods," said Jan Zentler, engineer for the X-ray project. Only the primary, non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons are tested at Site 300. Those non-nuclear components are composed of high explosives surrounding fissionable material. Detonation compresses the fissionable material, leading to a nuclear reaction in which nuclei split other nuclei. Although nuclear physics is complex, the building which contains the explosion is not. The cavernous 21/2-story building is made of enough steel and concrete to make a 60-story skyscraper. The tests that go on inside can be expensive. "It's a one-time thing," said Alan Wiltse, electronics technologist and primary console operator. "We don't allow 'oops.'" "A major experiment (can cost) $1 million from conception to firing," said Larry Simmons, program operations project engineer. Reach Daphne Hsu at 925-847-2119 or dhsu@cctimes.com. ***************************************************************** 6 Paducah plant workers discover old tank; tests to see if it only holds oil - The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Saturday, August 18, 2001 Removal will take a week or so if it's an old oil storage tank — longer if it contains a hazardous chemical. By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Workers digging to expand the depleted uranium cylinder storage yard at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant have found an underground storage tank that may contain waste oil from the plant's construction days 50 years ago. State environmental regulators were notified, and plans are being made to remove the tank, said Gordon Dover, projects manager for Bechtel Jacobs, the environmental contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy. "There's been a lot of construction rubble where they've been digging to put in the concrete pad, and they came across a concrete collar that had pipes in it," Dover said. "They looked further and found an underground tank that was put in when the plant was built in 1952 or ’53." The tank was unearthed Thursday. The storage yard is on a site that was the atomic plant construction staging area, which is why considerable construction rubble is present. "The substance in the tank is a black, oily substance that looks like waste oil," Dover said. "We don't know if it is filled with oil, or filled with water with some petroleum substance on the top." Samples were taken, Dover said, and if it is oil, by following state regulations for removal of old storage tanks it can be removed in a week or so. If the substance is a hazardous chemical or contains such hazards, removal will be slower. It appears only a small amount of the substance — "about a gallon or two" — has leaked, Dover said. The cylinder yard is being built as part of an ongoing project to increase the storage area for about 36,000 cylinders of depleted uranium that was used in the production of nuclear fuel. ***************************************************************** 7 CHARADE - Bush should lift tainted recycling ban The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Saturday, August 18, 2001 The Bush administration should move quickly to clean up one of the tainted legacies of the Clinton era — the politically motivated ban on the sale of recycled metals from Department of Energy nuclear facilities. Congressman Zach Wamp of Tennessee accurately described the decision last summer to suspend sales of nickel and other scrap metal as "nonsensical" and an attempt by former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to "pander ... to key constituencies." The Bush administration currently is holding public hearings to gather information before deciding whether to lift the ban. Richardson's ban stalled a move to recycle about 9,700 tons of nickel in a scrap yard at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. A recycling facility would create about 40 jobs and generate $10 million in sales that would be used to mitigate job losses at the Paducah plant. The announcement of the suspension of recycled metal sales came as Vice President Al Gore was attempting to shore up his political base in preparation for the fall campaign. The decision appealed to organized labor, which wanted to keep metal off the market that competed with the U.S. steel industry; and environmental groups that religiously oppose anything with the word "nuclear" attached to it. Richardson cited a need to protect consumers as the reason for the suspension. This gave credence to hysterical warnings that contaminated metals were ending up in the mouths of children with braces. In truth, no child's teeth were in danger of glowing in the dark because of the recycling of nickel ingots from DOE scrap yards. The radioactivity in the nickel produced in the decontamination process is below detectable levels. According to the Wall Street Journal, the radiation level of the recycled DOE metal is below that of salt-substitutes sold at grocery stores. Even so, Richardson suddenly proclaimed a "no detectable contamination" standard for the recycling. This standard has nothing to do with science or consumer safety; numerous studies have shown that low-level radiation is not harmful to humans. Richardson's hypocrisy was highlighted by the fact that, while the suspension was in effect, the United States continued to import recycled metals from Europe, where the decontamination standards aren't as strict as those the DOE was operating under before the energy secretary announced the ban. Bush administration officials have no reason to continue this charade. The environmentalists who are most adamant in opposing the recycling do not wish the president well politically. Administration officials are never going to be able to appease these groups, no matter how many hearings they hold on the recycling issue. So far, the hearings have featured predictable fearmongering about radioactivity invading "everyday items." These charges are made to inflame, not enlighten, the public. It should be noted that as an added, although unnecessary precaution, officials plan to use recycled metal from the Paducah operation only in products that do not come into direct contact with consumers. The recycling program is needed to help remove contaminated metals from the grounds of the Paducah plant and DOE sites in other parts of the country. As DOE officials noted in a 1998 newsletter, recycling certainly is safer than burying the radioactive materials. Also, DOE owes it to the taxpayers to try to recover some of the costs of the massive nuclear cleanup program. Recycling is a safe, sensible way to get rid of this contaminated junk. ***************************************************************** 8 Radiation found in water system 8-18-01 By DANIEL M. NONTE, Staff Writer News & Record OAK RIDGE -- The water system that serves an Oak Ridge subdivision contains naturally occurring radioactive particles at levels almost three times the state limit. For more information about radiation and drinking water, visit the EPA's Internet site at www.epa.gov/
