***************************************************************** 05/20/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.125 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Editorial: Bush’s Energy Policy 2 INEEL gets OK to ship solid waste 3 MU spends $76,000 dealing with problems at nuclear reactor 4 Fire at nuclear power station 5 Blaze at Dungeness power plant 6 Energy giants seek return to nuclear power 7 Democrats turn up the heat 8 EDITORIAL: Bush energy plan 9 Labour fears energy crisis 10 DOE tracks water flow at Yucca 11 Survey: Nuclear power OK elsewhere 12 Bush Touts Energy Plan; Democrats Continue Criticism 13 Bush Touts Energy Plan; Democrats Continue Criticism 14 Nuclear Energy Industry Reclaims Spotlight 15 Ann McFeatters: Back to the future on energy 16 National ener gy plan may mean bounty for nuclear power research NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Plutonium-disposal delay could affect Flats waste 2 Sick worker plan to meet deadline 3 UC Hires Exec to Oversee 3 Labs 4 Lab picks seven top managers for posts 5 Dutch Firm Is Hired to Raise Sub 6 Change in Plutonium Disposal Plan Draws Complaints ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Editorial: Bush’s Energy Policy Evansville Courier &Press - Editorial: Bush’s Energy Policy Evansville Courier & Press Sunday, May 20, 2001 The Issue: Administration takes long-term approach. Our View: Imperfect plan gives us a good start. Here in the Midwest, we’ve watched from afar as Californians have struggled with the woes of a state energy policy gone bad. Electric blackouts and diminished economic prospects there must have some of us wondering about our own prospects. But California, in a sense, has done us all a service. It has shown what a steep price must be paid if you virtually forbid the expansion or construction of power plants, and it has shown that emphasis on conservation and alternative fuels is not enough to compensate. What we have seen in California is in part the result of eight years of a national energy policy that discouraged production and supply, hoping that would force conservation. It hasn’t worked. So now, President Bush has offered a comprehensive national energy policy, and it is taking expected hits from his opponents, not so much because he has neglected conservation or renewable fuels — proposals on those topics are included — but because he aims to remove unreasonable government impediments to the production of the chief sources of this nation’s energy. If he had not addressed this issue of increasing supply, and if he is thwarted in his goals, we could eventually have nationwide what now prevails in California. Officeholders there acted partly, of course, to protect the environment, and the charge against Bush is that he is insufficiently sensitive to the destruction his proposals could cause. In fact, some of what the president aims at can be accomplished without bulldozing the wilderness or making the air thick with pollutants. He would rely more, for instance, on nuclear power than some environmentalists wish — but nuclear power is nonpolluting and not the risk to life that some critics suppose. As we know, nuclear energy is a subject that can easily start an argument around some tables in Evansville. Remember the debacle of Southeastern Indiana’s Marble Hill back in the 1970s? If that gets your blood rushing, good. To us, the debates that this issue might incite is one of the intangible assets of Bush’s policy proposal. It is broad and complicated, and has no chance of surviving as a total package. But parts of it will survive, and that is why we need a national debate on this plan. On that point, we noticed in a local reaction story on Friday that Vectren Corp. Chief Executive Niel Ellerbrook said the plan is in for a significant debate. “And it should be — a lot of groups need to be heard from,” he said. We could not agree more. Let’s talk about this. Another point sure to stir discussion in Indiana is Bush’s proposal for spending $2 billion over 10 years for research on clean coal technology. Southwestern Indiana and Western Kentucky have an abundance of both coal and power plants. We may not need any more power plants here, but we do need ways to modernize the coal-burning technology. Here in the immediate Evansville area we have a concern for balancing the needs of our industrial/energy producing sector with a concern for quality-of-life issues. How that fits in with Bush’s new energy policy should stimulate even more debate. But why act at all? As the administration points out in a policy document, energy consumption will increase by roughly a third over the next two decades. However, the document notes, the energy infrastructure is in a bad way — too few refineries, too few power plants, and pipeline and electric-transmission systems that are outmoded — and we are overly hampered by government rules in extracting domestic resources. While conservation matters, it is not enough. In fact, if it did matter more to Americans, greater strides would have been made during the eight years of the Clinton administration. We have to rebuild the infrastructure and reshape the rules, while taking care of the environment simultaneously. In some ways the president’s policy is too tentative and in others too political (although some think it politically deficient for not promising to bring down gas prices soon). Clearly, it is not based on a push for quick fixes. Our reaction to Bush’s plan will be based on our support for the free-market system; it is a belief, we suspect, that is shared by most Americans. For example, let the market produce affordable, energy-efficient vehicles that appeal to consumers, and Americans will choose that course of conservation. That’s how it should work in a free country. Some of Bush’s proposals will die, and should. Overall, however, it is responsible and substantive, a tribute to an administration that is willing to think seriously about long-term needs. If something like it is not put in place, this country, as with California now, is bound to suffer. ***************************************************************** 2 INEEL gets OK to ship solid waste On receiving end, New Mexico uneasy over recent errors IdahoStatesman.com Sunday, May 20, 2001 The Associated Press IDAHO FALLS -- The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory has regained approval to begin shipping drums of solid radioactive waste to a New Mexico repository, which may help it catch up on a process that has fallen behind schedule. But that state -- which regulates hazardous wastes buried in the salt caverns outside Carlsbad -- is concerned about recent mistakes in shipments from Idaho. It worries such errors could multiply as the volume of waste increases. Last month, the INEEL placed the wrong drum of radioactive waste, which had a one-number difference from the correct one, on a truck to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Three weeks ago, two drums in an Idaho shipment were mislabeled. They were the correct drums, but the numbers were transposed on the labels so they did not match shipping records. The INEEL decided to suspend shipments while it investigated the second error. The New Mexico Environment Department finds those mistakes troubling because Idaho wants to soon triple the amount of waste it is shipping, said Steve Zappe, project leader at the New Mexico repository. "If they don't get the kinks worked out when the number of shipments arriving at WIPP are low, we'll have serious concerns over the integrity of future shipments," he said. The INEEL must increase its weekly shipments this summer to try and get back on track. Since April 1999, it has managed to ship only 13 percent of the waste that is required to leave the state under a 1995 landmark court agreement to move the material out of Idaho. Managers said Friday's approval is key to getting back on schedule. So far the INEEL has only been cleared to send waste such as plutonium-contaminated boots, rags and jars from the Rocky Flats weapons plant in Colorado. That waste makes up only 20 percent of the total Idaho inventory. Last week, it exhausted its supply of easily accessible debris waste and ran out of drums to ship. Fortunately, on Friday, the New Mexico agency granted long-awaited approval to ship solid waste, mostly sludges. The INEEL has 429 solid drums that have already gone through a complicated process to verify their contents and are ready to be loaded. That is enough for about 15 shipments, INEEL spokeswoman Stacey Francis said. Managers hope the solid drums will be faster to process. The sludges, more uniform than debris, take less time to visually inspect by X-ray. Idaho.com ***************************************************************** 3 MU spends $76,000 dealing with problems at nuclear reactor The Jefferson City News Tribune Sunday, May 20, 2001 COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- The University of Missouri-Columbia has spent about $76,000 to investigate and fix problems associated with a Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigation of its nuclear reactor. In March, the agency told the university that an investigation completed in October 2000 found that reactor employees were afraid to report alleged violations. While not fining the university, the NRC gave it two months to hire outside evaluators to help assess the problem. The university hired the Washington law firm Winston &Strawn, and it was billed $16,000 in March, university attorney Bunky Wright said. He estimates that the bill for April will be about $60,000. Earlier this past week, the NRC fined the Callaway Nuclear Plant $55,000 for similar violations. The Callaway plant fired two workers who reported a violation of federal rules. The two-month deadline for the university to report back to the NRC has been extended. Jan Strasma, an NRC spokesman, said Missouri has a Freedom of Information Act request for the full investigation report pending at the NRC. He said federal officials extended the response deadline until 30 days after the NRC responds to the information request. "Normally, it takes several months to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests," Strasma said. Meanwhile, research reactor officials have been working with the law firm's review team. The NRC required the action in light of earlier offenses. In 1994, the commission issued a notice of violation for discriminating against two employees. The March notice said the latest investigation calls into question the reactor administration's past efforts to make employees comfortable enough to report safety problems. The October 2000 investigation stemmed from two low-level safety violations that also did not carry fines. The reactor is still in danger of a late-June shutdown because of shipment problems beyond the university's control. The reactor is scheduled to reach its capacity for irradiated spent fuel storage next month, and Dru Buntin of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources said state officials are still working through an impasse with the Department of Energy over nuclear shipments. The department has delayed the university shipments because state officials, led by Gov. Bob Holden, have objected to shipment of spent nuclear fuel from other reactors through Missouri along Interstate 70, citing traffic safety concerns. All Contents ©Copyright 2001 *News Tribune Co.