***************************************************************** 05/22/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.127 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Letter from Bob Loux to OCRWM Acting Director Lake Barrett 2 Lawmakers kill plan for radioactive dump 3 Savannah River Site Sends First Transuranic Waste for Disposal 4 Nuclear summer 5 How far on nuclear policy? 6 Las Vegas SUN: Cheney Defends Energy Proposal 7 Cheney Promises More Nuclear Power (washingtonpost.com) 8 Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney to The Nuclear Energy 9 Editorial: Showdown is set over licensing 10 EUROTECH, Ltd. Retains Davis Manafort, Inc. to Strategically 11 Duratek Announces Contract Award for $3.5 Million 12 PEMA: Nuclear Exercise at Three Mile Island Tomorrow 13 Feature-Nuclear renaissance has to reckon with Chernobyl 14 Yucca Mountain nuclear dump proposal opposed - 05/22/01 15 Feasibility Study of Russia-India Atomic Power Plant Drawn Up 16 Electrabel's Tihange nuclear plant on fire for 2nd time in 7 days 17 Radioactive corner of Russia could grow more so under plan 18 Med Crews Feel Unprepared for Nuke Shipments NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 DOE outlines cleanup 'successes' 2 NaK removed from Y-12 complex 3 Landfill cleanup cost much below estimate 4 WHO Study of Depleted Uranium Urged 5 Report: Health Risks of DU Weapons Is Low 6 Uranium shell cancer link 'not ruled out' 7 ITN - Depleted uranium: more study needed 8 DU soldiers have 'little to fear', say experts 9 Depleted Uranium Report 10 Russia and U.S. complete nuclear disarmament project 11 Anger over Maralinga nuclear test revelations 12 Secret Maralinga troop test plans condemned as "diabolical" 13 'Ground zero' plan for n-troops 14 The Age: RSL calls for nuke test inquiry 15 Govt active in N tests: researcher [ 22may01 ] 16 Lawyer sceptical about Maralinga tests 17 Russian Government Pays $16 Million 18 Doing Time For The Cause 19 Feds will test Fallon water next month 20 PNNL faces DOE cuts ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Letter from Bob Loux to OCRWM Acting Director Lake Barrett Requesting Extension of the Public Comment Period for DOE's Supplement to the Draft Yucca Mountain EIS (May 21, 2001) KENNY C. GUINN *Governor* STATE OF NEVADA [State Seal] OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR AGENCY FOR NUCLEAR PROJECTS 1802 N. Carson Street, Suite 252 Carson City, Nevada 89701 Telephone: (775) 687-3744 • Fax: (775) 687-5277 E-mail: nwpo@govmail.state.nv.us ROBERT R. LOUX *Executive Director* May 22, 2001 Mr. Lake Barrett, Acting Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20585 Dear Mr. Barrett: The State of Nevada formally requests that the public comment period for the *Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada* (DOE/EIS-0250D-S) be extended by at least 45 days to provide not less than 90 days for review and comment by members of the public, local governments, and other affected parties. Given the technical nature of the information contained in the Supplement, the intense public interest in and concern about the Yucca Mountain project in general and DOE's National Environmental Policy Act process in particular, and the time constraints faced by affected governments for obtaining citizen input, compiling comments, and obtaining governing body endorsements, forty-five days simply does not afford adequate time for meaningful public input. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, --/s/-- Robert R. Loux Executive Director ***************************************************************** 2 Lawmakers kill plan for radioactive dump HoustonChronicle.com *May 21, 2001, 11:30AM* Associated Press AUSTIN -- A Texas House committee has voted to block a bill that would establish a low-level radioactive waste dump in West Texas. The Senate bill also would have allowed the U.S. Department of Energy to ship waste to a separate proposed dump in Texas. The House Calendars Committee, which sets bills for floor debate, voted 5-3 late Sunday not to schedule the Senate bill in the House. That effectively kills the legislation by Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock. The Senate approved the measure earlier this month. Five House Democrats on the calendars committee voted against the bill. "It took a great deal of courage by these members of the House to stand up and say publicly that we're opposed to it," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, Texas director of the consumer group Public Citizen, which lobbied against the measure. Smith predicted the legislation will return, possibly even in the final week of this session tacked onto some other bill. "We're all for a responsible way of dealing with our radioactive waste, but this was an irresponsible way of dealing with that problem," he said. Duncan said his legislation offered effective, strong safeguards to safely dispose of both state and federal waste. "It's not something we can forever ignore," Duncan said. A provision added to the bill would have allowed Texas to accept Department of Energy waste at a separate dump. Bill opponents and even Duncan disapproved of that amendment by Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo. Duncan said such a provision had killed the legislation in previous sessions. The bill would have helped Texas fulfill a compact that involves accepting low-level radioactive waste from Maine, Vermont and Texas. The compact is part of a nationwide plan to store low-level radioactive waste regionally. Currently, the state has about 1,200 sites where low-level radioactive waste is stored. Setting up the compact would allow for the waste to be stored and managed at one site. Low-level radioactive waste is a byproduct of medical, research and industrial activities. It also is produced through the operation of nuclear power plants. The radioactive waste bill is SB 1541. ***************************************************************** 3 Savannah River Site Sends First Transuranic Waste for Disposal EarthVision Environmental News* CARLSBAD, NM, May 21, 2001 - The US Department of Energy's Savannah River Site has successfully sent the first of about 1,800 shipments of transuranic radioactive waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) located in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The WIPP, when it opened in March 1999, became the first operating underground repository for transuranic radioactive waste left from the production of nuclear weapons in the US. Project facilities include excavated rooms 2,150 feet (almost a half mile) underground in an ancient, stable salt formation. Transuranic waste consists of clothing, tools, rags, residues, debris and other items contaminated with radioactive elements - mostly plutonium. These radioactive elements all have an atomic number greater than uranium, hence the term "transuranic." The shipment from the Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina, consisted of 42 drums of waste. The 1,540-mile trip took approximately 39.5 hours, including time required for WIPP drivers to stop and inspect the truck every 100 miles or two hours. The inspection stops are required by the US Department of Transportation. Savannah River is the fifth Department of Energy site to ship waste to WIPP for permanent disposal. Four other sites were already shipping waste to WIPP: Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (Colorado), Los Alamos National Laboratory (New Mexico), Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford Site (Washington). For more information about WIPP, call 1-800-336-9477 or visit http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us. ***************************************************************** 4 Nuclear summer CNN.com - Bush's new energy plan is hoping to light a fire under the least loved power source. But a profitable, revamped industry is way ahead of him By Daniel Eisenberg With Reporting By Hilary Hylton/Austin, David S. Jackson/Los Angeles And Michael Weisskopf And Adam Zagorin/Washington Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. And don't forget The China Syndrome. With their long, notorious track records of burning money and spewing toxic waste, it's hard to imagine that nuclear power plants could ever again be hot properties. But in Vernon, Vt., some of the nation's largest energy companies are battling to gobble one up. The Vermont Yankee plant, a 28-year-old nuclear war-horse, has become the target of a bidding war. With the price of oil and natural gas escalating, concerns about global warming rising and electricity markets deregulating, these onetime white elephants are starting to look more like cash cows. The Vermont battle, in fact, is just the latest stop on an industrywide shopping spree that is fueling a nuclear resurgence. By the end of the decade, new nuclear power plants could be sprouting up right here at home: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has already approved the next generation of supposedly cheaper, safer plant designs. While California braces for a summer of rolling blackouts and New York City prays that the lights stay on, Washington is helping ignite a fire under nuclear power. As part of the hotly debated national energy plan that he unveiled last week, President George Bush called nuclear energy "a major component" of any solution. Critics, not surprisingly, say the comeback of the $43 billion-a-year industry is a step in the wrong direction that will threaten the environment as well as public health and safety. Nor did the Administration's unexpected recommendation to take another look at reprocessing spent nuclear fuel get a particularly warm reaction. Over the past few years, the nuclear industry's top players, led by Entergy and Exelon (formed by the merger of Philadelphia-based PECO Energy and Chicago native Unicom), have shelled out nearly $4 billion to purchase 15 of the nation's 103 operating plants--including such unlikely prizes as the surviving sister unit of Pennsylvania's infamous Three Mile Island No. 2 reactor. These new nuclear powers, which also include Duke Energy, Southern Co., Dominion Resources and Constellation Energy, have reversed years of mismanagement and cost overruns to turn the plants into the reliable, profitable atomic engines they were meant to be. Their secret? They're better operators than the former owners, publicly owned utilities, and they can use economies of scale to their advantage. Despite the fact that no new plants have been ordered in almost a quarter-century, the nuclear power sector still accounts for 20% of the nation's electricity supply. During the past decade, output has increased 25%, equivalent to building 23 new 1,000-megawatt plants. And the beat will go on: the initial 40-year licenses of a small but growing number of units are being renewed for an additional two decades. As for new plants, Exelon is already working on the next generation, exemplified by a helium-cooled, pebble-bed test reactor it is helping build in South Africa that, theoretically at least, wouldn't ever need to be shut down for refueling and is practically meltdown-proof. Of course, the company would still have to find a place in the U.S. to put it. Many homeowners would sooner burn coal in their own fireplace than live next to a reactor. So rather than try to find converts, the industry hopes to construct new facilities on existing sites, in communities that already depend on plants for jobs. Not surprisingly, the no-nukes crowd, once radiated, is more than twice shy. Nuclear power plants may not, as the Bush Administration has pointed out countless times, emit greenhouse gases, but they carry with them their own, very real environmental risks. Most important, there is the matter of where to put all that spent fuel--40,000 metric tons, at last count--that has to be stored for thousands of years. For the moment, most of it is being kept in on-site storage pools, a costly and--according to many observers--risky proposition. "[Radioactive waste] is still the Achilles' heel of the industry," says Edward Smeloff, director of the Pace University Law School Energy Project. In California, for instance, a new nuclear plant can't even be licensed until the feds come up with a permanent solution. The Energy Department is scheduled to decide later this year whether to go ahead with the controversial proposal to bury the waste deep within Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But with the state's congressional delegation fiercely opposing the idea, the fight could easily drag on for years. If the site could be built, it would still be necessary to find a safe way to move all the fuel there without unduly imperiling the nation's crucial freight rails. The Administration's proposal to reexamine nuclear recycling makes watchdogs even more nervous. Such reprocessing aims to reduce waste by separating plutonium from spent uranium fuel and reusing it as a power source. But this practice hasn't been done in the U.S. since the 1970s, and opponents say it could help put bomb-grade plutonium in the wrong hands. Even the improvements that the industry never tires of trumpeting--more efficient, longer-running plants--do little to comfort antinuclear activists. "They're running these reactors hotter and longer," says Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Last year the Indian Point 2 plant, part of a trio of upstate New York reactors Entergy recently bought for around $1 billion, was temporarily closed down after radioactive water leaked from a ruptured steam tube. Just as the plants are getting older and more prone to problems, critics assert, the nrc is letting operators police themselves. Still, when it comes to safety, there's no denying that the industry has made great strides. The annual number of protective automatic shutdowns at each reactor, for instance, has fallen tenfold in the past 16 years, to 0.5. Exelon and Entergy have a lot more riding on their vast nuclear portfolios than an old-line utility with one measly reactor and a guaranteed rate of return. By pooling the expertise of a much larger, dedicated staff and spreading out the fixed costs, they've been able to reduce the length of refueling outages from 100 days to 40 and to keep plants running nearly 90% of the time, compared with an average of around 60% to 65% during the 1980s. With the value of existing plants rising dramatically, companies like Exelon and Entergy can no longer snap them up on the cheap. That's a rationale for building new ones. If that were to happen, though, Wall Street could lose its radioactive crush. The past generation of nuclear plants ran way over budget, taking more than a decade to finish and ultimately costing around $5 billion each. Back then, utilities could tack that onto customers' bills. But today shareholders may not be happy to take that risk. Designers of new plants in nuclear-friendly regions say they can now minimize that construction risk. Much like the so-called cookie-cutter model in France, where nuclear power accounts for 80% of the electricity, any new generation of nuclear plant in the U.S. would have to be based on a standard design instead of the current hodgepodge of complicated configurations. Westinghouse Electric's new, simplified unit, for instance, is modular and can practically be put together on an assembly line, relying more on natural forces like gravity and less on moving parts. Sounds great in theory. But as Exelon Nuclear chief Oliver Kingsley puts it, "I do think Wall Street will be a little skeptical until we have a bit of a track record." It had better not be anything like their previous one, or nuclear power won't stay hot for very long. ***************************************************************** 5 How far on nuclear policy? Boston Globe Online / Editorials | Opinions By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Staff, 5/22/2001 *WASHINGTON *ANY ATTEMPT TO understand President Bush's oddly noncommital commitment to the energy industry's massive stepchild called nuclear power needs to consider three symbols. One is the dismantled facility on Long Island called Shoreham, out of the energy picture for nearly a decade since former Governor Mario Cuomo and the opposition of both taxpayers and ratepayers said ''no'' to a more than $5.5 billion white elephant. Another is the long-since mothballed second unit at Seabrook, the site of so much