***************************************************************** 04/27/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.103 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Yucca could receive added waste 2 From Washington, a call to reassess nuclear energy 3 Environment pal Kerry suggests safer nuke plants 4 Opponents of Nuclear Waste Rally in Salt Lake City 5 Uranium Waste 6 Nuclear plants looking to extend licenses 7 Nuclear power sparks talks 8 Study sought on Yucca Mountain itself 9 CREHST offering series on Chernobyl 10 Nuclear plant outage to tighten California power supply 11 California Unplugged 12 Regulators anticipate requests to nuclear license requests 13 Rules could ease building of N-plants 14 Warren's nasty attack on Greenpeace just won't work 15 Editorial: Cheney's secrecy is bad policy 16 Jabiluka work a long way off: Wilson 17 U.K. lawmaker regrets data falsification by nuclear fuel firm 18 Centre’s nod for two more reactors at Kaiga 19 Plan to hike N-power output 20 Germany To Cut Nuke Waste Transports 21 Austrian Hands Over Diplomatic Note on Temelin Nuclear Power 22 Anti-Temelin Activists to Hold Major Protest on Friday 23 Austrian Environment Minister Explains Lack of Presence at 24 Sierra depot worst air polluter in California; this has to stop 25 Irish Chernobyl charity marks anniversary of nuclear disaster 26 Mystery Uranium Train Ghosts Through City - 27 Statement By Bush on Ukraine, Chornobyl Nuclear Plant 28 PAPAL GRATITUDE TO THOSE WHO AIDED CHERNOBYL VICTIMS 29 Chernobyl Haunts 15 Years On 30 New disaster warning on Chernobyl plant 31 New disaster warning on Chernobyl plant 32 A Safer Sarcophagus 33 Scientists use Chernobyl disaster as hope for new technology 34 Chernobyl Victims Need Financial Help 35 10,000 gather to mourn Chernobyl victims 36 The Age: Recalling the dark day of Chernobyl 37 EUROPEAN UNION EXAMINES LIFE TIME EXTENSION FOR CHERNOBYL TYPE 38 Chernobyl Couldn't Happen Again, Says Russian Official 39 IHT: Replacing Chernobyl Reactors 40 All people are created equal, after all: For the first time 41 Citizen Groups Denounce Proposal for Nuclear Waste 42 WIPP Truck Carried Mock Cargo 43 Group says radiation levels high in baby teeth - 44 UN: Message from General Assembly President on anniversary of NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Fluor names new chief 2 DOE suspends FFTF shutdown 3 Hanford ordered to halt FFTF shutdown 4 Money well-spent on dismantling weapons 5 Test Facility Hones In On Impact Of Nuclear Explosions In Space 6 Navy Resumes Bombing on Vieques 7 US Navy Vieques Bombings Protested 8 Children Most at Risk From Depleted Uranium 9 Senator wants to add money to nuclear weapons budget 10 *EGYPT, RUSSIA PREPARE TO SIGN NUKE ACCORD 11 Averting a nuclear battle ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Yucca could receive added waste April 27, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN If nuclear power use expands, a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain could end up with five to 10 times the amount of radioactive waste that has been set by law, an Energy Department official said. But it would take an act of Congress to increase the amount, Russ Dyer, DOE Yucca Mountain project manager, said this week during a tour of the mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "That suggestion is the reason that nuclear waste must never come to Yucca Mountain," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., who was on the tour and asked Dyer about expansion. Yucca Mountain, the lone site chosen to contain commercial reactor and defense wastes, is under study to determine whether it can contain up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Congress set the amount of waste in the 1980s, when it singled out Yucca Mountain from three sites that were being examined. About 7,000 tons would come from weapons-related activities, including Navy submarine reactors. The other 70,000 tons would be spent nuclear fuel from 103 commercial reactors. However, nuclear regulators are extending the operating life of the nation's nuclear reactors, Dyer said. Five operating reactors have received 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. License renewals for another five reactors are pending. Another 32 reactors are expected to apply for license renewal by 2005. If all of those extensions are granted, about 120,000 tons of waste would have to be buried over the next 40 years just from existing reactors, and Yucca Mountain is the only repository expected to be open, Dyer said. "There's no appetite in Congress to find a second repository," Dyer said. If more reactors are built to meet growing energy demands, the waste volume could increase to between 500,000 tons and 700,000 tons, he said. A repository at Yucca Mountain would have space to expand, he said. It would require a vote of Congress. That might not be so easy, one congressional watcher said. "I wouldn't say it would be an automatic win in Congress these days," said Lisa Gue of Public Citizen, an environmental watchdog group founded by Ralph Nader. Spokesmen for the nuclear industry and former Sen. Bennett Johnston, D-La., author of the bill that singled out Yucca Mountain, said they had not heard that the repository might need to expand. "I have not heard that, since the amount of nuclear waste is set by law," said Johnston, now a Washington lobbyist representing international concerns including energy companies. The former senator authored an amendment in 1987 known as the "Screw Nevada" bill, which eliminated any other option for managing nuclear waste except burying it in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. The nuclear industry has never projected such high numbers for its wastes or expanding a Yucca Mountain repository, Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, said. "I have never heard that," Kerekes said. "Right now it's an open question." However, nuclear utilities are hoping that if the energy crisis spreads from California across the country this summer, it will revive a demand for nuclear power, he said. "While we're very confident there will be some nuclear reactors built in the coming years, I have not heard of any numbers of that kind," Kerekes said of the waste amounts suggested by Dyer. Berkley has supported