* All rights ***************************************************************** 4 Fire at nuclear power station BBC News | UK | 20 May, 2001, Nobody was injured in the fire at Dungeness A nuclear power station was evacuated after a fire broke out. Fire-fighters spent nearly an hour bringing the blaze under control in the conventional (non-nuclear) side of Dungeness A power station on the Kent coast. The fire began on Saturday morning in a turbine, believed to be about 60m from a reactor - one of two at the plant - which was shut down as a precaution. Local residents saw steam and black smoke billowing from the turbine and police warned them to keep their windows and doors closed. Several hundred staff and contractors were evacuated during the incident. It was nothing to do with anything radiological. Nobody was in any danger. British Nuclear Fuels spokesman Eight fire crews worked alongside the station's own fire team to control the blaze. But British Nuclear Fuels, which operates the plant, said no-one was injured and no radiological damage was caused. Spokesman Robin Thornton said: "It was nothing to do with anything radiological. Nobody was in any danger. "We're talking about a fire that could have happened at any industrial complex." He said the fire seemed to have been caused by an electrical fault. A fire service spokeswoman said the reactor and turbine would undergo full safety examinations before being used again. BBC News Online ***************************************************************** 5 Blaze at Dungeness power plant ITN - A fire broke out at a nuclear power station in southeast England, but was quickly extinguished with no damage done to the plant's two reactors. The blaze began in a turbine alternator connected to the number one reactor at Dungeness power plant, some 60 miles (95 km) southeast of London on the Kent coast. Local residents saw steam and black smoke billowing from the turbine and police warned them to keep their windows and doors closed while fire fighters tackled the blaze. The reactor was shut down and the blaze was extinguished within an hour. "There were no injuries and no radiological consequences," said Robin Thornton, a spokesman for Dungeness, operated by state-run British Nuclear Fuels. "We're talking about a fire that could have happened at any industrial complex." Each of the station's two reactors have two turbine alternators connected to them. The devices are used to transform nuclear reactions into electrical power. The fire was in a starter device about the size of a small shed at the end of the turbine alternator which is roughly 35 metres (115 feet) long and six metres (20 feet) high. Several hundred staff and contractors involved in servicing the number two reactor were on site. Thornton said the fire seemed to have been caused by an electrical fault. It was not yet clear how long the number one reactor would be out of action but the starter device had been completely destroye * ***************************************************************** 6 Energy giants seek return to nuclear power THE SUNDAY TIMES: NEWS May 20 2001 *Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Tom Robbins * The new stations POWER companies are drawing up plans for the biggest programme of new nuclear power stations for 20 years. British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and British Energy, which run the country's nuclear power stations, say Britain needs to replace its ageing reactors to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. After lobbying the government for "a nuclear renaissance", the companies have been heartened by a shift in Labour's stance. The party's manifesto, published last week, dropped its 1997 pledge to block the building of new plants. Then, it stated, there was "no economic case for building any new nuclear power stations". This election's manifesto, however, makes no reference to such a bar, but says: "Coal and nuclear energy currently play important roles in ensuring diversity in our sources of electricity generation." BNFL has prepared a corporate plan that has been submitted to the government. The company is understood to have earmarked potential sites and is urging the government to accept proposals for new reactors. Any such move would clearly be controversial. "The nuclear threat looms again and we do not know where the main political parties stand on it," said Charles Secrett, executive director of Friends of the Earth (FoE). "They are all running scared of telling the voters." FoE believes the corporate plan, which ministers have refused to release, contains proposals to replace the ageing Magnox reactors with new stations. BNFL and British Energy own these sites, which would facilitate the planning process. Construction on the first nuclear power station began in 1953 at Calder Hall, Cumbria. The UK now has 33 reactors providing about a quarter of the nation's electricity. The opposition of environmental campaigners and the high costs of building new stations dampened enthusiasm in the 1990s for replacing reactors as they were decommissioned. Labour's apparent policy shift is a victory for BNFL and British Energy. BNFL has declared it "has the designs for the reactors" it needs and the sites on which to build them. Advocates of the nuclear industry argue that new stations will help meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Robin Jeffrey, British Energy chairman, said at a conference last year: "To have a plant up and running for 2010 we need to start now. The clock is ticking." BNFL has already looked at Sellafield and Chapel Cross as potential new sites. British Energy is considering options for replacing seven of its advanced gas-cooled reactors. The industry still faces a considerable hurdle in persuading the next government of the economics of constructing new nuclear reactors. The Department of Trade and Industry said it was not aware of any plans for new nuclear power stations. Additional reporting: John Elliott Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided ***************************************************************** 7 Democrats turn up the heat [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Sunday, May 20, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: John Brummett At the highest levels last week, national Democrats were exulting that they had found a galvanizing issue for 2002. It wasn't tax cuts. Democrats only lost that issue by a trillion dollars and change. It wasn't health care or prescription medicine. The Democrats can win that issue and it's a good one, if not quite a lay-down hand connecting with every suburban swing voter. Lots of suburban swing voters aren't sick enough yet to experience the hellish rip-off of cavalier insurance companies and pills priced like diamonds. The issue was energy -- the shortage and exploding cost thereof. It spreads like wildfire from California to every gasoline pump in the land, just in time to impair summer vacation plans and send electric meters whirling from the constant hum of air conditioning. It's coming soon to places like Arkansas, where the U. S. Senate race is targeted. The Democratic attorney general and presumptive Senate nominee, Mark Pryor, injected himself into the electric deregulation debate at the state legislative level a couple of years ago to champion amendments sensitive to consumer concerns. He can claim some responsibility for delays in the effective date of deregulation. It may turn out to be the smartest thing he ever did. It will provide him a credential when he goes head-to-head with a Republican incumbent, Tim Hutchinson. Hutchinson has made his bed on this issue, and every other issue, with a Republican president who just raised a million dollars for him, but is deeply vulnerable on energy. It's coming soon to a place like Nevada. George W. Bush held on to carry that state by denying Al Gore's accusation that he intended to use Nevada as a dump for nuclear waste. Now he will be forced to use the Silver State for that very purpose, considering all these new nuclear power plants he's advocating -- unless, as an article in The Wall Street Journal put it last week, he prefers opening nuclear waste dumps in every state. Bush's response to energy shortages and skyrocketing energy prices was to assign his vice president -- who just so happens to be fresh from an oil industry corporate suite that rewarded him with millions -- to concoct an energy policy that defends Americans' consumption habits and says the answer is mainly to drill for more oil and build more nuclear power plants. Democrats haven't polled this issue yet or taken it to focus groups. They're going on their instincts, which are powerful. They see a president, an administration and an opposing