safewater/hfacts.html. Both the state and the water system's operator say the readings do not pose an immediate health risk to Williard Oaks, a new subdivision with more than a dozen homes. Officials have not ordered any immediate changes in water use. However, the state has ordered Heater Utilities, the water system's operator, to submit a plan by Aug. 29 to correct the problem. The system provides water to Williard Oaks. Plans call for 46 homes in Willard Oaks, a community north of N.C. 150 and roughly a mile west of N.C. 68. Groundwater picks up the radioactive particles when it flows through the bedrock, according to Heater. The mineral particles are different from radon, an odorless and colorless radioactive gas. People who drink water with high levels of radioactive particles for many years "may have an increased risk of getting cancer," according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Developer Bo Dowdy said that he has installed water-treatment systems on two homes, even though the systems are not required by the state. "We've incorporated a two-step water purification system for the houses," Dowdy said. "That is our immediate response to this, that we're able to provide a water that is going to meet the state guidelines and specifications." The water-treatment systems are available to the other houses in the subdivision, too, Dowdy said. Residents learned about the high readings in a July 6 letter from Heater. "The level of radiation in the water should not be harmful to most individuals since a safety factor is built into the limit and since the limits are based on long-term effects," the letter states. "You do not need to use an alternative (e.g. bottled) water supply." A high radiation reading serves as a "red flag," said Dale Dusenbury, a state environmental radiation specialist. "This does not necessarily reflect an imminent health risk to anyone," Dusenbury said. "... It is something that needs to be dealt with." New public water systems in North Carolina must test for radiation every three months. After passing four consecutive tests, operators are only required to test once every four years. The Williard Oaks water system is about a year old. Jerry Tweed, a Heater vice president, said his company is looking for a new well site. If it can't find a suitable site, Heater could install a filter on the existing system or modify the system so that it does not draw water with high levels of radioactive particles. Changes to the water system could take anywhere from two to 18 months, Tweed said. Heater operates more than 700 water systems in North Carolina. Company officials said they have corrected similar problems in several other water systems. State and local health officials said that the radioactive particles found in Oak Ridge are rare in this part of the state. Eric Ireland, Guilford County environmental health manager, said the county is researching the issue and developing a plan to test individuals' wells near Williard Oaks. Ireland said, "This is a first for us." Contact Daniel M. Nonte at 373-7089 or dnonte@news-record.com © News &Record 2001 ***************************************************************** 9 Oregon senator to visit Hanford This story was published Fri, Aug 17, 2001 By the Herald staff Portland is scoping out Hanford this week, led by two Portland-based congressmen. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., is scheduled to appear with U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., at 12:30 p.m. today at Richland's Hampton Inn to announce the final 24 Hanford tanks are being removed from the "Wyden watch list." And earlier this week U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and a half dozen Portland business leaders visited Hanford on a general orientation tour. Blumenauer has visited the site before, but the business leaders had not. "There is more interest (in Hanford among Portland residents) than people recognize. But I don't think there is enough," Blumenauer said. While Blumenauer has been involved in Hanford issues, he is not part of a bipartisan U.S. House nuclear cleanup caucus that recently spearheaded the House calling for several hundred million extra dollars to be added to the Department of Energy's cleanup programs in fiscal 2002. Blumenauer said he focuses on other caucuses on issues closer to his Portland constituents' interests. However, he backs the budget increase, which would allow Hanford to meet its legal obligations in 2002. Blumenauer noted that the overwhelming congressional support for extra cleanup money appears veto-proof. Meanwhile, when Wyden was in the U.S. House in 1990, he got legislation passed to create a federal watch list of Hanford underground tanks that needed extra monitoring because their radioactive wastes had the potential to explode or burst into flames. Eventually, 60 tanks ended up on that list. Those 60 included Hanford's two most troublesome tanks -- SY-101, which "burped" flammable hydrogen gas, and C-106, in which wastes would spontaneously heat up. Those tanks and 34 others were removed from the watch list over the years because their problems were fixed or further studies proved them less dangerous than originally suspected. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 10 PNNL to receive $2 million in grants This story was published Fri, Aug 17, 2001 By the Herald staff Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland will receive about $2 million in grants next year from a new Department of Energy program called Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing. The national program is planned to create a new generation of scientific simulation codes to take full advantage of computers capable of doing trillions of calculations per second. That includes creating the theoretical approaches, algorithms and software required to use such computers on some of the nation's most difficult research programs. Advances made under the program will allow scientists to study complex problems, such as combustion and climate change, at a level of accuracy and detail never before achieved. "This innovative program will help us to find new energy sources for the future, understand the effect of energy production on our environment and learn more about the fundamental nature of energy and matter," said Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham when the grants were announced. Richland scientists received money for six projects it proposed with partners at other labs and universities. Two of the projects will work on advancing climate models and chemical models of combustion processes to design more efficient, less polluting engines. Three new software centers will develop new computational and mathematical technologies needed to take full advantage of even larger emerging computers. The sixth project will use advanced technology to integrate DOE's large computing and database resources into a computing grid accessible by DOE researchers anywhere. Under a different program, the lab also will receive $1.2 million next year from DOE's Office of Advanced Computing and Scientific Research. Among the work to be done with that money is developing tools for programming the next generations of computers needed for complex research projects. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************