***************************************************************** 05/26/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.131 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 NRC outlines YMP licensing review plans 2 State, DOE reach agreement on shipment of spent nuclear fuel 3 Whistleblower decision due soon at Carolina reactor 4 1994 Kelly incident 5 EPA: State has decision-making authority 6 Get over nuclear fears, energy chief says Bush's energy chief 7 Cheney describes nuclear answer 8 Hunter's Point shipyard contamination questions 9 Is it comeback time for nuclear power? 10 Editorial: The difference a day makes 11 Shakeup in Washington Could Dramatically Impact Energy Policy 12 Nuclear Energy Can Devastate 13 Exelon Nuclear Honored with 3 NEI 'Top Industry Practice' Awards 14 BWN Nuclear Waste Elimination Corp. Claims ATG Failed to Inform 15 Radiological Accident in Panama -- IAEA to Send Assistance Team - 16 Russia Sees Payoff in Storing Nuclear Waste From Around the World 17 Russians Said to Oppose Waste Bill 18 Russia sees profit in spent nuclear fuel / Lower house approves 19 Gov. Leavitt announces head attorney to fight nuclear waste storage plan 20 Plant highlights nuclear debate NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Cleanup officials describe contaminated water plume 2 Rules issued for sick nuclear workers' payments 3 Nuclear Deal With Russia 4 U.S. Nuclear Proposals Envision Sharp Cuts in Missiles, Bombers 5 Downwinder to lead fight 6 Russia Says Kursk's Salvage Safe 7 Russian Admiral Downplays Threat Kursk Torpedoes Pose to 8 Norwegian Firm Joins Operation To Raise Russian Sub Kursk 9 Mobilize for Flight 10 INEEL probes tainted debris 11 MCNUTT: Fernald legacy ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 NRC outlines YMP licensing review plans Pahrump Valley Times By HENRY BREAN, Managing Editor May 25, 2001 Officials assure audience they have not prejudged nuclear waste storage issue It is like nothing else mankind has ever attempted to build - a facility that must maintain its integrity for 10,000 years, built from materials and principles that have only been around for a century or less. And when it comes time to issue a license for the high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, it will be up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide if the science supports the plan. "It is a humbling task," said Bill Reamer, chief of the high-level waste branch for NRC's Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. NRC's role will be to thoroughly review the repository license application from the U.S. Department of Energy and decide - on a strictly technical basis - whether a license should be issued outright, with conditions or not at all. DOE officials plan to make a recommendation on Yucca Mountain to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and President Bush before the end of the year. Assuming the department decides to proceed, its license application likely won't be completed until 2003 or later. But because of the scope of the project and of the process that could decide its fate, NRC held a meeting in Pahrump Tuesday night - the latest in a series of such meetings - to describe how a licensing review would occur. "The answer is not for us to hide in Washington and make decisions," Reamer said, adding that Tuesday marked his fifth visit to Nevada since the end of March and his 25th visit in the past year. Dr. Janet Phelan Kotra from NRC's Division of Waste Management explained that the goal of Tuesday's meeting was to "shine a light" on the process so members of the public will understand what will occur should a repository license application be filed. "They need to be reassured," Kotra said. NRC is "not prejudging anything," Reamer said, but it is making preparations now so that it will be ready should an application be filed. The commission also has had "extensive pre-licensing contact" with DOE's ongoing site-characterization work since the late 1980s, and maintains "on-site" technical staff in Las Vegas. Nearly 100 staff people and consultants will provide a detailed technical review of the license application, should one be submitted, Reamer said. NRC Associate General Counsel Lawrence Chandler and Assistant General Counsel Dennis Dambly provided a detailed description of the application hearing process on Tuesday. Once an application is submitted, NRC will have 90 days to complete a staff acceptance review to determine if the document contains all of the required information, sufficient documentation to support DOE's safety claims, and complies with document access requirements. If the application is accepted, the clock will start on a three-year period during which NRC staff must complete a detailed technical review, hearings must be held and a decision rendered. "Although three years may sound like a long time, it is a really compressed period to consider a project of this size and complexity," Chandler said. If necessary, NRC can submit a written request to Congress for a one-year extension. The process will be handled much like a trial, with a team of independent administrative judges known as an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) hearing evidence and issuing decisions on contested issues. Because of the scope of the project and the time in which it must be reviewed, Chandler mentioned the possibility of multiple ASLBs being formed to divvy up the issues - an idea that seemed to trouble many of the state and local officials in attendance Tuesday. As one state official noted, the notion of "multiple panels may be wonderful for the NRC, and pretty good for the DOE, but it's terrible" for smaller, local groups or entities that will be impacted by the project but may not be able to afford to track and participate in several different hearings at once. The board - or boards - will issue an initial decision, and the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission will make the final decision. As for public participation, Chandler said the prehearing conferences and evidentiary hearings will be open, and members of the public will be free to make oral and written statements during a special session. Certain affected parties or individuals that are determined to have standing will be designated as "intervenors" and given an increased role in the proceeding. Chandler stressed, however, that the decision on the application would be based solely on technical information. The public can raise technical questions that may lead to further investigation by NRC staff, but general comments about being for or against the project will not be considered. A number of issues must be hashed out before a license application can be reviewed. One key issue involves radiation dose standards for the project. The Environmental Protection Agency will set those standards, but not before an ongoing interagency review involving EPA, NRC, DOE and other entities is completed this year. NRC officials were asked about those standards during Tuesday's sparsely attended meeting. They were also questioned about backgrounds of the five commissioners and criticized for not employing sufficient technical staff. Other questions involved how NRC would handle differences in the repository design as described in DOE's application and its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and how an affected organization or individual can demonstrate "standing" in the process. Several of those in attendance also made pointed remarks about what they saw as an NRC slant toward the applicant during previous hearings. Chandler flatly denied that claim. Yucca Mountain, about 20 miles east of Beatty, is the only site currently being studied as a permanent repository for approximately 77,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. A host of things still must happen before there is an application for NRC to review. DOE must complete its final EIS for the project and make its suitability recommendation on the site. Then the President must decide whether to proceed with the development of the site, at which time Nevada officials will be given the opportunity to file a Notice of State Disapproval, "which I fully expect the state to do," Reamer said. State officials have long opposed the repository project and have pledged to try to delay or block it at every turn. The proposed repository will also require the approval of Congress. Only after all that would DOE be free to submit a license application. *©Pahrump Valley Times 2001* ***************************************************************** 2 State, DOE reach agreement on shipment of spent nuclear fuel News Tribune 05/26/01 052601 state 5 The Jefferson City News Tribune Gov. Bob Holden announced Friday that the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to