party clearly tied by financial backing and personal and professional relationships to energy companies. They see a long, hot summer of sticker shock on gasoline, expanding blackouts and electricity bills that residents will be afraid to open. They see a Republican president burdening his party's candidates in 2002 with a measured long-term response to a passionate short-term issue. They see a Republican president reinforcing his image as an ally of big energy by emphasizing construction, production and consumption over alternative energy sources, conservation and environmental protection. They see a Republican president who won't dare criticize OPEC or the oil industry or invoke the administration's authority to put emergency controls on energy prices. They see a Republican president who has declared that his tax cuts will serve as a cushion for rising energy prices. That means, in other words, that this president's previous arguments for tax cuts about fairness, stimulating the economy and giving Americans more disposable income are rendered moot by this current position, which is that it would be good if Americans would take their tax cuts and simply hand them over to energy companies. Or you could put it this way: Nearly half the tax cut was already going to the wealthiest 1 percent; now the rest will go to the energy industry. Is there a certain cynicism in partisan efforts to exploit Americans' travails in this way? Sure, especially since the Democrats are much longer on criticisms than solutions. But exploitation of travails is what political partisans do. John Brummett, an award-winning columnist and reporter for Donrey News in Little Rock, is author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@donreynews.com. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-20-Sun-2001/opinion/16131863.html ***************************************************************** 8 EDITORIAL: Bush energy plan [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Sunday, May 20, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal As "national plans" go, the energy policy package recently released by the Bush administration appears sound. The plan focuses on expanding supplies, streamlining regulations and bolstering the infrastructure that gets energy from generators to consumers. It's also noteworthy for what it fails to emphasize: price controls and mandatory "conservation" measures. Environmentalists and their Democratic allies were apoplectic even before the plan was formally unveiled. On Tuesday, Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, claimed the plan is "an all-out attack on environmental protections." Nevada Sen. Harry Reid vowed that "Democrats will throw themselves on train tracks" to stop the proposals from moving forward. If you can get past the hyperbole, it becomes apparent that the Bush plan is a modest attempt to facilitate processes that are now underway in the energy market, where rising prices have spawned a healthy round of investment in new generation and transmission facilities, which should pay off for consumers in a year or two. Nevada's congressional delegation deserves credit for convincing the administration to change the plan's language concerning nuclear waste; the final version calls for additional study of reprocessing and keeps the possibility open that a site other than Yucca Mountain will be used for the permanent storage of high-level nuclear waste. Thankfully, the White House refuses to resurrect the failed central energy planning of the 1970s, when price controls and other regulations led to gas lines, home heating fuel shortages, and a decade of economic stagnation. All in all, Mr. Bush has suggested a reasonable approach that's focused on the long term, rather than merely the next election cycle. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-20-Sun-2001/opinion/16132362.html ***************************************************************** 9 Labour fears energy crisis Guardian Unlimited Observer | Business | [UP] Sunday May 20, 2001 The Observer Labour is planning to launch a sweeping review of the sources and security of Britain's energy supply as an urgent policy initiative if it wins the election. Ministers are increasingly anxious about future electricity shortages, reliance on foreign sources of fuel - particularly gas from Russia, North Africa and the Middle East - and difficulties in cutting carbon dioxide emissions in line with Kyoto agreements as ageing nuclear plants are shut down. News of the review, which was not mentioned in Labour's manifesto, comes days after President Bush announced the controversial US energy plan which will see an increase in oil, gas and nuclear power, with new plants built and drilling in new oil fields, such as Alaska. Both major UK nuclear operators have been lobbying the Government intensively over the need for a new generation of power stations here, and plans for new plants could be one result. One Government insider said: 'There are concerns over the security and diversity of supply - we do not want to be wholly dependent on imported gas. We need to look at how we are going to meet our needs in future, and what part gas, coal nuclear and renewables are going to play.' One consultant, who has advised the Government, said: 'The issue of where we get energy from has not been an problem since the Seventies. It is going to return.' Energy Minister Peter Hain is keen to see renewable energy rise to more than 10 per cent of the UK's energy production by 2010. Ministers are also aware of energy industry concerns that the New Electricity Trading Arrangements may discourage companies from building power plants, which could reduce long-term capacity and lead to Californian-style blackouts. [UP] ***************************************************************** 10 DOE tracks water flow at Yucca Today: May 21, 2001 at 10:56:57 PDT Potential radiation seepage is studied By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Government scientists are analyzing results of experiments at Yucca Mountain that could show whether rock fractures allow ground water to move faster than expected through the site of a proposed nuclear waste repository. Water carrying radiation into the environment is a critical consideration in whether Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, can safely contain 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is the only site being studied to hold the commercial and defense radioactive waste. It must be found scientifically suitable to safely hold the material for 10,000 years to be approved. The Energy Department is charged with studying the site and would build the repository if it is approved. Scientists are concerned that if water drains into alcoves filled with buried nuclear waste, the water could corrode containers and release radioactivity into the environment. People live 12 miles southwest of the proposed repository in Amargosa Valley. Although the evidence in recent DOE reports suggests a fast pathway for water to flow, the critical information scientists are seeking is whether the water would transport radiation away from the repository. DOE testers poured water into Yucca Mountain at its surface, but analysis of the results is still under way. At a technical meeting earlier this month in Arlington, Va., Mark Peters of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico said that analysis of the water flows is not complete, but the findings should be ready by the end of the year. A December 1999 progress report said experiments indicate water flows faster through the fractured rock, which could disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository if the Environmental Protection Agency issues a strict limit on radiation doses from ground water. The EPA has called for a limit of radiation released from waste stored at Yucca Mountain of 15 millirems per year, with a 4 millirem standard for ground water. A chest X-ray is roughly 5 millirems. That ground water limit is so strict, the DOE may be unable to meet it, which is why Nevada officials support it. Bush administration officials still are reviewing the standard. DOE scientists observed two examples of rapid water flows through the mountain, in 1996 and 1999, the progress report said. In an alcove at the north end of the 5-mile-long exploratory study tunnel, DOE scientists discovered water in 1996 that they believe came from a broken hose used during construction of the tunnel. As much as 10,000 gallons of water escaped, possibly widening fractures in the rock and causing the water to move faster, the report said. In a monthlong test in early 1999, scientists deliberately poured water equal to 12 inches of rainfall -- the amount expected during a glacial climatic period -- on top of the mountain. Scientists believe an Ice Age has almost no chance of occurring in the first 10,000 years the mountain must safely hold the waste. After that period, it is too uncertain to predict. The water went into an alcove, then escaped down one of three boreholes drilled into the alcove's side, moving 115 feet in a fracture in 15 days. In a previous test, the report noted, the water took 58 days to move that far. Scientists concluded that the water's speed was caused by a fracture in the rock, significant because such a crack offers a fast pathway for water to flow. The DOE said further studies are under way. Independent scientists from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have been following studies of water moving inside the mountain. The NRC will license a repository at Yucca Mountain. NRC hydrologist James Winterle said the DOE scientists poured the water into the top layer of the mountain, while the repository would be built about 1,000 feet lower, in a third layer of volcanic ash. That top layer, called the Tiva Canyon formation, is cracked, he said. But the repository layer, the Topopah Spring tuff, is separated by what is called the Yucca Mountain-Pan Canyon layers, which absorb a lot of the water. "Think of it as very sponge-like," Winterle said of the middle layer. The top layer