controversy and civil disorder in southern New Hampshire before its first unit finally went on line 12 years ago. And the third is the quietly humming facility in Maryland, where the Calvert Cliffs reactor has recently been blessed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a license to operate for another 20 years. From these symbols, a few conclusions about the Bush strategy are possible. Above all, the new administration seems capable of cheerleading for trends that are already established; but it seems much less capable of deciding how far beyond those trends it is willing to try to push the envelopes of economics and political consensus. In specific terms, it is impossible to find a knowledgeable official who can imagine what would bring Shoreham or Seabrook's Unit 2 back to life as nukes. The utilities involved are either financially unsound or in the process of being sold, the economics doesn't make much sense, and the politics makes no sense at all. On the other hand, it is possible to imagine that what happened at Calvert Cliffs could happen at nearly all the 103 reactors in the United States as their licenses begin to run out. The industry's track record on safety is commendable (as long as you remember that the public will never tolerate less than perfection and shouldn't). And the operating costs, once the immense capital costs of construction are amortized, make nuclear-generated electricity competitive. In policy terms, the administration has come down hardest and most clear on the proposition that the nuclear industry should have its life extended for at least another generation. Beyond that, the energy document produced by Vice President Dick Cheney is ambivalent. The desire for a renewal of construction, for more plants, is obvious, but the absence of specific measures and policy commitments is equally so. There is an expressed desire to go down the reprocessing road, which Jimmy Carter blocked in the '70s to avoid the weapons proliferation dangers of plutonium; but there is no roadmap for overturning such a long-standing US policy. At the same time, there is nothing in the Bush policy to gainsay the marketplace's firmly negative conclusion about more nukes, based on costs that are still double those for natural gas-fired plants, and on past experience with overruns and the politics of regulation. Even the commitment to relicensing is suspect, given the continued impasse with virtually all of Nevada over storing spent fuel rods in a deep-underground site at Yucca Mountain. The administration makes it clear that it seeks to renew at least 90 percent of curent nuclear capacity over the next 20 years. It is equally clear about the benefits (2,000 megawatts of power) of increasing the current industry capacity utilization rate by two points to 92 percent; and just as clear about the benfits (12,000 megawatts) of upgrading the capacity at existing plants. The administration also underlines the importance of the nuclear status quo to the current energy mix - 20 percent of all electricity generated, but 40 percent of the juice in 10 states. Consensus is clearly available on the question of relicensing after careful reviews; but only conflict will result from an effort to force open the doors closed by economics as well as safety concerns. But in a microcosm of the overall policy, this available consensus only underlines how much more investment in conservation and safely renewable technology will be required to keep energy in the United States plentiful and reesonably priced. Thomas Oliphant's *e-mail address is *oliphant@globe.com*.* This story ran on page 19 of the Boston Globe on 5/22/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. [ Send this story to a ***************************************************************** 6 Las Vegas SUN: Cheney Defends Energy Proposal Today: May 22, 2001 at 14:45:23 PDT WASHINGTON- Vice President Dick Cheney, answering environmentalists and other critics of his energy report, said Tuesday anyone who argues it neglects conservation "simply hasn't read the report." Cheney, addressing a nuclear power industry conference, said more than half the 105 recommendations and most of the financial incentives in the energy plan involve conservation and renewable energy sources. "There's been a lot of talk from some of our critics that somehow the only focus is on additional supplies. ... That's simply not true," declared Cheney. "Anybody who says that simply hasn't read the report," he continued. Cheney said the upcoming debate on energy will involve "a fundamental set of decisions that are going to determine the quality of life for our kids and grandkids for years to come. "These are difficult challenges," he said, but President Bush "didn't come to town to duck tough issues." Congressional Democrats and a broad cross-section of environmental leaders have sharply criticized the Bush administration's energy plan as too heavily tilted toward boosting coal, gas, oil and nuclear energy development. "The plan is built on the misguided notion that we can dig and drill our way out of the current energy challenges," said Daniel Reicher, who was assistant energy secretary for renewable and efficiency programs in the Clinton administration. Echoing the views of many environmentalists, Reicher, now at the World Resources Institute, said the Bush plan has "no aggressive commitment to energy efficiency and cleaner sources of renewable energy." But Cheney maintained that if the recommendations of his energy task force, including 20 involving congressional action, are adopted, "We assure very significant savings from conservation." Still, he added, "the bottom line is we still have inadequate supplies" and will have to develop more coal, gas and nuclear energy to meet future electricity needs. Cheney reiterated his support for nuclear power at the conference, sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group. Currently about a fifth of the electricity in the United States comes from nuclear reactors. Cheney said that portion will decline if it isn't made easier to relicense current reactors and build new ones. "We want to encourage investment in nuclear power," said Cheney. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 Cheney Promises More Nuclear Power (washingtonpost.com) *By Mike Allen* Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 22, 2001; 1:11 PM Vice President Cheney went before 375 officials from the nuclear industry this morning to ask for support for President Bush's energy policy and to promise that nuclear power will be an important part of the solution. Cheney said Bush's policy assumes "very significant" savings from conservation and increased use of renewable energy sources such as sun and wind, but he said they will not be enough to meet the nation's energy needs. "Bottom line is, we still have inadequate supplies, and the only way to close that gap is to generate more electric power," Cheney said. "Given today's technologies and expectations going forward, that means it's going to be coal-fired, it's going to be gas-fired or it's going to come from nuclear power." The vice president spoke to the Nuclear Energy Assembly, a conference sponsored at a Washington hotel by the industry's major trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Cheney, who received a standing ovation, said the nuclear industry is already allowing electricity to be generated "efficiently, safely, with no discharge of the greenhouse gases or emissions." "We want to, as a matter of national policy, to encourage continued advancements in this industry – improved safety and efficiency in nuclear plants, safe disposal of nuclear waste, and perhaps even technology that reduces the amount of toxicity of waste going forward," he said. Cheney thanked the executives for their "support for reasonable policies with respect to energy policy going forward." "There's a lot of talk from some of our critics that somehow it's only focused, for example, on additional supplies of energy – that we didn't look adequately at conservation or renewables," Cheney said. "That's simply not true. I would say anybody who says that hasn't read the report." Perhaps chastened by the response to remarks last month that were covered in the news media as being dismissive of conservation, Cheney emphasized that more of the recommendations from Bush's energy tax force, which the vice president chaired, "are devoted to conservation and renewables than are devoted to increased supplies." "If you look at the whole area of financial incentives that we recommend, those have a whole lot more to do with conservation and increased efficiency than they do with trying to subsidize additional production from conventional sources," Cheney said. The vice president said Bush "recognizes that these are difficult and challenging issues, and there's been plenty of controversy over the years connected with all of these kinds of issues." "But as he's said to us many times in the Oval Office, he didn't come to town to duck the tough issues," Cheney said. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 8 Remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney to The Nuclear Energy Institute 2001 Nuclear Energy Assembly Copyright 2001 Federal News Service, Inc. Federal News Service May 22, 2001, Tuesday 12:30 PM Eastern Time WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING LOCATION: WASHINGTON MONARCH HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C. VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: (Applause.) Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that warm welcome this morning and I'm delighted to be here, have the opportunity to spend a few minutes with you on a very important subject and, of course, that's national energy policy. I'd like to take just a couple of minutes this morning and say a little bit about the background in terms of how it is we got to where we are, and then comment on a couple of the things that we think are important going forward. We very much appreciate the fact that you're here, and obviously hope we'll be able to garner your support for reasonable policies with respect to energy policy going forward. We got into the business this year of looking at the question of a national energy policy because the president was convinced, and talked about it during last year's campaign, that we had not had a national energy policy for some time, and that if we could spot a storm cloud on the horizon out there that could conceivably threaten our prosperity as a nation and adversely affect the lives of millions of Americans, it was the fact that we did not have a national energy policy. And you could begin to see manifestations of that in various places around the country. Most recently, of course, the focus has been on California, the problems that California has been suffering through, partly as a result of a flawed regulatory scheme with respect to electric power, partly as a result of combined economic growth and lack of any additional supplies with respect to electric generating capacity over the last 10 years. But we can look various places around the country and find other problems. We clearly have problems as well in the transportation sector. And when we put all of those together, we thought it was important to go forward to address these issues, and at the president's request, we put together the task force, that I chair, that has now produced the result, the report that the president released last week. We think it's very important going forward that we adopt most of the recommendations that are in that report. There are a couple of notions that I want to get on the table at the outset, and that is that there's been a lot of talk from some of our critics that somehow it's only focused, for example, on additional supplies of energy; that we didn't look adequately at conservation or renewables. That's simply not true. I would say anybody who says that clearly hasn't read the report. If you look at the report, out of the 105 recommendations that we've made, more are devoted to conservation and renewables than are devoted to increased supplies. If you look at the whole area of financial incentives that we recommend, those have a lot more to do with conservation and increased efficiency than they do with trying to subsidize or stimulate additional production from conventional sources. So it's very important when people want to engage in this debate -- and we think there ought to be a major national debate over energy policy; these are extraordinarily important issues to address -- that it be done based upon somebody taking the time to sit down and look at the report. Some of friends in the environmental community have been a little critical. I noted this weekend on one of the talk shows that the Sierra Club, of course, didn't immediately stand up and cheer when they saw our report; said a few negative comments on it. But they recently put out a set of recommendations themselves, 12 recommendations to deal with the nation's energy problems. And 11 of those 12, in fact, have counterparts in our report. So there's a lot of overlap, if people will take time to sit down and look at it. We do care a great deal about the environment. The president wanted to make absolutely certain that going forward we had the kind of policy, that exercise, the due regard for the legitimate interests of the American people in achieving the cleanest possible environmental set of circumstances we can. And that's embodied in it as well, too. Basically, bottom line, we think the policy provides a reliable, affordable and environmentally sound policy going forward with respect to our future. Part of that, obviously, we think also ought to involve nuclear energy. It's important that we focus on that in the future just as we recognize that nuclear power is a very important part of our energy policy today in the United States. One out of five homes in America today runs on electricity generated by nuclear energy. But American electricity is already being provided through the nuclear industry efficiently, safely, with no discharge of greenhouse gases or emissions. And we want as a matter of national policy to encourage continued advancements in this industry, improve safety and efficiency at nuclear plants, safe disposal of nuclear waste and perhaps even technology that reduces the amount and toxicity of waste going forward. It's also important for us to remember that if we fail to do an effective job of dealing with the relicensing questions and the waste disposal questions with respect to nuclear energy, that eventually the contribution we can count on from the nuclear industry will, in fact, decline. We can't keep those plants going without relicensing and without dealing with these broader questions indefinitely into the future. And, of course, if we reduce the amount of power generated from nuclear energy we will, in fact, have to make that up from other sources. So it's vital that people remember that. Part of the important consideration here, as we look at questions of efficiency and of conservation, it's important for us to remember and for people to remember as they look at our forecast that we assume very significant savings in the area of conservation going forward. But when you assume significant savings in conservation and you factor in a significant increase in the extent to which we're able to go to new and more unconventional sources for power generation, the bottom line is we still have inadequate supplies and the only way to close that gap is to generate more electric power. And given today's technologies and expectations going forward, that means it's going to be coal-fired, it's going to be gas-fired, or it's going to come from nuclear power. It's important to get that basic framework in mind, I think, as we look at the recommendations we think are important. Specifically, if you look at what we've recommended in the report, we want to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to expedite applications for new, advanced-technology reactors, with the top criteria being safety and environmental protection. We want to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to re-license existing plants that meet or exceed safety standards. We want to assess the potential for nuclear energy to make a major contribution in terms of improving air quality. We want to also increase the resources devoted to safety and