provide a firm date for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel from the University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor. --> Saturday, May 26, 2001 Gov. Bob Holden announced Friday that the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to provide a firm date for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel from the University of Missouri-Columbia Research Reactor. This ends an impasse in which the DOE had prevented the university reactor from shipping spent nuclear fuel out of the facility for the past year. University officials had previously indicated that without a shipment authorization from DOE, legal and practical limitations on storage at the facility would have forced the university reactor to cease operations in late June. Such a shutdown would have forced the university reactor to cease research and production of radiopharmaceuticals that are used to treat certain cancer patients, according to a news release. As part of the agreement, the DOE committed to incorporate additional safety measures requested by the state for any shipments of high-level nuclear waste in Missouri. The DOE also agrees to work with the governor's office to address concerns regarding how the department chooses routes for separate cross-country shipments of foreign high-level spent nuclear fuel. Holden said Sen. Jean Carnahan assisted with the agreement. "All we are seeking to accomplish here is to ensure that these shipments occur in the safest manner possible," Holden said. All Contents ©Copyright 2001 *News Tribune Co.* All rights ***************************************************************** 3 Whistleblower decision due soon at Carolina reactor NC News Wire [newsobserver.com, Raleigh, NC] MONDAY, MAY 28, 2001 RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- A former Carolina Power &Light Co. security official expects a ruling soon on his claim that he was fired for refusing to lie to investigators about security measures at the company's nuclear plants. Richard Kester, who filed his case under a federal "whistleblower" statute, is seeking his job back and a payment of $150,000. The dispute involves background checks on nuclear plant visitors -- a routine security measure that has brought the company repeated troubles. Kester, 56, says CP's security chief asked him to mislead a Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigator and then had Kester fired when he refused to cooperate. "I told it like it was. That means you're disloyal," said Kester, who testified about his case before a federal administrative law judge in January. CP officials said Kester was dismissed because of poor job performance. Federal laws restrict who is allowed into nuclear plants to guard against sabotage and terrorism. Company officials investigate the criminal, psychological and employment backgrounds of plant visitors. CP has bungled these safeguards several times in the past decade, according to the NRC. In 1997, two workers with past substance-abuse problems received unescorted access to the Shearon Harris nuclear plant. Similar violations at the Brunswick nuclear plant date back to 1994. In 1998, security director Robert C. Gill hired Kester, a Navy veteran who worked in nuclear security for almost two decades, to fix the troubled department. But on Jan. 29, 1999, company officials found that a temporary worker had mishandled background checks of nuclear plant contractors. Soon afterward, officials learned that a worker got a security badge based on a falsified background check. Top executives at CP expected an NRC investigation that would likely cite them with embarrassing violations. Bill Johnson, a CP vice president, testified that the company's chief nuclear officer, Scotty Hinnant, and its executive vice president for energy supply, William Orser, were "as angry as I've ever seen them about anything" when informed of the security lapse. Kester's allegations concern a March 5, 1999, meeting between him and Gill. According to court testimony, Gill told Kester that he had met secretly with Kester's subordinates and they were saying negative things about him. When Kester asked whether the imminent NRC investigation was related to this meeting, he testified that Gill told him, '"What you can do is change your attitude by telling the NRC that you are the only management responsible, the decisions made as a result of the falsification incident, and no other management was involved."' Gill testified that he did not make that statement. Johnson ultimately fired Kester on the basis of Gill's reports that Kester had refused to improve his job performance in the weeks after their meeting. CP described Kester's dismissal as one action the company had taken to deal with the security lapse. The NRC issued a violation notice to CP but never assessed a fine. U.S. Administrative Law Judge Richard K. Malamphy is expected to issue a ruling in the whistleblower case sometime after June 1. © Copyright 2001, The News & Observer. All material found on newsobserver.com is ***************************************************************** 4 1994 Kelly incident MySanAntonio: Express-News: Roddy Stinson 1994 ... Base safety officers, while performing a routine check of Building 360, "got radiation readings on some TF39 Fwd. Transfer Gear Boxes, TF39 Inlet Gear Boxes and TF39 Transfer Gear Boxes. ... "The thing that is puzzling is all like parts did not emit radiation." On further investigation, the officers found: "Paint Shop: Three grit blasters contaminated and one container of new grit contaminated. "Cleaning Area: 9 of 13 grit blasters contaminated. New containers/bags of grit blast media contaminated. Eight waste drums of grit blast media contaminated. "We found contaminated new/used grit in various sizes and from at least two manufacturers or distributors." The investigators determined that "the levels of radiation do not pose an overall problem. The only concern at the present time is that there may be an inhalation hazard. "This cannot be determined until results from Brooks AFB lab are obtained." Apparently, someone kept the memorandum because one day last week a copy of it was brought to my desk by the front-lobby guard, who said that an unidentified man had asked him to deliver it. An unsigned note was attached: "This is in regard to your effort to determine how much radioactivity Kelly employees were exposed to. "In the 1994 incident, not a single employee was sent to the dispensary to be examined and evaluated for being exposed to radioactive materials. "Also, no mention of this exposure was placed in employees' medical records." Elsewhere in the note, the writer complained that many former Kelly workers have discovered "that our position descriptions were not accurately classified and did not reflect our duties and responsibilities." He said this negatively impacted retirement pay. He included the memo about radioactivity in Building 360 as evidence of the hazardous nature of the work he and others performed, and he asked me to "audit and examine our duties and responsibilities so we can get retroactive pay that is due to us." That isn't going to happen. I am too old and too slow — and the Air Force is too secretive and too intractable — for me to conduct an audit of a mountain of personnel data before I shed this mortal coil. However, I can shed some light on the radioactive grit. At my request, Kelly officials searched base files for information about the Building 360 investigation, and they found a copy of an article written by an Air Force Public Affairs officer and printed in the Kelly Observer on July 21, 1994. Excerpt: "Extremely low levels of radiation detected in Bldg. 360 two weeks ago are naturally occurring and do not pose a health threat. "(A radiation safety officer) traced the radiation to aluminum oxide grit used to remove paint and grime from jet engine parts. The grit is purchased from an off-base supplier. "(The officer) said that radiation levels in the grit are so small that federal regulations do not require special handling or any type of warning labels. ... "He added that the radiation dose a worker receives in Bldg. 360 is equivalent to what he or she would get by standing on a beach. That's because the grit is similar in composition to beach sand, which also emits natural radiation." Neither the radiation safety officer nor the Public Affairs writer said whether standing on a beach and inhaling radioactive sand 40 hours a week for 20 or 25 years could be unhealthy. I would be pleased to hear from any Kelly retirees who enjoyed the Air Force equivalent of such beachcombing and who are still alive, well and unluminescent. *To leave a message for Roddy Stinson, call 250-3155, or e-mail rstinson@express-news.net. 05/22/2001 