is built like a stack of bricks, allowing fast water flows through cracks, but the water is absorbed in the sponge underneath, he said. The DOE will have to prove to the NRC that this is the way Yucca Mountain works to protect public health and safety, NRC Executive Director Bill Reamer said. "The burden of proof is on the DOE." There are many steps the DOE needs to take between its current studies and a licensing hearing, Reamer said. If the DOE, the president and Congress decide to recommend the mountain as a repository, the NRC will review information before formal licensing hearings begin, he said. The technical review board, formed in 1988 as an independent scientific panel to oversee DOE's work, has also been waiting for DOE analysis to be completed. "We've been following the progress of that test, of course," board hydrologist David Diodato said of the DOE's study based on the 1996 flow. However, he said he had not seen the DOE's 1999 progress report, part of the basis for a final report on environmental impacts scheduled at the end of this year that will form the basis for a recommendation on Yucca Mountain to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Nevada's scientific experts are convinced that rain falling on the surface of Yucca Mountain would reach buried containers of high-level nuclear waste. Based on radiation from atomic bombs exploded in the Pacific Islands that DOE researchers discovered at the repository level inside Yucca Mountain, as well as other studies that show the container material proposed to bury the wastes can corrode in roughly two weeks, state scientists estimate the radiation will be in the environment in 1,250 years, said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency on Nuclear Projects. The repository, to be considered scientifically sound, must contain the radioactivity for 10,000 years. However, the state's conclusion about radioactive water from the 1950s Pacific weapons tests seeping into Yucca Mountain is disputed by scientists at the Livermore National Laboratory in Northern California. Another theory that deep, hot water welled inside the mountain within the past 10,000 years has been put to rest by a team of scientists led by UNLV associate geoscience professor Jean Cline. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 Survey: Nuclear power OK elsewhere c 2001 Alabama Live, LLC 05/20/01 By JOE DANBORN Staff Reporter Most Alabamians don't mind that President Bush would turn to nuclear power to slake the nation's thirst for energy. They just don't want nuclear reactors for neighbors. So said a majority of respondents to a new statewide Mobile Register-University of South Alabama poll, which was completed Wednesday evening - as Bush prepared to sell the country on his plan to boost energy supplies through unprecedented reliance on nuclear power. More than half of the Alabamians polled said they approved of building new nuclear plants, but 70 percent did not want one within 10 miles of their homes. Even more respondents, 82 percent, said they would object to construction of a nuclear waste storage facility within 10 miles of their homes. "We see how people's abstract ideas kind of conflict with the reality of it," said Keith Nicholls, a USA political science professor and head of the USA polling Group, which conducted the poll. That "not in my back yard" mentality - NIMBY, in pollster slang - is common, said Nicholls and others. "People are still not comfortable with the technology. They don't want it near them," said Stephen Smith, executive director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a Knoxville, Tenn.-based coalition that opposes expanded nuclear production. "To me that represents a very pervasive and a very real and very rational ... concern about having these plants nearby." Respondents to the Register-USA survey were almost evenly split in their perception of the degree of danger posed by nuclear facilities. Forty-seven percent said they felt that a serious nuclear-plant accident was unlikely or very unlikely in the next 10 years, while 44 percent said they thought one was likely or very likely. That fear alone is enough to make Bush's nuclear plan ill-advised, Smith said. "If I were a public policy-maker, I would not be investing in it," he said, "because I do not believe that there is broad public support for nuclear energy." Nationwide polls, however, indicate that support exists and is expanding, according to Scott Peterson, senior director for communications at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear energy proponent in Washington, D.C. Peterson cited polls conducted for his organization that asked respondents whether the country "definitely should build more nuclear energy plants." Two-thirds of those polled in March agreed with that statement, up from 42 percent in late 1999. Figures from those polls, provided by Peterson, showed even stronger support from Southerners. Peterson said the nuclear industry has been helped by an improved safety record in recent years, and by improved efficiency at its plants. He also pointed out that nuclear plants emit no gases that might contribute to global warming. That knowledge, Peterson said, "has helped the public understand that if we want to have the energy we need along with clean air, nuclear energy has to be a part of that solution." Despite record highs in energy consumption in the United States, respondents to the Register-USA poll said conservation, as opposed to increased production, is the best way to solve America's energy woes. "I think the American people are getting more attuned to the tough choices we face, and I think that's healthy for the country," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, a nuclear energy advocate. "We need to develop a national policy, but also, every household needs to review their personal energy use. I would be sure that most households could reduce the amount of energy they use. "If the American people would just use their smaller car to run their errands in, that'd save a lot, and put money in their pocket." Nuclear energy supplies 25.5 percent of the electricity generated in Alabama, according to Peterson's group. That's about 5 percent higher than the national average. The Southern Nuclear Operating Co. - a subsidiary of Southern Company, which also owns Alabama Power - runs two reactors at the Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan. The Tennessee Valley Authority runs another pair at its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, near Huntsville. Smith said his group worries about several goals the TVA has stated for Browns Ferry: Restarting Unit 1, which closed 15 years ago amid several safety lapses. Retooling Unit 1 as well as Units 2 and 3, already in use, for production beyond the date until which they were intended to last. Modifying the reactors to increase the energy output for which they originally were built. The last two - extending reactors' life expectancy and bumping up their output - are staples of the Bush plan, Smith said. Such moves, he contended, fly in the face of the caution shown when the facilities were built, many in the 1960s, for 40 years of use. "They knew, even back then, that this is an unforgiving kind of technology," he said. "It's not necessarily inherently unsafe, but it is an unforgiving technology," one which leaves little room to deviate from original designs. "We have a very basic problem that we're worried about," Smith said. "You have older reactors running longer than their design criteria, running harder than their design criteria. Older, harder, longer - we see that as a prescription for disaster. The engineers now think they can go in and sort of tweak those criteria, and we're very nervous about that." Peterson said the high efficiency marks achieved at numerous plants recently are signs not of increased strain, but of advancements that allow reactors to refuel faster and stay online for longer periods. "It's not pushing these units beyond what they're capable of doing," Peterson said. "Obviously, that wouldn't be a smart thing for anyone to do, whether it's a nuclear plant or a coal or natural gas plant." Possibly the biggest obstacle to increased nuclear production is how to dispose of the toxic waste it creates, observers on all sides agree. The Register-USA poll shows just one of four Alabamians believe such waste can safely be stored for hundreds of years. One-half of respondents said safe storage is not possible, and another one-fourth said they were not sure. "That's a pretty healthy honesty," Peterson said of the undecided number. "That's generally not one of those issues that people think about a lot, so I think that's a pretty good indicator of where the American public stands on spent fuel storage. "Even people who live near the power plants, they know they're there, and they feel pretty comfortable with the safety aspect and the way they're run. But with fuel storage, it's an out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue." Karen Lovell, a Huntsville woman who helped establish recycling efforts there, said she opposes expanded nuclear efforts specifically because of the toxic waste issue. "Where are we going to put all the nuclear waste?" Lovell asked, rhetorically. "If we could answer that, I'd be for it, because otherwise it's fairly clean and efficient." A key component of Bush's plan involves the commissioning of a massive nuclear waste storage facility beneath the Nevada desert. The site has received several favorable reviews from the U.S. Department of Energy. Department officials will decide this summer whether to recommend the site to Bush. Critics say that by the time it opens - the earliest date would be 2010 - it would immediately be filled, and the government would have to build another storage area. Sessions called that a circular argument put forth by "rabid" environmentalists. Even if the Nevada site were filled right after it opened, he said, space would be freed at the plants who have stored their own waste since opening four decades ago. "The waste has become a