enforcement as we prepare to increase nuclear generating capacity in the future. We also want to get on with the business of finding a geologic repository for long-term waste disposal. We want to seek to clarify the law that funds that are set aside for eventual decommissioning of plants are not later deemed to be taxable, and we want to encourage investment in nuclear energy and to do that we also must renew the Price-Anderson Act. Now, that's sort of the set of items on our agenda with respect to nuclear power in particular. We think that it does have a significant contribution to make, going forward. I'd say the president recognizes that these are difficult and challenging issues, and there has been plenty of controversy over the years connected with all of these kinds of issues. But as he has said to us many times in the Oval Office, he didn't come to town to duck the tough issues. And on a whole series of areas, whether it's energy or it's tax policy or it's education or it's national security and defense policy, Social Security, these are all major issues. They're all issues that involve considerable controversy, but they have great significance for the American people. And it's vital for us as a nation to make certain that we do take on those issues, and he has provided leadership to do exactly that. We would like to join the debate on the future of our energy needs and requirements in this country, and we expect you very much to be a part of that debate. So we hope you'll be able to support our recommendations. We aren't -- I'm not here today to tell you that we've got all the answers here. Clearly there will be major contributions to be made in the Congress and by others as the debate goes forward. But it is important to join the debate, to have that debate take place without people falling back on the stereotypes that have so often characterized these kinds of discussions in the past, but rather everybody stay calm and cool and collected, and try to be objective and as non-emotional as possible as we go forward and make a fundamental set of decisions that are going to determine the quality of life in this country for our kids and grandkids for a long time to come. Thank you very much for being here. (Applause.) ***************************************************************** 9 Editorial: Showdown is set over licensing Today: May 22, 2001 at 8:37:05 PDT Whether the Department of Energy builds a nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain could hinge on which federal agency the White House sides with in a dispute over safety standards for a proposed dumpsite. In the final days of the Clinton administration, the Environmental Protection Agency recommended a relatively tough set of standards limiting radiation levels at a repository. President Bush, however, has yet to say if he will implement these pending recommendations. While Nevada officials argued that even the EPA's radiation rules should have been stricter, they certainly were better than the guidelines suggested by the industry-friendly Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The reason why this issue is so important is that the nuclear power industry has argued that if the EPA's regulations are adopted, it could make it impossible to build a repository at Yucca Mountain. That is why it was so disturbing to learn last week that officials from the EPA, the NRC and the DOE have been meeting to see if there is a way to forge common ground on the issue. But there should be no compromising on safety. While the NRC would license a repository, by law it is supposed to adhere to the standards set by the EPA. Nevadans also were understandably anxious last week when EPA Administrator Christie Whitman declined to tell reporters whether she supported her predecessor's radiation licensing standards. Sen. Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who also is the assistant minority leader, did say later in the week that Whitman recently gave him assurances that she would do everything that she could to get the EPA standard implemented. (Reid had been threatening to block Bush's EPA appointments until the EPA's standard was adopted.) Typically a commitment from a Cabinet secretary to a U.S. senator would be cause for relief. But this is the same White House that already has overridden Whitman on other high-profile environmental issues. It also isn't very reassuring that Bush's national energy plan unveiled last week favors that of energy producers over that of sound environmental regulations. Nuclear waste storage isn't just any ordinary engineering project, though. The federal government is trying to build a structure that would safely hold man's deadliest waste for the next 10,000 years. Shortcuts are not an option in such a risky venture. During last year's campaign, Bush pledged to Nevadans that he would uphold the EPA's radiation standards on Yucca Mountain. Now that he is president, it is time for him to honor his commitment. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 EUROTECH, Ltd. Retains Davis Manafort, Inc. to Strategically Position Nuclear Encapsulation Product EKOR Tuesday May 22, 10:24 am Eastern Time Press Release *SOURCE: EUROTECH, Ltd.* FAIRFAX, Va., May 22 /PRNewswire/ -- EUROTECH, Ltd (Amex: EUO- news) has retained the Washington DC-based firm of Davis Manafort, Inc. as a key strategic consultant to accelerate the radiation-resistant EKOR family of revolutionary encapsulating materials to market. Davis Manafort has a successful track record in strategic consulting to domestic and foreign companies seeking business in the United States. Expertise to undertake this effort comes from years of meeting the varied requirements of their Fortune 500 client companies -- lobbying, building grassroots coalitions, winning contracts and building successful joint ventures -- in the United States and throughout the world. Davis Manafort specializes in the development of market entry strategies and joint ventures for U.S. companies. Davis Manafort also provides strategic guidance to access U.S. government financial assistance including working with the Export Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. The firm is known as a leader in national and presidential politics, survey research and strategic communication programs. Veterans of U.S. presidential and foreign electoral campaigns, the firm is active in the international arena providing advice on issues of geopolitical and business importance. With more than 20 years of Washington political experience, Davis Manafort is well acquainted with the internal workings of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. The strategic consulting relationship between Eurotech and Davis Manafort is being used to hasten the EKOR family of products into the nuclear waste marketplace as the solution to some of the more challenging containment problems in the U.S. and abroad. Paul Manafort, a principal in Davis Manafort, stated, ``I look forward to working with Eurotech and the EKOR Team. Together we will execute a business strategy to bring Eurotech's portfolio of products to market, with initial focus on EKOR. The benefits of the radiation-resistant EKOR will make immediate improvements in nuclear waste industry methods of containment, transportation, storage and disposal.'' As part of the EKOR commercialization strategy, Paul Childress, who is General Manager of Eurotech's NEWS (Nuclear and Environmental Waste Solutions) Division was promoted to Vice President of Eurotech. Childress will play a key role in the operations and marketing effort in environmental remediation starting in the U.S. and expanding to Europe and Asia. Childress, who is assuming most of the EKOR duties of the departing Jeff Stephen, stated, ``I have the right team members on board to deliver EKOR and look forward to optimizing our efforts with the contributions of recognized experts such as Paul Manafort and former DOE Assistant Secretary Leo Duffy.'' EUROTECH Ltd. works with scientists and research institutes in Russia, Israel and other countries to develop and commercialize innovative technologies that have widespread or critical application. For more information, visit www.eurotechltd.comon the Internet. Certain information and statement included in this release constitute ``forward-looking statements'' within the meaning of the Federal Privates Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance, or achievements of the company to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied in such forward-looking statements. CONTACT: Dawn Van Zant of ECON Investor Relations, Inc., 800-665-0411, or dvanzant@investorideas.com, for EUROTECH, Ltd. *SOURCE: EUROTECH, Ltd.* ***************************************************************** 11 Duratek Announces Contract Award for $3.5 Million Tuesday May 22, 9:29 am Eastern Time Press Release COLUMBIA, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 22, 2001--Duratek, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRTK- news) today announced that it has been awarded contracts for on-site water processing, off-site waste processing and waste disposal for the Niagara Mohawk's Nine Mile Units 1 & 2 nuclear stations. The contract is two years and is worth approximately $3.5 million. Robert Prince, President and CEO said, ``This contract utilizes both the on-site and off-site waste management capabilities of the Company. Duratek is providing its customers a total solution for its radioactive waste needs.'' Duratek implements technologies and provides services, which protect people from radiation and the environment from radioactive material. Duratek's headquarters are located in Columbia, Maryland and the Company has major offices in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Columbia, South Carolina, Denver, Colorado and Richland, Washington. Certain statements contained in this press release may constitute ``forward-looking statements'' within the meaning of Section 21E(i)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company's actual results to be materially different from any future results expressed or implied by these statements. All forward-looking statements are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included in the Company's SEC filings, including its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and its annual report on Form 10-K. www.duratekinc.com *Contact:* Duratek, Inc., Columbia Diane R. Brown, Investor Relations Robert F. Shawver, Exec. V.P. 410/312-5100 ***************************************************************** 12 PEMA: Nuclear Exercise at Three Mile Island Tomorrow Monday May 21, 3:55 pm Eastern Time Press Release *SOURCE: Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency* HARRISBURG, Pa., May 21 /PRNewswire/ -- A simulated accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County Tuesday evening, May 22, will trigger a federally required exercise to review the ability of state, county and municipal governments, and the utility to respond to an accident at the nuclear facility. This exercise will begin at approximately 4 p.m., and will involve more than 1,000 full-time and volunteer staffs in Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon and York counties, 36 municipalities, and 15 school districts. ``It is essential that disaster-response personnel be prepared for all emergencies, including a nuclear-power accident,'' said Lt. Gov. Mark Schweiker, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Council. ``Full-scale exercises, which involve state, county and municipal emergency personnel, are conducted with Pennsylvania's nuclear-generating facilities on a regular basis. We anticipate that several hundred plant staff, elected officials, emergency managers and responders will participate both on site and in the communities surrounding the power plant.'' PEMA Director David Smith said the exercise will begin with a simulated problem at the plant with the prescribed off-site notifications. Activation of state, county and municipal emergency operating centers with full staff response during the exercise would be the same as response to an actual emergency. ``While this is a federally required test, it also is a good training opportunity for local officials, emergency managers and responders to review their emergency plans and procedures in a non-emergency environment,'' Smith said. ``Through exercises, we are collectively better prepared to respond in an effective and coordinated manner if actual emergencies do occur.'' Adams, Franklin and Schuylkill counties will participate as support counties. Federal regulations require a full-scale exercise of community emergency-response procedures to an accident at nuclear-generating stations every two years. CONTACT: Marko Bourne, Press Secretary of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, 717-651-2139. *SOURCE: Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency* Email this story- Most-emailed articles- Most-viewed articles Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 13 Feature-Nuclear renaissance has to reckon with Chernobyl May 22, 03:10 AM By Duncan Shiels LONDON, May 22 (Reuters) - The evening of April 26, 1986. Europe's media alert the public to unusually high atmospheric radiation readings over Scandinavia. Days later, the fearful continent learns why. A huge explosion has blown the roof off Reactor Four at Chernobyl in Soviet Ukraine and a radioactive cloud is blowing northwestwards. According to the United Nations, some five million people were exposed to the radiation or otherwise affected by the Chernobyl disaster. More than 4,000 people who took part in the former Soviet Union's clean-up attempt have since died and another 40,000 involved in the operation became ill or were disabled. But after 15 years the nuclear industry has received the endorsement of President George W. Bush which it hopes could herald its rehabilitation into public acceptance. Bush last week unveiled a national energy plan to boost domestic U.S. energy supplies, with fossil fuels and atomic power playing a key role. The industry has always maintained that the Chernobyl accident resulted from a design flaw which Western reactors do not share -- the lack of a structure to contain radioactive material in the case of an accident. It has also pointed to poor regulation inherent in the centrally planned Soviet system which disintegrated a decade ago. Such reasoning failed to convince the United States -- which had its own near-meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 -- and governments in Europe that the public would accept new nuclear plants to meet expected increases in electricity demand. So what has changed? The answer is global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels -- oil, coal and gas -- which fire 80 percent of the world's power plants, are being linked to rising world temperatures which threaten to melt the polar ice caps, engulfing lowland areas and wiping low-lying Pacific islands from the map within a century. But as Vaughn Gilbert, spokesman for U.S. reactor manufacturer Westinghouse says: "The only carbon emissions that come from a nuclear plant are from the nostrils of the people working there." 30 NUCLEAR PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION In fact, around 30 Western-designed nuclear reactors are under construction around the world, all outside the U.S. and western Europe, adding to the current total of over 430. Within the European Union, only Finland is considering building a new plant and a parliamentary decision on that was delayed recently until the end of the year. But Foratom, the Brussels-based European nuclear industry umbrella group, believes Washington cannot be ignored. "What we observed in the past was (that) most of the developments in the energy field started in the U.S., then Europe followed -- with a time delay but sometimes with higher amplitudes," says Foratom's executive secretary Wolf-Juergen Schmidt-Kuester. "We know that utilities are seriously investigating the question of whether they should be building new nuclear plants." Analysts question the economics of building new reactors, given the colossal capital costs involved and the long period of construction, traditionally around 10 years. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates current designs have capital costs of $2,000 per kilowatt of electricity, compared to $1,200 per kWe for coal-fired plants. Economists also point out that newly liberated energy markets mean wholesale electricity power prices, which govern the rate of return on investment, are no longer fixed in advance but move with commodity-type power markets, making it very hard to commit resources. "Profits in most developed power markets are insufficient for the level of return companies are looking for unless there is a payment for emission reduction or electricity prices go up because of penalties on gas and coal power generation," said Neil Cornelius, analyst at ICF Consulting. Benito Mueller of the Oxford Institute for Energy Research says that companies which invest also want government guarantees on decommissioning when the reactors reach the end of their operational life. "That is one reason the industry cannot be properly privatised because without government guarantees on decommissioning no one is going to touch them with a barge pole," he said. But British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)-owned Westinghouse, who also supply and process fuel and service existing plants, says it is in no hurry to construct new units in the U.S. It is already involved in new plants and upgrades in Japan, South Korea, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and the Bush plan has already given it a shot in the arm by encouraging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend current licences for many of the U.S.'s 100-odd reactors by 20 years. "Virtually all of those plants are going to apply to extend their operating licence by 20 years, which, as our basic business now is providing fuel and services to those plants, guarantees us a long-term market," Gilbert said. Gilbert challenges the view that plants will remain prohibitively expensive, particularly as Westinghouse's latest model, the AP600, will take only three years to build. He says the company is already in negotiation "with a number of U.S. vendors" to build new reactors and turns Cornelius's argument around, citing liberated prices for fossil fuels as a stimulus to build nuclear. "So much of the new generation built in the past decade has been gas-fired, the demand for natural gas is going up and consequently the cost is going up while nuclear costs have gone down," he said. And plants will soon no longer have to be big. The revolutionary pebble-bed modular reactor which Exelon Corp is developing in South Africa with utility Eskom and BNFL, is small at around 110-120 megawatts, compared to up to 1,000 MW for current plants, and cheap at roughly $150 million, or $1,300 per kWe, Exelon says. JUDGING THE PUBLIC MOOD However, economics is one thing, public support is another and Bridget Woodman of the environmentalist group Greenpeace in London believes people's fears about plant safety will not be easily allayed. "I suspect Bush thinks it's going to be an easy ride, especially in view of the Californian energy crisis, but I think there will be an enormous amount of public opposition to new nuclear power stations in the U.S.," she said. Mueller believes power shortages in California are a false pretext for building new plants as they were caused by a badly managed liberalisation of the power market under which producers withheld electricity to get better prices. "California is being used to justify everything including Alaskan drilling which is not going to come on stream for six years. It's all political, I'm afraid." And he believes that even after a decade and a half, Chernobyl is still too fresh in the European consciousness for its citizens to newly embrace nuclear. "Chernobyl might be a while back but if you go to Germany I don't think the sensitivity has particularly decreased," he says. "If the industry says the public has misperceived this, that's tough. It's not the public's problem to misperceive the industry, it's the industry's problem -- they have to deal with that." Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Yucca Mountain nuclear dump proposal opposed - 05/22/01 May 22, 2001 The Detroit News. Bush's energy plan fuels fight to stop waste repository Associated Press Opponents of plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain increased their fight in the wake of President Bush's call for a national waste repository. By Ken Ritter / Associated Press LAS VEGAS -- Tourists in 1950s Las Vegas donned sunglasses to watch nuclear mushroom clouds over the horizon at the Nevada Test Site. Today, the city and state fear the prospect of trucks and railroad cars hauling radioactive waste past Las Vegas' glittering new gambling palaces to the Test Site. "One accident, no matter how minor, could create hysteria," the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce says in its stand against the federal government's proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Last week, President Bush called for a national nuclear waste repository as part of his energy plan. Bush also called for licensing new reactors and speeding the relicensing of existing plants to ease the nation's power woes. The president did not specifically name Yucca Mountain, but the reference sent shivers through the ranks of those fighting plans to store the nation's nuclear refuse 1,000 feet beneath a wind-swept ridge, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas on the western edge of the Test Site. "There should be no expansion of nuclear power until we have a way to dispose of the waste for years to come without harming the public," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a lobbying group opposed to the Yucca Mountain project. Since 1987, Yucca Mountain has been the only site studied to become the graveyard for the nation's 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste. After $7 billion worth of study and testing, approval of the Energy Department project is at least a year away. The earliest the first load of waste could arrive is 2010. The project is expected to cost $58 billion over 100 years. But things are happening on many fronts. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding meetings this week in Las Vegas and the rural community of Pahrump to talk about a construction permit for the site. The Energy Department is taking public comment before forwarding its recommendation next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. Abraham will make a recommendation to Bush. If Nevada opposes it, as expected, the decision will be sent to Congress. Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Public Works, has been holding up Bush administration nominations to environmental and public works posts until the Environmental Protection Agency sets radiation standards for the site. The city and state are usually conservative and business-friendly. They went for Bush in November. But few support the Yucca Mountain plan. And Nevada's entire four-member congressional delegation is against it. Dusty Las Vegas of 1950 had fewer than 25,000 residents. Today, there are 1.3 million people living in and around Las Vegas, the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the country. The city draws 30 million visitors a year to its casinos and other attractions. ***************************************************************** 15 Feasibility Study of Russia-India Atomic Power Plant Drawn Up Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report [The PMA OnLine Power Report] Comprehensive energy news updated every ten minutes from Reuters, Knight Ridder, UPI, Business Wire, PR Newswire, and more than forty other leading national and international news sources. ( May 22, 2001 ) NEW DELHI, May 22, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) -- Russia and India are expected to approve already at the end of June a feasibility study of the project to build a nuclear power plant at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is the largest construction project to be implemented with Russia's participation in several past decades. The plant will have six reactors and the first one is to be commissioned in 2007. This was disclosed to journalists at Mombai (former Bombay) by Vikas Chaturvedi, chairman and executive director of the Indian Atomic Energy Corporation. He dwelt on the results of his delegation's visit to Moscow. It included representatives from the Indian Finance Ministry and Government Commission for Atomic Energy. Chaturveri said that the cost of the project "is still being agreed". The sides are expected to sign in September an agreement on the construction of the first two reactors of 1,000 megawatt each. Earth-moving jobs and laying of the plant's foundation are to begin at the end of the year. ***************************************************************** 16 Electrabel's Tihange nuclear plant on fire for 2nd time in 7 days [AFX News - Europe] Story Filed: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:30 AM EST BRUSSELS, May 22, 2001 (AFX-Europe via COMTEX) -- Electrabel SA said its Tihange nuclear power plant suffered its second fire outbreak in 7 days, following an incident on May 15. Both outbreaks were quickly brought under control and had no effect on personnel, the operation of the power station, or the environment, it said. The fire brigade was called this morning in accordance with the strict procedures applicable in all nuclear power plants, and the event does not signal any weakness in procedures, said a spokesman from Tihange. The fire broke out on a building site where new vapour generators, installed at Tihange on April 7 and not yet in service, are situated, he added. ev/jsa Copyright 2001. AFX News Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Radioactive corner of Russia could grow more so under plan Boston Globe Online / Nation | World By David Filipov, Globe Staff, 5/21/2001 USLYUMOVO, Russia - The Techa River, the main source of water for this Ural Mountains farming community, flows through ground zero of one of the most contaminated places in the world. It is a living reminder of a legacy of devastating nuclear accidents, careless handling of highly toxic radioactive waste, and official coverups that have earned the Chelyabinsk Region the epithet ''the blackest spot on earth.'' Now, Russia is moving toward a scheme to raise cash by accepting other countries' spent nuclear fuel for storage and reprocessing here, and people are worried that their already badly contaminated homeland will be transformed into a nuclear dump for the rest of the world. Under the plan, which won preliminary approval from Parliament last month, Russia would earn up to $20 billion over 10 years by importing 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Part of the income would be used to improve the safety of Russian nuclear facilities and clean up contaminated sites such as Muslyumovo. Shipments may already have started. Greenpeace activists in St. Petersburg said this month that up to 20 trainloads emitting large amounts of radiation had passed through the city since January. The environmentalist organization alleged that the trains were carrying spent nuclear fuel from Germany. Russian atomic energy officials declined to comment. Government officials and scientists from Russia's nuclear energy industry say they have the technology to safely store and dispose of the spent nuclear fuel rods that Russia would import under the plan. But people here fear the plan will only make their plight worse. It is easy to see why. Because the Chelyabinsk region is home to Mayak, the only functioning plant in Russia that can reprocess nuclear fuel, and one of only three storage facilities, people here assume that their region will receive at least some of the waste. Radioactive rivers, lakes, forests, and fields bear silent witness to the mess left over from the Mayak nuclear plant's five decades of producing weapons-grade plutonium for the Soviet nuclear arsenal. For years, the Mayak plant dumped its nuclear waste into the Techa River. In 1957, an explosion at the plant's storage facilities spread deadly waste over hundreds of villages. In 1967, a windstorm carried radioactive dust from a dried-out lake over more towns and villages. Because Mayak made nuclear weapons, the Soviet government classified all the plant's activities, and accidents, as state secrets. Even as they evacuated tens of thousands of villagers and killed herds of livestock, authorities for decades hid the true nature of the health risk from the people who live here. Now, environmentalists say, the contamination is eight times greater in the area around Chelyabinsk than the radioactive fallout that spread across Europe from the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Mayak, unable to afford a safe disposal system, continues to dump radioactive waste into a nearby lake even as it tries to clean up from previous accidents, said Yevgeny Ryzhkov, the plant's spokesman. Ryzhkov said that Mayak could start implementing safer disposal practices as soon as money starts coming in from reprocessing nuclear waste from elsewhere. ''As soon as we get more spent nuclear fuel to reprocess, we will thrive,'' Ryzhkov said. Mayak and government officials no longer cover up the extent of the pollution. They are happy to talk about it, because they are certain that with money from reprocessing, they can fix the problem. The public is not exactly convinced. ''Since there were accidents before, people are not at all sure'' that accidents will not recur, said Alexander Akleyev, head doctor at the Chelyabinsk-based Ural Research Center for Radiation Medicine, which monitors radiation-related illness. ''No one explained why the people were evacuated and the cattle killed. No one believes anyone would explain if something went wrong again.'' An estimated 1.5 million people have been exposed to the radiation. The cost in illness and death is harder to measure. Ecologists say thousands of people have been affected by radiation sickness, and health officials report 40 percent more leukemia cases in the region than in the rest of Russia. But the true human toll will probably remain a secret, owing to the 40-year coverup by Soviet authorities. All locals can do is to guess at what makes them ill. Every day, the people of Muslyumovo, a town of 4,500, lead their cows around what is left of a barbed wire fence that runs along the banks of the Techa River to let the animals graze in the seemingly fertile grass at the water's edge. Children play on the riverbank and fish from a bridge. Everything here emits up to 250 microrems per hour, or four times the maximum radiation that scientists consider safe. Since 1995, villagers have received a monthly pension worth $8 for ''living on contaminated territory.'' The fence is the only visible sign that something is wrong with the river. It is also a fitting symbol of the belated, futile attempts of Soviet, and later, Russian authorities to protect people from the radiation. Soviet authorities put up the fence in the early 1950s to prevent people from using the water. But it was not until 1989 that they began to tell people that in the late 40s and early 50s, in the early years of the nuclear weapons program, Mayak dumped toxic waste into the Techa, contaminating the riverbed with strontium 90 and cesium 137. Even as her cattle graze along the Techa, Nurzhigan Galipova, 75, speaks calmly of the three of her 11 children who died - two of leukemia, one of heart failure - ''from the river,'' she said. A 1998 regional government study found that illnesses in school-aged children in the area around the Techa were several times more frequent than in uncontaminated areas. Recognizing the danger, the Soviet government in the 1950s moved people out of 12 other villages along the river. But Muslyumovo was too big to relocate, said Svetlana Kostina, a researcher on radiation and environmental issues for the Chelyabinsk governor's office. Now there is no place else for Galipova and other local farmers to go. A new government program to relocate them to safer areas is moving slowly; there is no money to build new housing. There is nothing to do but eke out a living selling the milk and dairy products of cows that drink the radioactive water and feed off the radioactive floodplains of the Techa. ''We have to eat, we have to live,'' said Saifetdin Gainitdinov, another Muslyumovo resident, who gets a monthly pension of $1.25 as compensation for his exposure to radiation. ''We've been living like this for years. Why stop now?'' Gainitdinov said five of his