Portions © 2001 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. © 2001 ***************************************************************** 5 EPA: State has decision-making authority The Hawk Eye Special: IAAP Saturday, May 26, 2001 [Unknown dangers at IAAP] By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye A letter from the chief Environmental Protection Agency official overseeing the Superfund cleanup to the commander of the Iowa Army Ammunition plant seems to contradict the commander's claim that Iowa regulators have no decision-making role in the restoration. Col. Bruce Elliott told a meeting of the plant's Restoration Advisory Board on Thursday that although suggestions from the Iowa Department of Public Health are welcome, state regulators have no authority over the environmental restoration of the IAAP, even though its Bureau of Radiology does control the licensing and inspects radiological devices, such as X-ray machines, used at the plant. The Radiology Bureau, headed by Don Flater, has been pushing the Army for a low-level flyover of the entire 19,000-acre plant to look for areas of radiological contamination. His call has been supported by Gov. Tom Vilsack and Iowa's two U.S. Senators, Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin. Elliott said such a flyover currently is not warranted and that Flater is out of line in insisting on one. However, in an Oct. 18 letter to Elliott obtained by The Hawk Eye, Gene Gunn, chief of EPA's Midwest Superfund cleanup operations in Kansas City, Kan., sought to clarify the state's role in the cleanup, specifically radiological contamination left over from operations of the Atomic Energy Commission. The AEC assembled, test-fired and, in later years, disassembled nuclear weapons and their components at IAAP from the late-1940s to the mid-1970s. "As you are aware," Gunn told Elliott in the letter, "the state is not a signatory to our FFA (Federal Facilities Agreement), and in the past has not been actively involved in providing input to our cleanup decisions to address nonradiological contaminants. "The Iowa Department of Public Health ... however, desires and has authorities relative to (the Iowa Code) to participate in decision-making relative to assessment and management of radiological contamination at the IAAP," Gunn wrote. He said the Health Department should be "a full partner in moving forward collaboratively with all issues involving possible radiological contamination at the plant." Gunn also said the EPA intends to incorporate state requirements into the agency's comprehensive Superfund agreement with the Army, "so that the Army can proceed to clean up radiological contamination, where required, using a single regulatory process." That would seem to run counter to Elliott's contention that the state is not a party to the EPA's Superfund agreement with the Army. Elliott previously ran into conflict with the EPA and state regulators in March of last year when he unsuccessfully tried to bump them from the citizen advisory panel, the Restoration Advisory Board, which monitors the Superfund cleanup. In a related matter Friday, Harkin, reacting to Elliott's statements Thursday, said he still supports a survey of the entire plant site for radiological contamination. "We have found too many surprises and records that are too incomplete to be confident that no more hazards are out there unless we talk a thorough look," he said. And he added: "The importance of the cleanup of hazardous chemicals should not obscure the need to find all radioactive contamination -- both are crucial. The welfare of the workers and the community of IAAP demands no less." The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk ' ' '| ' ' '319-754-6824 FAX ' ' '| ' ' ' 1-800-397-1708 Outside Burlington [this is a line and that's all that it is] ©' 2000 The Hawk Eye, all rights reserved. ' ' ***************************************************************** 6 Get over nuclear fears, energy chief says Bush's energy chief visits Calvert Cliffs sunspot.net - nation/world By Heather Dewar Sun Staff Originally published May 26, 2001 CALVERT CLIFFS - Speaking to an audience of nuclear power workers and television cameras, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Americans need to get over their mistrust of nuclear power, which he said dates to 1979 and the disastrous accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. Abraham toured the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in southern Maryland to stump for the White House's energy plan, which calls for the federal government to encourage the construction of new nuclear plants and the rapid relicensing of existing ones. The administration wants to sharply boost nuclear power production. Today, 103 nuclear plants nationwide produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The plan instructs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider licensing new nuclear plants and to expedite relicensing of existing ones, many of which are nearing the end of their original 40-year operating permits. "We need to stop living in the past," Abraham said. "We need to stop thinking of this industry in terms exclusively dictated by Three Mile Island." That accident near Harrisburg, Pa. - a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor, which remains unusable because of radiation contamination - reversed the fortunes of the U.S. nuclear power industry. The last time an American utility committed to building a new nuclear power plant was in 1978, the year before the accident, said Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group. Three Mile Island's bitter aftertaste is not the only obstacle to the administration's plans for nurturing nuclear power. Other potential stumbling blocks include the lack of a facility to safely store nuclear waste, uncertainty about whether new nuclear plants would turn a profit, and opposition from environmentalists, public health advocates and consumer groups. Streamlining opposed David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group opposes the administration's plan to streamline permitting and relicensing requirements. "I would agree that the Three Mile Island accident was like a wake-up call and led to a number of tangible improvements in safety," Lochbaum said. "To say that that is a foundation for streamlining the process seems like a contradiction in terms. That implies that the existing regulations were developed willy-nilly, and they're not." Lochbaum said the 26-year-old Calvert Cliffs plant is an example of the benefits of stringent regulation. The facility, which belongs to Constellation Energy Group and generates power for Baltimore Gas & Electric customers, was placed on the NRC's "watch list" of plants in need of extra oversight in 1988, after a worker died in a non-nuclear accident. The plant was taken off the watch list in 1992 and is now considered one of the best-run nuclear facilities in the country. Last year it became the first nuclear plant to win relicensing from the NRC, which gave its two reactors permission to continue operating until 2034 and 2036. Yesterday's tour was the first time the new energy secretary has visited a nuclear plant. Abraham said he was impressed by "the obvious degree to which safeguards and security are a priority every step of the way." The Bush administration has suggested that utilities could quickly double the country's nuclear power capacity by building a new reactor alongside each existing one. But Charles H. Cruse, vice president for nuclear energy at the Calvert Cliffs plant, said the company has no plans to expand, even though the original plans called for four reactors. "It's untested - putting a new reactor in place with all the new regulations," Cruse said, and it's not clear that it would be profitable. "Somebody's going to have to test the waters, go through the process and see how long it takes and how much it costs," Cruse said, "but our company has not elected to do that at this time." Some companies are considering expanding existing plants, but none is close to making a decision, Kerekes said. Need for safe storage One factor adding to the utilities' cost is the lack of safe storage for spent nuclear fuel, some components of which remain radioactive for more than 20,000 years. The federal government pledged to build a storage facility, using fees collected from the companies, by 1998. But there is a long-standing controversy over the safety of the site initially selected by the Energy Department at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The Energy Department is in the midst of a new study of potential sites and is scheduled to make a final pick this year. In his speech yesterday, Abraham was carefully noncommittal about the controversy, saying only that the administration "understands that the future of nuclear power depends on our ability to solve the issue of nuclear waste storage." "We will take all measures to ensure a careful, comprehensive, science-based approach," Abraham said. Lochbaum predicted the Energy Department will be forced to pick Yucca Mountain. "They collected $14.8 billion [from the industry] and spent seven or eight billion on Yucca Mountain," Lochbaum said. "They don't have enough money left to start over with another site." Congress has final approval of the site, and the politics of nuclear waste disposal have changed abruptly in recent days as the Democrats are poised to regain control of the Senate. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Harry Reid of Nevada, is an ardent opponent of the Yucca Mountain site. Reid might not be able to prevent construction, but he can delay it, Lochbaum said. *Copyright © 2001, The Baltimore Sun* ***************************************************************** 7 Cheney describes nuclear answer *Published Wednesday, May 23, 2001, in the Contra Costa Newspapers * + The administration will support building reactors quickly to boost the power supply, he tells industry representatives By Lara Jakes HEARST NEWSPAPERS WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney told representatives of the nuclear power industry Tuesday that the Bush administration would push for quick approval of permits for new nuclear reactors to ease the nation's energy woes. Doing so, Cheney said, is a necessary part of the administration's national policy plan to avoid future energy problems like the one in California. The state is wrestling with rolling electricity blackouts -- the result of a troubled energy deregulation plan during a period of growing power demand without a significant supply increase. The administration's plan, released last week, "provides reliable, affordable and environmentally sound policy," Cheney told a packed ballroom at the annual meeting of the Nuclear Energy Institute. "As part of that, obviously, we think we 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." He estimated that one out of every five American households depends on electricity generated by nuclear plants. But Cheney conceded that the White House has yet to identify safe sites for radioactive waste generated by nuclear power, a sticking point for congressional Democrats, environmentalists and some scientists who fear that increased nuclear use could lead to accidents. The administration's plan calls for a new look at using nuclear power to satisfy the nation's growing energy needs. Specifically, Cheney said, the recommendations include: + Encouraging the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to expedite applications for new reactors and renew licenses for existing plants that "meet or exceed" safety standards. + Targeting more funding to better enforce safety regulations at nuclear generators. + Finding a repository for longterm nuclear waste disposal. + Encouraging reinvestment in the nuclear industry by renewing the Price-Anderson Act, which shields companies from unlimited liability in the event of an accident at a nuclear reactor. Without standards for reactor re-licensing and waste disposal in place, "eventually the contribution we can count on from the nuclear industry will decline," Cheney said. "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." But critics fear that safety controls may be shunted aside in the haste to provide nuclear energy. "The push for expedited licensing and a shorter review process may detract or pull the NRC's resources on safety," said David Lochbaum, the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental alliance. "And clearly, that could have downsides." Moreover, a spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., called the nuclear recommendations "premature." "We still have to make certain that all of the safety issues are taken care of," said Gephardt spokeswoman Kori Bernards. "Where are we going to put the waste? The states don't want it. So we still have to take care of those concerns before we invest in new plants." She also noted that the permitting process "is going to take years to develop -- so it won't do anything to help people now." There are 104 nuclear power plants operating in the United States, accounting for about 10 percent of the electricity produced in the nation, according to the Department of Energy. In 1975, there were more than 230 nuclear plants being planned, built or operating, but many were postponed or scrapped because of safety concerns and rising construction costs. Cheney used his 10-minute speech in front of the trade group to lash out at critics who charge the White House plan of all but ignoring other energy options, such as conservation or renewable resources, like solar or wind power. Cheney said more of the 105 White House recommendations are devoted to conservation and renewable energy remedies than on ways to boost power supply. "That's simply not true," Cheney said of the critics. "Anybody who says that clearly hasn't read the report." ContraCostaTimes.com ***************************************************************** 8 Hunter's Point shipyard contamination questions SF Weekly Online 05/23/2001 Pointed Queries Three California members of Congress are demanding information from the Navy about radioactive materials at Hunters Point Shipyard By John Mecklin When three members of Congress write a letter, asking the executive branch of the U.S. government to answer questions raised by the press, it usually makes the news. When three members of Congress from California write the secretary of the Navy, asking him to answer questions raised by *SF Weekly*, they get the top of my column. Close to my deadline for this issue, U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi released a letter that she and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer signed. The letter, addressed to acting Navy Secretary Robert B. Pirie Jr., is a straightforward piece of work. It notes that constituents of these three members of Congress are concerned about revelations in "a recent press account" about nuclear research at the Hunters Point Shipyard, and asks the Navy, which is in the process of cleaning up the shipyard, to answer some questions that constituents have raised. I could paraphrase the questions, but why bother? They speak for themselves: - Has the Navy done a comprehensive historical survey of documents to determine what and where radiation might have been used at the shipyard? - Based on a comprehensive historical review of documents, has a comprehensive radiation survey been performed that analyzed for all known or reasonably suspected substances and in all suspected locations? - In August of 2000, the Multiagency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) was revised. In the Navy's survey and site investigation did the Navy follow these MARSSIM protocols? - The press account specifically mentions Buildings 113, 224, 253, 354, and 539. Have these buildings been investigated/ remediated? Has the possibility of a leach field containing radioactive substances around Building 707 been investigated? - Has the Navy investigated the allegation that, during sandblasting operations, radioactive sandblast waste was deposited over large areas of the shipyard and bay lands? The letter also urges the Navy to further investigate the shipyard landfill and bay-bottom sediments around the shipyard "to resolve legitimate concerns about the presence of radiation hazards." If you've been reading *SF Weekly* for the last month or so, you know those "concerns" are, indeed, "legitimate." When *SF Weekly* staff writer Lisa Davis mentioned, last spring, that she was interested in nuclear research and disposal at the Hunters Point Shipyard, both of us knew a persuasive story on the subject would require significant reporting. There are, after all, few better ways for a journalist to get tagged as a wacky conspiracy theorist than to write poorly sourced stories on nuclear contamination. Of course, I had no idea, in March 2000, that the project would take more than a year, and I hesitate to say what I might have done, had I known how much time would ultimately be spent. (I am not poor-mouthing here -- *SF Weekly* is quite a successful enterprise, and its owners are genuinely committed to quality journalism -- but a year of a writer's time is an enormous investment for us. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest it would be similar to the *San Francisco Chronicle* assigning 30 reporters to a yearlong project.) If I was not chomping at the bit to take a writer offline for a year, I did encourage Ms. Davis to begin the painful, plodding process of gaining access to and reviewing boxes and boxes of documents previously squirreled away at the National Archives in San Bruno. I encouraged her, and, as disquieting documents piled up, continued to encourage her, for a simple reason: Exploring the reasonable possibility that nuclear materials had been mishandled in a major urban area is the type of thing that good journalists do, just because they are journalists. *Weekly* readers know the results of Ms. Davis' two-part investigation. Her tenacity unearthed previously classified documents that reveal an alarming tale of nuclear carelessness. As Davis has laid out in enormously documented detail, the Navy is attempting to transfer to the city of San Francisco, for use as a residential and commercial neighborhood, a shipyard that the Navy knew had played host to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory, a top-secret facility that migrated through many buildings at the shipyard between 1946 and 1969, and that handled significant amounts of plutonium and other extremely long-lived and dangerous radioactive substances. The records Davis unsealed show that, among other things, NRDL scientists oversaw the dumping of huge amounts of contaminated sand and acid into San Francisco Bay; spread radioactive material on and off the shipyard, as if it were fertilizer, to practice decontamination; burned radioactive fuel oil in a boiler, discharging the smoke into the atmosphere; sold radioactive ships as scrap metal; and sought permission to dump 1,000 gallons of liquid nuclear waste into San Francisco Bay, to study how tidal action would dilute the radioactivity. (The documents do not say whether the experiment and follow-on plans to dump 1,000 gallons of waste *every day* were consummated.) Meanwhile, a team of Monterey Institute of International Studies researchers was commissioned by *SF Weekly* to look at the Navy's pitifully limited plan for finding and dealing with nuclear contamination at Hunters Point -- and the researchers found it entirely, ludicrously insufficient. A second installment of Davis' investigation showed that significantly more nuclear material was dumped at an undersea site in the Farallon Islands, located at the center of a major commercial fishery just 30 miles off San Francisco, than the Navy has previously acknowledged. Davis' research also showed that the government has failed to monitor that site, despite repeated assertions that monitoring would take place, and despite repeated recommendations from consultants that the site be monitored. The reaction during the first week or so after Davis' series broke was, let us say, muted. But then Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who represents the district that includes the shipyard, announced she would sponsor legislation to clean each piece of the former base to "the highest standard," before any piece is transferred from Navy to city control. Such legislation would effectively kneecap a transfer agreement, signed last year by the Navy and Mayor Willie Brown, that allowed supposedly clean areas of the former base to move to city control while the Navy cleaned the "dirty" areas. Now, Feinstein, Boxer, and Pelosi, whose district includes the shipyard, have asked the Navy at least some of the right questions in regard to radiation and the proposed cleanup and transfer of the former naval base to civilian control. I don't make a habit of thanking public officials for doing their jobs, but I must say I appreciate Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein for taking the time to consider a serious work of journalism seriously, and to respond in a reasonable, responsible way. Sometime in the next five years, if the facts warrant it, I'd like to be able to extend the same sort of performance-based thanks to Navy Secretary Pirie. *The Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board meets at 6 p.m. tonight (that is, May 23) at the Bayview Police Station, 201 Williams St. The board includes representatives of the community and local environmental organizations who meet regularly to discuss shipyard cleanup issues with the Navy, the EPA, and other agencies.* ***************************************************************** 9 Is it comeback time for nuclear power? Evansville Courier & Press Saturday, May 26, 2001 A particularly thought-provoking and controversial part of President George W. Bush’s recently proposed energy policy is a revival of the nation’s nuclear power business. Indeed, since March, Vice President Dick Cheney has urged an increase in the nation’s nuclear generating capacity. A ferocious debate is at hand. Once before, nuclear power held great promise for America. But safety concerns short-circuited that initiative. The best-known problem was at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which in 1979 underwent a partial meltdown. Even in our area, people still remember Marble Hill, the failed proposal for a nuclear energy plant in Southeastern Indiana. Now, critics of nuclear power say America should not again visit that dangerous, expensive energy alternative. In fact, no new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1980, and the last one was completed in 1996. On the other side, supporters argue that nuclear energy is cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels. It greatly reduces air pollution. And, they point out, no one has ever been killed by radiation exposure in an American plant. So what do you think? Should America take another look at nuclear energy, or should it leave that one alone? You will have the best opportunity of having your letter selected if you keep it short, no more than 250 words. Please send us your letter by June 5. Those selected will be published on June 10. Sign your letter and include your daytime phone number. Send it by mail to Letters, the Evansville Courier and Press, P.O Box 268, Evansville, Ind. 47702. Send it by e-mail to letters@evansville.net or by fax to 422-8196. ***************************************************************** 10 Editorial: The difference a day makes The Cincinnati Post On Wednesday morning Ohio Sen. George Voinovich gave an address before the Nuclear Energy Institute, outlining his views about how nuclear power should fit into the nation's energy plan. It was vintage Voinovich: blunt, comprehensive, pragmatic. He asserted that nuclear power plants should carry more of the nation's energy load, that Congress and the Bush administration must step up to its obligations to open a permanent repository for high-level wastes, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be more consistent in its regulation and enforcement decisions. Voinovich ended his speech with an announcement that he plans soon to introduce a bill designed to encourage nuclear energy, streamline the NRC's regulatory process and address what he perceives as an impeding personnel shortage at the commission. The measure, he noted, would be a companion to another bill involving nuclear energy that has already been introduced and which he is co-sponsoring. What Voinovich said in that room Wednesday mattered, not just because of the content of his speech, but because of his status as chairman of the Senate's Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. The next day, however, that status changed. Because of Vermont Sen. James Jeffords' decision to bolt the Republican Party and declare himself a political independent, Democrats now have power in the upper chamber. That means Democrats will lead the Senate's committees and subcommittees. For the tri-State, of course, the power shift means a loss in political clout, because five of its six senators - Voinovich and Mike DeWine in Ohio, Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Richard Lugar in Indiana - are Republicans. (Evan Bayh, the former governor of Indiana and son of former Sen. Birch Bayh, is the lone Democrat from the region.) DeWine, for example, told reporters Thursday he wouldn't be surprised if the impending reorganization costs him his newly won seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. That would be a genuine shame. Some Republicans argued that the Senate's rules and traditions are such that the change in power should minimize the practical disruptions. That remains to be seen. Frankly, most Americans won't care much whether Republicans or Democrats hold the gavel - unless the new order produces stalemate in the Senate. Our hope is that the moderates from both parties assert control over legislation in the upper chamber - and that the Jeffords debacle forces the right wing of the Republican Party to temper its appetites. Publication date: 05-25-01 ***************************************************************** 11 Shakeup in Washington Could Dramatically Impact Energy