political problem, but it's not a scientific problem that can't be solved," Sessions said. Peterson said the mere existence of such a facility would ease concerns about safe storage. "That would increase the public confidence significantly." Smith acknowledged safety records at nuclear plants have improved, but not nearly enough to eliminate concerns rooted in a 1979 near-meltdown at Three Mile Island, Penn., and the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. The latter is ranked among the worst environmental catastrophes of all time. "I think they deserve credit for the last few years, but it's only a snapshot if you look at the entire history of the industry," Smith said. "I guarantee you, it will take only one major screw-up to shift public opinion dramatically in the other direction." The telephone survey, which contacted 416 adult residents of Alabama, was conducted Monday through Wednesday. It put the margin of error at plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. This means there is a 95 percent probability that the results are within 5 percentage points of the results that would have been obtained from a survey of the entire population of Alabama. c Mobile Register. Used with permission. ***************************************************************** 12 Bush Touts Energy Plan; Democrats Continue Criticism The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 20, 2001* By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- President Bush pressed his campaign for a new government energy strategy while Democrats responded Saturday that the plan does not ease California's power crisis or soaring gasoline prices around the country. Bush, a former Texas oilman, was urged by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis of California to "stand up to your friends in the energy business and exercise the federal government's exclusive responsibility to ensure energy prices are reasonable." House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said Bush should seek price caps, which the president emphatically has rejected, "to stop this crisis, which is bankrupting millions of people on the West Coast." Bush used his radio address to repeat arguments on behalf of his energy package. "Too often Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection," Bush said. "The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. Both can be achieved with new technologies and a new vision." He noted that the average family energy bill has climbed by 25 percent over the past three years as he sought to explain his plan to increase oil, coal and nuclear energy. While not promising any short-term action on prices, Bush said he recognized that chronic energy shortages and periodic blackouts strain family budgets, disrupt businesses and put public health, safety and the environment at risk. Gephardt, appearing on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields," said the president's plan was unbalanced and failed to address immediate energy problems. "It's heavy on drilling," said Gephardt, D-Mo. "And most importantly, the good parts of his plan are not in his budget and not in his tax bill, which really makes a mockery of what he's suggesting. . . . There's not a penny in it [the tax bill] for the energy stuff he suggested [last] week." © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 13 Bush Touts Energy Plan; Democrats Continue Criticism The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 20, 2001* By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- President Bush pressed his campaign for a new government energy strategy while Democrats responded Saturday that the plan does not ease California's power crisis or soaring gasoline prices around the country. Bush, a former Texas oilman, was urged by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis of California to "stand up to your friends in the energy business and exercise the federal government's exclusive responsibility to ensure energy prices are reasonable." House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said Bush should seek price caps, which the president emphatically has rejected, "to stop this crisis, which is bankrupting millions of people on the West Coast." Bush used his radio address to repeat arguments on behalf of his energy package. "Too often Americans are asked to take sides between energy production and environmental protection," Bush said. "The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. Both can be achieved with new technologies and a new vision." He noted that the average family energy bill has climbed by 25 percent over the past three years as he sought to explain his plan to increase oil, coal and nuclear energy. While not promising any short-term action on prices, Bush said he recognized that chronic energy shortages and periodic blackouts strain family budgets, disrupt businesses and put public health, safety and the environment at risk. Gephardt, appearing on CNN's "Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields," said the president's plan was unbalanced and failed to address immediate energy problems. "It's heavy on drilling," said Gephardt, D-Mo. "And most importantly, the good parts of his plan are not in his budget and not in his tax bill, which really makes a mockery of what he's suggesting. . . . There's not a penny in it [the tax bill] for the energy stuff he suggested [last] week." © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 14 Nuclear Energy Industry Reclaims Spotlight May 20, 2001 By THE NEW YORK TIMES [Readers' Opinions] [W] ASHINGTON, May 19 — "Busy, busy, busy — hundreds of details." That is how Angelina S. Howard, executive vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, described the frenetic schedule of interviews on the day President Bush unveiled his energy plan. The nuclear energy industry is back in the spotlight, cited in the report of the National Energy Policy Development Group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney as one of the cornerstones of a broad, national effort to produce more power. Suddenly, nuclear power plants have become respectable again, and Ms. Howard and her colleagues at the institute, the industry's lobbying and public relations arm, were in demand for television appearances from 7 in the morning until 7 in the evening on Thursday. The Bush plan contains much good news for the industry, which has not gotten much respect in recent years. The cartoon comedy "The Simpsons," for example, tweaks the industry frequently, with its bumbling patriarch, Homer Simpson, working at a nuclear plant. Now the nuclear power industry is getting new consideration, as Mr. Bush calls for new plants and the resumption of reprocessing nuclear fuel. And the nuclear power industry got one clear concession in the plan: a break that would eliminate the double taxation of money put aside for decommissioning plants. Those taxes, experts said, have been a deterrent to buying and selling nuclear plants. Mr. Bush's plan to re-evaluate nuclear reprocessing, in which nuclear waste is converted into reusable fuel, is also expected to draw attention to the industry. Britain and France currently reprocess fuels, but it has not yet proven profitable, group officials said. Anti-proliferation organizations have long argued that reprocessing creates bomb-grade nuclear fuels that could be converted into weapons. In fact, Mr. Bush's report noted the problem and urged an examination of "more proliferation-resistant" fuels. While the accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Ukraine damaged the reputation of the industry, Joe F. Colvin, the institute's president, said the Bush plan presented a chance to talk about more recent advances in nuclear power. "What we have done in the past two decades in the nuclear energy industry has made tremendous progress in improving the safety and the reliability and reducing the cost of nuclear generation," Mr. Colvin said. "And we have a tremendous story to tell. In fact, what we have the opportunity to say through this administration and their leadership is to have nuclear energy be looked at as part of the solution to our nation's energy needs." Ms. Howard said the time was right to engage the public in the energy process. Other countries, she said, including China, Japan and Korea, are looking to the United States to be a leader in the nuclear industry. "I had a 64-year- old grandmother call me after I was on the radio this morning, and say this stuff is interesting," Ms. Howard said on Thursday. There are 103 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. And the institute has nearly 300 member organizations in 15 countries. In addition, the group has assembled a task force on nuclear deployment, which has met four times to draw up a business plan for new reactors. The task force will meet again this summer. The industry plans to discuss its strategy for building new nuclear plants over the next 20 years at its annual meeting here next week. Representative Billy Tauzin, a Republican from Louisiana who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Senators George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, both Republicans, are expected to speak at the meeting. Mr. Cheney has also been invited, but has not confirmed whether he will attend. >Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 15 Ann McFeatters: Back to the future on energy [PG News] Bush's plan calls for more drilling and more refineries - and higher bills Sunday, May 20, 2001 WASHINGTON - This is not your father's energy crunch - except that, like Jimmy Carter, George W. can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly either. Both the ex-president and the current president insist on saying "nu-cu-lar," instead of "nu-cle-ar." But, hey, we don't want to be picky. Ann McFeatters is National Bureau chief for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. Her e-mail address is amcfeatters@ nationalpress.com. The real problem is that our household budgets are not calibrated for high energy bills and that's what we're going to