***************************************************************** 02/27/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.53 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Energy chief assures Guinn on waste 2 Study to Take Stock of Reactor's Long-Term Health 3 Emphasis on energy production could put environment in back seat 4 GOP senators propose energy-policy overhaul 5 FoE: Energy Bill is Multi-Billion Dollar Payday for Industry 6 Molecular Sponge for Nuclear Waste: 7 Alliance's unity at risk, internal document warns 8 Victor Reis To Discuss Nuclear Policy Issues 9 Congressman says don't ban shipments of nuclear waste 10 License to Kill Executive Summary 11 THE SENATE ENERGY BILL: THE PURSUIT OF A BROWN, DYING PLANET 12 NEI Assists in Formation of National Energy Strategy 13 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.08 | 14 - 20 February 2001 14 Energy Secretary Looks Forward to Working with Senator Murkowski 15 NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: 16 Ontario fails grade environmentally 17 Concerns over transport of nuclear waste 18 Bill in works to keep track of nuclear power, other sources 19 Australian Government: Greens wrong on nuclear waste 20 Governor suspends use of MOX fuel 21 Taiwan's Nuclear Power Tussle Brings Huge Losses 22 Greenpeace Protests at E.ON Over Czech Nuclear Plant 23 Leningrad NPP builds radioactive metal melting plant without 24 GOP introduces energy proposal 25 Yekaterinburg Customs Find Nuke Container - 26 Atomic Energy Ministry may sue ex-governor for libel 27 Nuclear power unlikely to be part of energy equation: 28 Safety of WIPP Operation Hailed 29 Nuclear power plant shutdowns raise concerns NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 U of C claims indemnity in radiation poisoning suit 2 Virginia Focus: Secret Nuclear Studies - 3 Puerto Ricans Fight Vieques Bombing 4 Hiroshima to form unified antinuclear group 5 Brits search for 42 lbs of lost DU 6 Chinese nuke assistance to Pakistan continues: CIA 7 CIA claims Indian nuke weapons programme continuing: PTI 8 "Nuclear Spy" Trial Begins In Russia 9 Kursk compartment to be raised separate 10 Legislator aims to help whistleblower program 11 Lab workers formulating their feelings about face-lift ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Energy chief assures Guinn on waste Today: February 27, 2001 at 11:42:19 PST Abraham opposes plan for interim storage in Nevada By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham assured Gov. Kenny Guinn today that he did not support temporary nuclear waste storage in Nevada. "He brought up to me that he was following the stance of President Bush in not supporting interim storage," Guinn said. But permanent storage of the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is a different story. Abraham supported that plan as a Michigan senator. Now as Bush's top energy man, Abraham says he will review the scientific studies of Yucca -- due this year -- before he makes any judgments. Guinn is in the nation's capital for the annual meetings of the National Governor's Association and scheduled meetings with Abraham, Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. The governor met for about 45 minutes with Abraham Monday. Guinn stressed that most Nevadans strongly oppose the plan to permanently bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. He also reiterated that Nevadans oppose a proposal to store waste at an "interim" site at the Nevada Test Site, pending Yucca completion. That plan theoretically has new life with a new Congress and new president in place. But Abraham agreed that was a bad plan, Guinn said. "He indicated to me that he wanted the people of Nevada to know that was his position," Guinn said. Guinn also asked Abraham for help getting $5 million from Congress for state oversight of the Energy Department studies at Yucca. Nevada last year got $2.5 million. Abraham said he would try, Guinn said. Guinn outlined the history of the Yucca plan for Abraham, who is only five weeks into his new job. Guinn also explained that he had asked the Legislature for $5 million for anti-Yucca projects, specifically money for litigation and for a media campaign to fuel anti-Yucca sentiment in other states. "He said, 'I understand that as governor of your state you've got to do what you've got to do,' " Guinn said. Guinn also said Abraham was planning a visit to Yucca. He promised Guinn an "open door policy." Guinn said he encouraged Whitman to fight for the EPA's authority to set health and safety standards for Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also has set standards for Yucca, but they are not as strict. The two agencies are at odds over whose standards are best. "She felt the EPA should have that responsibility and that she certainly would stick with it," Guinn said. Guinn said he urged Norton to speed approvals for power transmission lines and gas pipelines that cut through U.S. Forest and Bureau of Land Management land. "She was very receptive to that," Guinn said. The governor made a pitch to Mineta for more federal money for a planned Hoover Dam bypass bridge to alleviate traffic congestion on the dam. He also asked Mineta to help Nevada get a bigger share of money for federal roads on public lands. Guinn did not have time to talk much to Mineta much about the nation's $950 high-speed million magnetic levitation train program. A Nevada-California group proposing a train route between Las Vegas and Anaheim was shut out of the competition for the money in January. Outgoing Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater chose two other routes as finalists for the federal money: a Baltimore-Washington route and one in Pittsburgh. Guinn also said he did not have a chance to bend Bush's ear about nuclear waste or another key Nevada issue pending on Capitol Hill: a bill that would ban betting on college sports in the state's casinos. Guinn sat next to Bush at a White House dinner Saturday night, and he and wife Dema danced alongside Bush and his wife, Laura -- at one point they were the only four on the floor. But Guinn said it wasn't appropriate to bring up the betting ban bill at a formal social occasion. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Study to Take Stock of Reactor's Long-Term Health February 27, 2001 By MATTHEW L. WALD [F] or the last two months, the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant has been generating almost as much angst as electricity. A series of leaks, shutdowns and errors has alarmed elected officials and delayed Consolidated Edison's efforts to get the plant back into full operation. Experts and even some critics agree that these incidents have been mostly routine, and would not have drawn so much attention had they not followed the accident that released a puff of radioactive steam a year ago. But that accident is about to produce some more serious fallout: a report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to be made public on Friday, is expected to examine underlying problems of the kind that made the steam leak possible. The report could be far more revealing than the recent technical problems at the plant, 35 miles north of Manhattan in Buchanan. "It's looking at longer-term issues, like emergency preparedness at the plant, the program for identifying and fixing problems, and reactor safety repair programs," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the commission. "It goes to more to long- term health of the plant than to immediate issues." Those issues would be important for any reactor, but are critical for the survival of Indian Point, which Con Edison plans to sell in June to Entergy Nuclear for $602 million. Entergy has made it clear that it does not plan to have the kinds of errors and resulting long shutdowns the plant has had under Con Ed. Both companies will be paying close attention to the report, the result of a monthlong inspection by 13 experts drawn by the N.R.C. from its offices around the country. The inspection was completed earlier this year. The companies were careful not to disclose what they know about the findings, but hinted that the report would spot some problems. Michael R. Kansler, senior vice president of Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said the inspectors had "identified some issues that need to get added into the pile of things they need to work on." The genesis of the inspection was the accident on Feb. 16, 2000, when a tube in a steam generator cracked, allowing about 5,000 gallons of radioactive water to leave the containment building. No one was injured, and officials said the leak posed no threat to public safety. The N.R.C. later decided to conduct the in-depth inspection of Indian Point 2 after learning that the last inspection of the generator, in 1997, had been done wrong. Better interpretation of inspection data would have shown that the generator was likely to leak, the commission said. That was only one of a series of misjudgments by Con Ed, which built the plant 27 years ago. In hindsight, it is clear that the utility's response to the generator leak was poor. It moved ahead with plans to plug the faulty tube and resume operation, but the N.R.C. rejected that idea, saying the steam generators needed more analysis. Con Ed decided to replace the generators, but not until mid-August, when it was far too late to restart the plant for the summer, the period of peak electricity demand. The company had plodded down the wrong path for months, paying about $600,000 a day for replacement power while it tried to restart the plant using the old steam generators. Last month, when the new generators were at last installed and operators tried to reopen the plant, they mismatched heat production with the flow of cooling water — an unremarkable mistake, except that an internal study by the company later concluded that workers might have moved faster than they should have, feeling pressure from supervisors to restart the reactor. And there were worrisome problems in operations even before last February's accident. In August 1999, a malfunction made the reactor shut down suddenly, an event that was once common but which the industry now says should happen no more than once every couple of years at a plant. Emergency diesel generators that were supposed to start automatically did not do so; the operators, busy with a number of complications, failed to take adequate notice that some control room instruments were being powered by emergency batteries, until the batteries died. Incidents like that have led to long shutdowns at other plants. And the February accident resulted in an almost yearlong shutdown that ended Jan. 28, when Indian Point 2 returned to full power. Regulated utilities like Con Edison have historically endured such long shutdowns, but independent power generation companies like Entergy say they have not and cannot. Entergy plans to own Indian Point through a corporate subsidiary that has limited assets, and is thus less able than traditional utilities to weather a protracted shutdown. Mr. Kansler said in an interview that Entergy was going to run the plant better than Con Ed has, and did not anticipate the kind of long shutdowns that Indian Point 2 and its near-twin next door, Indian Point 3, have endured under previous ownership. Entergy promises to consider the N.R.C. report carefully. "This is a very opportune time for that type of inspection, because it's hopefully going to give the public assurance that the people running the plant are going to run it well," Mr. Kansler said. If problems are found, he said, "we're going to go after those just like it happened on our watch." That may take time to achieve, given the spate of smaller problems. The plant was taken to half power last week to allow repair of a pinhole leak in a water pipe; full power was restored over the weekend. But several elected officials, including Senator Charles E. Schumer and the Westchester County executive, Andrew J. Spano, have withdrawn their calls that the plant be closed, saying that the N.R.C. has reassured them of its safety. And even some critics say the recent troubles have been exaggerated because of last February's accident. "Because of the notoriety that Indian Point 2 has, everything's getting escalated one or two levels at least," said David Lochbaum, the reactor expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit safety group. He said it was possible the plant could do better under new management. "You make a few changes at the top and send people the right messages, and the plant workers want to do the right thing," he said. "You point them in the right direction, and they'll get the job done." Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 3 Emphasis on energy production could put environment in back seat Published: Monday, February 26, 2001 SETH BORENSTEIN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON Senate Republicans today will propose to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, give the energy industry $21 billion in subsidies to spur production, and allow drivers who use alternative fuels to zip solo down carpool lanes. In what is considered a preview of the Bush administration's still-developing national power plan, Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, will introduce a bill proposing dramatic changes in U.S. energy policy, mainly by putting heavy new emphasis on increasing supplies. Technologies out of favor during the Clinton administration -- coal and nuclear power -- would be encouraged with tax breaks and further federal research. The price of such changes would be less emphasis on clean air and environmental protection. Amid a backdrop of electricity shortages in California and soaring natural gas prices, Murkowski, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, proposes to give the energy industry incentives denied them in the past. The Bush administration won't say when its plan is coming out or if it will be similar to Murkowski's, although experts expect them to contain common ideas. ``Our goal is to reduce this nation's dependence on foreign oil to below 50 percent,'' Murkowski said on the Senate floor. Imported oil makes up about 55 percent of total U.S. consumption, and the Energy Department expects that to grow to 64 percent by 2020. ``We have put a scenario together that we think can accomplish this goal,'' Murkowski said. And that's got energy industry executives happy. ``Despite the fact that we import more than half our petroleum needs, development of more supplies, especially within the United States, has not in recent years been a consistent government priority,'' ExxonMobil Senior Vice President Harry Longwell said earlier this month. Environmental groups -- angered by the Arctic drilling provisions -- are gearing up for a fight. ``It's an all-you-can-eat buffet for the oil industry,'' said Adam Kolton, Arctic campaign director for the environmental group Alaska Wilderness League. The bill would enrich the oil, gas, nuclear and coal industries, said Cena Swisher, program director at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington organization that looks at corporate subsidies in federal spending. Using figures in drafts of the Murkowski bill and an analysis by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, she said the proposal includes $16.35 billion in subsidies for oil and gas companies, $4.5 billion in breaks for the nuclear industry, and at least $1 billion for coal companies. ``This is no bailout,'' the Alaska Republican said in a news conference earlier this month, while his proposal was being rewritten. ``There's no . . . identifiable benefits to big oil. Big oil doesn't need it. It had a record year.'' The Murkowski bill extends insurance protection for the nuclear industry and would spend $105 million to ``address and overcome the principal technical obstacles to the expanded use of nuclear energy.'' Debate over the bill is sure to center initially on the Arctic. Murkowski said drilling in the refuge would send ``a very significant signal'' to the Middle East that the United States intends to lessen its dependence on foreign oil. New technology can allow it to be done safely and without environmental damage, he said. Kolton, of the Alaska Wilderness League, based in Washington, countered: ``Drilling in the Arctic refuge will do nothing to help consumers now or in the future. It would be as short-sighted as damming the Grand Canyon for hydro-electric power or tapping Yellowstone's Old Faithful for geothermal energy.'' © 2001 PioneerPlanet / St. Paul (Minnesota) ***************************************************************** 4 GOP senators propose energy-policy overhaul [deseretnews.com] February 27, 2001 By Lizette Alvarez New York Times News Service WASHINGTON — Calling the United States' energy problem a looming national security crisis and an economic threat, Senate Republicans introduced Monday the first major bill in a decade to overhaul energy policy and encourage domestic oil exploration. The bill, presented by Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is expected to set off one of the year's fiercest policy debates pitting the oil industry against conservationists. Its introduction comes against the backdrop of California's rolling power outages, a problem that Republicans say gives their bill fresh momentum. Central to the energy bill is a provision that would permit oil drilling inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a wilderness area in Alaska's north slope. The measure, which has met with strong resistance in Congress in the past, is vehemently opposed by many Democrats and some Republicans, who say it would needlessly disrupt the refuge. President Bush, a former oil executive and a strong supporter of drilling in the Alaskan refuge, has directed Vice President Dick Cheney to create a task force on energy policy and to work with Murkowski on steering a final bill through Congress. "American dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and our freedom, and we need to recognize that," said Sen. Trent Lott, the Republican majority leader, on the Senate floor on Monday. Murkowski's legislation also includes numerous tax credits to spur oil and natural gas production by small and midsize companies and to promote alternative fuels. The 300-page bill, called the National Energy Security Act, seeks to reduce the United States' reliance on foreign oil to 50 percent by opening up new tracts of land for exploration. The United States currently imports 56 percent of its oil. It would also promote the production of natural gas, coal and nuclear energy. Murkowski said he sought to balance the need for a national energy policy and the concerns of environmentalists. But a number of Democrats, environmental groups and lobbyists are actively opposing the bill. In an interview Monday, former President Jimmy Carter called the bill "counterproductive" and said it "would increase oil profits." He said he was especially disturbed by the proposal to drill in the Arctic refuge and to meddle with clean air standards. Carter said the bill "directly contravenes" the position maintained by presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. "I feel that this is ill-advised legislation that would despoil a precious area of our country" for a small amount of oil. © 2001 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 5 FoE: Energy Bill is Multi-Billion Dollar Payday for Industry U.S. Newswire 26 Feb 17:06 Energy Bill is Multi-Billion Dollar Payday for Industry, Group Says To: National Desk, Environment Reporter Contact: Mark Helm of Friends of The Earth, 202-783-7400, ext. 102 WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Friends of the Earth (FoE) sharply criticized the Senate Republicans' energy bill today as a gigantic payday for fossil fuel and nuclear industries, citing $400 million in subsidies the first year that would balloon to more than $10 billion over 10 years. The bill, introduced by Sen. Frank Murkowski of Alaska, also targets the sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling. "This is a pollution maximization bill," said FoE president Brent Blackwelder. "Opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling is the most prominent outrage, but the bill is also a gravy train for the dirtiest industries, granting huge subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory exemptions." "This is just another blank check to add to the $2.6 billion the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries get from American tax payers every year," said Blackwelder. "Fifty years and more than $100 billion of subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power have led us to where we are now-energy companies with windfall profits and consumers out in the cold." FoE notes that the tax code is already riddled with special exemptions and loopholes, citing the percentage depletion allowance of $600 million annually intangible drilling costs for a tidy $480 million, and a "non-conventional fuels" production credit for $1.4 billion a year. The group says that tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry cost about $2.6 billion each year. "The answer to the current energy crisis is the same it has always been -- reduce our use of energy through greater efficiency and invest in clean, renewable energy sources," said Blackwelder. Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire ***************************************************************** 6 Molecular Sponge for Nuclear Waste: February 26, 2001 Scientific American: News In Brief: CHEMISTRY [SOMS] One of the principal products of nuclear fuel reprocessing is strontium-90, a radioactive form of strontium that, if exposed to living organisms, can damage bone cells and bone marrow. Recently, researchers sponsored by the Department of Energy's Environmental Management Science Program unveiled a new technology that acts as a molecular sponge—it captures and stores radioactive strontium from liquid hazardous waste. "I am incredibly excited about this material," says Tina M. Nenoff, the principal investigator. "I think scientifically it’s really interesting, and novel, and exciting." The sponges are called Octahedral Molecular Sieves, or SOMS *(right)* (the first letter of the acronym is for Sandia National Laboratories, where Nenoff is based). Described in the February 21st issue of *Journal of the American Chemical Society*, they consist of microscopic pores that are adjusted to fit strontium-90 and contain negatively charged sites. Although these sites are normally bound to positively charged sodium atoms, when SOMS encounter liquid that contains strontium-90, they exchange the sodium for radioactive strontium, which has a stronger positive charge. In laboratory tests, the SOMS selectively captured 99.8 percent of strontium-90 ions from a solution containing a variety of metals. When heated, SOMS turn into perovskite, a stable material that can withstand extremely acidic and basic conditions, radiation and heat. Thus, SOMS are very likely well suited for disposal. Strontium-90 is one of the principal components of nuclear wastes, which are currently stored in a DoE network of underground tanks. Although Nenoff plans to test the SOMS technology for another two years before using it in the field, she believes it will play a significant role in cleaning up the remnants of nuclear fuel reprocessing. "This is what keeps me jazzed," she says. "[It] is just being able to work in this environmental clean up area … and do my part to clean up the legacy." —*Alison McCook* ***************************************************************** 7 Alliance's unity at risk, internal document warns National - Ottawa Citizen Online Tuesday 27 February 2001 Uranium scare worries NATO Mike Blanchfield The Ottawa Citizen NATO officials are concerned that "a legacy of doubt" could weaken the alliance if it does not properly address the controversy over whether depleted uranium poses a cancer risk to its troops. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization fears some of its 19 member countries might opt out of military missions if depleted uranium is, or has been, used in proposed areas of operation. "This could have profound impacts on future coalition operations and Alliance cohesion," warns a NATO briefing document recently tabled at the alliance's Brussels headquarters, a copy of which was obtained by the Citizen. The document, intended primarily for the eyes of NATO member countries, summarizes the controversy that flared in Europe last month over depleted uranium, and whether it is responsible for "Balkans Syndrome," a label that has been given to unexplained deaths and illness among some alliance troops. The leukemia deaths of about 20 peacekeepers from Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain and elsewhere raised concerns about whether the 40,000 anti-tank missiles used during the Kosovo and Bosnia bombing campaigns might be posing a health risk. The weapons were tipped with radioactive depleted uranium. Since the flare-up of the controversy, NATO health officials have presented a calm and confident public response. At two Brussels press briefings they restated the fact that there is no proven scientific link between exposure to depleted uranium and increased cancer rates, but added that because of the concerns raised, the alliance favours further studies of the issue. While NATO might have science on its side, the internal document expresses concern that political fallout in some countries over the depleted uranium scare could undermine the strength and solidarity of the alliance. "Public opinion in many European nations is already skeptical about official advice on health issues following a history of confusion and U-turns on BSE or 'mad cow disease,' " the document says. "No matter what the scientific evidence, it is possible that the current debate over depleted uranium munitions will leave a legacy of doubt and suspicion such that certain NATO allies might be unwilling to become involved in operations -- or the aftermath of operations -- where depleted uranium munitions are used." The document concludes that the level of radiation emitted by depleted uranium is too low to cause cancer and that it is "unlikely to be a source of a 'Balkans Syndrome.' " It recommends that a special NATO committee, recently formed to address the issue, ensure that the results of further studies are rapidly disseminated. "It might well be the case that the committee's mandate should be broadened if studies indicate the presence of a health hazard but exonerate depleted uranium." The committee includes representatives from 50 countries and five international organizations. The report also says NATO should adopt a suggestion by the World Health Organization that calls for cleaning up or cordoning off heavily bombed areas to minimize radiation exposure. Since depleted uranium re-emerged as a political issue in Europe last month, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling for a ban on the substance. The United Nations Environment Program is gathering data on the radiation levels at bomb sites in the Balkans and is to report its findings in a matter of weeks. Canada has said that voluntary testing of its peacekeepers has shown no elevated levels of cancer. Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley is in Brussels today for informal meetings with his NATO counterparts. The ministers are to discuss a range of topics, including the future prospects for peace in the Balkans and the U.S. plan to build a national missile defence system. [UP] Copyright 2001 Ottawa Citizen Group Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Victor Reis To Discuss Nuclear Policy Issues U.S. Newswire 26 Feb 11:34 Victor Reis to Discuss Nuclear Policy Issues at Potomac Institute for Policy Studies' Seminar To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor Contact: Erin O'Connell of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, 703-525-0770, x241 Web site: http://www.potomacinstitute.org News Advisory: What: The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies invites you to attend its Executive Luncheon Series featuring Dr. Victor H. Reis, who will discuss "Modeling Nuclear Policy." The U.S. is currently revisiting the wisdom of nuclear power plants. This and other complex nuclear policy issues are being explored that require global models. In his talk, Reis will address several nuclear policy issues, including global plutonium flows and government investment in new nuclear power technology. He will show how interactive modeling can help clarify different policy views. Audience members will be invited to participate by providing inputs to the models. When: Wednesday, Feb. 28 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Where: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Ballston Metro Center Office Tower 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 200 Arlington, Va. 22203 Ballston Metro Stop/Orange Line About the Speaker: Reis currently leads the Nuclear Strategies Project, a multi-organization venture whose purpose is to help understand and develop strategies for the international nuclear enterprise. He is a member of the U.S. Strategic Command's Strategic Advisory Group and the Sandia National Laboratories national Security Advisory Panel. Dr. Reis has also served as the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs in the U.S. Department of Energy, Director of Defense Research and Engineering at the Pentagon, and Deputy Director and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. About the Executive Luncheon Series: The Executive Luncheon Series was initiated three years ago by the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and has hosted many notable experts in a variety of national security fields. The purpose of the series is to keep the Institute and its community abreast of current national security issues, and to allow the Institute to promote an ever-expanding outlook on the application of technology and technology policy. R.S.V.P.s are necessary. Please contact Erin O'Connell or Vanessa Webb at 703-525-0770. Copyright 2001, U.S. Newswire ***************************************************************** 9 Congressman says don't ban shipments of nuclear waste Today: February 27, 2001 at 11:24:43 PST rk3 SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - If Utah bans transportation of high-level nuclear waste, it will hamper efforts to have a national nuclear waste burial site established in Nevada, said U.S. Rep. Jim Hansen, R-Utah. A previous bill to move forward on the proposed national repository site at southern Nevada's Yucca Mountain was vetoed by President Clinton. Hansen said he will back another attempt at the legislation. "I would suggest strongly" that the Legislature not enact a transportation ban, Hansen said Monday. If Utah placed blanket restrictions on nuclear waste shipments, he told the Legislature, "I guarantee I won't get that bill through," because other western states would then follow Utah's lead. The Goshute Indians and Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of eight utilities, propose to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel rods on the Goshutes' Skull Valley reservation until the proposed permanent national waste dump at Yucca Mountain is opened. Gov. Mike Leavitt and most of the state legislators oppose the plan. Among other things, they fear the storage in Utah would end up being permanent. Yucca Mountain's capacity has been set at 63,000 tons of nuclear waste, leaving about 40,000 tons sitting somewhere else. And 40,000 tons is the amount Private Fuel Storage wants to put in Utah. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 10 License to Kill Executive Summary Executive Summary Marine life in all forms, from endangered manatees and sea turtles to essential microscopic organisms, is being harmed and killed by once-through cooling systems, used to remove waste heat at nuclear power stations. A typical once-through cooling system draws into each reactor unit more than a billion gallons of water a day, 500,000 gallons a minute. After cycling through the power generating station, the heated water is discharged at temperatures up to 25 degrees F hotter than the water into which it flows. A total of 59 out of the 103 U.S. reactor units rely on this system, either exclusively or in conjunction with closed cycle canals or cooling towers. This report examines the toll the once-through cooling intake and discharge system takes on marine biodiversity around nuclear plants, including sea turtles and other endangered marine animals. The report takes into account the already severe problems affecting the health of U.S. oceans and waterways and the impacts of nuclear power plant operation within the context of this crisis. The authors review the cumulative impact of marine ecosystem destruction by coastal nuclear reactors as well as the local effect on marine life in the vicinity of the plant. Particular attention is given to the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and the adherence to and implementation of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Power Plant Systems and Alternatives Nuclear power electrical generating stations use the tremendous heat resulting from the controlled splitting of the atom to boil water to generate steam for powering electrical turbogenerators. Atomic reactors produce much more heat in the fission process than is needed to generate electricity. For each unit of electrical energy generated, two units of heat energy are released into the environment. To operate a nuclear power station efficiently, this waste heat must be removed. Electric utilities use a variety of methods to remove waste heat from their nuclear reactors, but most companies rely on the once-through cooling system. The system transfers the heat load to the intake water and discharges the heated water back into the environment, using the same body of water as a *heat sink *to absorb and dissipate the excess heat generated by the system. In contrast, operators using cooling towers draw in a lowered water intake of about 20,000 gallons a minute, reducing the potential for damage to marine life sucked into the nuclear plant. Cooling towers also eliminate the need to discharge large volumes of heated water into the water source and the resulting damage to the marine environment in the discharge area. Overall Harmful Effects of the Once-Through System The environmental impact of diverting more than a billion gallons of water per unit per day from a water source such as an ocean or estuary, heating it up, then discharging it at temperatures up to 25 degrees F higher than the surrounding water has been shown to cause significant damage. Not only are marine animals "entrained" or "impinged" by the intake system, but billions of smaller marine organisms, essential to the food web, are also sucked into the reactor operating system and largely destroyed in this process. *Entrainment *involves the drawing in of marine life through an intake tunnel, pipe, or canal at a velocity the marine animals cannot resist. Once drawn in, they are subject to *impingement, *becoming trapped against "prevention devices" such as screens, racks, bars, and barrier nets. Larger animals may then drown or suffocate after becoming impinged. Smaller fish and other organisms may be entrained through the entire reactor system and are often scalded by the heated water before being discharged into the waterway. Others, pulverized by the reactor condenser system, emerge as sediment that clouds the water around the discharge area, often blocking light from the ocean floor. The resulting shadow effect kills plant and animal life around reactor discharge systems by curtailing the light and oxygen they need to survive. Regulatory Oversight and Mitigation The lack of oversight by federal agencies authorized to protect the marine environment from unfettered industrial development and pollution has alarmed industry watchdog and animal protection organizations. Ecological concerns include the destruction of marine species and their surrounding habitat, particularly the killing and capturing of endangered species through the routine operation of atomic reactors. Under the present system, the nuclear industry’s needs almost always prevail over the interests of marine life. The use of technology that is least harmful and polluting to the environment is a prerequisite of the CWA. However, installation of cooling towers, unquestionably an improvement over once-through cooling systems, has been selectively enforced at atomic reactor sites and resisted by utilities hoping to avoid the expense. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responsible for enforcing compliance with intake and discharge permits at reactors under the terms of the CWA, has largely failed to establish national performance standards. This failure has resulted in at least one lawsuit to date, forcing EPA to revise its national performance standards for both new and existing power plants. This process is ongoing. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is entrusted with the enforcement of licensee regulations under the Endangered Species Act but frequently acts instead as an advocate for the nuclear industry. The NRC often persuades the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the agency that governs the protection of most marine animals, to back away from more stringent actions that would minimize destruction of these animals and their habitat. To save the industry money, requirements that would protect marine life and habitat are weakened, watered down, or done away with entirely at nuclear reactors. Instead of applying sanctions when a nuclear plant kills more than its allowed quota of an endangered species, as laid out in the *incidental take statement *issued by NMFS, NRC acts on behalf of the plant owner to secure a larger quota. If a plant exceeds its allowed take limit, it must renegotiate a new limit. This is known as *reinitiation of consultation *under ESA Section 7. The utility must first prepare a *biological assessment *of the problem. After discussion with NMFS and NRC, and an NMFS draft response, NMFS issues its final *biological opinion, *setting out the new take limits and establishing the new incidental take statement. NRC is invariably an advocate for the utility during this process. For example, at reactors where sea turtles are captured, NRC consistently encourages NMFS to withdraw from its biological opinion most of the requirements that are important to the long-term survival of the species such as habitat studies, tissue sampling, video studies, and comprehensive animal necropsies. NRC also supports industry attempts to raise the limit on the number of animals that can be killed or captured during reactor operation. Falsification and False Promises State water and wildlife authorities also fall prey to nuclear industry pressure tactics. Regulators are kept in the dark and legally intimidated by the nuclear industry in its efforts to avoid or dramatically reduce penalties and mitigation requirements for the harmful effects of the once-through cooling system. This occurs even after proof that an offending utility has deliberately withheld or misrepresented vital but unfavorable data. For example, the California utility, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), for many years, provided state water authorities with skewed data on its Diablo Canyon nuclear power station. The data showed that the plant’s intake of billions of gallons of water a day did very little harm to surrounding marine life. PG&E’s conclusions were based on the unscientific formula that the amount of sea life drawn into the system at the intake port could be accurately measured by the amount of small fish and other organisms at the outflow of the cooling system. In the spring of 2000, Diablo Canyon’s operators were discovered to have withheld information from environmental regulators for two decades revealing the true effect of the reactor’s hot water discharges into the coastal waters off Diablo Cove and miles beyond. The concealed data included infrared images indicating more extensive thermal plume impact zones than previously admitted and time-series photographs showing the progressive deterioration of biologically important marine habitat in coastal waters around the reactor. The damage was catastrophic to the indigenous marine life community, including the near obliteration of the already threatened black and red abalone populations. The concealed findings also revealed up to a 90 percent destruction of many varieties of sea life as they passed through Diablo Canyon’s cooling system. These findings had never been reported to state or federal agencies. State water authorities viewed the escalating damage as sufficiently severe to press for a cease and desist order against the utility’s previously accepted levels of waste heat discharges. A state cease and desist order would have effectively halted, or reduced the thermal discharges, or reduced their temperature, and imposed severe fines on the utility for continued heat pollution that threatened marine habitat and its indigenous species. However, the order was undermined by the utility. Despite publicly documented evidence, and even evidence of its own, PG&E argued that no mitigation action was needed. Using a threat to outspend environmental regulators in legal actions appealing the cease and desist order, PG&E forced the authorities to back down. Instead, the state regulators have proposed to accept a settlement that ignores the reactor’s ongoing thermal damage and includes a cash pay-off of just $4.5 million for vaguely worded marine species protection measures while simultaneously reducing the scope of monitoring the harmful effects of the Diablo Canyon cooling system. This regulatory retreat in effect allows the utility to continue its business-as-usual practices while sacrificing an entire indigenous marine life community as the cost of marketing electricity. Nuclear utilities make promises during licensing they have no intention of fulfilling once their reactors begin operation. Units 2 and 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) near San Diego, CA, were permitted to come on line, based on the owner’s submission to a comprehensive environmental impact study. The utility, Southern California Edison (Edison), agreed at the time to compensate fully for any environmental damage subsequently found by the study. When findings suggested that the operation of San Onofre had caused substantial damage to the marine environment, however, Edison quickly reneged on its promise and began its campaign to avoid any protective obligations. Since the study’s publication in 1989, Edison has done little but dispute and disregard the recommended actions. Despite the California Coastal Commission’s July 1991 instruction to complete a 150-acre wetlands restoration and build a 300-acre artificial reef near the plant, Edison has, to date, spent a mere $2.7 million in the construction of a 22.5 acre reef. This is a paltry sum when compared to the utility’s 1999 earnings of $484 million from a $1.5 billion net cash flow, as reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Species-Specific Harmful Effects: Sea Turtles Four species of endangered and one threatened species of sea turtle present in U.S. coastal