Policy Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report (SCIENTECH IssueAlert) ( May 25, 2001 ) By Will McNamara Director, Electric Industry Analysis Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party on May 24, becoming an independent and throwing control of the Senate to the Democratic Party for the first time since 1994. Jeffords said he would caucus with the Senate's Democrats for "organizational purposes," adding that he has increasingly found himself in disagreement with the Republican Party. Jefford's defection breaks the party deadlock in the upper chamber, which had been evenly divided for seven years. There will now be 50 Democrats in the Senate, 49 Republicans and one independent (Jeffords). Analysis: It is hard to underestimate the impact that this reorganization of Congress will have on the nation's political climate. Barely five months into his administration, President Bush appeared to be on a roll with several key proposals (covering tax cuts, education and energy policy) gaining the support of the Senate's majority party. Jeffords' change of party status turns the tables on the Bush administration, and gives new-found authority to a disparate political perspective. Although many national issues stand to be impacted by the congressional shakeup, imminent and necessary decisions on energy issues now appear to be up in the air, not the least of which is the Bush administration's ambitious and controversial energy plan. Let's get right to the core of this issue and how it is going to affect national energy policy. My estimation is that Jeffords' defection will have a direct impact on four areas of the energy space: 1) The Bush administration's energy plan, and the slim chance that it now has to be approved without major modifications; 2) The shift of power from Republicans to Democrats on key energy committees; 3) The tangential impact on FERC, which is currently chaired by Republican Curt Hébert; and 4) The obvious shift in the balance of voting power in the Senate, and the forum that Democrats will now have to highlight their own energy agenda. Jeffords has agreed to remain as a Republican until the president's pending tax cut measure receives a vote. After that, he will leave the Republican Party and identify himself as an independent, but align himself with the Democrats for leadership and committee structure purposes. This transformation constructs a new balance of power that will soon review the Bush administration's energy agenda (followed by a host of other energy issues). Just last week, President Bush released the energy plan, which taken as a whole offers strong proposals for expanded power production, oil and natural-gas drilling, the use of nuclear power, and easing of clean-air rules. Although intensely criticized, up until now it was generally thought that the energy plan had a good chance of getting passed in the Senate, especially considering that Vice President Dick Cheney held the deciding vote in the split-party chamber. This is no longer the case, as Democrats, who have been critical of the president's plan, now will hold a slim majority in the Senate. There was a great deal of political lambasting of the president's plan last week, and it is now highly unlikely that the plan will sail through the Senate without major amendments. Perhaps one of the first proposals to be nixed or significantly altered is the president's rush to open 8 percent of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, which has represented a particularly controversial concept. Another Bush initiative that reportedly is now "dead" in the Senate is the proposed repository for spent nuclear power at Yucca Mountain. Generally speaking, Democrats appear to favor many of the principles espoused by former Vice President Al Gore in his presidential campaign, including more emphasis on conservation and renewable energy programs. Further, Jeffords' move to the Democratic side will shift control from Republicans to Democrats of political committees, including the energy committees. This represents a major policy shift as committees are where legislation is prepared and administration appointments are cleared (in other words, where a lot of the policy is made). In fact, with a Democratic majority, control of every Senate committee will change hands. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, which among other things influences the nation's oil and gas exploration policies, most likely will undergo a transformation, with the committee's chairmanship being handed from Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), the ranking Democrat on the committee. Already, it is clear that the two senators are polarized in their approaches toward energy policy. For instance, Murkowski favors drilling in the ANWR, while Bingaman opposes it and in fact has said there would not be enough votes in either the Senate or the House to support an ANWR drilling measure. Regarding another hot-button issue, Bingaman has said that he supports FERC putting wholesale price caps into place in the West, an issue that has been fiercely resisted by the Bush administration. Moreover, in order to keep much of his energy policy alive, the Bush administration will need to convince some Democrats to vote with Republicans when the plan appears on the Senate's voting agenda. This won't be an easy sell, as Democratic Senators (including Bingaman) issued strong statements against the plan last week. Whereas majority Republicans wanted to turn the plan into law right away, majority Democrats will want to pick the plan apart line by line and implement their own action items. In addition, Jeffords will most likely vote for Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, currently the Senate minority leader, to succeed Trent Lott (R-Miss.) as Senate Majority Leader. Such a change would put Democrats in charge of the Senate agenda, deciding which energy issues reach the Senate floor for debate. California Democrats are particularly pleased about this turn of events, as they have expressed frustration over not being able to fully participate in a dialogue about the Western energy crisis with the Bush administration. Jeffords specifically cited "energy [issues] and the environment" as two of the fundamental areas on which he disagreed with President Bush. Further, public record shows that Jeffords opposed the president's policy on lifting CO2 emissions and cuts in programs to promote renewable energy. Jeffords for some time has been an advocate of measures to regulate CO2 from power plants, and in fact may be slated to assume the chairman role for the Senate committee with jurisdiction over that issue. In addition, Jeffords took issue with the energy plan's position on eminent domain, which would allow for FERC to assume property rights in order to construct new electric power lines. All of these issues, among other broad political differences, presumably played a part in Jefford's decision to defect from the Republican Party. Jeffords' defection could also impact FERC in two ways. First, as noted, Jeffords opposed the eminent domain policy being pushed by President Bush. This opposition against giving FERC the power to take private land and build transmission lines is apparently shared by a bi-partisan group of Democrats and Western governors (regardless of party), who cringe at the idea of giving the federal government control over their land. The coalition against FERC could gain momentum now that the Democrats will control the Senate. In addition, the word out of Washington is that Trent Lott may bear some of the responsibility for not being able to keep Jeffords in the Republican Party. In addition to suggestions that Lott may not be appointed to a post as Senate Minority Leader after Daschle becomes Majority Leader, this dynamic complicates an already tenuous position for Lott, considering the losses that Republicans suffered last November, which resulted in the split-party Senate. How does this relate to FERC? FERC Chairman Curt Hébert has long been perceived as the protégé of Trent Lott. Several months back, it was rumored that Hébert might be asked to step back into a role as commissioner to allow Bush ally Pat Wood (currently chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas) to assume the role of chairman. As it currently stands, Wood has been nominated for a position as commissioner and Hébert remains chairman. However, this is a political story and Jeffords' move to the Democratic side of the Senate could have unforeseen repercussions in other areas of the federal government, including FERC. Yet, lest the power switch in Congress be considered a policy slam-dunk for Democrats, there are other factors at play in Washington that may preclude a Democratic majority on energy issues. First, although