neighbors died of radiation-related illnesses. Akleyev, at the research center, said as many as 31,000 people received large doses of radiation from the river. As they age, the likelihood of cancer increases. ''Even today, a part of the population is getting radiation because of irradiated food products, such as milk from cows who drink the water,'' Akleyev said. ''Strontium 90 moves up the food chain. People get it after drinking the milk, and it goes to their bones.'' Locals also acknowledge selling the fish they catch, though regional officials play down that threat. ''Strontium 90 goes to the bones,'' said Sergei Sofin, a spokesman for the governor's office. ''It's not like anyone eats the bones of a fish.'' No one knows how many people have been affected by radiation. Mayak's 1957 explosion sent a toxic cloud billowing over hundreds of miles of farmland, engulfing more than 200 towns and villages and exposing more than 270,000 people to lethal doses of radiation. Over the next two years, authorities relocated about 10,700 residents of the most polluted areas, tore down their houses, and ordered the soil plowed under. Officials never told people why they were being moved, nor did they prepare those who did the cleanup work for the risks of radioactive fallout. Nurislan Gubaidullin, 62, wore ordinary work clothes when he spent the summer of 1958 plowing the polluted areas with his tractor. He only found out that he was doing something special when authorities set up guard posts in the area. It was only in 1989, after the public debate about Chernobyl made it possible to discuss nuclear accidents, that doctors told him the constant pain he feels in his legs was probably caused by the high dose of radiation he received during the cleanup. ''I have a bouquet of illnesses,'' Gubaidullin said. ''They say that I might lose both my legs.'' Gubaidullin said his son and daughter both suffer from heart problems he now attributes to the radiation. His wife died of cancer several years ago. So did her brother, sister, and niece. ''We've got a bad environment here,'' he said. ''That's why we are all ill.'' This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 5/21/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. [ | Easy-print version ] ***************************************************************** 18 Med Crews Feel Unprepared for Nuke Shipments Tuesday, May 22, 2001 Albuquerque Journal--> By Wren Propp *Journal Staff Writer* Anti-nuclear waste activists in New Mexico on Monday tied a survey showing emergency medical workers felt inadequately trained to handle radioactive accidents to federal plans for the shipping of nuclear materials to Nevada. "Our survey results show that the emergency responders need more training, equipment and written policies and procedures," said Joni Arends, waste programs director for Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. Arends and Lisa Gue, a policy analyst for a national watchdog group called Public Citizen, said at a news conference in Santa Fe that New Mexico is ill-prepared to serve as part of a transportation route for high-level radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Results of a 1999 survey of 236 emergency medical workers by the state Department of Health — released Monday — show the "first responders" to any nuclear accident along the route to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant feel uncertain about their training and equipment, Arends said. "The most important thing about releasing this survey at this point in time is that we're concerned about the potential of more nuclear waste coming through the state to (Nevada)," Arends said. Attention to Yucca Mountain, outside of Las Vegas, Nev., intensified last week when President Bush called for a national nuclear waste repository as part of his energy plan, according to the Associated Press. Yucca Mountain is the only site studied in the past 14 years as a final resting place for 77,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive research waste, the AP reported. The first shipment could arrive by 2010; approval by the U.S. Department of Energy is at least a year away. Gue warned that New Mexico could become one of 43 states through which nuclear waste bound to Yucca Mountain is transported. "We need to send a clear message that Yucca Mountain is an unsuitable site for an unsuitable project," Gue said Monday. A similar survey of New Mexico emergency medical workers will be performed in July. The survey was mailed to 2,000 emergency medical personnel who work along the route traveled by trucks hauling waste to WIPP. About 236 of those surveyed returned their responses in addressed, stamped envelopes. The survey showed: * About 45 percent of the emergency medical workers along the WIPP route — including firefighters and emergency medical technicians — are volunteers. * While nearly 100 percent said they knew that free training was available for handling emergencies along the route, only 27 percent said they had participated in a WIPP-related drill or exercise as part of their training. * Only 28 percent said they felt adequately trained to handle a patient who had been contaminated with radioactive waste. About 61 percent said they expected to personally respond to a radioactive materials accidents. * Only 25 percent believe they have adequate equipment to respond to accidents involving hazardous and radioactive materials. State agencies offer twice-yearly exercises to help emergency workers along the WIPP route — which runs from Raton to Carlsbad — to prepare for real accidents, said Bill Mackie, coordinator of the New Mexico Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force. Waste expected at Yucca Mountain carries a higher health risk than the WIPP waste. If New Mexico becomes part of the route of waste to Nevada, training will be stepped up, Mackie said. Copyright 2001 Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 DOE outlines cleanup 'successes' Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:11 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Department of Energy is spotlighting its Oak Ridge cleanup progress for 2000 in a recently issued report to the community, and the document's release is good timing as far as funding is concerned. Major cleanup milestones achieved over the last year included the demolition of five buildings at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, the first shipments of low-level waste from Oak Ridge to the Nevada Test Site and the completion of removal of radioactive sludge from the Gunite Tanks at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Several other projects are highlighted in the 26-page report, titled "Cleanup Progress," including the unveiling of a plan to clean up contamination in Bethel Valley and the commencement of construction on the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility. "This is something that DOE has needed for a long time," said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee. "It's written for the lay person, so they can understand what their tax money is used for." The Local Oversight Committee was created in 1991 to represent those counties and communities affected most directly by DOE's activities in Oak Ridge. The DOE report comes at a critical time for the federal agency's 2002 environmental management budget. As it stands, Oak Ridge could lose up to $90 million in funds, which could halt cleanup projects and result in layoffs. "DOE needs to trumpet its progress because that's what brings money in," Gawarecki said. Copies of the report are available at the Information Resource Center, 105 Broadway, and the DOE Public Reading Room, 230 Warehouse Road. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 2 NaK removed from Y-12 complex Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 9:35 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff BWXT Y-12 officials this morning announced the completion of a project to remove all quantities of a highly reactive liquid metal from the Y-12 National Security Complex that caused a December 1999 explosion at the facility. Officials said the cleanup and removal of the sodium-potassium combination or NaK, which was used as a coolant in certain processes at the weapons plant, cost in excess of $1 million. Creative Engineering Inc. of Harrisburg, Pa., which specializes in handling liquid metals, conducted the NaK removal. The December 1999 explosion occurred while Y-12 workers were attempting to clean up a NaK spill, which oxidized into a shock-sensitive super oxide that exploded when it was apparently struck with a metal tool, officials said. Eleven people were injured in the accident. Jerry Scruggs, the most seriously injured, is still recuperating from his injuries and has not yet returned to work. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, which managed Y-12 when the explosion happened, was fined $1.045 million by the Department of Energy in August 2000 because of the incident and several other violations of nuclear safety. It was the largest penalty since the federal agency's Nuclear Safety Enforcement Program began in 1994 under the requirements of the Price-Anderson Amendments Act, which is used to assure that contractors are fully accountable for safety. Prior to that, the largest penalties were between $300,000 and $400,000. Y-12 is now managed by BWXT Y-12 -- a partnership between Bechtel National Inc. and BWX Technologies Inc. When announcing the NaK removal this morning, John Mitchell, president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, said, "We will continue to look for opportunities to change our processes and technology to reduce risks to our workforce. The safety of our employees and the community is the primary focus in all that we do." All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 3 Landfill cleanup cost much below estimate Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 11:11 a.m. on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 by Donna Smith Oak Ridger staff CLINTON -- If the state agrees to a plan for assessing, monitoring and dealing with the contamination problems at the former Blockhouse Valley landfill, the project is expected to cost Anderson County approximately $1.5 million to $3.7 million over the next 10 years. Officials from ARCADIS Geraghty &Miller, an Oak Ridge environmental consulting firm, gave Anderson County commissioners an update on the landfill project at the commission's monthly meeting Monday in the Anderson County Courthouse. County Attorney David Clark said, "Tonight's news is very good news." He explained that original estimates for work at the site had been estimated at $10 million. ARCADIS told commissioners Monday that clay caps on the landfill site are at least 3 feet deep and in good shape. The caps over the materials in the landfill cells were placed there in the 1980s, company Associate Vice President Bernie Ilgner said. If the state agrees, he said, remediation work will involve either supplementing some of the areas where the clay caps are thinning or planting trees to cap the dump sites. This would be less costly than replacing the caps. The county settled a lawsuit over contamination at the landfill site for approximately $350,000 in 2000. The suit was filed by 13 nearby landowners. Clark explained that the county is still in litigation with the state because the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Superfund Division declared the area a Superfund site and ordered the county either to deal with it or pay fines. ARCADIS was hired to perform an environmental study and in 2000 issued a report that the old county landfill posed no health risks for people living near the site or working on it in the future. The report also stated that the state's report of contaminants was incorrect because of faulty sampling. Radionuclide concentrations at the landfill site and surrounding it were found to be within the range of natural backgrounds levels for East Tennessee, according to the report. Ilgner said in the next few months the site will need more clearing, site fencing put up on the northern end and other actions performed, such as wetlands construction, bridge replacement and monitoring. He said he anticipates reaching a decision with the state on remedies for the area before the end of the year and a schedule established. The remediation, operating and maintenance work over the next year could cost $1.5 million to $3.7 million. Clark said this cost could be lower if the county uses the Highway Department, county engineer or other county employees to do much of the work. Clark asked for commission to make a decision on gaining access to the area for continued work. The commission referred the matter to the county Operations Committee. Ilgner said a decision on how the county plans to use the land will be key. For example, more work would be needed if the county plans to turn the area into a site for residential development. Ilgner said his firm had also done wet-weather monitoring of the site at the state's request because the samples from their report were taken in the drier autumn season. He said monitoring of the groundwater, springs, stream and seepage showed no or little difference in contamination than that reported earlier. "It's very good news," he said. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 4 WHO Study of Depleted Uranium Urged May 21, 2001 GENEVA- Several countries pressed the World Health Organization on Monday to urgently determine whether depleted uranium used in NATO ammunition in the Persian Gulf and Balkans conflicts could have made soldiers and civilians sick. At the annual World Health Assembly, the first gathering of health ministers since the use of the munitions sparked a health scare across Europe earlier this year, Iraq said it has new evidence that a recent increase in cancers and birth defects among its people is linked to the weapons. Preliminary studies have failed to show a link, but countries are now turning to the WHO to conduct definitive research. Part of the problem is that many of the studies examined uranium mine or power plant workers, not soldiers and civilians in a war. Urging the WHO to step up its involvement and settle the issue, France, Switzerland and Norway promised donations to help finance more relevant studies. "We have taken due note of the recent studies which have concluded that, based on evidence currently available, no link can be identified, but we want to make sure that full clarity be obtained and investigated," the Norwegian delegate said, promising $100,000 toward the research. But the American delegation urged that assessments of the levels of radiation released by the munitions be completed before deciding whether health studies are warranted. U.S. aircraft used munitions containing depleted uranium, a slightly radioactive heavy metal, during the 78-day air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as in Bosnia in 1994 and 1995. The munitions, favored because they have the rare ability to pierce tanks, were also used during the 1991 Gulf War. Concerns arose in several European countries earlier this year when Italy started studying the illnesses of 30 veterans of Balkans peacekeeping missions. Seven of the veterans died of cancer, including five from leukemia. Scores of other countries subsequently announced they would also begin screening their troops. The 19-member NATO alliance has repeatedly denied the ammunition could have triggered cancer in soldiers. A NATO committee which acts as a clearinghouse about possible health risks has said no evidence has yet been found of a link between depleted uranium munitions and any increase in illness. In addition, most independent medical experts say it is highly unlikely the low dose of depleted uranium dust created by the bombings could have made people sick. However, Iraqi Health Minister Dr. Omeed Mubarak told the gathering Iraq had new evidence that an increase in cancer and birth defects was linked to the weapons. "In Iraq, the incidence of cancers has increased. We have also noted genetic deformations and diseases which did not exist in Iraq previously," Mubarak told his counterparts at the assembly. "Our scientists have detected the presence of uranium in the bodies of those who were exposed." At a news conference after the meeting, Mubarak said that in December, Iraqi scientists found traces of depleted uranium in the urine, blood and semen of Iraqis. "We detected so many cases, I don't know exactly how many, but it was many of them," Mubarak said. "That's why we are now asking WHO to cooperate with us, to examine these samples with us. We are not afraid of having any scientific discussion provided it is free from dirty political tricks," Mubarak said. An Iraqi researcher, Dr. Mona Kammas, asserted recent Iraqi experiments exposing rats to depleted uranium have shown damage to the liver, kidney, immune system and DNA, as well as malformation of the sperm. However, the findings have not been assessed by any independent experts. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 5 Report: Health Risks of DU Weapons Is Low May 22 8:57 AM ET By Patricia Reaney LONDON (Reuters) - Levels of depleted uranium (DU) most soldiers and peacekeepers are exposed to are not high enough to increase their risk of leukemia or other cancers, British researchers said Tuesday. In a new report by an independent academy of leading scientists, they said that in a very small number of soldiers very high levels of the toxic, radioactive element -- used to enhance the ability of weapons to pierce armored vehicles -- could raise their chance of developing lung cancer. ``The main concern of inhalation of depleted uranium is an increased risk of lung cancer,'' Professor Brian Spratt told a news conference launching the Royal Society report. He said only survivors in a vehicle struck by a DU weapon or colleagues who went in quickly to rescue them would be exposed to levels high enough to seriously damage their health. ``In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavorable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population,'' the report said. Fears about the health risks to troops using DU weapons arose after six Italian soldiers died of leukemia following exposure to spent weapons while serving in the former Yugoslavia. Other European nations including France, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Portugal have also reported an increase in cancer among soldiers in what has been dubbed ``Balkan Syndrome.'' sites say there is no scientific evidence to link the illnesses to the controversial weapons. CALLS FOR RESEARCH The Royal Society called for more research, saying there was a lack of scientific evidence about the levels of DU that could occur in different situations and the amounts that might be inhaled by a soldier. When a uranium-tipped weapon hits an object it produces a weak radioactive vapor. The report looked at internal exposure to DU through inhalation, ingestion and shrapnel wounds. The scientists also calculated the amount of DU in body organs and tissues and estimated the amount of radiation received by peacekeepers and soldiers. It concluded that the risks of leukemia and all other cancers are very low for all soldiers. ``Peacekeepers will have relatively low levels of exposure to depleted uranium and an observable increase in leukemia is very unlikely,'' said Spratt. The scientists called for more test firing of DU weapons to determine the amount of radiation released. They also said the health of soldiers exposed to high levels of DU who served in the Balkan and Gulf wars should be monitored. ``No one denies the theoretical effect, but at the moment there is no clinical evidence that DU is having the effect the concerned individuals are experiencing,'' a British Ministry of Defense spokesman said. Depleted uranium shells are favored by the United States, Britain and France as the best and cheapest ammunition available to pilots and tank crews. Some 40,000 rounds were fired in the Balkans by U.S. ground attack aircraft during the Kosovo conflict and in 1995 in Bosnia. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Uranium shell cancer link 'not ruled out' ISSUE 2188 Tuesday 22 May 2001 By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent A ROYAL Society report into the radioactive effects of depleted uranium ammunition has concluded that it cannot rule out that it could cause cancer. The Ministry of Defence dismissed the dangers of radiation from depleted uranium and rejected claims that it was linked to cancers suffered by veterans of the Gulf War and the fighting in the Balkans. The only danger from the dust thrown up when depleted uranium rounds hit their target was that of toxicity, it said. This would show up in damage to the kidneys and no Gulf War veterans were known to have had kidney problems. Fears about the potential radioactive effects of depleted uranium emerged in January when both Nato and the European Union began investigations amid reports of suspicious deaths and illnesses among soldiers from a number of EU countries. John Spellar, defence minister, told parliament then that when handled in accordance with regulations depleted uranium shells posed no hazard and that there was no evidence to suggest a link with cancer. When the Commons Defence Committee criticised the MoD for not doing enough research into the effects of depleted uranium it responded by saying that it was waiting for the findings of an investigation by the Royal Society. The results of the first part of the investigation, which was chaired by Prof Brian Spratt and dealt with the potential radioactive effects of depleted uranium dust, are published today. The Daily Telegraph has learned that it will contradict the MoD view, saying that it is far too early to rule out any link with cancer. ***************************************************************** 7 ITN - Depleted uranium: more study needed *"In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population." - Royal Society study* The health of soldiers is unlikely to be put at risk by weapons containing depleted uranium, a scientific report has concluded. But the study, which comes in the wake of increasing concern over its use in British and US artillery shells and armoured vehicles, calls for more research. Royal Society experts say more information is needed on the effects of using depleted uranium (DU) weapons in different battlefield situations. This would involve "realistic test firing" into heavy armour tanks. The scientists also want to see more data on how much DU dust might be inhaled inside contaminated vehicles, and a detailed review of the effect of radioactive particles in the lymph nodes. The scientists said British war veterans who had experienced high level exposures should be invited to take part in an independent evaluation programme. However, the main findings of the first of two Royal Society reports about DU to be published were that the vast majority of soldiers had little to fear from the after-effects of depleted uranium. The report concluded in its summary: "Except in extreme circumstances, any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime." The greatest exposures would apply to only "a very small fraction of soldiers" - for example, those who survive in a vehicle penetrated by a DU shell. "In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population," said the report. Extra risks of death from leukaemia and other cancers due to DU exposure were estimated to be much lower than those from lung cancer. Whatever the scenario, the extra lifetime risk of fatal leukaemia was predicted to be too small to be detectable. Depleted uranium is a weak radioactive waste product used to tip armour-piercing shells and built into the armour of tanks and other military vehicles. DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War in 1991 as a result of fears that tungsten-tipped penetrators might not be effective against Soviet-built T72 Iraqi tanks. During the war, about 9500 DU shells were fired by US and British tanks, containing some 44,000 kilograms of depleted uranium. In addition about 780,000 small calibre DU rounds were fired by the Gatling guns of A-10 Warthog tank-busting aircraft. These were also used in later conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. The report noted that many of the 30mm Gatling gun rounds missed their targets. Gulf war veterans have accused the Ministry of Defence of trying to cover up the truth about depleted uranium. Iraq ready to act on depleted uranium Iraqi health minister Umeed Madhat Mubarak said Iraq was moving closer to an accord with the World Health Organisation for a joint probe of Baghdad's allegations that large numbers of people had cancer and other illnesses as a result of exposure to depleted uranium in munitions used by the US-led alliance that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991. International scientific opinion tends to the view that depleted uranium, used to harden the tips of tank-busting shells, is not responsible for the health problems detected amongst troops stationed in the Gulf or the Balkans, where the Nato military alliance also used shells during the 1990s. Spokesman Gregory Hartl said that the World Health Organisation, whose own experts have rejected suggestions that DU was responsible for cases of blood cancer noted amongst Nato troops, was always ready to co-operate with member states in studying health problems. But he said no accord had yet been finalised with the Iraqis, who say their own scientists have proof that depleted uranium causes genetic defects as well as cancer. ***************************************************************** 8 DU soldiers have 'little to fear', say experts Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search Special report: Depleted uranium Staff and agencies Guardian Unlimited Tuesday May 22, 2001 Soldiers exposed to weapons containing depleted uranium are unlikely to face a significant risk from radiation, a group of scientists has concluded. In a report due to be published today, Royal Society experts are expected to acknowledge that there are still uncertainties, particularly on the effects of using DU weapons in different battlefield situations. The group will call for more research to give better estimates of levels of DU particles produced by exploding weapons using "realistic test firing" into heavy armour tanks. It also wants to see more data on how much DU dust might be inhaled inside contaminated vehicles, and a detailed review of the effect of radioactive particles in the lymph nodes. The scientists said UK war veterans who had experienced high level exposures should be invited to take part in an independent evaluation programme. However, the working group's main findings are that the vast majority of soldiers had little to fear from the after-effects of DU. Gulf war veterans have accused the Ministry of Defence of trying to cover up the truth about depleted uranium. They do not trust the blood tests arranged by the MoD and are having their own conducted in Canada. Tony Flint, of the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association, said: "Depleted uranium spreads all over the battlefield. It blows about on the desert wind and catches on your clothing. "This material has a half life of 4.5bn years, and it doesn't matter how little or how much you inhale, 55% of it will always remain in your body." DU is a weakly radioactive waste product of the enrichment process carried out to provide fuel for nuclear power plants. Because it is so hard, having twice the density of lead, it is used to tip armour-piercing shells and built into the armour of tanks and other military vehicles. But concerns have arisen over the potential harmful effects of inhaling DU dust or suffering shrapnel wounds from the weapons. Today the Royal Society will publish the first of two reports, addressing the radiological effects of DU on soldiers. A second report will look at the toxic properties of the metal and its environmental effects. Extra risks of death from leukaemia and other cancers due to DU exposure were estimated to be much lower than those from lung cancer. DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War in 1991 as a result of fears that tungsten-tipped penetrators might not be effective against Soviet-built T72 Iraqi tanks. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 9 Depleted Uranium Report The Royal Society - Science Policy - Depleted Uranium 22 May 2001 Click here for the report The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions: Part I Summary Depleted uranium munitions were deployed in the Gulf War in 1991 and again in the Balkans in the late 1990s. They have the potential to disperse toxic and weakly radioactive material over wide areas, which may be hazardous to health. The Royal Society has published the first of two reports examining our scientific understanding of the issues involved. On the battlefield depleted uranium (DU) munitions are used in kinetic energy weapons designed to penetrate the armour of tanks and other vehicles. On impact substantial amounts of DU may be dispersed as particles that can be inhaled, and as shrapnel. The approach taken in the report is to estimate the typical levels of exposure on the battlefield over a wide range of scenarios, and the ‘worst-case’ exposures that individuals are unlikely to exceed. From these are calculated the potential health risks from radiation. The report also considers epidemiological studies of occupational exposures to uranium in other situations as an independent source of information on the risks of inhaling DU particles, although it recognises that the parallels may not be precise. A later report will consider the toxicological risks and environmental impacts. The report draws the following conclusions: a) Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime. b) The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population. c) Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable. d) Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years. e) Epidemiological studies complement assessments of actual exposures and radiation risks. Although epidemiological studies of occupational exposure to uranium are not sensitive enough to detect small increases in overall risks of cancer, they nevertheless tend to confirm the calculations of the risks derived from estimates of actual exposures to DU. Nevertheless there are still uncertainties that need to be resolved, particularly in the estimates of DU intakes that could occur in different situations on the battlefield. Most of these uncertainties arise as a consequence of the paucity of good experimental data on the amounts of DU that may be inhaled within and close to tanks struck by a DU penetrator, and the almost complete lack of any measurements of DU in urine samples taken soon after exposure to a DU impact aerosol. The report therefore identifies a number of areas where further research is necessary, and a number of other actions that would help in assessing further the hazards that may arise from the use of DU in munitions. In conclusion, the report indicates that the radiological risks from the use of DU in munitions are for the most part low, but that for small numbers of soldiers there might be circumstances in which risks are higher, and it is for this reason that further work should be undertaken to clarify their extent. A number of working papers that serve as technical annexes to the report are also being made available. ANNEXE A Current ICRP models used to assess intakes of uranium ANNEXE B Doses from depleted uranium shrapnel ANNEXE C Assessments of depleted uranium intakes from use of depleted uranium on the battlefield ANNEXE D Organ doses and uptake to blood from intakes ANNEXE E Reviews covering characteristics of DU aerosols ANNEXE F Previous assessments of doses from DU exposures ANNEXE G Summaries of source documents relating to DU penetrator impacts ANNEXE H Summaries of source documents relating to combustion of DU in fires ANNEXE I Mortality from various causes in uranium workers ANNEXE J Estimated mortality for lung cancer and leukaemia in a cohort of 10,000 soldiers with Level I, II or III exposures to depleted uranium The Royal Society welcomes comment on this report. Comments should be sent in the first instance to the Director Science Policy, The Royal Society, 6 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5 AG; e-mail depleteduranium@royalsoc.ac.uk. ***************************************************************** 10 Russia and U.S. complete nuclear disarmament project May 21, 07:30 PM MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian army says Moscow and the U.S. have fulfilled a Cold-War era deal to inspect each other's