waters are harmed and killed by nuclear power station operations. Loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles are the most common victims at nuclear reactors. Leatherback and hawksbill sea turtles have also been taken on rare occasions. Worldwide, the Kemp’s ridley is the most severely endangered sea turtle species, although the Pacific leatherback is currently at the most immediate risk of extinction. Sea turtles are entrained into the large-diameter coolant intake pipes used by coastal reactors. A 1990 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study, "Decline of Sea Turtles, Causes and Prevention," examined the impacts on worldwide sea turtle populations and recommended protective measures to prevent their extinction. The academy, in its investigation of power plant impacts, found that death and injury can occur in transit through a reactor’s once-through intake pipe such as the one employed at the St. Lucie plant in Florida. However, since 1985, no utility has attributed sea turtle injury or mortality at a nuclear reactor site to transit through an intake pipe, although sea turtles continue to be entrained through the St. Lucie pipe in large numbers. Sea turtles are also impinged by the force of the intake water and become lodged on velocity cap structures at the intake entrance or farther down-stream on barrier nets, underwater deterrent systems, and, ultimately, against the power station’s metal grate trash racks. Mortality reports ascribe death to drowning, but some experts clarify this as suffocation as necropsies usually show no water present in the lungs of dead sea turtles at nuclear plants. Utility operators often refuse to admit responsibility for the death and injury of sea turtles, blaming prior injuries, including boat collisions and shark attacks. By making this distinction between sea turtles directly killed or injured by reactor operations and those allegedly suffering prior injuries, utilities can effectively increase their kill and capture limits. For example, if a reactor is given a lethal "take" limit of 10 sea turtles a year and makes its own judgment about which animals were killed due to plant operation, "noncausal" lethal takes can be omitted from the limits to increase the amount of authorized kills at the reactor. To avoid costly protective actions, nuclear utilities dismiss their deadly role as minuscule. However, every sea turtle killed at a nuclear reactor has an essential part to play in the species’ survival. Sea turtles harmed by nuclear reactors range from juveniles and subadults to adults all of whom have already survived the enormous attrition from predators suffered by hatchlings. Scientists and sea turtle experts agree that removing these viable members of the population could have serious consequences. Egg-bearing females are particularly vulnerable, especially when habitual nesting beaches are occupied by a nuclear reactor such as occurs in Florida at the St. Lucie station. Furthermore, evidence shows that sea turtles are lured into dangerous proximity of reactors by the artificially warmed waters, the resulting abundance of favored prey, and the resemblance of the intake structures to reefs, a desirable feeding and resting place. This puts sea turtles in danger of entrainment through intake structures and of being trapped by colder waters should they linger too long in the artificial environment created by the reactor discharge system. Species-Specific Harmful Effects: Fish, Fish Larvae, and the Marine Habitat Fish, fish larvae, and fish eggs are harmed and destroyed upon entering the flow of reactor cooling water where they are sucked into and impinged on the water intake screens. These ecologically essential life forms are then stressed by the mechanical, chemical, and thermal impacts of the operation of the once-through cooling system. Smaller fish, fish larvae, spawn, and a tremendous volume of other marine organisms are daily drawn deeper inside the reactor coolant system where up to 95 percent are scalded and discharged back into the water body as lifeless sediment. These high destruction rates can overtake recovery rates, resulting in extensive depletion of the affected species. In this way, entire marine communities can lose their capacity to sustain themselves. In addition, should a reactor abruptly shut down, water temperatures around the plant will drop causing cold-stunning, an event fatal to fish acclimated to the warmer water. Occasionally, reactor operators deliberately raise the temperature of the water inside the coolant system to kill mollusks encrusting the pipes. Fish that cannot escape are scalded and discharged into the local marine environment. This increases the clouding of the water around the discharge structure already caused by the volume of hot water gushing from the reactor, further impeding the growth of essential marine plants such as kelp. The hot discharge water damages and destroys fish and other marine life and dramatically alters the immediate marine environment. Warmer waters have been found to cause a fatal disease, known as "withering syndrome," in black and red abalone, which have been virtually eliminated around Diablo Canyon in California with little chance of recovery, even if the water temperatures return to normal. The warmer temperatures drive away indigenous species of fish and attract others whose populations flourish, further stressing the displaced species and threatening their survival. Kelp, unable to photosynthesize efficiently due to the shadowing effect of discharge sediment, also is weakened by higher water temperatures. In the immediate discharge areas, the ocean floor is scoured clean of sediment by the force of the thermal discharge, resulting in bare rock and creating a virtual marine desert. Areas farther from the discharge become coated in heavy, life-stifling sediment. Unusually altered water temperatures have been shown to interfere with the normal behavior patterns of some species of fish, including striped bass, consequently disrupting the completion of necessary life-cycle activities. The utility operating the reactor typically conducts the reporting and analysis of fish kills. This method of self-reporting inevitably results in gross underestimates of fish kills at nuclear reactors. In one example of cold-stunning when the Oyster Creek station in New Jersey shut down, the utility officially reported several hundred fish mortalities, but sightings by local fishermen recorded at least 4,000 dead striped bass. In fact, the utility had counted only fish found within the reactor’s property perimeter and not those beyond plant boundaries. The full magnitude of the damage to fish populations from nuclear power operations is likely far greater than suggested by unreliable estimates from utilities. Species-Specific Harmful Effects: Marine Mammals and Other Marine Wildlife The nuclear industry values economic profits over reducing harm to wildlife and the humane treatment of marine animals. Nonendangered species such as seals and sea lions are drowned at nuclear plants, often with the tacit approval of NMFS, the agency that grants permits for take limits it judges will not impair the species’ survival. However, the agency’s decision-making process does not factor in the slow, inhumane drowning of marine mammals through a reactor intake tunnel. It is left to environmental watchdog groups to draw attention to the plight of these animals. This is what happened at the Seabrook reactor in New Hampshire where the drowning of seals ceased after activists pressured the utility into installing preventive bars at the intake tunnel. Endangered manatees and American crocodiles have been captured and killed at atomic reactors. Manatees have also fallen prey to habituation to the artificially warmed waters, a problem that has resulted in cold-stunning of the animals when the plants reduce power or shut down. In Florida, manatees were sucked through the St. Lucie intake pipe, both before and after repairs to the opening through which they entered. The experience of a human diver who survived entrainment through the St. Lucie pipe in 1989 tells us that the victim must endure turbulence, darkness, and severe tearing by large, sharp barnacles encrusted on the pipe’s interior. Although the Turkey Point nuclear station in Florida has positioned itself as a "sanctuary" for American crocodiles, the animals have also died there, at least one apparently from impingement against the suction of the cooling canal skimmer pumps. The crocodiles, attracted by the artificially warmed discharge water, cluster around the plant, vulnerable to injury from plant operations. Turkey Point has also reported a manatee mortality. Various breeds of diving ducks have drowned at nuclear plants, sucked through the intake structures into the circulating water systems. Almost no attention has been paid to these incidents, even though at least one resulted in the death of 103 greater or lesser scaup, a bird whose numbers have declined at an alarming rate in recent years. The elimination of 103 members of a single population of scaup, if repeated, could have serious consequences. Scaup are attracted by zebra mussels that reportedly flourish on water intake structures, but no preventive methods are known to avoid fatalities among these feeding birds. Even when reluctantly complying with protective requirements, some plants do further damage to the environment. Operators of the Salem reactors in New Jersey were obligated to restore wetlands in the area. But in doing so, they broke a dike and cut a channel to create a flat marshland that has proven deadly to the already diminishing horseshoe crab population. The dredging effort that broke the dike was particularly destructive, as the utility chose not to halt the operation during the crabs’ breeding season. Repeated herbicidal sprayings have also harmed the estuarine environment the utility is charged with protecting. False Advertising The nuclear industry has spent tens of millions of dollars over the years, attempting to portray itself as environmentally friendly and beneficial to wildlife. Some of its advertising and promotional efforts have featured the same animals killed or captured at nuclear reactors such as seals, sea turtles, and American crocodiles. Industry advertising and promotional materials have claimed that "sea creatures and nuclear plants get along well," that nuclear power "helps protect the environment," and even that nuclear reactors cause "no harm" to sea turtles. Utilities use their web sites to trumpet token gestures toward conservation such as sea turtle nest counts, without telling readers about their own part in destroying these same species as they attempt to nest on land now occupied by atomic reactors. When nuclear power advertisements were challenged in 1998 by consumer, environmental, business, and public policy groups, the industry at first defied recommendations from the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD) to cease its deceptive practices and amend its advertising messages. However, the NAD referred the case to the Federal Trade Commission, which urged the industry to "take to heart the evaluation of its advertising that has been rendered by its peers" and agreed that the industry had "failed to substantiate its general environmental benefit claim." Only then did the industry buckle to pressure and its advertisements no longer feature sea turtle hatchlings or basking sea lions. Again, without the intervention of watchdog organizations, the nuclear power industry will continue to mislead the public about its effect on endangered and other marine wildlife. Conclusions and Recommendations Nuclear power plants use the once-through cooling system to save money. When presented with the opportunity to install cooling towers at the time of construction, many reactor owners declined, citing financial burdens. By this choice, the utilities passed the cost on as environmental damage. Today, with nuclear power in steep economic decline, the industry once again argues that it cannot afford to retrofit with cooling towers to curb harmful impacts on the marine environment. The nuclear industry is allowed to self-monitor and self-regulate to an unacceptable degree. Subject to lenient and often accommodating regulatory oversight, reactor operators will deliberately leave out essential information about damage to the marine ecosystem when reporting to state and federal authorities. In the case of PG&E and its Diablo Canyon site, the utility remained silent about the true extent of destruction to marine life and habitat around the reactor. In other instances, mitigation promises made at the time of licensing were quickly broken. The industry flaunts the threat of litigation to force authorities into accepting minimal penalties for repair to the environment damaged or fundamentally altered by the operation of atomic reactors. Regulatory authorities must rely on the honesty of nuclear utilities to report accurately the captures and deaths of marine wildlife at nuclear reactors. Such reporting is erratic, inconsistent, and sometimes absent altogether. Utilities often fail to report at all to NRC, preferring to provide information about the deaths of marine animals to NMFS or state departments of environmental protection. This circumvents the tenets of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and effectively shields the industry from public scrutiny. This is compounded by NRC’s own inconsistencies. At times, NRC posts information about wildlife kills and captures at reactors on its Daily Events Reports (DER) that appear on its website. At others, it records this information only in the archives of its Public Document Room. The public must therefore inquire ‘on spec’ to ascertain whether or not captures have taken place and not assume that the DER postings provide a full accounting. These inconsistencies, from the utilities to the federal authorities, make it extremely difficult for the public to know the true extent of the destruction of marine life at atomic reactors. The NRC, the federal authority charged with enforcing compliance with take limits, mitigation actions, and other requirements, acts more as a lapdog than a watchdog. In fact, NRC often persuades permitting agencies such as NMFS to buckle to the industry’s professed economic needs by convincing the agency "not to fall on their sword" over requirements such as sea turtle entrainment studies. Under NRC’s watch, the marine environment, not the nuclear industry, has paid the price for electricity generated by once-through nuclear power reactors. NRC is even willing to come up with preplanned scenarios to help NMFS "save face" when confronted with utility resistance to needed mitigation measures. Although NMFS occasionally presents nuclear utilities with convincing arguments for protective measures, it rarely stands by its original opinions once NRC-supported industry opposition has been considered. The nuclear industry makes only token gestures toward protective actions and balks at any serious repair of the environmental destruction it has caused. Instead, the industry portrays atomic reactors as environmentally friendly wildlife sanctuaries, a myth as deceptive as the industry’s earlier promise of electricity "too cheap too meter." It flaunts sea turtle nest protection efforts at the same time its reactors capture egg-bearing females attempting to nest. It is left mainly to environmental watchdogs and animal protection organizations to advocate for protective measures and publicly to expose the industry’s destruction of marine wildlife. Endangered species such as sea turtles, manatees, American crocodiles, and least terns, along with a wide variety of fish, other marine mammals, sea birds, and smaller, essential marine organisms, are species whose numbers are further diminished by the operation of nuclear power. The survival and safety of these animals is of negligible interest to an industry that prizes profit above all and shifts blame to other causes when confronted with the rising deaths and injuries of these creatures at its reactors. Noted scientists and oceanic experts agree that the health of the world’s oceans is in jeopardy. Yet, the nuclear industry is willing to destroy significant areas of marine habitat through daily operation of its once-through coolant reactors. When presented with the opportunity to repair some of the damage, the industry instead fights back with threats of costly and protracted legal challenges. Though willing to spend millions of dollars and countless years fighting lawsuits, the industry is not willing to finance protection of the endangered species it kills or restoration of the marine environment it destroys. The nuclear industry displays a callous disregard for the importance of the oceans as a life source and marker for environmental and human health. The agencies empowered both to regulate the industry and to protect the public, wildlife, and environment from industry wrongdoing are lax at best, even negligent and collusive. Though entrusted to enforce laws largely designed for the well-being of humans, wildlife and habitat, agencies such as NRC and NMFS are in fact more inclined to favor industry needs at the expense of human and environmental health. Given the nuclear industry’s refusal to install less damaging technology or to implement even the smallest of protective measures at its once-through reactors, an essential option exists that can prevent further and potentially catastrophic damage to the oceans and the life that dwells there. The *precautionary principle *—whereby activities that harm the environment are halted before the damage is irreversible, and the burden of proof is placed upon the polluter, not the public—is not only a timely, but an essential, approach. Consequently, we recommend that the use of once-through cooling technology be halted before more animals are harmed and further, irreversible damage is done to essential marine ecosystems. Only in this way can the marine environment be protected from one of its most aggressive predators. Additionally, nuclear utilities should adhere to the same standards of law as other industries and such laws that do apply must be implemented consistently. Clarification of Report Criteria This report is an examination of the effects on marine life and habitat of the condenser cooling systems used to operate U.S. coastal nuclear power reactors. The report does not presume to portray the full extent of marine destruction caused by nuclear utilities. Nor does it attempt to examine the many significant radiological and toxicological issues affecting water and environmental quality directly associated with the ongoing operation of nuclear power stations. These effects are omitted from this report to provide a focus on the nonradiological issues, not because these impacts are insignificant. Nor does this report cover the effects of nuclear power operation on terrestrial wildlife and endangered nonmarine species. Reactors examined are a selection of primary users of the once-through cooling system. The findings here represent examples of reactors chosen because of their known or suspected effects on marine life. The report is not meant to provide the definitive analysis of once-through systems at every U.S. nuclear plant. This does not mean that reactors not specifically named in this report do not cause similar effects. Indeed, all reactors using the once-through cooling system routinely destroy millions of aquatic organisms, large and microscopic. The species affected, the quantity and type of destruction, and other specifics may differ, but the harmful consequences are no less critical. Much of the material in this report comes from Freedom of Information Act requests and has never before been released to the public. The authors present this as a preliminary analysis of findings to date. This report does not constitute a complete study, as events continue to unfold and circumstances to change at nuclear plants around the country. However, it is apparent that the lack of investigation, analysis, and enforcement by NRC and other responsible federal and state agencies has left a void in the patchwork of regulated protection of marine species and their habitat. Fair and equitable regulation of the harmful impacts of the coolant intake and discharge system must now be implemented. ***************************************************************** 11 THE SENATE ENERGY BILL: THE PURSUIT OF A BROWN, DYING PLANET We needn’t mince words, not at this point in our history. Influential members of the U.S. Senate are preparing to unleash the most breath-taking assault on our planet, on our environment, ever contemplated by humankind. If successful, the result will be nothing less than the perhaps-permanent browning and decaying of our planet. Sure, it’s possible to argue we’ve been on that track already. All of us already are concerned about the deterioration of the environment. But there has never before been a single piece of legislation that would so accelerate that trend, that would in one fell swoop reverse years of halting progress, that could possibly pose the threat to the Earth that the 260 or so pages of this bill would do. Rhetorical excess, perhaps? Read on, and decide for yourself. At this writing, the comprehensive energy policy bill being prepared by the GOP leadership of the Senate Energy Committee is a draft, with no bill number. But the draft that circulated on Capitol Hill the last week of January 2001 was said to be quite close to the final version, scheduled to be released during the second week of February. Titled the "National Energy Security Act of 2001," the bill would provide the framework