get for a whole lot of months. Carter, who put a solar energy collector on the White House roof (it's long gone), thought the sun and wind were answers to the crisis sparked by the Arab oil embargo; as soon as the embargo ended, the collectors and wind turbines disappeared, too. President Bush said the other day that a tax cut is the answer to roads crowded with gas-guzzling SUVs and short-sighted California politicians who loved unwisely, luxuriating in the word "deregulation" without regard to what it might mean. Wasn't the average family's rapidly shrinking tax cut supposed to stave off recession? Who knew the money (if and when it actually dribbles out in tangible form) would be handed over to the corner gas station? Americans who are still trying to pay off those blood-coagulating winter heating bills now are quivering at forecasts of $3-a-gallon gasoline. Bush tells them to be patient and that in a few decades, all will be well. His critics say if the Americans shut off their air conditioners and ride bicycles, all will be well. All won't be well, at least not for quite a while. Bush's speech in St. Paul, Minn., just thawing from winter, basically was a warm-up act for the way the world will look if energy companies prevail: There are to be more drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more refineries, more coal-fired and nuclear power plants, more transmission lines. That vision and three bucks will get you a gallon of gasoline this summer. Stung by widespread anger that his energy plan was not heavy enough on conservation, Bush and his all-purpose vice president wisely rejiggered the plan so that it now has 42 proposals for conservation and renewable energy. Even so, the Union of Concerned Scientists scoffs that the Bush/Cheney plan is still "nine parts refining and drilling and one part conservation." Bush rightly noted in his speech that conservation doesn't mean doing without as much as it means using more evolved technology to get more out of less. Thus, there are solar-powered houses that produce more energy than they use and cute if costly little cars that run on gas and batteries. But that's like super-safe racing cars that can protect a driver in impacts that would pulverize the same driver in an ordinary car - the technology exists, but it's not yet affordable or available to consumers. It's hard to blame Americans for a certain skepticism. After the energy crisis of the 1970s, gas went back down to less than $1 a gallon, big cars were in vogue again, windmills did not dot the landscape and Ronald Reagan never once gave a fireside chat on the need to save energy while wearing a sweater. And then there was the China-syndrome scenario at Three Mile Island. But here we are in another "crunch," and the Nuclear Energy Institute is exulting about Bush's plan: "It's encouraging to hear the administration voice its support for nuclear energy. . . ." It is hard to resist being bedazzled by all the energy solutions - 105 of them - in Bush's 166-page blue energy-policy book, which has the presidential seal on its glossy cover. Touting these proposals and stuck to Bush's side like matching bookends for the duration of the hoopla are Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Whitman. (Get it? Environment: Hoorah! Energy: Hoorah!) The gist of the Bush blue book is that regulations must be eased, approval processes must be streamlined, billions of federal dollars must be spent, eminent domain must be invoked to take private property for energy purposes, pipelines must be built. (Just not in my backyard.) And there is one thumb-up for renewable energy. To his credit, Bush has ruled out what California hungers for - price controls on wholesale electricity. But the flaw with Bush's blueprint is what it doesn't say about nitty gritty here-and-now issues: Should SUVs have to get the same mileage as cars? Will the administration continue to insist that renovated coal plants have to have costly new pollution controls? Should nuclear waste be disposed of beneath the Yucca Mountain in Nevada? What formulas should be used for additives in gasoline? Should carcinogenic plutonium from nuclear reactors be reprocessed? As his dad would say, stay tuned. We don't know yet if we're on the road to energy independence or the road to affordable gas and electricity - or if we can get to either place again. post-gazette.com PG News ***************************************************************** 16 National ener gy plan may mean bounty for nuclear power research in Idaho FAITH BREMNER, GANNETT NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- The 10-year drought in federal funding for nuclear energy research is about to come to an end. When it does, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory could get a big infusion of money. President Bush's national energy plan calls for expanding the country's nuclear energy production by speeding up the federal process for icenses for new nuclear reactors and increasing capacity at existing nuclear power plants. Earlier this year, bills were introduced in both the Senate and the House to boost federal spending on nuclear power research by hundreds of millions of dollars. Idaho Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo and Rep. Mike Simpson, all Republicans, helped sponsor the bills. "We're encouraged by all these efforts," said Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the trade organizat ion that represents nucl ear power plants. "We certainly believe nuclear energy is an indispensable part of our nation's energy mix." Environmentalists say research into new and improved nuclear reactor designs is fine, so long as it includes research into solving nuclear waste problems and doesn't displace research for other renewable power sources, like solar and wind. "We have a nuclear reactor that's 93 million miles away -- the sun -- and it's working great," said Gary Richardson, execu tive director of the Snake River Al liance, an Idaho nuclear waste watchdog group. "It puts out an incredible amount of power. "If we had put as much scientific brainpower and technical expertise into tapping that reactor as we have in nuclear power on the planet, I think we'd be there (energy sufficient) by now." INEEL and Argonne National Laboratory West near Idaho Falls have been leaders in nuclear power plant research. Two years ago, the Department of Energy designated the two facilities as its national reactor testing center. They are now researching a new technology, called the pebble bed modular reactor, to see how it reacts under emergency situations. If all goes well, that technology could be ready to start producing power in the United States in 10 years, said Ralph Bennett, INEEL's director of advanced nuclear energy programs. The Olympian Copyright 2001 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Plutonium-disposal delay could affect Flats waste Denver Post.com Denver Post staff and wire reports --> Sunday, May 20, 2001 - WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has postponed a major part of the Energy Department's plan to dispose of plutonium left over from nuclear weapons production, citing budget constraints and technical problems. South Carolina officials are complaining that the Bush action violates the federal government's agreements with them to clean up nuclear wastes. Some of the plutonium is at Rocky Flats, the former nuclear weapons site in Jefferson County that is in the midst of a $7 billion cleanup now targeted for completion in 2006. Colorado officials are hopeful that Rocky Flats won't be affected. "We are confident that members of Congress who deal with these issues, along with the Department of Energy, will work out a solution," said a highly placed source in the administration of Gov. Bill Owens. Five years ago, the Energy Department, which manages the nuclear stockpile, set out to get rid of 52.5 tons of weapons-grade plutonium as part of a deal with Russia, which agreed to remove the same amount from its stockpile. The plan was to convert some of the plutonium from warhead form into fuel for civilian power reactors. But much of the plutonium is in forms not suited for fuel, including a large quantity at the Rocky Flats plant. The plan was to bake that plutonium into a ceramic to stabilize it and then to embed it in highly radioactive glass to protect it from being stolen for weapons use. The first part of that plan is still moving ahead, although the costs of making reactor fuel are uncertain. But instead of immobilizing the rest of the plutonium in glass, the Energy Department now plans to ship it to the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C., and seal it in storage containers there. Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina said this would violate an agreement with his state. "They committed that they would not send it to us unless there was a clear exit strategy for the plutonium," Hodges said. Recalling that Cecil D. Andrus, then governor of Idaho, threatened to call out the state police in the late 1980s to block a shipment of nuclear waste to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Hodges said, "We have troopers in South Carolina, too." In December 1996, when the Energy Department announced its "dual track" approach of conversion to fuel and immobilization, officials said that they were not sure which approach would prove the fastest, easiest or most economical, but that the prudent step was to do both. That policy has changed. Two top officials of the agency, speaking on the condition that they not be named, said that getting anything done requires concentrating all efforts on one approach. Conversion to fuel requires two factories, they said: one to take apart the plutonium at the heart of the warheads and another to turn it from metal to oxide and process it into the proper shape. Immobilizing plutonium would require a third factory. "We're not so sure Congress can support pursuing three significant facilities simultaneously," one of the officials said. The department estimates that the immobilization work being put off would cost between $500 million and $1 billion. At a hearing last month, John A. Gordon, undersecretary of energy for nuclear security, noted that the budget request for the Energy Department's weapons program next year was $100 million less than in the current year. Groups that focus on nuclear proliferation are even more concerned. Tom Clements, executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington, said technical problems could arise with the plan to use plutonium in civilian power reactors; for example, the reactors might have problems being relicensed for the fuel. But, he said, "immobilization could perform the entire mission, and do it cheaper." There is a technical problem, however, with the process for embedding the plutonium in highly radioactive glass. The Energy Department built a $2 billion factory at the Savannah River Site to mix radioactive sludge from its aging underground tanks with molten glass, solidifying the sludge and storing it, perhaps eventually in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But the glass is not as radioactive as it is supposed to be to prevent anyone from recovering the embedded plutonium. The recipe the agency wanted to use created benzene, a gas that can burn or explode. Until the problem is solved, the department has changed the recipe, resulting in finished glass that is not radioactive enough. *Denver Post staff writer John Ingold contributed to this report.* ***************************************************************** 2 Sick worker plan to meet deadline The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Sunday, May 20, 2001 *Program details: Specifics on compensation plan.* By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--*270.575.8650* The final draft of regulations for a compensation program for sick workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and other nuclear weapons facilities is expected to be submitted on Monday to the Office of Management and Budget. The filing means that the U.S. Department of Labor will meet the congressional mandate for having the regulations in place so that it can begin accepting applications on July 31. Sick workers who qualify and some surviving family members will receive $150,000 in compensation and be reimbursed for future medical costs. The first checks are expected to be issued in September or October. Stuart Roy, Washington spokesman for the Department of Labor, said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao will make an announcement about the program later this week. The announcement is expected to be confirmation that the deadlines have been met. Roy said officials in the Office of Management and Budget reviewed the regulations several weeks ago and requested some changes. "There were a few sticking points, but no major changes were requested," Roy said. "They have been discussing them and worked them out." Monday is the last day that the amended regulations can be submitted to OMB and published in the Federal Register by May 31, Roy said. After publication, interested parties have 90 days to comment and request changes. However, Labor will begin implementing the program after 60 days. In March, Labor officials said they didn't think they could meet the deadline and tried to transfer the program to the U.S. Department of Justice or another federal agency. After criticism by some members of Congress, Chao — the wife of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell — decided it would stay with her cabinet. In an interview last month, she said the program was placed on the fast track in an effort to meet the deadlines. The regulations outline details for implementing the program, filling out applications, processing applications and opening resource offices to help people file applications, Roy said. One of the resource offices will be in Paducah and should be open by mid-June. The resource center work will be contracted to a private firm that will be responsible to the Labor Department. For workers who became ill at the Paducah plant, the application process and the awarding of compensation should be easy and quick, Roy said. Under terms of the congressional mandate for the program, workers will not have to prove that they became ill from exposure at the Paducah plant, only that they worked at the plant and had certain diseases and cancers, Roy said. (The accompanying chart lists the diseases and cancers.) Applicants will need their work history and medical records showing evidence of the covered disease. The U.S. Department of Energy, which owns the plant and operated it with a private contractor until 1993, will provide employment records, but employment may also be established through other evidence, such as Social Security, pension and union records, or through statements by co-workers. Survivors will need the same work and medical records for the deceased worker to qualify for compensation. At other weapons facilities, Roy said, workers will have to provide evidence that they received certain levels of work-related contamination that caused their illnesses. Processing applications for other weapons facilities will take more time than those from Paducah, Roy said. ***************************************************************** 3 UC Hires Exec to Oversee 3 Labs May 20, 2001 | Print this story government advisor John P. McTague to manage facilities under contract with federal Energy Department. By REBECCA TROUNSON, Times Education Writer University of California regents have hired their first vice president for laboratory management, an action required by the U.S Energy Department under terms of its latest contract with the university to run three national labs. The Energy Department extended its long-running contract with the university in January, despite serious security breaches at the labs in recent years. Under the contract, the university will continue to manage the three laboratories, including the nation's two largest nuclear weapons labs, Los Alamos in New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore near Oakland. In exchange, however, the contract required the university to improve its oversight of the facilities. The new vice president, John P. McTague, a former Ford Motor Co. executive, UCLA chemistry professor and longtime governmental science advisor, will have primary responsibility for the university's management of the labs for the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. In a statement, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham praised McTague's appointment and said it was important that the university "continue on the track of closer lab management and oversight" that began with the January contract. The university has come under fire in recent years for highly publicized security lapses at Los Alamos, including the disappearance last June of two computer hard drives loaded with classified nuclear weapons data. The hard drives were later found hidden behind a photocopier. In 1999, nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee was fired from Los Alamos amid an FBI investigation into alleged espionage. Lee eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of mishandling nuclear data, and prosecutors dismissed 58 other counts against him. The University of California has managed the Los Alamos lab under contract to the Energy Department since 1943 and the Livermore lab since it opened a few years later. It also manages the Lawrence Berkeley lab. McTague, 62, said Friday that the new position, which he begins June 1 with a salary of $300,000, is intended to clarify authority in the labs within the university. Before joining Ford in 1986, McTague served as deputy director and acting director of the White House office of science and technology policy, and acting science advisor to President Reagan. From 1970 to 1982, he taught chemistry at UCLA. Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 4 Lab picks seven top managers for posts Separate committees made each selection *May 19, 2001* By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has firmed up its core leadership with the selection of seven top administrators -- among them two women and an Asian-American -- officials announced Friday. Separate committees were formed at the lab to fill each available management position. In all, the selection teams chose six associate directors and a deputy director. Most of the selections are internal promotions. The lab has a total of 12 associate director positions, two of which have not yet been permanently filled. University of California officials did not release salary information, pending approval by Energy Department officials. UC manages Livermore Lab for the department. Lab managers said at the start of the hiring process that they sought to create a diverse pool of applicants for the many openings, some of which have been filled on a temporary basis for several months. "These individuals are leaders in their fields. Our search process has been successful," said Bruce C. Tarter, Livermore Lab director. Previous lab associate directors have been exclusively white males, with the lone exception of a woman, Mary Tuzka, who served as associate director of administration at the lab from 1983-85, said lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton. Dona L. Crawford, who has served in a number of management roles at Sandia National Laboratories since she joined that lab in 1976, has been named associate director of computation at Livermore Lab. Crawford will oversee Livermore Lab's supercomputing research program and visualization facilities that help scientists to view complex data with computer-generated images. "Computing is very important to the laboratory and to the nation," said Crawford, who previously served as computation program director at Sandia. "I have been really impressed with the people and the work here," said Crawford, a Livermore resident. "I'm going to spend the first few months getting to know people. I'm just really excited about it -- it's going to be great." Tristan M. Pico, a Livermore Lab environmental engineer and