medium and short-range nuclear missile arsenals, after destroying some 4,000 warheads in 13 years. Representatives of both sides signed a document in Moscow on Monday to end more than 1,400 inspections by some 20,000 arms specialists, under an agreement signed under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan in December 1987. Russian and U.S. officials signed the document, which Colonel-General Valery Manilov, Russia's first deputy head of the General Staff, called a "historic event" in bilateral ties. "This document has become a herald for a new epoch -- an epoch of equal partnership," Interfax news agency quoted Manilov as saying, adding that the deal had brought two key benefits. "Firstly, a whole class of extremely dangerous arms has been liquidated; secondly, and no less importantly, it gave us a huge amount of experience of trust, transparency and cooperation." The Defence Ministry said some 1,846 Soviet short and mid-range missiles and 846 U.S. had been destroyed since ratification of the agreement in June 1988. Missile launchers, transporters and storage silos were also decommissioned. The agreement was forged amid political outcry and public fears over U.S. deployment of rockets including Tomahawk and Persching in western Europe and Moscow's RSD-10 Pioneer, R-12 and R-14 among others stationed in eastern Europe. Military specialist Alexander Golts told Reuters the pact was a timely example of East-West cooperation in arms control, coming as the U.S. and Russia lock horns over Washington's plans for an anti-missile defence system. "It was a very successful effort taken by the two superpowers to destroy an entire class of strategic missiles," he said. " Unfortunately a process that began so successfully is now under question." Manilov reiterated Russian opposition to U.S. plans, saying they threatened to wreck the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which Moscow insists should be the cornerstone of non-proliferation measures and strategic stability. "The very creation of such a system would inevitably lead to an arms race, which would destroy the parity between strategic offensive and defensive weapons," Manilov said. Copyright © 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Anger over Maralinga nuclear test revelations Radio Australia News - 22/05/01: There's been an angry reaction to the revelation that the British and Australian Governments planned to expose nearly two thousand troops to a series of atomic explosions at Maralinga in South Australia during the 1950's. The test series, codenamed Operation Lighthouse, never proceeded because of a temporary moratorium on nuclear tests. Matt Peacock reports from London. *The secret documents on Operation Lighthouse, discovered and posted on the internet by a Australian anti-nuclear activist, detail plans to conduct a series of eight atomic tests starting in September 1959, during which the Australian Services suggested they locate around eighteen hundred troops in a trench system upwind from ground zero. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has described the proposals as "inhuman". Britain's Ministry of Defence has confirmed the existence of Operation Lighthouse, which was cancelled due to a temporary test moratorium.* This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and ***************************************************************** 12 Secret Maralinga troop test plans condemned as "diabolical" Radio Australia News - 22/05/01: Plans by the British and Australian Governments to place nearly two thousand troops as close as possible to ground zero during a series of atomic explosions in South Australia in 1959, have been condemned as "diabolical". As Matt Peacock reports, secret documents on the planned series, which was abandoned because of a temporary test moratorium, have been posted on the internet. *Codenamed Operation Lighthouse, the British Ministry of Defence has confirmed it did plan a series of atomic tests at Maralinga, during which-the secret documents reveal-the Australian services wanted over seventeen hundred troops placed in trenches as close as possible to ground zero as the bombs went off. Sheila Grey of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association. "What they planed to do with this operation "Lighthouse" is just unbelievable. They were going to virtually put our men beneath the bomb blast, just out of scientific curiousity." As it happened the trials were abandoned due to a temporary nuclear test moratorium agreed to in 1958 .* This service includes material from Pacnews, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters which is copyright and cannot be reproduced. ***************************************************************** 13 'Ground zero' plan for n-troops The Age: By MARIA HAWTHORNE LONDON Tuesday 22 May 2001 The British Government had planned to move up to 800 troops as close as possible to nuclear explosions in Australia during the 1950s to test the effects of the bomb. New documents, obtained by a Scottish newspaper, show that the men, including 560 Australians, were to occupy networks of trenches dug around the sites of four nuclear tests scheduled for September and October 1959 at Maralinga, in the South Australian desert. The top-secret experiment, codenamed Operation Lighthouse, was only called off when the British, United States and Soviet governments agreed to a temporary moratorium on all nuclear testing in October 1958. The Sunday Herald's revelation follows the British Ministry of Defence's confirmation earlier this month that two dozen Australian, British and New Zealand soldiers tested protective clothing by crawling, marching or driving through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga in 1956. British Nuclear Test Veterans Association secretary Sheila Gray said the plan to have men staff command posts, weapons pits and accommodation huts, to see what happened when the bombs were detonated, showed a complete lack of morality. "It was inhuman to even consider it. It would have been diabolical," she said. The military documents revealed that detailed plans were being laid in 1958 for a major indoctrination exercise at the British nuclear testing grounds at Maralinga. Up to 250 British and 560 Australian soldiers were to be assembled in military camps close to where four atomic bombs were to be exploded at eight-day intervals beginning on September 30, 1959. All the soldiers were to have their blood count measured before they arrived at the site to provide a baseline to check for radiation effects. An extensive network of trenches were to be dug to accommodate most of the troops, with others scheduled to be above ground testing tanks and other equipment. A series of memos between senior British and Australian military officials discussed the logistical arrangements. "Site for trench systems ... In this connection it is desired that indoctrinees be as close as possible to GZ," noted one memo on July 31, 1958. GZ refers to ground zero, the point on the Earth directly beneath a nuclear explosion in the air. The British Ministry of Defence confirmed that Operation Lighthouse had been planned but had not gone ahead, the newspaper said. A ministry spokesman said the details of the operations sounded about right, but stressed they would have been carried out within the safety limits of the time, with troops stationed upwind of the explosion to minimise radioactive fallout. The operation was designed to test the effects of blast waves on trenches and the structure of buildings, he said. Defence ministers have always maintained that soldiers were never the subjects of radiation experiments. AAP Copyright © The Age Company Ltd 2001. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 14 The Age: RSL calls for nuke test inquiry By XAVIER LA CANNA AGE ONLINE Tuesday 22 May 2001, 11:43 AM The federal government must investigate claims Australian troops were to be moved near nuclear explosions to test the bombs effects, the Returned Services League said today. RSL president Bruce Ruxton said the government must look into the allegations after documents obtained by a Scottish newspaper showed up to 800 soldiers, including 560 Australians, were to be part of the plans. The tests, to have been conducted at the Maralinga test site in South Australia, were called off after the British government signed a nuclear testing moratorium in 1958. Mr Ruxton also said Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Scott must investigate any evidence Australians tested protective clothing by being exposed to nuclear fallout and provide compensation. "They (soldiers) must be covered for any sickness that may have been caused," Mr Ruxton said. A spokesman Mr Scott was not immediately available for comment. Copyright © The Age Company Ltd 2001. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 15 Govt active in N tests: researcher [ 22may01 ] news.com.au - From AAP 22may01 15:25 (AEST) DOCUMENTS showed the Australian government was "a full and active participant" in planned nuclear tests on humans in the 1950s, a researcher said today. The Maralinga records showed Australian servicemen were to be used as guinea pigs for British nuclear tests in the late 1950s, she said. Contained in 10 files found in a backyard shed in Perth, the documents reveal the British government planned to move up to 800 troops as close as possible to nuclear explosions at Maralinga in the South Australia desert to test the effects of the bomb. The men, 560 of them Australian, were to occupy networks of trenches dug around the sites of four nuclear tests scheduled for September and October 1959 at Maralinga. The top-secret experiment codenamed Operation Lighthouse was called off only when the British, US and Soviet governments agreed a temporary moratorium on all nuclear testing in October 1958. Researcher Ann Munslow-Davies said she was handed the so-called Lighthouse documents six years ago by a nuclear veteran who was living in the Perth suburb of Kingsley, but had been waiting until "the right time" to release them. "He at the time, and still is, covered by the Secrets Act so he had never looked inside the files," Ms Munslow-Davies said from Maitland in NSW. "And when he knew that I was ... legitimately interested in doing the study he handed them all over to me. "I think he had inherited them from other members who had been dying as well and they've just been handed down over the years and gradually ended up out in the back somewhere under a shed under all the dusty bits for a rainy day." Ms Munslow-Davies said one section of the documents discussed thoughts from members of the committee organising the testing. "One of the quotes is: 'Members felt that the information on blowdown from a nuclear explosion in a tropical jungle would be of great interest to the Australian services'," she said. "Another document says: 'The purpose is to study the effects of heat and blast on men at rest and wrapped in blankets designed for use in the tropics'. "So basically what they were looking at was how much protection was afforded in trenches in tropical clothing and wrapped in blankets if Australia then came under attack by nuclear explosion." Ms Munslow-Davies said the documents showed the Australian government "was a full and active participant" in the operation, even though it did not go ahead, and that humans were used for the purposes of testing nuclear effects. She said the records also revealed a directive that all "indoctrinees" be blood tested before they arrived on site. "To any medical person that indicates drawing a base line so they can see what the effects are beyond that," she said. "A lot of the veterans have said that they were blood tested along the way and that those documents were held by the Maralinga Hospital. "The Maralinga Hospital documents have never been seen since. We assume that they're in the UK and that's one of the answers that we'd like to get out of the UK government." ***************************************************************** 16 Lawyer sceptical about Maralinga tests news.com.au - [ 22may01 ] From AAP 22may01 12:20 (AEST) THE lawyer representing Australian troops seeking compensation for nuclear exposure at Maralinga today cast doubt over government claims atomic tests did not go ahead. New documents show the British government planned to move up to 800 troops as close as possible to nuclear explosions in Australia during the 1950s to test the impact of the bomb. The documents, obtained by a Scottish newspaper, show that the men - 560 of them Australian - were to occupy networks of trenches dug around the sites of four nuclear tests at Maralinga, in the South Australian desert. The top-secret experiment, codenamed Operation Lighthouse, was only called off when the British, US and Soviet governments agreed to a temporary moratorium on all nuclear testing in October 1958. Morris May, the lawyer representing 30 Australian troops seeking compensation, said he was sceptical of claims the tests did not go ahead. "I find that somewhat surprising because everything that has been said has been done in order to test the survival of humans under the circumstances of atomic fallout, affectation etcetera has been shown to be true," he told ABC radio. "I'm somewhat surprised that they could say that this particular experiment was abandoned. "I'm somewhat sceptical about it. It may have gone ahead, yes." He said he would not be surprised if the government of the day knew what was occurring. "The Australian government's role in all the tests - and that has been consistently shown - has been that of suppliers of the troops and not asking any more questions that was absolutely necessary," Mr May said. Earlier this month, the British Ministry of Defence confirmed two dozen Australian, British and New Zealand soldiers tested protective clothing by crawling, marching or driving through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga in 1956. ***************************************************************** 17 Russian Government Pays $16 Million May 21, 2001 ROTTERDAM, Netherlands- A Dutch consortium hopes to raise a Russian nuclear submarine and the remaining bodies of its 118-man crew from the seabed in September, 13 months after it exploded and sank in the Barents Sea, the company manager said Monday. Russia will pay a $16 million advance to the Mammoet Transport BV to lift the 18,300-ton Kursk from a depth of 356 feet, said Frans van Seumeren. The full cost of the task was not disclosed, but van Seumeren said Russia will make more payments at various times. The advance was to be paid this week. If bad weather forces the consortium to scrap the project, "we will just go home" without any commitment to complete the mission, said van Seumeren. Russian and Norwegian divers retrieved 12 bodies from the Kursk last November, but their mission was called off because of rough weather and danger from broken equipment inside the submarine. There are two nuclear reactors on the vessel, which exploded in a still unexplained accident during a training exercise Aug. 12, 2000. Environmentalists have voiced concern over the danger of radiation leaks during a salvage operation, but the Russians have said the reactors automatically shut down before the sub sank. Russia maintains there were no nuclear weapons on board and says the sub was carrying only conventional practice weapons. But a Norwegian engineer involved in an earlier salvage effort said he had seen Russian documents confirming the presence of nuclear weapons. A Russian lawmaker investigating the accident also told Norwegian television that atomic weapons were on board, but later said he was misunderstood. Mammoet declined to address questions about the nuclear equipment on the sub, but said the company would take special precautions. "Safety measures will make it a little more difficult, but safety is very important," Seumeren said. Mammoet proposed raising the Kursk using a huge barge equipped with 20 anchored hydraulic lifting devices. It will then be hauled to the Russian port of Murmansk. It will only be after the sub is lifted onto a dry dock in Murmansk that the bodies of the 106 crewmen would be retrieved, van Seumeren said. That would be the responsibility of the Russian government. Divers will begin in June to sever the damaged front part of the submarine and attach cables to the hull. It will be September before the sub will be hoisted up. The actual lifting will take 12-15 hours, and towing it to Murmansk will require up to a week, said van Seumeren. The work will be done in a joint venture of Mammoet and Smit International, a Rotterdam-based company specializing in salvage operations. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 18 Doing Time For The Cause ctnow.com By SUSAN CAMPBELL The Hartford Courant May 22, 2001 In 1965, John Bach left Pennsylvania for Middletown and Wesleyan University, a liberal college that appealed to his progressive sensibilities. Already, Bach had borrowed the family car to drive to Birmingham, Ala., to meet civil rights protesters. He wanted a college that would foster and encourage that involvement. At Wesleyan, he immersed himself in anti-war activities that culminated with his refusing induction into the armed services in 1968. He was arrested, tried, and in 1969 sentenced to four years at Danbury's federal prison. As he left the courtroom, Bach handed love beads to his Congregational minister father. Later, the Rev. George R. Bach Jr. told reporters, "I'm proud of him - damn proud. I've sired a man." Bach served 34 months, part of those in Danbury with another war protester, the Rev. Daniel Berrigan. Bach was hardly still as an inmate. He was transferred seven times, conducted a 33-day hunger strike and was co-editor of an underground prison newspaper. Upon his release, he returned to Wesleyan - after switching his major from theater to English - and after graduation, Bach remained in Connecticut with side trips to places like El Salvador and Guatemala. Subsequent arrests followed as he continued to protest America's involvement - military and otherwise - in El Salvador and the Persian Gulf. Now 53, he lives in Gunnison, Colo., where he and a partner run a dog sled business. He remains politically involved, now with the Western Shoshones of Nevada, who have battled the U.S. government for territorial integrity for the last 50 years. We caught up with him recently to ask about his life, then and now: * * * "My mother died of cancer when I was in high school. In some ways - and this is strange to say - that made a lot of things easier. I didn't grow up with a lot of maternal hang-ups. I was nearing the end of high school one night, past my bedtime, and I said, `Pop, I'd like to speak to you. I really want to go to the South; I want to go down there and do what I can do. I want to kind of learn from down there.' "He kind of breathed a sigh of relief. Years later, I found out his initial take was that I was going to tell him that my girlfriend was pregnant. I was years away from being sexually active at that point. Since it wasn't that, anything else was easy. "When I was a junior in high school, I read `The Fire Next Time.' It was James Baldwin and civil rights that did it, that made me think. I was paying attention to all of that. That, and my father. I knew intellectually he would be very supportive of me. I think I was paying attention to a lot of those sermons. My father had a really good take on the Christian perspective on civil rights. "Through it all, I was never scared. Absolutely not. I was so angry over the war, angry over the pictures of Vietnamese kids. I'm still working on issues that aren't popular. On the Shoshone stuff, I go out to the Nevada test site twice a year for a gathering which is sponsored by Shundahai Network. The Yucca Mountain is their spiritual site, like Mecca is for Muslims. That's where the Department of Energy is drilling to put railroad tracks to store high-level radioactive waste. The DOE is still looking for places that will be safe. The state is on our side. Everybody knows geologically this isn't going to work. "The government is screwing Native Americans once again. "I live in paradise. There is no place this side of Nepal that can match it. A beautiful woman brought me here in '94. We take people for dog sled tours. We show them how to harness the dogs, and give them a lunch of soup and fresh-baked bread. It takes pretty much the whole day. People pay us to do this. "We don't make enough money in wintertime to do all year long. I'm still painting houses. I did in Hartford, too. I figure in the winter, the dogs feed us, and in the summer, we feed the dogs. I'm very happy. "I've written two books about prison, but nothing was ever published. I have a daughter who's 21. She's in college in Pennsylvania. The dog sled business was on MTV. I can't tell how impressive that is to tell your teenage daughter, `Look for me on MTV.' "I always clean my plate. I never, ever, ever leave any food on my plate. I figure that's the only way I can look at those archetypical photographs of Biafran kids. I don't think I could ever stop without feeling I betrayed not just the Vietnamese, or the Mississippi Delta kids, or the rest of history. "One of the reasons I keep on doing this is as a tribute to those who came before me, most of whose names we don't know. There are Gandhi and [Caesar] Chavez and the Berrigan brothers, but there were guys in prison who were not in there for political, honorable crimes who showed me tremendous heroism and selflessness, and they never had the West Hartford Quakers applauding them in the background; they didn't have a school that upped their scholarship when they came back. They paid a much higher price, and it was un-illuminated. I keep doing this for them. "How could I not?" Portions © 2001 ctnow.com. ***************************************************************** 19 Feds will test Fallon water next month Looking for clues to a cancer cluster in Fallon, federal workers will begin testing drinking-water wells there for radioactivity and other contaminants June 11 to compare with a 1994 study that revealed radon and uranium. The announcement of the testing — which may shed light on the 14 cases of childhood leukemia — came Monday during a Legislative hearing on the cluster. At the hearing, state officials were unable to answer lawmakers’ questions as to why the 1994 well water study was ignored in the state’s investigation, until the findings were reported in the Reno Gazette-Journal last month. In related developments Monday: o Dr. Randall Todd, the state epidemiologist, state Health Officer Mary Guinan and Gov. Kenny Guinn all said there are no quick answers to the mystery that has hit the small farming and Navy town. They said critics of the state’s pace in the investigation don’t know what they are talking about and have their own self-serving agendas. o Adam Jernee, 10, who was among the first eight leukemia patients diagnosed in Fallon, was in critical condition in Orange County, Calif. His father said Monday he is reluctant to take Adam off life support because the child’s blood oxygen level has improved slightly, but doctors give the boy only a 1 percent chance of survival. o State officials said the 15th reported case of childhood leukemia in Fallon remains unconfirmed until they can check the child’s medical records. o Todd said the patients’ homes have been pinpointed on a map and eight of the wells have been tested without evidence of any common link. The homes and wells are not along a jet-fuel pipeline that is under scrutiny by investigators. o Members of the Assembly Agriculture, Natural Resources and Mining Committee said they will hold a town meeting in Fallon after the Legislative session ends in an effort to stem the growth of a “fear cluster” that follows each new case of the disease. o State health officials said they will do a better job of relating the progress of their investigation to parry accusations that little is being done to find the cause of the leukemia outbreak. “In reacting to media information and inquires, we could be more proactive,” Todd told the lawmakers. Critics, including doctors and the parents of some of the leukemia patients, have said the state Health Division is moving too slowly to find a cause for the outbreak. Dr. Alan Levin, who investigated a Woburn, Mass., leukemia cluster in 1986 on which the book and movie, “A Civil Action,” was based, told the Reno Gazette-Journal that Nevada is using “oxcart science” to probe the cases and failing to use information it has. At a news conference, Guinn said the state is working with federal health and disease experts to establish protocols that must be carefully followed in the probe. “It gives the impression that (state investigators) are moving rather slowly, and I think that you are,” Guinn said. “But you’re moving very carefully, and when you’re doing research it has to be done carefully.” “People want scientific answers,” added Todd. “Scientists can’t provide those yet.” Guinan said the protocols for the continued research should be established by midsummer. She also said the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry are working closely with the state. But Jernee, reached in California, questioned whether state investigators could have done more early on. “Only now are we talking about soil samples, and then only about making plans for soil samples,” he said. “Why weren’t soil samples taken months ago and put in airtight containers even if they couldn’t be tested right then. “We need to get moving. This thing will get away from us.” Todd said the state is waiting for the federal agencies to complete plans for soil testing, biological sampling and other tests. Todd and other state officials said they don’t remember getting a copy of a 1994 U.S. Geological Survey report on radioactivity in well water, although USGS officials said the state was given a copy of the report. The negative aspects of the report didn’t come out in Legislative testimony in March, either, although some witnesses from Churchill County mentioned other aspects of the report, such as the lack of contaminants in the deeper wells. Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, D-Fallon, who chairs the Legislative committee, said with more cases and more media attention, people in Churchill County are reaching a “panic state.” She said the situation is frustrating because so much contradictory information comes in all the time. De Braga said the Navy consistently asserts its pilots don’t dump fuel from their jet fighters. But on the same day as a Senate hearing into the cancer cluster, witnesses reported that a Navy jet dumped fuel over a sparsely populated area outside of Fallon, she said. The Navy has denied the incident occurred. During the hearing, de Braga cited studies that say pesticides cause leukemia. Guinan cited a study that says the opposite. “We need to get to the facts,” de Braga said. She said she will schedule a town meeting in Fallon so that people can ask questions about the leukemia cluster. Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Fallon, asked Todd if he could give the odds that the cause of the cluster will be found. “I can’t give exact odds but I can tell you they aren’t good,” Todd said. “But we do have a passion for finding the cause. If it is there and we didn’t look for it, we would not be doing our job in protecting public health.” Guinn said he’ll take whatever steps are needed to assure the state’s share of the investigation costs are covered — either through legislative funding or through executive order. The 14 confirmed victims include a girl with acute myelogenous leukemia or AML, a less commonly diagnosed leukemia in children; and 13 other cases of acute lymphocytic leukemia or ALL, the most common. All but one of the confirmed cases have been diagnosed in the last two years. ALL destroys bone marrow. While its cause is unknown, suspected triggers include radiation exposure, electromagnetic fields or volatile organic compounds, such as benzene, solvents and fossil fuels. Arsenic, which is in Fallon’s drinking water at twice the national safe standard, has not been linked to acute lymphocytic leukemia. AML is similar, although a different type of white blood cells are affected. ©2001 Reno Gazette-Journal ***************************************************************** 20 PNNL faces DOE cuts This story was published Tue, May 22, 2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory could see less money for some of its current research projects under the proposed 2002 budget for the Department of Energy. But the Richland lab also has started work on projects in new strategic areas, such as advancing the knowledge gained from the human genome project, that could bring millions in new research dollars to the lab. "PNNL's diverse research portfolio helps us weather changes to individual programs," said lab spokesman Greg Koller. Other national labs with a narrower focus of research already have a good idea of how much money the Bush administration proposes they receive in 2002, as does the Hanford cleanup project and the HAMMER training center in Richland. But lab officials say they don't have a good grasp of PNNL's budget picture for 2002. "It's difficult to assess a dollar impact to PNNL from the president's proposed budget as much of PNNL's budget first goes to other agencies and entities, such as Hanford, various (Department of Defense) and DOE programs, other national labs, research universities and organizations in the former Soviet Union," Koller said. Then, the money is distributed to organizations, such as the Richland lab, that are doing part of the work. Some of the bright spots in the proposed budget include money to help lease a new supercomputer for three years at a cost of $19 million to $24 million. Lab officials also are expecting to receive some of the $20 million designated for DOE's new Genomes to Life program for work at PNNL's Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. Among the goals of the Genomes to Life program are identifying and characterizing the multiprotein complexes that execute the functions of each cell, characterizing gene regulatory networks and developing computational methods to predict the behavior of cells. While the Bush administration budget proposed deep cuts in some alternative energy programs, it does put more money into fuel cell research, an area PNNL has already targeted for increased growth. The lab also could receive more money for some nuclear nonproliferation projects, particularly its Materials Protection Control and Accounting program, which is intended to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism by improving security, control of materials and accounting at nuclear plants in the former Soviet Union. More money also may be available for work to help the United States verify compliance with disassembly of nuclear weapons in Russia, Koller said. Those and other nuclear nonproliferation projects account for nearly 20 percent of the lab's current budget, which is estimated at $506.6 million this year, up from $476 million last year. In recent years, slightly more than 80 percent of the budget has come from money allocated to DOE, with the rest split almost evenly between money from other federal agencies and money from mostly private sources. However, other nuclear nonproliferation programs could face cuts. The Bush administration has questioned the value of programs to retrain nuclear scientists in the former Soviet Union, for example, as U.S.-Russia tensions mount. PNNL's work to strengthen the economies in Russian nuclear cities by teaching business skills and otherwise strengthen their economy and the International Nuclear Safety program could receive less money in 2002. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a program that will receive $141 million in federal money this year, could receive $40 million less. However, some of the concern in that program is over work being done to make cars more fuel efficient, while the public buys sport utility vehicles instead. However, PNNL's work to make trucks more fuel-efficient could be spared under the cuts. The lab's environmental restoration work, including science and technology research for Hanford cleanup, also could take a hit. About 20 percent of the lab's work is done for Hanford, Koller said, although money for science and technology research does not go directly to the lab. But even the partial budget look provided by the Bush administration's proposed DOE budget could change, Koller pointed out. "Both the Senate and the House have made it clear that they intend to restore some, if not all, of the proposed cuts," Koller said. 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: *****************************************************************