for a comprehensive energy policy for the United States. In theory, that might not be a bad idea. Unfortunately, this legislation would provide exactly the wrong energy policy for the 21st century. It recycles every discredited idea of the past 40 years, rewards every big energy concern and large polluter with massive tax breaks, subsidies and incentives. It doesn’t just step on; it tramples any thought of environmental protection. It would ensure an ever-greater reliance on the three most polluting energy industries: nuclear, coal and oil, while providing virtually nothing for the advanced, sustainable technologies of our time. It is clear proof that the energy barons will stop at nothing to profit at the Earth’s—and our—expense, and just as clear proof that its backers have learned absolutely nothing from the environmental battles of the past 30 years. Indeed, the bill is evidence that the world’s energy industries are desperate, and believe they have only a very short time to institute their policies, and so they’re seeking everything at once, because they know they probably won’t have a second chance. Nuclear is Renewable? The National Energy Security Act of 2001 doesn’t even start off of the right foot; but at least it makes no pretense of its intentions. Beginning with a warning about increased dependence on foreign oil, by the fourth paragraph it complains, "the United States lacks a comprehensive national energy policy and has taken actions that limit the availability and capability of the domestic energy sources of oil and gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric." So much for renewable and sustainable sources of energy. Wait, that’s in the seventh paragraph: "this comprehensive energy strategy must be multi-faceted and enhance the use of renewable energy resources (including hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass)…." Yes, that’s right, nuclear is considered in this bill, if nowhere else on the planet, a "renewable" energy resource. And it goes downhill from there… Specific Nuclear Provisions The bill would provide support for the nuclear industry, both rhetorical and substantive, throughout its pages. What follows is basically an examination, in page order, of those provisions designed to support the atomic industry. The bill would require the Secretary of Energy to prepare an annual report on how the U.S. is reducing its dependence on foreign oil. As part of this report, the Secretary "shall indicate, in detail" how to "increase domestic production and use of oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal, including any actions necessary to provide access to, and transportation of, these energy resources." In addition, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be required to produce a report, within six months, "on the state of nuclear power generation and production in the United States and the potential for increasing nuclear generating capacity and production…." This is despite the fact that the NRC is, by law, a regulatory body and is specifically not charged with promoting the nuclear power industry. This report is also to make "recommendations for expediting the process and ensuring that relicensing [of existing nuclear reactors] is accomplished in a timely manner." Since the NRC already has changed its relicensing regulations to allow only the most minimal of public involvement in the process, it’s actually difficult to imagine how the NRC could streamline its regulations any further. The bill simply assumes that Yucca Mountain, Nevada will become the nation’s high-level atomic waste dump, despite the fact and law that the site currently is only under study, that the final recommendation on the site by the DOE is many months away (and has been further delayed by an investigation of bias by DOE contractors), and that a myriad of unanswered, and probably unanswerable, scientific questions have been raised about the suitability of the site. Existing law apparently means nothing to this bill’s supporters. Sec. 107 starts off bluntly, "Prior to permanent closure of the geologic repository in Yucca Mountain, Congress must determine whether the spent fuel in the repository should be treated as waste subject to permanent burial or should be considered an energy resource that is needed to meet future energy requirements." What’s wrong with this statement? What isn’t? First, Yucca Mountain has not been recommended or approved as a nuclear waste dump. If science prevails, it never will be. Further, the clear implication in this one sentence is that Congress should overturn decades of anti-proliferation policy, supported by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and consider reprocessing of atomic waste. This section goes on to note that a second high-level waste dump may be needed (where are they going to site that—in your backyard?), unless Yucca Mountain can be expanded to handle even more waste than presently contemplated—an unlikely prospect. The section also would establish a new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research, which would be charged with "carrying out an integrated research, development, and demonstration program on technologies for treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel…" In other words, to support reprocessing and other destructive technologies…. Section 111 (note, all sections may change when the bill is finally introduced) of the draft bill is the most astonishing of all. Under the innocuous heading of "Study of Financing for New Technologies," the bill would require the Secretary of Energy to hire an outside consulting firm to conduct "an assessment [that] shall include a comprehensive examination of all available techniques to safeguard private investors in high capital cost technologies—including advanced design power plants including, but not limited to, nuclear—against government-imposed risks that are beyond the investors’ control. Such techniques may include (but need not be limited to) federal loan guarantees, federal price guarantees, special tax considerations, and direct federal investment." Never has the nuclear power industry been so brazen in its admission that its technology has failed every basic economic test. In this basic acknowledgement that nuclear power cannot compete economically, the industry is now seeking tax credits, loans, and taxpayer-funding of new nuclear reactors! Not since the days of Atoms for Peace in the 1950s—before there were any commercial atomic reactors--has the federal government considered paying for new nuclear plants, yet the nuclear industry and its backers now want our dollars to pay for their marketplace failures. Another provision would extend the Price-Anderson Act, which limits utility liability in the event of a nuclear accident, for ten years—until 2012, except that DOE contractors would apparently be protected in perpetuity. The maximum assessment to nuclear utilities under Price-Anderson would increase from $10 million to $20 million per year, per reactor, over the same seven-year period. With a hypothetical 100-reactor makeup, the nuclear industry would, as a whole, be liable for some $14 Billion in damages. Compare that to the $350+ Billion damages caused by the Chernobyl accident (in a region where the dollar is worth substantially less than in the US) or the $300+ Billion in damages projected back in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories from an accident at New York’s Indian Point reactors. But that wouldn’t be the end of taxpayer support for nuclear power. Not even close. The bill would authorize $60 million in the first year alone for nuclear power research, including $5 million "for a roadmap to design and develop a new nuclear energy facility in the United States…." The bill also would provide direct payments of up to $2 million in any calendar year (lasting up to 15 years) to retrofit existing reactors to increase their power output and another $1 million subsidy to help pay for the retrofit. Also included in the bill are rather complicated tax provisions allowing nuclear utilities to pocket more of their decommissioning funds, and to ease the sale of reactors. Other provisions The nuclear provisions alone would be enough to make this legislation intolerable. But the bill’s backers haven’t stopped there. The bill would also open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, and in a rare—and unwanted--sop to the renewable energy industry, would allocate a portion of the proceeds from that drilling to research and development of renewable energy technologies. The bill also provides substantial funding for development of "clean coal" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) technologies, for natural gas development, and for other oil-based technology (such as recovery of "little-used" oil resources). Energy efficiency gets short shrift in the bill, although there is a new program to encourage school districts to reduce their energy use and there are modest tax credits for individuals who purchase new, more efficient clothes washers and refrigerators. Similarly, there are tax credits for individuals who purchase "hybrid" (electric/gasoline) automobiles, there are no provisions to increase auto fuel mileage standards. Incentives for renewable energy development are virtually absent from the bill—perhaps the clearest indication possible that the bill is intended to meet the needs of its large corporate backers, and not to meet the requirements of a 21st century energy policy. What you can do Truth be told, the bill is unlikely to ever be enacted in its current form. It is just too broad and addresses too many controversial issues for one piece of legislation. Instead, its backers will probably try to modify and then pass different sections of it at a time. But that’s not a reason to sit back; only effective citizen action can ensure the bill’s defeat and, especially, ensure that the nuclear sections are never adopted. Right now, before you do anything else, sit down and write a brief letter to your Senators and Representative and tell them in your own words that you insist that they oppose this bill. Since there is, as yet, no bill number, just refer to the bill by its title: The National Energy Security Act of 2001." This is the single most important and effective thing you can do at this point. If you are not yet on NIRS’ e-mail Alert list, please sign up now (just send a quick message to nirsnet@nirs.org), and we’ll keep you informed about the bill’s progress and let you know when it’s appropriate to act again. Tell all of your friend, colleagues, neighbors, church members, PTA members, and everyone else about this bill—odds are, they will agree with you that this is simply a travesty. Ask that they also write letters. And begin now to set up phone trees and action networks—there will be a lot more work to do before this is over. ***************************************************************** 12 NEI Assists in Formation of National Energy Strategy Nuclear Energy Institute February 26, 2001 - Toward a National Energy Strategy, released by the United States Energy Association, makes recommendations in six major areas to assure that consumers can benefit from an increased supply of affordable energy resources that are available in a ready, reliable and environmentally responsible manner. The six areas of action are: + enhance energy supplies + encourage energy efficiency and affordable prices + stimulate global energy trade and development + promote energy technology development and long-range research and development initiatives + balance energy use and environmental concerns + unify the energy policy process The report explains that increased electricity demand outstrips reliable supplies in many markets. Key industries are being deregulated and technology is advancing at an unprecedented rate. Environmental regulations have grown increasingly costly and complex and, moreover, consumers often express confusion at the array of energy choices now available. In this emerging marketplace, energy companies confront both greater competition and increasing regulatory uncertainty that can heavily penalize those companies that expand production to meet the increased energy demands of our growing population and economy. Some of the recommendations that affect nuclear power are: + Domestic energy resources, such as uranium, must be made available for environmentally sound exploration and development. + Increased federal funding for research and development in all arenasoil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energyshould be considered. Policymakers should allocate R energy efficiency funding on the basis of potential gain. + Regulatory and tax policies are important to attracting the capital investment needed for growth in the energy sector; tax policies should encourage investment for all forms of energy supply and infrastructure. + Investment in an educated workforce capable of sustaining the nuclear energy infrastructure is needed. Download the report at, http://www.usea.org/. Another important energy policy document was released in mid-February by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. The three-volume report, The Geopolitics of Energy into the 21st Century, recommends that Western nations should assess the conditions under which nuclear power could make a significant contribution to electricity generation in the developing world. Fuel choices must be broadened to include cost-competitive nuclear electric power, the report states. Click here for more information, http://www.csis.org/. Copyright © 2000 Nuclear Energy Institute. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Uranium Institute News Briefing 01.08 | 14 - 20 February 2001 A weekly summary of international news relevant to uranium and the nuclear energy industry. [NB01.08-1] Taiwan's premier has confirmed that construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant will be resumed. The US$5.5 billion project will now be completed according to Prime Minister Chang Chun-hsiung for the sake of 'political stability and economic development'. *(International Herald Tribune, 15 February, p6; see also News Briefing 01.06-2)* [NB01.08-2] Russia: First criticality was achieved at Rostov-1 on 20 February 2001. Officials said achieving criticality at the reactor marked the end of an 'eight-year stagnation' in Russia's nuclear power development, pointing out that the unit is the first to be commissioned in the country since Balakovo-4 in 1993. *(NucNet News, 56/01, 20 February; see also News Briefing 01.04-7) * [NB01.08-3] Australia: Western Mining Corporation (WMC) almost tripled its underlying profits in 2000, from A$240.5 million (US$126 million) to A$741.1 million (US$388 million). Uranium production at Olympic Dam reached a record 9.9 million pounds U3O8 (3808 tU) in 2000, while projected figures for 2001 are for another increase to over 10 million pounds U3O8 (3846 tU). *(Ux Weekly, 19 February, p4; see also News Briefing 98.41-1)* [NB01.08-4] US: A judge has backed the US Energy Corporation and Crested Corporation (USECC) on uranium contracts. USECC has won a preliminary ruling that allows USECC entitlement to half the profits and purchase rights of 120 million pounds of uranium that its former partner NUKEM obtained between 1992 and in contracts that may continue until 2006. The uranium contracts are with Russia and other states formally a part of the Soviet Union. *(Ux Weekly, 19 February, p4; see also News Briefing 99.07-1)* [NB01.08-5] US: The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will now be auctioned off, the plant operator announced following the decision by the Vermont Public Safety Board to reject AmerGen Energy's latest offer for the 510 MWe reactor. It is hoped that the auction will be completed by late spring and that regulatory approval for the sale will be gained by the end of 2001. *(Reuters, 16 February; see also News Briefings 01.04-17 and 01.06-8)* [NB01.08-6] US: A supplemental environmental impact statement for the Browns Ferry nuclear plant will be prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The report will address environmental impacts associated with extending the operating licences by 20 years and the possible restart of unit 1, which has been non-operational since 1985. *(Ux Weekly, 19 February, p2; see also News Briefing 00.27-13) * [NB01.08-7] Canada: An environmental review of Pickering A has been approved by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the plant owner, is now free to undertake necessary repairs and systems upgrades before applying to the CNSC for permission to restart the reactors. *(Nuclear Canada, 16 February; see also News Briefing 98.44-9) * [NB01.08-8] US: San Onofre-3 is expected to be offline until mid-May 2001, at the earliest. The fire on 3 February damaged turbine rotors, bearings and other components. Southern California Edison, the operator of the plant, estimates its losses at US$80-100 million over the closure period. San Onofre-2 is still operating. *(Ux Weekly, 19 February, p2; see also News Briefing 01.06-9) * [NB01.08-9] Bulgaria: Westinghouse has won a contract to help upgrade the Kozloduy nuclear power reactors. The project is to upgrade two 1000 MWe units at the Kozloduy plant. *(NewsEdge Corp, 15 February; see also News Briefing 99.24-15)* [NB01.08-10] Hungary's Paks Nuclear Power Plant plans to expand its generating capacity. A feasibility study has started to determine if capacity can be raised by 10% and whether the reactor's lifetime could be extended by 20 years. Both the company and grid operator, MVM, are confident that the project will prove economically viable. *(Ux Weekly, 19 February, p3; see also News Briefing 00.15-16) * [NB01.08-11] China: Two further 984 MWe units at Ling Ao and a new site, Sanmen, have been earmarked for the continued expansion of China's nuclear program and could be announced as part of the next five year plan. The Ling Ao plant already has two reactors working towards commercial operation in July 2002 and March 2003. *(NucNet News, 52/01, 20 February; see also News Briefing 99.07-1) * [NB01.08-12] Japan: The sixth shipment of vitrified waste will arrive in Japan on 20 February 2001, according to a joint press release on behalf of Federation of Electric Power Companies (FEPC). The shipment of vitrified waste will reach Japanese territorial waters on approximately 20 February at the port of Mutsu-Ogawara, Rokkasho-Mura, Aomori prefecture. Unloading of the transport casks is scheduled to begin on 21 February. The ship is then scheduled to leave the port at approximately 15:30 (local time) the same day. *(FEPC Japan Press Release February 20)* [NB01.08-13] The Russian State Duma's ecological committee has rejected amendments to the bill on imports on spent nuclear fuel to Russia. These amendments stipulated that a federal law should approve each import contract after ecological examination. Currently there are about 14 000 tonnes of non-processed spent nuclear fuel in the territory of Russia. If the bill on imports of nuclear wastes is passed, this number may increase by another 20 500 tonnes. *(Russia Today Online, 20 February; see also News Briefing 01.01-6) * [NB01.08-14] US: USEC plans to reduce its costs by 20%. The company expects to achieve savings of US$10 million by reducing the number of consultants, cutting up to fifty staff positions and consolidation of office space. This move follows the company's decision to close its gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth in June 2001.* (Business Wire, 13 February; see also News Briefing 00.41-3)* [NB01.08-15] UK: British Nuclear Fuels plc's (BNFL) mixed oxide (MOX) fuel plans are under threat after the governor of Fukushima prefecture called for a review of the nuclear power programme in the province. A BNFL official stated, however, that there 'had been no change in policy by either the utilities that operate the reactors or the national government'. The Japanese business is important as UK environment minister Michael Meacher is stalling the opening of BNFL's Sellafield MOX facility, pending confirmation of the Japanese contracts for the mixed oxide fuel. BNFL is currently transporting a shipment of MOX fuel on behalf of Cogema of France. Cogema's commercial director Jean-Jacques Gautrot said that 'it is quite common for the local population to be consulted on nuclear energy matters and so far it is too early to say whether this will be good or bad news'. *(Financial Times, 17 February, p4; see also News Briefing 01.03-17)* [NB01.08-16] Global warming will hit island states and poor nations the hardest. According to a United Nations report 'Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability', published in Geneva. The report - the second of three - states that Africa will suffer poorer harvests, have less water and be hit by rising sea levels. Drought, floods and huge population dispersals will affect Asia. Similar effects are likely in Latin America alongside increased risk from diseases such as malaria. Ironically, North America and Europe may increase agricultural yields but face greater threat of disease. Worldwide damage to ecosystems will hit fish stocks, coral reefs and the trends of ice cap melting may continue long after greenhouse gas emissions have stabilised. *(International Herald Tribune, 19 February, p4; see also News Briefing 01.04-21) * [NB01.08-17] The European Commission has acted on radiation protection directives that came into force in May 2000. Eight states had not communicated a complete list of measures to enact the directives, whilst the UK had not yet communicated legislation covering Gibraltar. The directives cover basic safety standards including natural radiation in the workplace and improvement of radiological protection for patients and medical staff. *(NucNet News, 51/01, 15 February)* [NB01.08-18] The US Nuclear industry is hopeful of a boom. Charlie Pryor, chief executive of Westinghouse Electric Company, points to a number of factors coming together to benefit the nuclear power generating industry. Amongst these are the Californian energy crisis, record productivity, falling costs and a favourable climate in the White House. The development of smaller plants with new designs could further broaden the appeal of nuclear. There are also hopes that the energy task force, headed by vice president Dick Cheney, will result in a more positive environment where nuclear is regarded as an integral part of a 'balanced energy policy'. *(Financial Times Online, 16 February; see also News Briefing 01.06-6)* [NB01.08-19] Sweden: Vattenfall's director was upbeat about nuclear's role in Europe's future. Nils Andersson, in his speech 'A vision for nuclear energy in Europe', outlined some of the facts that may have held nuclear back over the last decade which are no longer valid and a longer list of possibilities that will help the nuclear power industry in the future. *(NucNet News, 50/01, 16 February)* Previous News Briefing NB01.07 *Prepared by the Uranium Institute Information Service. All news and views are those of the publications cited.