the clout of Vice President Cheney will be reduced somewhat, it is important to note that there may very well be times when the Senate vote still results in a 50 / 50 split, requiring Cheney's vote as a tie-breaker. At the same time, just as Jeffords was a Republican who voted more on the liberal side, there are Democrats who may vote more conservative. In other words, Senators do not always vote along party lines, and thus the Democratic majority may not lead to majority votes on energy issues. Note also that the U.S. House of Representatives still remains controlled by Republicans, and the president retains veto power over any bill that might run counter to his basic philosophical approach toward energy issues. Further, perhaps to quell any anticipation that may accompany the Democratic lock on the Senate, Sen. Bingaman already has commented that it would take too long for Congress to enact any energy relief in time for the summer power crunch. Nevertheless, despite how voting on energy issues may ultimately play out, it is clear that a different perspective on energy policy should emerge into the Senate's forum as a result of Jeffords' party switch. For instance, on the issue of Western price controls, California Democrats such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has unsuccessfully attempted to get a meeting with the vice president, will now have the means to apply greater political pressure on the Bush administration to intercede into the Western energy crisis. In addition to more control over crafting energy legislation, Democrats now will also have the ability to execute greater political spin control over the national debate on the growing energy crisis. This in and of itself may be the single most significant result of the congressional restructuring. An archive list of previous IssueAlerts is available at http://secure.scientech.com/issuealert/>www.scientech.comhttp://secure.scientec h.com/issuealert/">>http://secure.scientech.com/issuealert/>www.scientech.com> ***************************************************************** 12 Nuclear Energy Can Devastate ctnow.com The Hartford Courant May 26, 2001 I am one of the "vocal and alarmist minority," one of the "Chernobyl crowd" [letter, May 13, "Nuclear Powered Wake-Up Call"], who believes that nuclear power is not economical and, more important, is not safe. I have been to Ukraine and the Chernobyl area five times. I have witnessed the devastation caused by the Chernobyl accident 15 years ago. I have lost friends to the "Chernobyl disease." I have seen children wearing the "Chernobyl necklace," a surgical scar around their throats. I have friends who were forcibly moved to "Chernobyl resettlement villages." I have talked with parents who could not allow their children to play outdoors for fear of radiation contamination. I have been to the Nevada test site and the area of Yucca Mountain, land that is holy to the Western Shoshone Indians, the most bombed nation in the world. I have friends among the tribal leaders who clearly understand that there is no safe storage place for nuclear waste, which is potentially lethal for 7,000 generations. I am not an alarmist. I am a realist who has seen with my own eyes. I beg that, before anyone claims that nuclear energy is safe, he or she first sees its devastations firsthand. And then, perhaps, I would no longer be in the minority. Lou Friedman Canton Portions © 2001 ctnow.com. ***************************************************************** 13 Exelon Nuclear Honored with 3 NEI 'Top Industry Practice' Awards DOWNERS GROVE, Ill., May 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Exelon Nuclear (NYSE: EXC) took home one-third of the Nuclear Energy Institute's TIP (Top Industry Practice) Awards, recognizing the nation's largest commercial nuclear fleet as a leader in creating the high standards that make the nuclear industry successful. "The TIP Award recognizes those professionals who have taken the initiative to innovate and develop better practices that have positioned the nuclear energy industry as one of the safest, best-operated and most productive in the country," said NEI president and chief executive officer Joe Colvin. "The contributions and commitment to excellence displayed by this year's winners, and by other men and women throughout the industry, have resulted in growing recognition by the public and policymakers of the critical need for nuclear energy as a component of America's energy supply." Receiving three of the nine TIP Awards presented at NEI's annual Nuclear Energy Assembly in Washington D.C. Tuesday, Exelon Nuclear was recognized with the GE Nuclear Energy Vendor Award, the Award for Equipment Reliability, and the Award for Work Management and Configuration Control. Each of these awards recognizes new ideas and techniques that Exelon Nuclear developed and the positive affect they have had on the success of the nuclear industry. -- Exelon's Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Oyster Creek Generating Station, Limerick Generating Station, Dresden Generating Station, Quad Cities Generating Station, Clinton Power Station, and LaSalle Generating Station stations were recognized with the Award for Equipment Reliability for their fleet-wide asset management program for Boiling Water Reactor plants. This program was designed to thoroughly address material condition issues while allowing the company to meet outage and plant schedule commitments. -- The Award for Work Management and Configuration Control recognized Exelon's Braidwood Generating Station for the development and effectiveness of its steam generator high impact team. The team successfully completed critical path eddy current inspections for four steam generators in six and one-half days at a total dose of less than 19 person-rem, setting new Exelon records and establishing a new U.S. record for refueling outage duration. -- The GE Nuclear Energy Vendor Award recognized Exelon Nuclear's Quad Cities Unit 1 for its "first-of-a-kind" weld repair design developed using General Electric's Six Sigma quality approach. This welding technology allowed Exelon Nuclear to significantly reduce the completion time for pipe weld repairs from eight days to two days, contributing to the achievement of short outage schedules. "Spreading best practices across multiple sites can be a challenge," said President of GE Nuclear Energy, Mark Savoff, who presented Exelon Nuclear with the 2000 Nuclear Energy Vendor Award. "Exelon Nuclear took advantage of a multiple-site fleet and forged a system of asset management to ensure long- term health and viability of Exelon units." Exelon Corporation is one of the nation's largest electric utilities with approximately five million customers and more than $15 billion in annual revenues. The company has one of the industry's largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon distributes electricity to approximately five million customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania and gas to 425,000 customers in the Philadelphia area. The company also has holdings in such competitive businesses as energy, infrastructure services and energy services. Exelon is headquartered in Chicago and trades on the NYSE under the ticker EXC. SOURCE Exelon Nuclear Web Site: http://www.exeloncorp.com ©1996-2001 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 BWN Nuclear Waste Elimination Corp. Claims ATG Failed to Inform Public About Lawsuit Friday May 25, 7:07 pm Eastern Time Press Release LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 25, 2001--American Technologies Group Inc. (ATG) (OTCBB:ATEG - news) was served with a lawsuit by BWN Nuclear Waste Elimination Corp. regarding its Baser project, in which it was claimed among other things that ATG failed to spend required sums of money to develop the Baser technology and failed to maintain some of the patents. Additionally, the suit claims that ATG improperly used the Baser technology to develop other related technologies without authorization from its licensee, which includes its IE crystal technology for ATG's fuel additive and recent developments therefrom. The suit claims that all such technologies are not the property of ATG and demands that they be delivered to the licensee. It further claims damages of $20 million for failing to spend the required sums on developing the Baser technology and claims damages of $40 million for failing to maintain the patents as per the contract requirements. Plaintiff's counsel, Michael Stoller, stated, ``I am aware that ATG frequently provides public announcements on events it considers noteworthy to fulfill its obligations to provide `forward-looking statements' to the public; however, when such announcements require negative information to be reported, ATG