former president of the lab women's association, said she is delighted that the lab now has a more diverse management team. She said she screamed out in excitement when she heard the news about the new managers. "It is exciting to see this taking place. (Lab managers) are getting the message," Pico said. "We feel they really did make an effort to get a diverse candidate pool. The result is a diverse selection, which is great." Cheng-kong "C.K." Chou, who led the lab's Fission Energy and Systems Safety Program from 1990-99, has been selected to serve as associate director of the Energy and Environment Directorate. Chou said there are "some scientific roles the lab can play and should play" in helping the nation to solve its energy problems. "I am very excited for this opportunity." In addition to his previous experience with energy issues, Chou said he also has worked on cleanup and environmental issues related to the nation's nuclear legacy. Michael R. Anastasio, former associate director for defense and nuclear technologies, will serve as deputy director of strategic operations, a new position at the lab. Anastasio said the new job will allow him to work closely with oversight agencies, especially the UC system and the Energy Department's nuclear security agency, which began operations in March 2000. Others members of the new management team include: Janet G. Tulk, laboratory counsel, will serve as associate director of administration. William H. Goldstein, a former acting associate director for physics at the lab who will serve as associate director for physics and advanced technologies. Steve Hunt, a former lab business manager, was named associate director for laboratory services. Dennis K. Fisher will lead the Safety, Security and Environmental Protection Directorate. Fisher served most recently as acting deputy director of operations. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 5 Dutch Firm Is Hired to Raise Sub washingtonpost.com: Russia Shifts Plans, Saying Kursk Could Be Retrieved This Year By Sharon LaFraniere Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, May 19, 2001; Page A17 MOSCOW, May 18 -- The Russian government hired a Dutch transport firm today to lift the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk from the bottom of the Barents Sea in hopes of retrieving the 118 dead crewmen and discovering more about what caused one of the worst accidents in Russian military history. The controversial and costly contract with the Dutch firm Mammoet calls for the 20,000-ton submarine to be raised 355 feet to the surface and brought to the docks by Sept. 20. Russian officials said they chose Mammoet after negotiating with a consortium of Dutch and Norwegian firms because Mammoet promised to carry out the operation this year. Its methods were also more reliable, they added. Consortium officials said they had to wait until next year to start the operation for safety reasons. Two explosions ripped through the sub last Aug. 18 as it was on maneuvers, and a bungled Russian rescue effort exposed major military shortcomings. Public outrage was fueled by the faulty official response and by attempts to cover up a trail of incompetence. The last-minute switch in contractors to raise the vessel was an instant topic of debate among experts. "To change partners when factually two or 2 1/2 months is left [for the effort] is unreasonable and simply beyond comprehension," said Alexei Vasiliev, a professor at State Sea Technical University. Some specialists questioned whether the immensely complicated endeavor is misguided. Yuri Senatsky, a Russian rear admiral and specialist on vessel salvage, said it was "absurd" to lift the Kursk in hopes of recovering the remains of perhaps 40 sailors not incinerated by the explosions. As for the need to recover the Kursk's two nuclear reactors to prevent pollution from fuel leakage, Senatsky said the same area contains eight other reactors in more dangerous condition that should be recovered first. He also questioned the government's plan to slice away the Kursk's mangled nose, where the explosions occurred, and decide whether to lift it after examining the sub underwater. "I think this is a way of hiding the causes of the tragedy," Senatsky said. "The entire cause-and-effect picture is in this part of the submarine." Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov has said the forward compartment must be treated separately because it is filled with live torpedoes that could explode. The cost of raising the Kursk from the Arctic waters has been estimated at about $80 million, a huge sum for the perennially cash-strapped Russian government. Government officials said tonight they have resolved problems with financing. They also expressed confidence the contractor can overcome the many technological obstacles of lifting the equivalent of five freight trains. The Dutch firm plans to attach steel cables to the Kursk's hull and tear it off the seabed using computer-synchronized hydraulic jacks over eight to 10 hours. The consortium had planned to use cranes instead of jacks. The submarine will then be dragged 62 miles to the coast, connected to pontoons and parked at a dock, government officials said. After a nine-month investigation, a government commission has yet to conclude why the Kursk plunged to the bottom of the sea. Many outside experts have concluded one of the Kursk's torpedoes misfired during a training exercise. But Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov, the navy's commander in chief, said tonight he believes the Kursk collided with a foreign submarine. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 6 Change in Plutonium Disposal Plan Draws Complaints May 20, 2001 By MATTHEW L. WALD [W] ASHINGTON, May 19 — The Bush administration has postponed a major part of the Energy Department's plan to dispose of plutonium left over from nuclear weapons production, because of budget constraints and technical problems. But two states, South Carolina and Colorado, are complaining that the decision violates the federal government's agreements with them to clean up nuclear wastes. Five years ago, the Energy Department, which manages the nuclear stockpile, set out to get rid of 52.5 tons of weapons plutonium as part of a deal with Russia, which agreed to remove the same amount from its stockpile. The plan was to convert some of the plutonium from warhead form into fuel for civilian power reactors. But much of the plutonium is in forms not suited for fuel, including a large quantity at the Rocky Flats plant, in the suburbs of Denver. The plan was to bake that plutonium into a ceramic to stabilize it and then to embed it in highly radioactive glass, to protect it from being stolen for weapons use. The first part of that plan is moving ahead, although the costs of making reactor fuel are uncertain. But instead of immobilizing the rest of the plutonium in glass, the Energy Department now plans to ship it to the Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C., and seal it in storage containers. Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina said this violated an agreement with his state. "They committed that they would not send it to us unless there was a clear exit strategy for the plutonium," Mr. Hodges said. Recalling that Cecil D. Andrus, then governor of Idaho, threatened to call out the state police in the late 1980's to block a shipment of nuclear waste to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Mr. Hodges said, "We have troopers in South Carolina, too." In December 1996, when the Energy Department announced its "dual track" approach of conversion to fuel and immobilization, officials said that they were not sure which approach would prove the fastest, easiest or most economical, but that the prudent step was to do both. That policy has changed. Two top officials of the agency, speaking on the condition that they not be named, said that getting anything done required concentrating all efforts on one approach. Conversion to fuel requires two factories, they said: one to take apart the plutonium at the heart of the warheads and another to turn it from metal to oxide and process it into the proper shape. Immobilizing plutonium would require a third factory. "We're not so sure Congress can support pursuing three significant facilities simultaneously," one of the officials said. The department estimates that the immobilization work being put off would cost between $500 million and $1 billion. At a hearing last month, John A. Gordon, the under secretary of energy for nuclear security, noted that the budget request for the Energy Department's weapons program next year was $100 million less than in the current year. The Energy Department's plans also trouble some officials in Colorado, who are eager to have the department meet its target of shipping all the plutonium at the Rocky Flats factory out of the state by 2006. Groups that focus on nuclear proliferation are even more concerned. Tom Clements, the executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington, said technical problems could arise with the plan to use plutonium in civilian power reactors; for example, the reactors might have problems being relicensed for the fuel. But, he said, "immobilization could perform the entire mission, and do it cheaper." There is a technical problem, however, with the process for embedding the plutonium in highly radioactive glass. The Energy Department built a $2 billion factory at the Savannah River Site to mix radioactive sludge from its aging underground tanks with molten glass, solidifying the sludge and storing it, perhaps eventually in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But the glass is not as radioactive as it is supposed to be to prevent anyone from recovering the embedded plutonium. The recipe the agency wanted to use created benzene, a gas that can burn or explode. Until it can solve this problem, the department has changed the recipe, resulting in finished glass that is not radioactive enough. 2001 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************