* ***************************************************************** 14 Energy Secretary Looks Forward to Working with Senator Murkowski and Congress on Critical Energy Policy Initiatives energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: February 26, 2001 Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham today offered the following comments following Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Frank Murkowski's (R-AK) introduction of energy legislation: "The Administration continues to work diligently on a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy plan, representative of a variety of policy initiatives and ideas from our cabinet departments and agencies." "We applaud Senator Murkowski for moving forward quickly in offering legislation to address this important subject and look forward to working with the Congress to take action together to set the country's energy policy." Media Contact: Joe Davis 202/586-4940 Release No. R-01-032 ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: [Federal Register: February 27, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 39)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 12435-12437] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27fe01-1] ======================================================================== Rules and Regulations Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. ======================================================================== [[Page 12435]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AG72 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: FuelSolutionsTM Revision AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations revising the BNFL Fuel Solutions FuelSolutionsTM cask system listing within the ``List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 1 to the Certificate of Compliance (CoC). Amendment No. 1 will modify the present cask system design to allow the Big Rock Point nuclear facility to store mixed-oxide fuel assemblies, partial fuel assemblies, and damaged fuel assemblies (in a can) under a general license. DATES: The final rule is effective May 14, 2001, unless significant adverse comments are received by March 29, 2001. If the rule is withdrawn, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Certain documents related to this rulemaking, as well as all public comments received on this rulemaking, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC's rulemaking website at http:// ruleforum.llnl.gov. You may also provide comments via this website by uploading comments as files (any format) if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Certain documents related to this rule, including comments received by the NRC, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. An electronic copy of the proposed CoC and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Accession No(s). ML003770047. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gordon Gundersen, telephone (301) 415- 6195, e-mail GEG1@nrc.gov, of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), requires that ``[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy (DOE)] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.'' Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that ``[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under section 218(a) for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.'' To implement this mandate, the NRC approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule in 10 CFR part 72 entitled, ``General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites'' (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new Subpart L within 10 CFR part 72, entitled ``Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' containing procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3444) that approved the FuelSolutionsTM cask design and added it to the list of NRC- approved cask designs in Sec. 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1026. Discussion On September 29, 1999, and as supplemented on July 27, 2000, the certificate holder BNFL Fuel Solutions (BFS) submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1026 to allow the Big Rock Point nuclear facility to store mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies, partial fuel assemblies, and damaged fuel assemblies (in a can). No other changes to the cask system design were requested in this application. The NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request and found that the proposed amendment does not reduce the safety margin. In addition, the NRC staff has determined that the change does not pose any increased risk to public health and safety. This direct final rule revises the cask design listing in Sec. 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1026. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications for the storage of MOX fuel assemblies, partial assemblies, and damaged assemblies (in a can). The particular Technical Specifications which are changed are identified in the NRC Staff's Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment No. 1. The amended FuelSolutionsTM cask system, when used in accordance with the conditions specified in the CoC, the Technical Specifications, and NRC regulations, will meet the requirements of Part 72; thus, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. CoC No. 1026, the revised Technical Specifications, the underlying Safety Evaluation Report for Amendment No. 1, and the Environmental Assessment, [[Page 12436]] are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the CoC may be obtained from Gordon Gundersen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6195, email GEG1@nrc.gov. Discussion of Amendments by Section Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. Certificate No. 1026 is revised by adding the effective date of Amendment Number 1. Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 1 to CoC No. 1026 and does not include other aspects of the FuelSolutionsTM cask system design. Because NRC considers this amendment to its rules to be noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is using the direct final rule procedure for this rule. The amendment to the rule will become effective on May 14, 2001. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by March 29, 2001, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will address the comments received in response to the proposed amendment published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. These comments will be addressed in a subsequent final rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. Agreement State Compatibility Under the ``Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs'' approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this rule is classified as compatibility Category ``NRC.'' Compatibility is not required for Category ``NRC'' regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA) or the provisions of the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State. Plain Language The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' directed that the Government's writing be in plain language. The NRC requests comments on this direct final rule specifically with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used. Comments should be sent to the address listed under the heading ADDRESSES above. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The rule would amend the CoC for the FuelSolutionsTM cask system within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. The amendment will modify the present cask system design to allow the Big Rock Point nuclear reactor facility to store MOX fuel assemblies, partial assemblies, and damaged fuel assemblies (in a can). The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Gordon Gundersen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6195, email GEG1@nrc.gov. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This direct final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, Approval Number 3150- 0132. Public Protection Notification If a means used to impose an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information collection. Voluntary Consensus Standards The National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC would revise the FuelSolutionsTM cask system design listed in Sec. 72.214 (List of NRC-approved spent fuel storage cask designs). This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that establishes generally applicable requirements. Regulatory Analysis On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR Part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in Sec. 72.214. On January 16, 2001 (66 FR 3444), the NRC issued an amendment to Part 72 that approved the FuelSolutionsTM cask design by adding it to the list of NRC- approved cask designs in Sec. 72.214. On September 29, 1999, and as supplemented on July 27, 2000, the certificate holder BFS, submitted an application to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1026 to permit a Part 72 licensee to store MOX fuel assemblies, partial assemblies, and damaged assemblies (in a can). This rule will permit the Big Rock Point (BRP) nuclear facility to store MOX fuel assemblies, partial assemblies, and damaged assemblies (in a can) at the BRP ISFSI. The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of this amended cask system design and issue an exemption to the general licensee. This alternative would result in the same expenditure of time and money. Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on the above discussion of the benefits and impacts of the alternatives, the NRC [[Page 12437]] concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and thus, this action is recommended. Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants, independent spent fuel storage facilities, and BFS. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121. Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109 or 10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would impose backfits as defined. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 72 Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE 1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 10d-- 48b, sec. 7902, 10b Stat. 31b3 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244, (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance (CoC) 1026 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1026. Initial Certificate Effective Date: February 15, 2001. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: May 14, 2001. SAR Submitted by: BNFL Fuel Solutions. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the FuelSolutionsTM Spent Fuel Management System. Docket Number: 72-1026. Certificate Expiration Date: February 15, 2021. Model Number: WSNF-200, WSNF-201, and WSNF-203 systems; W-150 storage cask; W-100 transfer cask; and the W-21 and W-74 canisters. * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of February, 2001. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. William D. Travers, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 01-4765 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 Ontario fails grade environmentally LFP Local News: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, Free Press Parliamentary Bureau TORONTO --  The Ontario government gets an "F" for failing to protect the environment while deregulating the electricity industry, says a group of environmental activists. Lois Corbett of the Toronto Environmental Alliance said the government promised the environment would not suffer when the provincial electricity sector opens to competition, likely by next fall. She said evidence points to even more pollution with further reliance on coal and nuclear power. "We think restructuring of the industry is going to happen on the backs of the consumers and on the backs of the natural environment," Corbett said. Together with the Sierra Club of Canada, TEA issued a "green report card" yesterday that gave the government an overall failing grade. The groups' report says the government has given scant attention to alternative "green power options" such as wind technology. Previous story: Ex-judge's lawyer wants charges stayed Next story: Lawsuits allege rife abuse of Innu children in Labrador Copyright (c) 2001 The London Free Press, Copyright © 2001, Canoe Limited Partnership. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Concerns over transport of nuclear waste ABC News - The Federal Industry and Science Minister, Nick Minchin, says it is not up to the Government to work out the safest way of transferring waste from the new nuclear reactor to be built at Sydney's Lucas Heights. The Greens Senator, Bob Brown, has asked if the Government is considering flying the waste from Bankstown airport, near the reactor, to a storage facility at Woomera in South Australia. Senator Minchin says the first waste from Lucas Heights will not return to Australia until 2015 and it will be transferred safely. "It's a matter for the relevant creators of waste to determine the most appropriate methods of transport of waste to the relevant facilities in accordance with the relevant authorities," he said. "It's not a matter for us to determine the safest methods of transport" © 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 18 Bill in works to keep track of nuclear power, other sources Utility scrutiny sought [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By ED VOGEL DONREY CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- Concerned that Nevada utilities buy nuclear power, an Assembly chairman said Monday that such purchases should be the last resort because of the state's opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Government Affairs Chairman Doug Bache, D-Las Vegas, said it is hypocritical for the state to oppose Yucca Mountain when the utilities buy nuclear power. He made his comments during a meeting at which members discussed a bill that would require Nevada Power Co. and Sierra Pacific Power Co. twice a year to send customers information showing the sources of their electricity. Assembly Bill 197 would require the utilities to state the percentage of power that comes from natural gas, coal-fired plants, hydroectrical, geothermal, solar, nuclear and other sources. The legislation also would force the utilities to give the price of each source of power per kilowatt hour and the amount of air-pollution emissions by source. Sierra Pacific, which serves 44,000 customers on the California side of Lake Tahoe, already is required by law to give some of this information to its California customers. Fifteen percent of the power going to Lake Tahoe customers comes from nuclear plants. The same mix would apply to Sierra Pacific customers in Reno, Carson City and other Northern Nevada communities. Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, who sponsored the bill, hopes it will induce customers to demand that more power comes from geothermal, solar and other non-polluting sources. She believes some people would pay more for clean energy. "As a ratepayer and an environmentalist, I'd be willing to pay more for green energy," Leslie said. "This bill may make people more aware of where their power comes from. They may say, 'Wow only 5 percent comes from geothermal.'" But because utilities buy nuclear power, Bache and Assemblyman John Lee, D-Las Vegas, questioned the hypocrisy of legislative positions against Yucca Mountain. A law passed in 1989 forbids the storage of high-level nuclear wastes in Nevada. Bache said he doubts the Legislature legally could prohibit the utilities from buying nuclear power. Lee wondered whether Nevada consumers are contributing through their payments to the federal fund to create a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain. Nuclear utilities are assessed a millage rate to pay for nuclear waste disposal. Don Soderberg, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission, said he was not sure whether customers pay for the waste fund. He told the committee he would be back with an answer. "It's conceivable," he said. "But I don't think you can tell the two utilities they can't purchase nuclear energy." He added the utilities do not have long-term contracts to buy nuclear power, but make such purchases at times. "I think this is the kind of information my constituents would like to know," Bache added. "I'd like nuclear power purchased as a last resort." Susan Reeder, a lobbyist for Sierra Pacific Resources, said the two utilities can provide information on the percentage of power produced from each energy sources. But she requested that the committee not require the release of prices, calling that "propriety information." After the meeting, Bache said he wants to include general price information, but not the prices paid specific suppliers. "I'm still open to discussions on prices," added Leslie about the price stipulation. "It would be good information." This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Feb-27-Tue-2001/news/15529108.html ***************************************************************** 19 Australian Government: Greens wrong on nuclear waste [M2 Communications Ltd.] Story Filed: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 4:13 AM EST Feb 27, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- The Australian Greens have today in Federal Parliament demonstrated complete confusion and a lack of knowledge about the storage of radioactive waste in Australia. Greens Senator Bob Brown is scaremongering and unnecessarily raising concern within the community about the transport of radioactive material in Australia by suggesting waste from the Lucas Heights Reactor could be flown "from Bankstown Airport - six kilometres away from the reactor - to the Woomera storage facility." Senator Brown is confusing two separate storage facilities. Firstly, the preferred site for the low level repository in the Woomera Prohibited Area will get solid low level waste out of hospitals and universities and store it safely in a purpose-built, below-ground respository. The majority of Australia's low level waste - CSIRO's contaminated soil - has been stored above ground in a hanger at Woomera since 1995 when the Keating Labor Government trucked it out there in the dead of night without any community consultation. The storage of intermediate level waste generated by the Lucas Heights Reactor is an entirely different issue. Last August I announced a separate search process for an intermediate above ground store. This facility will hold intermediate level waste generated by Commonwealth agencies and will be sited on Commonwealth land. The spent fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor and its replacement is and will continue to be sent overseas for reprocessing, and will be returned to Australia for storage as intermediate-level waste from 2015. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has advised that waste returning to Australia from 2015 will be transported by sea to a port located near the intermediate level store and would then be transported by road or rail, and not by air. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is the regulatory body responsible for licensing all Commonwealth nuclear facilities at each of the siting, construction and operating stages. Transportation of waste will be considered by ARPANSA as part of that licensing process as well as during the rigorous environmental assessment process. All radioactive material transported in Australia must be packaged, handled and transported in accordance with stringent guidelines in the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances (1990) as well as relevant State and Territory safety regulations. The Code is based on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, which are recognised and applied internationally. The exact type of containment will depend on the form and level of activity of the waste to be transported. CONTACT: Jen Eddy, Senator Minchin's Office Tel: +61 02 6277 7580 Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD ***************************************************************** 20 Governor suspends use of MOX fuel Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Public concerns prompt Sato to block introduction at Fukushima plant FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Fukushima Gov. Eisaku Sato on Monday said the prefectural government will not allow Tokyo Electric Power Co. to start using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel at a nuclear reactor in the prefecture for the time being. "I believe it is impossible for the MOX fuel to be loaded any time soon," Sato told the prefectural assembly. The governor's statement could further delay the start of the nuclear power industry's MOX program and also affect the national government's nuclear fuel cycle policy. The controversial fuel was shipped to the No. 1 Fukushima nuclear plant in September 1999 but has yet to be used due to the concerns of local residents over its safety. Sato had maintained a cautious stance regarding the fuel's introduction at the Fukushima plant, noting that the general public had yet to embrace the so-called pluthermal project, in which the plutonium-uranium mixed fuel is burned in light-water reactors. Tepco, for its part, had said it would proceed with the program by securing local understanding. The firm reiterated this position Monday. Sato's declaration of a continued suspension, however, has made it increasingly unlikely that the firm will be able to introduce MOX fuel to the plant's No. 3 reactor when it undergoes a regular inspection in April, as was initially planned. The national government has been trying to promote the pluthermal program as a key part of its nuclear fuel cycle policy. MOX uses plutonium obtained by reprocessing spent fuel from nuclear power plants. Fast-breeder reactors were once expected to carry the main thrust of the fuel cycle policy. However, Monju, the nation's only prototype fast-breeder reactor, remains shut down after a 1995 fire and subsequent coverups. But the government has yet to obtain widespread public support for the pluthermal program, as the September 1999 nuclear-criticality accident at a uranium fuel processing plant in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, damaged people's trust in the nuclear power industry. The use of MOX fuel at Tepco's Fukushima plant was originally scheduled to begin in February 2000 but was postponed after it came to light that safety data on fuel shipped for use at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Takahama plant in Fukui Prefecture had been falsified. Tepco is also planning to start using MOX fuel at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata Prefecture, but Niigata Gov. Ikuo Hirayama has indicated that he does not want the Niigata plant to become the first one using the controversial fuel. The Japan Times: Feb. 27, 2001 ***************************************************************** 21 Taiwan's Nuclear Power Tussle Brings Huge Losses Monday, February 26, 2001, updated at 15:58(GMT+8) Taiwan's nuclear power plant tussle has given rise to turbulent politics, economic depression, stock market slump and a reduction of wealth by people in Taiwan. Billions of yuan and a per-capita amount of 110,000 yuan of new Taiwan currency have been incurred. The local authorities decided to stop construction of Taiwan's 4th Nuclear Power Plant on Oct 27 of last year disregarding strong opposition in the Legislative Yuan. An antagonistic public has thus appeared against the authorities and rises unprecedented social unrest. In this circumstance, the Taiwan authorities had to announce continued construction of the plant on February 14 this year in order to extricate itself out of the island's political deadlock and maintain economic advance. However, according to an authoritative estimation, during a 110 days' stoppage of construction 720 million yuan of new Taiwan currency had to be paid on interest and when adding in the compensations, the whole loss totals about 2 to 3 billion yuan of new Taiwan currency. It is reported by Taiwan's media, from ceased construction there has been brought about an incessant drop of 4.5 trillion yuan of new Taiwan currency in market value. Still, every Taiwanese has to suffer a loss of 200,000 yuan of new Taiwan currency. Despite of a slight rebound of stock market since resumption of the construction, Taiwan people's per-capita loss has topped 110,000 yuan of new Taiwan currency. *By PD Online Staff Deng Gang* Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved | ***************************************************************** 22 Greenpeace Protests at E.ON Over Czech Nuclear Plant Central Europe Online - VIENNA, Feb 26, 2001 -- (Reuters) Greenpeace activists took over the Austrian office of German energy giant E.ON Energie on Monday to protest against the future import of power from controversial Czech nuclear plant Temelin. Around 20 Greenpeace members took part in the action, which began at around 09.00 a.m local time (0800 GMT), with nine gaining access to the office itself. The remainder held banners on the street reading "E.ON equals Temelin power" and set off a loud hand-held alarm. "Nuclear power exports from Temelin to Austria through the back door are completely unacceptable," Greenpeace Austria's energy spokesman Erwin Mayer said in a statement. "We demand that E.ON stops all electricity contracts with the operators of Temelin CEZ, so long as CEZ insists on continuing with the commissioning of Temelin." Temelin, which is fiercely-opposed by its staunchly anti-nuclear neighbor Austria, restarted testing operations late on Friday after a month-long shutdown to deal with faults. Austrian protestors have frequently blockaded the Czech border with Austria to protest at the $2.6 billion plant, built just over 50 kilometers (31 miles) from Austria. Its operator, the government-controlled power company CEZ, insists it is a state-of-the-art project and safe. E.ON said in a statement it imported 1.5 percent of its total power capacity from the Czech Republic and said Temelin, which is not yet connected to the network, had not and did not contribute at all to this figure. Greenpeace has begun collecting signatures against Temelin and in particular from community heads, in both Austria and the southern German region of Bavaria, promising to boycott any power supplier found to be using Temelin-produced electricity. It says it has collected signatures from the heads of 217 Austrian communities and 60 Bavarian. Greenpeace has singled out E.ON, saying the German company was the largest importer of electricity produced in the Czech Republic. (C)2001 Copyright Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 Leningrad NPP builds radioactive metal melting plant without proper enviroevaluation (St Petersburg): A radioactive metal melting plant built on the territory of Leningrad nuclear power plant (LNPP), 80km west of St Petersburg, passed no proper environmental impact study. Neither the public of St Petersburg nor the neighbouring countries were informed about this facility. Rashid Alimov, 2001-02-27 16:12 Commission of the Ministry for Nuclear Energy, or Minatom, has approved commissioning of the radioactive waste metal melting plant, built on the premises of the LNPP liquid radioactive waste storage, on February 21st. This installation for radioactive metal waste processing has been built by a private joint stock company ECOMET-S without getting required state environmental evaluation. The plant will melt up to 5,000 tons of scrap metal per year. The metal is contaminated by such radionuclides as Mn-54, Co-60, Zn-65, Ru-106, Cs-134, Cs-137, Ce-144, Sr-90. The further commissioning of the plant assumes environmental and construction evaluations, Natalia Malevannaya, a member of Minatom’s commission, says. The building of the plant can be considered as just another infringement of the legislation of the Russian Federation on the territory of a nuclear hazardous object - LNPP. In this case, clause 3 of the Federal Law on the Environmental Evaluation (July 19, 1995), requiring “the obligatory realisation of the state environmental evaluation” before the actual works on site can be launched, is broken. LNPP generates up to 2,000 tons of radioactive waste metal per year. According to ECOMET-S representatives, the stored volume will feed the processing plant for at least five years. Shipments of waste metal from other regions are not reportedly planned in the near feature, but the opportunity is open. ECOMET-S owners try to assure that after being melted the radioactive metal would be clean enough to be used by industry without any restrictions, even sold to other countries. The results of the required environmental impact study say there will be no danger from the melting plant to the population and the environment outside the so-called sanitary-protection zone of the LNPP. But according to envirogroup Green World, based in Sosnovy Bor, the city near LNPP, the presented environmental study contradicts to the reality. The radioactive waste melting plant was built only few hundred meters away from the Baltic Sea, 4km from Sosnovy Bor with population of 60,000 inhabitants, 13km from the swan nature reserve, Lebiazhie, protected by the International (Ramsar) Convention on Wetlands, 80km from St Petersburg, 70km from Estonia, and 100km from Finland. Similar plants to be built in other Russian cities By the decree of the former Victor Chernomyrdin's government and thanks to his personal engagement (Order No. 1197 of 1.09.1995), the private company ECOMET-S was entrusted with executing the state target program Radioactive Scrap Metal Processing and Decommissioning. The program stipulates melting of ca. 600,000 tons of such waste accumulated in Russia. Sosnovy Bor was assigned the role of the waste business pioneer. Later on, similar plants are to be launched in other Russian cities. Their total capacity is estimated to be as high as 150,000 tons a year. The state target program mentioned above has not passed state environmental evaluation. The director of LNPP, Valery Lebedev, approves the idea of creation a unified state enterprise on processing radioactive waste, because "there are not only technical and environmental interests, but also commercial." (Vestnik Leningradskoy AES, February 23d 2001). Hearings present environmental groups with faits accomplis On February 9, the mayor of Sosnovy Bor, Mr Nekrasov, commenced public hearings on the construction of the plant. In consent with Russian laws, public hearings must be held at the pre-planning stage of such projects. In this case, the project is almost accomplished. Thus, according to Green World, ECOMET-S has forged the necessary procedure - public hearings – in attempt to show it abides the laws. During the hearings, Mr Zabelin, adviser of the Civil Defence and Emergency Situations Board, was unhappy with the fact that the design documentation for the plant was not provided in time to the local boards of Ministry for Emergency Situations. A concern was voiced, that the presence of an external organization on the territory of LNPP could increase the risk of terrorism. The public hearings presented the five million inhabitants of St Petersburg and 60,000 inhabitants of Sosnovy Bor with a *faits accomplis* of the new potentially dangerous plant. ECOMET-S representatives also said they had no plans to inform the bordering countries - Finland and Estonia - about the plant. The information exchange is required in such cases by the Convention on Evaluation of Environmental Impact in the UN trans-limitary context - the ESPO convention of February 25th 1991. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway Reuse and reprint recommended provided source is stated ***************************************************************** 24 GOP introduces energy proposal [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Democrats decry the measure, which would open Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling By JOSEF HEBERT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans introduced an industry-friendly energy bill Monday, calling the nation's energy problems the greatest threat to economic growth. They promised action by summer. The bill, already sharply criticized by many Democrats, calls for opening an Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil drilling and would provide tens of millions of dollars in tax incentives or regulatory relief to the oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear industries. The legislation also would expand programs to help low-income families cope with energy bills, provide new tax incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and provide a tax break for buying ultra-efficient cars, homes and appliances. While it seeks to encourage new development of nuclear power, the energy bill introduced Monday does not mention a major obstacle, nuclear waste disposal. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, the bill's author, has said nuclear waste will be addressed through a separate bill he hopes to have ready by the time the Department of Energy determines whether Yucca Mountain in Nevada can be developed into a repository. That determination is expected later this year. The bill introduced on Monday omits references to Yucca Mountain that had been included in an earlier draft. The draft contained two statements in passing that assumed a repository would be established at the ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The Yucca Mountain mentions were stripped at the insistence of Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., his spokeswoman Traci Scott said. Ensign told Murkowski he could not consider backing the bill unless the sentences were deleted. Nevada lawmakers customarily oppose anything that could be construed as endorsing their state for nuclear waste storage. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he opposes the bill, calling it a bow to energy companies whose lobbyists populate a row in downtown Washington. In another section of growing interest in Nevada, Murkowski's bill expands for 10 years a tax credit for companies that produce electricity from renewable resources, such as wind, geothermal, landfill gas and animal waste. The Nevada Test Site has been eyed for several projects aimed at producing renewable energy. A broad spectrum of industry -- from manufacturers and small business groups, to timber, mining and energy interests -- applauded the legislation as a first step toward boosting energy supplies. Murkowski, who crafted the bill, said a congressional assessment on the cost of the bill had not yet been completed. An advocacy group critical of the bill, Taxpayers for Common Sense, estimated the cost conservatively at $23.6 billion over 10 years. Most environmentalists and energy-efficiency proponents said the legislation was too heavily focused on production rather than conservation and favored polluters. The Sierra Club called it "a giveaway for fossil fuel producers." Former President Carter took the unusual step of expressing his objection to the legislation in a series of telephone calls Monday to reporters, primarily because of his strong opposition to proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. "(The refuge) was set aside not to be exploited for ... a very small amount of oil that won't be available for 10 years," said Carter in an interview. Carter in 1980 signed the legislation that assured no drilling in the refuge without congressional approval. The Donrey Capital Bureau contributed to this report. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Feb-27-Tue-2001/business/15529284.html ***************************************************************** 25 Yekaterinburg Customs Find Nuke Container - The St. Petersburg Times. #648, Tuesday, February 27, 2001 By Galina Stolyarova STAFF WRITER A container was impounded by customs officials at Yekaterinburg's main airport on Monday because it was emitting radiation well over the accepted safety level. Vladimir Kondukov, a press spokes person for the Sverdlovsk regional branch of the Emergency Situations Ministry, told The St. Petersburg Times in a telephone interview on Monday that the container, made of wood and weighing 145 kilograms, was taken by customs at Kolt so vo airport - the largest airport in the Urals region - at 12:40 a.m. on Monday. According to a spokesperson for Koltsovo airport, the container had arrived from the United States on a San-Francisco to Yekaterinburg cargo flight. The spokesperson said that the container, which was empty, was bound for the Energotechnical Research and Construction Institute (NIKIET) in the town of Zarechny, near Yekaterinburg and close to the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, a BN-600 fast-breeder reactor. The institute regularly exports various radioactive materials, said Kondukov. He said that NIKIET had sent some radioactive materials to a U.S. organization which had ordered them, but which had sent the container back without cleansing it of radiation. According to a report on the news and information Web site lenta.ru, the container was emitting radiation over 1,000 times the accepted safety level. Kondukov could not identify either the nature of the materials nor the U.S. organization to which they had been sent. NIKIET officials could not be reached for comment Monday. Airport officials said that representatives from NIKIET and Gosatomnadzor, the state nuclear regulatory body, were were invited to the airport to examine the container on Monday morning. Customs officials at San Francisco International Airport would not comment on the situation on Monday. [Copyright] copyright The St. Petersburg Times 2001 ***************************************************************** 26 Atomic Energy Ministry may sue ex-governor for libel [ITAR/TASS News Agency] Story Filed: Monday, February 26, 2001 10:16 AM EST MOSCOW, February 26 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian Atomic Energy Ministry said it reserves the right to protect its business reputation in court and sue Kemerovo region ex-governor Aman Tuleyev for damages. Tuleyev has repeatedly said in mass media that he was strongly against draft laws regulating the handling of irradiated nuclear fuel from foreign nuclear power plants. The ministry believes that "only one" statement made by Tuleyev "corresponds to reality". The production of nuclear materials for the first samples of nuclear weapons in 1949-1951 and a nuclear incident in 1957 resulted in radioactive leaks. Ministry specialists also claim that irradiated nuclear fuel is not waste but a valuable energy resourse. Its import to Russia, storage and processing will earn the country 20 billion U.S. dollars in 10 years. The money is expected to be used, among other things, for environmental programmes in Russian regions. By its energy potential, 20,000 tonnes of irradiated nuclear fuel equal all coal mined in the Kemerovo region in the last 20 years. Besides, the transportation of nuclear material accounts for only one hundred-thousandth of railway carriage in Russia, the ministry said. It also stressed that there are no nuclear facilities in the Kemerovo region but it ranks fourth in terms of hazardous emissions into the atmosphere. zak/ ***************************************************************** 27 Nuclear power unlikely to be part of energy equation: No one has shown interest in resurrecting Satsop projects February 27, 2001 The Olympian/file JOHN DODGE, THE OLYMPIAN OLYMPIA -- Nuclear power remains a long shot on the list of candidates jockeying for a role in this state's energy future. The sole operating plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation near Richland is having a banner year, generating more than $1 billion of electricity in the past eight months. But enthusiasm for the role of the Columbia River Generating Station in this year of hydropower woes doesn't appear to extend to completing other terminated nuclear plants at Satsop or Hanford. "It's unlikely nuclear power will be a part of our energy equation," said Dave Danner, energy adviser to Gov. Gary Locke. Many in the region have yet to forget, or finish paying for, the failed nuclear experiment of the 1970s and 1980s. The Washington Public Power Supply System, a consortium of public utilities that quickly became known as "whoops," tried to build five nuclear power plants at once. Buried by cost overruns, lagging energy demand, mismanagement and nuclear power plant disasters such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, WPPSS managed to complete just one plant -- WNP-2 at Hanford. Today, WPPSS is called Energy Northwest and its power plant is called the Columbia Generating Station. But visual and economic memories of the supply system remain. -There's the $2.25 billion bond default in 1983 on Projects 4 and 5, the nation's largest ever at the time. -There are the twin cooling towers looming over Fuller Hill at Satsop, 30 miles west of Olympia. One represents Project 3, which is fairly intact and 75 percent complete but was mothballed in 1983 and terminated in 1994. The other is Project 5, which is not much more than a shell of concrete and steel. It was scrapped in 1982. -There's the $6.5 billion in nuclear plant construction debt the Bonneville Power Administration still must pay on Projects 1 and 2 at Hanford and Project 3 at Satsop. Bonneville underwrote the construction costs, which won't be paid in full until 2018. Project 3 is still in decent physical shape, noted Charles Butros, director of operations for the Grays Harbor Public Development Authority. The authority took over most of the 1,600-acre Satsop site from WPPSS and Bonneville in 1996. The authority is developing an industrial park at Satsop in the shadow of the nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Energy Northwest still has 40 acres, which is the proposed site of a gas-fired combustion turbine. The nuclear power plant and gas-fired power plant could co-exist, Butros noted. But no one has expressed interest in resurrecting Project 3. "It doesn't appear cost-effective," Danner said. Concerns with nuclear power safety and nuclear waste disposal still resonate with the public, said Paul Pickett, a Thurston County Public Utility District commissioner. "With the history of WPPSS and the history of the anti-nuclear movement in this state, it would be a tough row to hoe," Pickett said of the nuclear option. "It's hard to imagine the nuclear industry would try to build a plant here." What about a revival at the Hanford nuclear reservation, which has a nuclear legacy which dates back to World War II and the development of the nuclear bomb? In the past year, two companies, including the international giant Bechtel Corp., have toured Project 1, which is about 65 percent complete, said Don McManman, a spokesman for Energy Northwest. "They looked around, walked away and we haven't heard anything since," he said. And Energy Northwest has no plans to even conduct a feasibility study of the costs and likelihood of completing Project 1. "We don't have any money for that," he said. The coalition of 13 public utilities is more intent on developing a new wind power farm in eastern Washington, he said. Still, the soaring cost and shortages of electricity in the West, have stirred up a murmur or two about nuclear power. "If we fired up the nuke plants that are closest to completion, it seems to me it would provide some immediate relief," said Olympia resident Frederick Bullock. "I know I'm in the minority," Bullock added. A recent Los Angeles Times poll found 60 percent of Californians opposed to new nuclear power plants and 33 percent in support. This is in a state that has experienced rolling power blackouts. The same poll in Washington would probably garner similar results, Danner suggested. *John Dodge covers the environment for The Olympian. He can be reached at 754-5444.