appears not as forthcoming in meeting its obligations to report to the public. I therefore felt obliged that the public and potential investors are fully informed that this lawsuit has been pending since April 5, 2001.'' *Contact:* BWN Nuclear Waste Elimination Corp. Brooke Owen, 626/303-6000 or Michael Stoller, 310/273-1333 ***************************************************************** 15 Radiological Accident in Panama -- IAEA to Send Assistance Team - Press Release 01/12 [www.iaea.org] [-] PR 2001/12 (25 May 2001) *Vienna, 25 May 2001* -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is sending a team of six international experts to assist the authorities of Panama to deal with the aftermath of a radiological accident that occurred at Panama's National Oncology Institute. The Government of Panama informed the IAEA on 22 May about the accident, reported that 28 patients have been affected, and requested IAEA's assistance under the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, to which Panama is a party. The assistance to be provided by the expert mission will include: + ensuring that the radiation source(s) involved in the accident is (are) in a safe and secure condition; + evaluating the doses incurred by the affected patients, inter alia, by analysing the treatment records and physical measurements; + undertaking a medical evaluation of the affected patients' prognosis and treatment, taking into account, inter alia, the autopsy findings for those who died; and + identifying issues on which the IAEA could offer to provide and/or co-ordinate assistance to minimize the consequences of the accident. The team, which includes senior experts in radiology, radiotherapy, radiopathology, radiation dosimetry and radiation protection from France, USA and Japan, and the IAEA itself, will leave for Panama tomorrow, 26 May. ***************************************************************** 16 Russia Sees Payoff in Storing Nuclear Waste From Around the World May 26, 2001 By PATRICK E. TYLER [M] OSCOW, May 25 — Despite some strong opposition from the public at home and by the government in the United States, Russia is preparing to open its borders to become the largest international repository for radioactive nuclear wastes. With strong backing from President Vladimir V. Putin, the Ministry of Atomic Energy is expected to get a new legal mandate from Parliament next month to offer permanent storage for the highly toxic spent nuclear fuel that has been piling up in temporary storage basins at power plants around the world. Moscow estimates that it can earn $21 billion in the next two decades by accepting 20,000 tons from 15 countries Russia has identified that would send used reactor cores by ship and train to new installations in Siberia, one of which is nearing completion. The program would represent a far-reaching development in the international nuclear power industry, as governments in Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are in the midst of national debates over how to dispose of highly radioactive reactor fuel cores. Spent fuel assemblies, filled with toxic byproducts of the nuclear fission that occurs inside reactor cores, must either be buried in secure geologic formations for thousands of years, or reprocessed to recycle the plutonium and uranium in them as new fuel. But the reprocessing of nuclear fuel has become one of the most delicate issues of the nuclear safety debate because it separates plutonium and uranium in forms that might be stolen or diverted to illicit nuclear weapons programs. Russia, France and Britain reprocess fuel for civilian reactor programs, and Germany and Japan ship spent fuel to England and France for reprocessing, but the issue of permanent storage for most of the world's spent nuclear fuels and their wastes remains an open question. The United States abandoned reprocessing technologies in the Ford and Carter administrations, citing proliferation dangers in creating a "plutonium economy," higher costs and environmental concerns. The United States is still evaluating whether it can safely store spent fuel and wastes from 104 American reactors at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A key element in the Russian proposal is to accept the world's spent fuel, charging up to $1,600 per 2.2 pounds to hold it in perpetuity, but also preserving the option to reprocess and resell it should national policies and economics lead to safer reactor designs and new fuel configurations. Russian officials say they hope to use profits from the new industry to help pay for an extensive environmental cleanup program here and to promote the development of more efficient reactors that would use plutonium-based fuels in a form designed to prevent their diversion for weapons use. Russia faces enormous cleanup tasks from Soviet-era radiation accidents and illicit dumping at sea by the Soviet and Russian navies. At the same time, the country has trouble meeting the demand for electricity and has five nuclear plants in various stages of completion to bolster the 29 existing plants. At the heart of Russia's proposal, officials here say, is an attempt to seize a large share of the future market for nuclear energy at a time when industrialized nations are facing increasing demand for electricity and growing concerns about global warming. "Russia will demonstrate to the world that its technological potential is high, and it will pave the way to new projects," said Aleksandr Rumyantsev, the country's new minister of atomic energy. Valentin B. Ivanov, the deputy minister, said in an interview this week that Russia was not sure what shape the nuclear industry would take, but that by garnering a significant share of the nuclear fuels market, it could secure a place for itself as an international supplier of nuclear technology. The Russian initiative comes at a time when the Bush administration has cut funds for joint projects with Russia to reduce plutonium stockpiles, close Soviet-era bomb-making installations and provide financing to Russian nuclear scientists formerly employed in weapons production. At the same time, President Bush has ordered a broad review of nuclear power in the United States, including an examination of safer reactor designs and nuclear fuels resistant to diversion. The Russian proposal faces immediate obstacles because the United States controls the movement, through licensing agreements, of nuclear fuels now powering most of the reactors operating overseas. Nonetheless, Russian officials say they hope to reach an agreement with the Bush administration to enter this business. And Washington is expected to come under some pressure to cooperate from governments that have not resolved what to do with their spent nuclear fuel. Some is stored in high-risk earthquake zones, like Taiwan, which has six American-built nuclear reactors and will soon have two more. Japan has 53 operating reactors and is in the midst of a national debate over how to store its nuclear wastes. In Europe, there are more than 150 nuclear reactors, and France generates 76 percent of its electrical power with nuclear energy. Though American companies like Westinghouse and General Electric have sold nuclear reactors around the world, the United States government has made no commitment to assume responsibility for the long- term storage of spent fuel and its wastes. Washington does retain veto power over where that fuel can be transported. During the Clinton administration, Washington encouraged Russia to remove a ban on importing spent fuels. By removing the ban, American officials calculated, Russia could help solve the coming crisis over the long-term disposal of toxic wastes, most of them from reactors sold by American companies. A group of influential Americans, including a former director of central intelligence, William H. Webster, helped to create the Nonproliferation Trust, a private company that has worked to win support and financing for a permanent repository in Russia for 10,000 tons of spent fuel from reactors operating outside the United States. Despite those efforts, an agreement has been stymied by American concerns over proliferation, Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran, and Moscow's ambition to make use of spent fuels. Thomas B. Cochran, a longtime environmental activist who promoted the idea of building a Russian repository as a consultant to the Nonproliferation Trust, said Russian officials were unwilling to accept a moratorium on reprocessing spent fuel. For this reason, he said, the new Russian plan will be "dead on arrival on this side of the Atlantic." Continued 1 | 2 | Next>> NYTimes.com size="1">Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company| *****************************************************************