* The Olympian Copyright 2000 ***************************************************************** 28 Safety of WIPP Operation Hailed Tuesday, February 27, 2001 Albuquerque Journal--> By Tania Soussan *Journal Staff Writer* Workers at the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Plant near Carlsbad have put in more than 2 million hours without a lost-time accident. The National Safety Council reports that operations in similar industries lose an average of 165 hours a year to accidents. "Safety is at the core of all WIPP operations," said Inés Triay, manager of the field office. "We are particularly pleased that WIPP workers reached the 2 million mark during the time in which they mined a new panel and increased shift work." The last time WIPP reached 2 million hours worked with no lost time was in 1993. "To make safety a number one priority means more than creating a safe workplace," said Hank Herrera, president of Westinghouse TRU Solutions, the operator of WIPP. "The staff is constantly striving to behave in a safe manner. It's part of our culture at WIPP." Meanwhile, WIPP truck shipments received safety kudos of their own. The shipments of radioactive waste have a better safety record than commercial trucks, according to a two-year study by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. State officials who conducted 313 inspections on 124 shipments found 17 violations. In comparison, 26 percent of general commodity trucks inspected last June were taken out of service, according to the alliance. "This is an outstanding safety inspection record," said Executive Director Steve Campbell. Trucks hauling radioactive waste must meet higher inspection standards than other trucks. CAST Transportation of Henderson, Colo., transported 123 of the shipments. Tri-State Motor Transit of Joplin, Mo., transported one. It was a Tri-State truck that went off its designated course near Santa Fe last November. In other news, WIPP has scheduled public meetings for March 6 in Carlsbad and March 8 in Santa Fe to discuss a proposed permit change. The change would allow workers to use new technology similar to a CT scan to analyze the contents of some waste drums rather than opening and visually inspecting them. For more information, go the WIPP Web page at call (800) 336-WIPP or Steve Zappe at the Environment Department in Santa Fe, (505) 827-1560 ext. 1013. DOE also has submitted the annual update of its work plan for WIPP to the state Environment Department. It is available for review at the WIPP Information Center in Carlsbad, at the New Mexico State Library in Santa Fe and at the University of New Mexico general library in Albuquerque. Copyright 2001 Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 29 Nuclear power plant shutdowns raise concerns Evansville Courier &Press - February 27, 2001 By The Associated Press CLINTON, Ill. — Reactors at the Clinton nuclear power plant automatically shut down twice since December, but the company that owns the plant did not notify area news media and DeWitt County emergency officials about either incident. Some nuclear industry critics say the two emergency shutdowns, known in the industry as scrams, ought to get area residents’ attention and companies should be as open as possible. “At the reactor, a scram is not a silent event,” said David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service in Evanston, a watchdog group. “It gets people’s attention. People have to ask: Why is this happening so much? It’s a question the surrounding communities need to ask and get answers to.” Exelon Nuclear, which owns the Clinton plant and nine others, said two scrams are not excessive and there was no threat to public safety. Exelon said it is not required to notify anyone unless the shutdowns pose such a threat. “No other industries call you up if they take their industries off line,” company spokesman David Knox said. “Unless it is a safety issue, we do not see it as something that would prompt us to call out.” Knox said detailed information about plant shutdowns can be found daily at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Web site (www.nrc.gov). On Dec. 18, steam line valves leading from the reactor to the power-generating turbines closed because of a faulty circuit card. The reactor shut down for four days. The plant released cold water into Clinton Lake, a 5,000-acre reservoir that serves as a cooling lake for the power plant, killing 7,000 fish. On Feb. 4, low pressure in a control system that opens and shuts values caused the turbines and reactor to shut down. It lasted three days. Jan Strasma, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission office in Lisle, said the Clinton plant has the agency’s highest rating even with two shutdowns in two months. He said the average nuclear plant has one shutdown per year. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 U of C claims indemnity in radiation poisoning suit - February 23, 2001 *Rebecca Jarvis* News Staff University administrators announced this week that the terms in a contract made between the University of Chicago and the U.S. government by which it took control of the operations of a federally-owned nuclear laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee absolve the U of C from damages resulting from the laboratory's operation. This provision in the World War II era contract, administrators say, undercuts a lawsuit Oak Ridge residents have filed against the University of Chicago and more than a dozen major corporations. Residents claim in the lawsuit that the U of C is partially responsible for radiation poisoning they alleged to have suffered from since the 1940's. "The contract promises to indemnify and to hold harmless the University," said Larry Arbeiter, director of communications of the University of Chicago. According to Arbeiter, the terms of the contract may make it difficult for plaintiffs to prove that the University, which has not managed the facility since the mid-1940's, when the contract expired, is responsible for their health problems. The University is taking steps to create a legal defense team. "We have identified an outside counsel and expect to have made that relationship formal within the week," Arbeiter said. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which the University of Chicago managed, is one of three separate nuclear research facilities in the town of Oak Ridge. Workers at each of these laboratories originally filed claims against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act in the early nineties. But the Supreme Court of Tennessee, citing certain provisions in tort law, ruled that the government was not liable for these claims. In a second effort, made between 1994 and 1997, nearly one hundred workers at the plants filed eight cases against the manufacturers of Beryllium, a substance they handled on the job that experts say leads to cancer. These lawsuits, filed against roughly twenty manufacturers, are still pending because, with roughly sixty years past, it is unclear as to who manufactured the chemical element. To rectify the situation, the government amended the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. This act provides recompense for injured workers. Bill Richardson, Energy Secretary, explained that workers who qualified would receive compensation for lost wages, or monetary support in a lump sum of $150,000. Now, former employees of the three Oak Ridge laboratories are again seeking compensation through legal action. "Everybody who worked there has got a case," said Tom Slagle, who serves as law clerk to Justice James H. Jarvis, the judge who will rule over the pending cases brought against the University of Chicago. Many people in Oak Ridge believe that $150,000 will not cover their damages. "They're trying to get to contractors because all other venues have failed," Slagle said. www.chicagomaroon.com and contents © 2001, The Chicago Maroon ***************************************************************** 2 Virginia Focus: Secret Nuclear Studies - The Richmond Times-Dispatch *U.Va. physicist's work languished Shift in research left school in the lurch* BY CARLOS SANTOS TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER Feb 25, 2001 CHARLOTTESVILLE The details are mostly secret. The project is mostly forgotten. But for about 40 years, University of Virginia scientists tinkered with uranium up on Observatory Hill, spinning the gas form of the radioactive material at unimaginable speeds in a huge centrifuge that could shake the building. Their mission, at the behest of the federal government in the middle of the coldest part of the Cold War, was to make enriched uranium cheaper and faster than the other guys. Even today, some of the details are classified, though an Energy Department missive sent out last month identified hundreds of sites in the country that did nuclear weapons work during the Cold War in a step toward identifying those workers who might qualify for compensation if they were made ill by their jobs. On the government's list was U.Va., though the school's groundbreaking work, which ended abruptly in 1985, was focused on developing enriched uranium for nuclear fuel, not for nuclear weapons, according to those involved. "At that time, during the Cold War, nobody was going to give away ways to provide nuclear power to other countries," said Gerald Fisher, a U.Va. research scientist in charge of security for the project. But Ralph Lowry, a retired professor in the U.Va. engineering school who ran the project for years, said the top-secret aspect of the work was required because "any enriched uranium, if enriched enough, could be used for nuclear weapons." Few outside the engineering school knew the details of how, in the small building overlooking the campus, scientists were tinkering with separating uranium isotopes using a gas centrifuge process developed by the legendary U.Va. physicist Jesse W. Beams. Beams, who died in 1977, actually began working on the centrifuge process before World War II - even before the Manhattan project. "It was not very open. Only a handful of people really knew" about the project, said Ralph Allen, the director of environmental health and safety at the school. "I had clearance to go up there, and I saw parts of it. But it didn't mean much to me." Ed Spenceley worked as a machinist at the building throughout the project. "I couldn't tell anybody what we were doing," he said. "Not even my wife.' Fisher said 24-hour-a-day security was provided at the plant and it could take up to a year to get security clearance. Fisher said some scholarly publications on the project were published, "but with certain portions of information deleted." During the Manhattan Project, Beams' early work on the centrifuge process was one of two methods under scrutiny to separate uranium's fissionable isotope from natural uranium. The other method of enriching uranium was the gas diffusion process, which involved pumping uranium hexafluoride gas through thousands of membranelike barriers which trap the heavier isotopes of uranium called U-238. The lighter isotopes, called U-235, passed through. The U-235 was fissionable. The centrifuge method essentially took uranium hexafluoride gas and spun the gas in a cylinder to bring the lighter isotopes to the top and settle heavier ones in the bottom. The centrifuge spun at incredibly high speeds. The centrifuge method was not chosen during World War II because its technology was not well-enough developed. After that decision, the research on the centrifuge method of enriching uranium languished until the 1950s, when U.Va., with money from the federal government, went full bore into developing the gas centrifuge method. The renewed interest came about because the gas-diffusion method, used throughout the country to make enriched uranium, was very power intensive. The development of stronger metals for the centrifuge and work at centrifuges elsewhere in the world also played a part in the project's revival at U.Va. There was, initially, resistance at the university to the project, said Roland Krauss, who was an engineering professor at U.Va. then and worked on the project. "The feds came in and waved the flag," he said. "But there was some concern because there would be no diffusion of knowledge." Even one Austrian scientist who worked for the Nazis during World War II and a German machinist who was awarded the Iron Cross by Hitler worked for a time on the U.Va. project. "As more nuclear power plants came on, the demand for enriched uranium increased," Lowry said. "We needed a better process and the gas diffusion method used so much power." The centrifuges evolved and grew in size until one 60 feet in length and several feet in diameter was installed in the building with the help of a 27-foot pit and a raised ceiling. The centrifuge, essentially a hollow metal tube that spun at great speeds, was enclosed. High speed was one of the keys to the separation process. At times, the spinning centrifuge would simply break down, causing what Spenceley called "minor earthquakes in the building." Lowry said only small amounts of uranium were used in the experiments and special mass spectrometers were used to measure the enrichment. "We were trying to decrease the cost and make it more competitive, to make the machines simpler and more efficient." The heyday of the gas centrifuge project occurred in the late 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter pushed to build four gas centrifuge plants because the energy consumed would be one-tenth of that used in the gas diffusion process. But the plants never were built in part because of an oversupply of enriched uranium being produced by other countries and because the future of nuclear power plants was already dimming. The U.Va. project was finally shut down by the federal government in June 1985. The uranium and equipment, including the huge centrifuge, were shipped to the government's nuclear research facility at Oak Ridge, Tenn. The building is now called the Aerospace Research Lab and all that remains of the centrifuge project are several pits dug for the huge machines. There remains an underground bunker that was formerly used for testing machine guns. The building that remains is used for aerospace research. Allen said the choice of gas diffusion over the centrifuge process was a blow to the university, which had labored secretly for so many years. "The school could have become a major nuclear research facility," he said. "It just didn't happen." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Contact Carlos Santos at (804) 295-9542 or csantos@timesdispatch.com* ***************************************************************** 3 Puerto Ricans Fight Vieques Bombing Today: February 27, 2001 at 11:35:43 PST ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -- Puerto Ricans and their supporters Tuesday launched a new push for an "immediate and permanent end" to Navy bombing practice on the island of Vieques. Asserting military training has destroyed people's health, the economy and the island's environment, representatives in Congress began circulating a letter urging President Bush to halt the practice. Meanwhile, Puerto Rico Gov. Sila Calderon met senators on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and other officials in her quest to evict the Navy from the range it has used for some 60 years. "This is not a national security issue, it's a health and human rights issue," said Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico's Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives. "What you are seeing on the island of Vieques is abuse," Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y, said in a press conference before some 60 people from Vieques, Chicago and Pennsylvania who are lobbying lawmakers this week. The representatives signed a letter to Bush suggesting toxins from the ammunition used by the Navy are responsible for a mortality rate among island residents that is 40 percent higher, a cancer rate 27 percent higher and diabetes rate 70 percent higher than Puerto Rico as a whole. "The undersigned urge you to order an immediate and permanent end of the bombing in Vieques," said the letter, asserting that the majority of Puerto Ricans favor the idea. The Navy calls Vieques the "crown jewel" of its Atlantic training sites. Officials say exercises there are vital to national defense since they uniquely combine air, sea and land maneuvers. Because of the bombing, residents "live in fear ... their children's security has been jeopardized" and they are "prisoners in their own homes," said Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., who also signed the letter with Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill. The Navy owns two-thirds of Vieques and its bombing range covers 900 acres on the eastern tip -- under 3 percent of the island. It used live bombs until two went astray in a 1999 practice and killed a civilian guard on the bombing range. The bombing was halted and protesters occupied the range for more than a year before the Navy swept through and kicked them off in May. Under an agreement between then-President Clinton and then-Gov. Pedro Rossello, training with inert bombs instead of live ones resumed and Vieques' 9,400 resident will decide in a November referendum whether the Navy should stay or leave. The agreement, which Calderon opposes, says that if islanders vote to expel the Navy, it would have to leave by May 2003. If they vote to let the Navy resume full-scale training with live ammunition, the administration will ask Congress to provide an extra $50 million in aid to Vieques for housing and infrastructure improvements -- on top of $40 million paid when the training with inert bombs resumed. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Hiroshima to form unified antinuclear group HIROSHIMA Feb. 27 Kyodo - Various antinuclear groups in Hiroshima agreed on Monday to consolidate their campaign to promote a nuclear-free world, ending nearly 40 years of ideological division that has splintered the antinuclear movement in Japan. The agreement culminates two years of effort by an antinuclear group led by Mitsuo Okamoto, professor at Hiroshima Shudo University, who has urged all antinuclear groups to end political bickering and pool their resources to fight for a world free of nuclear weapons. Japan's antinuclear movement has been split since 1963 between two rival camps, the result of ideological schism over nuclear tests in the former Soviet Union. One camp is led by the Japan Council Against A and H Bombs, or Gensuikyo, which is affiliated with the Japanese Communist Party, and the other is led by the Japan Congress Against A and H Bombs, Gensuikin, which is backed to the Social Democratic Party. Source familiar with the antinuclear movement in Hiroshima said members of the Hiroshima chapters of Gensuikyo and Gensuikin have agreed to join forces with other local antinuclear groups to set up a unified non-governmental group in Hiroshima to promote the antinuclear cause. Okamoto is expected to serve as head of the new NGO, with former Hiroshima Mayor Takashi Hiraoka serving as adviser. ''We must unchain ourselves from the fetters of the Cold War and forge a grand unity to promote the global campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons,'' Okamoto said. The new antinuclear group is expected to hold an inaugural meeting on March 20 in Hiroshima, and some 160 people have already signed up to join the group. 2000 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945. ***************************************************************** 5 Brits search for 42 lbs of lost DU A TEAM of naval divers from the Clyde submarine base at Faslane is to search the seabed in the Solway Firth to try to recover the 42lb of depleted uranium lost in a bungled environmental test. They will spend four days next month sifting through the silt beneath the wreckage of a experimental rig destroyed by the chain of its own anchor buoy off the MoD's Dundrennan firing range in Kirkcudbright. The rig was placed there by the Defence Radiological Protection Service to monitor the effects of seawater on DU anti-tank rounds, and to allay local health fears over the long-term effects of corrosion on the ammunition and its radiological impact on marine life. But when divers went down to remove the discs for routine monitoring on February 7, they found that the "securely-anchored" rig had been smashed by its own moorings during a storm and the DU was gone. More than 6000 rounds of DU tank ammunition have been fired into the sea from the range in tests over the last 18 years. Only five have been recovered, one by a local fisherman in his nets. The rig was fitted with discs of DU weighing 30lb, with a further 12lb buried in the seabed to test the tidal effects of sand and grit scraping across its surface. An MoD spokeswoman said yesterday that the rig had not disappeared, it had merely been damaged, but then admitted that the DU, the equivalent of four anti-tank projectiles, had not been retrieved by earlier divers. It was "probably on the seabed in the area of the rig", she added. "But we do not believe it represents a threat. Results of previous monitoring programmes never reveal anything above normal background radiation. We would expect the samples to dissolve rapidly in seawater. "The anti-tank rounds pass through soft screen targets on their passage out to sea. They would only fragment or disintegrate into dust if they hit hard targets such as tank armour. They are completely intact when they enter the water and pose no health risk. "The naval divers from Faslane will attempt to recover the experimental discs, but we have no plans to try to retrieve any ammunition rods from the range. Most of them have probably dissolved without any adverse impact on the environment." Kathleen Glass, a local community councillor in Dundrennan and a leading campaigner against the test-firing, said last night: "It does nothing to soothe local concerns or reassure us as to the MoD's competence when it cannot even conduct a simple experiment without losing even more DU on our doorstep. We would also like a new and definitive health study in the area to help ease the worries of families in the local community." Alasdair Morgan, MP and MSP for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, said he was tabling questions for both Westminster and Holyrood over the regulation and monitoring of DU at Dundrennan, and calling for a complete halt to further tests. Mr Morgan claimed the entire operation was "worthy of the Keystone Cops". "After losing more than 6000 DU shells in the Solway Firth, and realising they don't know where they are, they put down some more to monitor the effects and proceed to lose it. It doesn't fill me full of confidence in their abilities. The MoD and the government should acknowledge legitimate local concerns and cease testing immediately." *- Feb 27* ***************************************************************** 6 Chinese nuke assistance to Pakistan continues: CIA rediff.com: February 27, 2001 *T V Parasuram* in Washington Pakistan is moving towards serial production of solid-propellant short-range ballistic missiles with Chinese entities continuing to assist its missile programme, the American Central Intelligence Agency has said in a proliferation report. In the first half of 2000, Chinese entities provided significant assistance to Pakistan's ballistic missile programme. With this assistance Pakistan "is rapidly moving toward serial production of solid-propellant SRBMs", the report, presented to Congress, said. "Pakistan's development of the two-stage Shaheen-II missile also requires continued Chinese assistance," it said, adding that the impact of North Korea's assistance throughout the reporting period was "less clear". The CIA said Pakistan continued to acquire nuclear-related and dual-use equipment and materials from various sources, principally in Western Europe. "Islamabad has a well-developed nuclear weapons programme, as evidenced by its first nuclear weapons tests in May 1998. Acquisition of nuclear-related goods from foreign sources will remain important if Pakistan chooses to develop more advanced nuclear weapons." The American agency said China had pledged not to assist unsafeguarded nuclear facilities in any State, including Pakistan. "[But] we cannot rule out some continued contacts between Chinese entities and entities involved in Pakistan's nuclear weapons development." The CIA said Pakistan continues to rely on China and France for its advanced conventional weapons requirements. Pakistan received upgraded Mirage III/V fighters from France and is continuing negotiations to purchase an additional 50 F-7 fighters from China. In the first six months of 2000, the CIA said, the Chinese continued to take a very "narrow" interpretation of their bilateral non-proliferation commitments with the United States. Beijing has repeatedly pledged not to sell systems that are classified under category I of the Missile Technology Control Regime, but it has not recognized the regime's key technology annex. "Chinese missile-related technical assistance to Pakistan continued to be substantial during this reporting period. In addition, firms in China provided missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several other countries of proliferation concern such as Iran, North Korea and Libya," the report said. The CIA said China's "involvement" with Pakistan would continue to be monitored closely. It noted that many countries such as India, Iran and Pakistan do not adhere to the export restraints embodied in supplier groups such as the Nuclear Supplier Group and the MTCR. *PTI* ***************************************************************** 7 CIA claims Indian nuke weapons programme continuing: PTI rediff.com: February 27, 2001 *T V Parasuram* in Washington India is continuing its nuclear weapons development programme and relies on foreign assistance for key missile and dual-use technologies, which it gets from entities in Russia and Western Europe, the Central Intelligence Agency claimed in its semi-annual report to Congress. "India continues its nuclear weapons development programme, for which its underground nuclear tests in May 1998 were a significant milestone," it said in the report -- Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Weapons. India, the American agency claimed, continues to rely on foreign assistance for key missile and dual-use technologies, where "it still lacks engineering or production expertise in ballistic missile development". Entities in Russia and Western Europe remained primary conduits of missile-related technology transfers during the first half of 2000, it said. "The acquisition of foreign equipment could benefit New Delhi in its efforts to develop and produce more sophisticated nuclear weapons," it said, adding, "India obtained some foreign assistance for its civilian nuclear power programme during the first half of 2000, primarily from Russia." The CIA claimed India was continuing an across-the-board modernisation of armed forces through advanced convention weapons, mostly from Russia, although many key programmes have been plagued by delays. Despite overall improvements in Russia's economy, the CIA said, the state-run defence and nuclear industries remain strapped for funds, even as Moscow looks to them for badly needed foreign exchange through exports. "We remain very concerned about the non-proliferation implications of such sales in several areas. Monitoring Russian proliferation behaviour, therefore, will remain a very high priority." The CIA said that Russian entities during the reporting period continued to supply a variety of ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to countries such as Iran, India, China and Libya. It also said that Russia remains a major supplier of conventional arms, adding that Moscow's commitment, willingness and ability to curb proliferation-related transfers "remain uncertain". *PTI* (c) Copyright 2001 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 8 "Nuclear Spy" Trial Begins In Russia Updated *26.02.2001* at *20:09:41* A Russian court of Kaluga (south of Moscow) has resumed the hearing of an espionage case against staff member of the USA and Canada Institute inMoscow Igor Sutyagin. Sutyagin was accused of spying for the United States and UK. Sutyagin was arrested in October 1999 in Obninsk. The court hearing has been postponed twice since December 26 due to the request of the researcher to introduce new lawyers into the trial. Now Sutyagin has three Moscow lawyers. According to investigators, Sutyagin was recruited by U.S. intelligence agents in England during a scientific conference in February 1998. The 36-year-old academic expert on Russian-American arms control told the court he agreed to work as a consultant for a London firm. Over the next 18 months he earned some $20,000 from the company, which also paid his travel expenses to London, Brussels, Budapest and Warsaw. Prosecutors say he collected and handed over materials on Russian nuclear submarines of new generation. But Igor Sutyagin insists he worked exclusively with open sources and all the documents he used for his consultations were not classified. The Guardian reports the London-based company and all Sutyagin's contacts have mysteriously vanished. The alleged risk analysis consultancy is no longer at the London address known to Sutyagin and nor it is responding to emails. Boris Kuznetsov, Sutyagin's lawyer, told journalists the prosecutors claim the company was a front organisation for US military intelligence. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted, Itar-Tass news agency reported. Email: info@allnews.ru Copyright © 2001 Lenta.Ru [Main page] ***************************************************************** 9 Kursk compartment to be raised separate The Russia Journal | online ISSUE No.7 (100) 12:32 [Tuesday 27th February, 2001] ST. PETERSBURG - The most dangerous part of the Kursk nuclear submarine that mysteriously sank last year is its torpedoes compartment, not its nuclear reactor, the president of the St. Petersburg Submariners' Club Igor Kudrin told in an interview to the newspaper Izvestya on Monday. It is certain t hat four torpedoes were deton ated by the blast but it is not known the conditions of the rest of ammunition, Kudrin noted. That is why specialists recommend to raise this part of Kursk separately. They are also sure that the reactor was not damaged by the accident, the official emphasized. The Kursk submarine sank in the Barents Sea on Aug. 12, killing all 118 people aboard and traumatizing the nation. Russia aims to hoist the sunken nuclear submarine Kurs k from the bottom of the Barents Sea next summer. */AK/* Kursk notes clues to catastrophe MOSCOW - A little more than a month remains until the beginning of the operation to retrieve t he Kursk nuclear submari ne, but many questions about the operation to recover sailors' bodies which was finished in November, 2000, still remain unanswered. A second message from the Kursk is mentioned in this connection. The Russian nuclear powered submarine sunk in the Barents Sea on August 12, 2000. In accordance with a plan developed by specialists of the Rubin design bureau, the period of the retrieval operation is determined from April to August 2001. Today's Izvestia writes about the course of the investig ation of causes of the tragedy and, in particular, about a second message which was discovered by divers on one of the Kursk crewmembers. Officials still don't want to reveal any details concerning its authors or contents. As is known, during the body retrieval operation, divers found two messages left by the submarine's crewmembers. The author and contents of one of them were reported immediately (the message of Dmitry Kolesnikov), while the other one still remains a secret. Head of Staff of the N orthern Fleet Vice-Admiral Mikhail Motsak said that despite first reports, the message had not been written by Kolesnikov, but by "another person," the messages were found on different people, and it was difficult to determine who had been as the author of the second letter. "There is no data, time or signature on the second message," noted Mikhail Motsak. In addition, according to the vice-admiral, information in the second letter does not shed any light on the cause of the catastrophe. Judging by unofficial data from the Northern Fleet headquarters, the author of the second message was Rashid Aryapov. In this document, he precisely describes the situation on the submarine after the first explosion. According to officers who saw the message, it contains the sequence of events which led to the disaster. The message says that the submarine virtually began to "somersault" immediately after the blast, and many submariners were seriously injured. The letter give s an estimation of the situation a nd, which is the main thing, the causes of it are given: some malfunctions in the torpedo's department, namely the detonation of a torpedo which the Kursk was to test. This confirms the most unpleasant and undesirable version for the country's military command. The note specifies that part of the submarine's crewmembers were alive for a long time after the explosion (for more than nine hours), which was earlier reported by representatives of the Russian Navy's command. This can probably be considered to be a confirmation of the unofficial report about the contents of the message. ***************************************************************** 10 Legislator aims to help whistleblower program This story was published 2/27/2001 By Chris Mulick Herald staff writer OLYMPIA -- A state senator from Seattle wants to expand the state's whistleblower program by offering greater protection for those who report wrongdoing and providing legal representation in retaliation proceedings. Testifying last week in support of both bills in Olympia was Cindy Bricker, wife of former Hanford whistleblower Ed Bricker, who has made claims against the state since taking a job as a health physicist with the Department of Health. Both bills, introduced by Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, need to be moved out of the Senate State and Local Government Committee by Thursday to stay alive. Senate Bill 5788 would remove the requirement that state employees take their claims of malfeasance to the state auditor's office to qualify for protection from retaliation. Under the state's whistleblower laws, complainants who say they are retaliated against for making such reports are entitled to review from the state's Human Rights Commission. Those found guilty of retaliation can be fined and suspended. But many complainants aren't aware of those laws before they report wrongdoing to others, Kline said. Many go to lawmakers or newspapers, for example. "Very few people think to go to the state auditor," Kline said. Cindy Bricker said her husband has lost employment opportunities, received a death threat and was sent to a psychologist after he reported alleged improprieties involving nuclear safety issues. But that treatment came before he went to the auditor's office rather than being a result of it. "They only care what happened after," she said. Changing the definition of whistleblower to include those who report complaints elsewhere would do the trick, said Tom Carpenter, who directs the Seattle office of the Government Accountability Project. "There needs to be a broader definition to protect the public interest," he said. "We think this is a very necessary change." Senate Bill 5789 would require the state to provide legal representation for whistleblowers as they work with the Human Rights Commission to process their retaliation claims. It's too risky to rely on overburdened watchdog groups such as Carpenter's, Kline said. Too many people have too little help, he said, citing statistics that indicate the commission has sided with the whistleblower only once in the 65 decisions it's issued in the past 16 years. "(That) tells me there's a tremendous lack of legal assistance," Kline said. "It's expensive to hire an attorney, and most employees don't have the discretionary funds to do so," Cindy Bricker said. "My husband and I have been working through this process on our own." Back to top stories opyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 11 Lab workers formulating their feelings about face-lift February 26, 2001 By Frank Munger News-Sentinel senior writer On a recent Quality of Work Life survey at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, lab employees got a chance to submit their wish list for improvements to UT-Battelle management. The need for improved physical facilities ranked fifth -- behind such things as matching employee contributions (a program UT-Battelle put on hold) and increasing the pension multiplier. That's interesting, of course, because UT-Battelle has made modernization of facilities a top priority since taking over management of the Oak Ridge lab last spring. If plans proceed as expected, the face-lift will become pretty obvious by the end of the year with multiple construction starts. In talking with lab scientists over the past six months or so, I've received mixed response to the ORNL rehab. Some folks, particularly old-line scientists, don't put much worth on shiny, new buildings. It's what takes place inside those buildings that really matters, they insist. Others see the need for a modern, university-like campus as essential to ORNL's longtime health and well-being. As I sometimes do, I turned to Tom Wilbanks, a corporate fellow at ORNL and astute observer of laboratory trends, for his perspective. "It still looks to many of the staff like something that's not real yet," Wilbanks said of UT-Battelle's master plan. "I think over the next half a year, when we start to see the fences moved to the other side of the 4500 Complex and see ground broken for new buildings, it's going to be a major boost for the morale and spirit of the lab. I think it's a very positive thing." Wilbanks said he thinks it was a clever idea to house the UT-Battelle management team in Building 2001 -- a decrepit, World War II-era Quonset hut -- for a couple of months before they took over management of ORNL. It obviously made the new contractor more aware of the need to revitalize the lab's physical facilities, he said. "The 'Winter Palace' (as it was sarcastically dubbed) was no palace," Wilbanks said. * * * Bill Madia, the director of ORNL, said the Spallation Neutron Source is in good financial health, despite persistent reports to the contrary. According to one recent rumor circulating at the lab, the project reportedly had overspent its budget by $100 million. "Here's the situation," Madia said. "Over the past six months, the project has encountered various 'financial challenges' in terms of potential increased pre-operational costs and potential cost increases in conventional facilities. "This is very normal in a project of this size." Madia said management of big projects means dealing with unforeseen costs, design changes, etc. For instance, he noted an additional $12 million had to be spent securing the foundation for the Target Building because soil tests showed there was a chance of subsidence. There are going to be financial issues on a project that spends roughly $1 million a day, he said. "We saw some of those over the last five or six months," Madia said, "but, through good management and good cost control, we have been able to ameliorate all those potential cost increases. The project is unambiguously on time, on budget, and we anticipate no increase in the project costs." Meanwhile, Madia confirmed he was approached about his interest in being considered for a couple of positions in the Bush administration: White House science adviser or deputy secretary of energy. He opted to stay at ORNL. "The message is this: I really like what I'm doing and I think I can serve the department better in Oak Ridge," Madia said. * * * On the topic of political appointments: Jim Hall, ex-manager of DOE's Oak Ridge operations, who now holds an executive position with Washington Group's government services organization, was rumored recently to be a candidate for a top post at DOE headquarters in Washington. To be specific, he was touted as a possible nominee for assistant secretary for environmental management. Hall confirmed there were some indirect, preliminary discussions in which he expressed an interest in the job, but he said he quickly came to the conclusion that it just wasn't do-able at this time. "In my particular situation, I could not afford the financial sacrifice," Hall said. As others have noted before, public service -- in the form of political appointments -- can be a losing proposition financially. Hall gave the job some serious thought. He would have liked to have pushed a national strategy to reduce the overall cost of environmental cleanup by bringing in private investment to DOE facilities -- similar to the "reindustrialization" program he started in Oak Ridge. His reluctance to serve in Washington probably brings relief to some of DOE's Oak Ridge stakeholders. While Hall had a strong base of support in the Atomic City when he served at the DOE helm, some groups -- such as environmental activists and sick workers -- felt he avoided them and undercut their interests. Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science and technology also is available on our Web site at http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************