research funds for alternatives to Yucca Mountain. Scientists are developing new techniques to reduce the amount of nuclear waste using advanced accelerators in Los Alamos National Laboratory. UNLV received $3 million of the $34 million secured for accelerator research this year. A million dollars a day is being spent on research on Yucca Mountain's suitability, and getting more to study alternatives has been a hard sell in Congress, Steve Frishman, technology coordinator for the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said. DOE officials oppose spending a lot of money on alternatives such as advanced accelerators, saying that they would take too long and be cost prohibitive. But, Berkley said, more must be done. "I am opposed to any attempt to expand nuclear energy in this country until we figure out what to do with the nuclear wastes," Berkley said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 From Washington, a call to reassess nuclear energy April 27, 2001 By JOHN McELHENNY Associated Press Writer BOSTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry, a prominent environmental voice in the Senate, said the country should look into nuclear power to reassess some of its electricity problems. Kerry said the country’s nuclear power plants have become much safer since the infamous Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in 1979, and that Congress needs to reconsider the current focus on fossil-fuel burning power plants. "We need to be open-minded and analyze whether progress has been made in ways that’ll provide us a better alternative," Kerry said, citing the dangers of carbon dioxide and other gases. Kerry made the remarks Monday at a Statehouse ceremony in which he was honored by an environmental group. Massachusetts has only one operating nuclear power plant, Pilgrim Station in Plymouth, which began running in 1972, and no new nuclear plant has been ordered and completed since 1973. But this winter’s price spikes for electricity, along with highly publicized blackouts in California, have reignited interest in nuclear power. Half the respondents to a new Associated Press poll released this week supported using nuclear reactors to produce electricity, compared with 45 percent just two years ago. "In the mid-’90s, there wasn’t much of a future for nuclear power plants," said Pilgrim Station spokesman Dave Tarantino. "People said it was a dying industry." New England relied on nuclear energy for 19 percent of its electricity in 1975, but that reliance grew as high as 40 percent in 1993 before declining, according to ISO-New England, which oversees the region’s electricity grid. In 2000, 27 percent of the region’s electricity came from nuclear power, according to ISO estimates. The New Orleans-based Entergy Corp. bought Pilgrim Station from Boston Edison in 1999. Pilgrim is one of three reactors in the Northeast the company has purchased, and the company says it is aggressively trying to buy other reactors around the country. On Thursday, the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Kerry said in a statement that he did not support the construction of new power plants, and he voiced concern about the transport and storage of nuclear waste. But, he said, "I will not dismiss the potential for technology to solve the existing problems with nuclear power." Nuclear power is attractive in theory because, unlike oil, coal, and natural gas, it produces no emissions that lead to smog, acid rain and global warming. But many people remember the meltdown at Three Mile Island in Harrisburg, Pa., or the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine in 1986 that sent a radioactive cloud over much of Europe. "When something goes wrong with a nuclear plant, it’s not like a fender-bender," said Derek Haskew, an energy attorney with the public interest group MassPIRG. "It can cause a huge swath of death and destruction." Cindy Luppi, spokeswoman for the environmental group Clean Water Action, said the alternative to the pollution of fossil fuels should be renewable energies and conservation, not nuclear. "It’s a false choice to think the only affordable energy is polluting energy or dangerous energy," she said. © 2001 Geo. J. Foster Co. ***************************************************************** 3 Environment pal Kerry suggests safer nuke plants *by Andrew Miga* BostonHerald.com - Local & Regional *by Andrew Miga* Friday, April 27, 2001 WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry, one of the Senate's most prominent environmentalists, yesterday said America should not rule out building more nuclear power plants to solve its energy crisis if safer methods can be developed. ``We are having a national discussion over America's energy policy,'' Kerry said. ``I approach the debate with an open mind and do not discount any technology or policy out of hand.'' Kerry insisted he was seeking to strike a balance between protecting the environment while ensuring a strong national economy as the nation grapples with its latest energy woes. The junior senator from Massachusetts stressed the need for strict nuke safeguards and insisted alternative fuels must first be fully developed before new nuclear sources are considered. ``I do not support the construction of new power plants . . . until the transport and storage of waste is shown to be safe,'' he said. ``At the same time, I will not dismiss the potential for technology to solve the existing problems with nuclear power.'' Kerry's remarks were an attempt to clarify his position after an appearance on ABC-TV's ``This Week'' show on Sunday where he seemed to soften his longtime stance against nuclear power. Asked whether new nuclear plants should be built, Kerry replied, ``I think we have to do further research on the waste issue, but I don't discard it as a long-term possibility depending on where we go with other alternatives.'' As far back as 1989, Kerry, citing global warming concerns, said new technologies to make nuclear plants safer should be considered. ``We have to investigate these new reactors,'' he told reporters at the time. ``We can't sit here ignorantly pretending this fossil fuel problem will take care of itself.'' BostonHerald.com orits ***************************************************************** 4 Opponents of Nuclear Waste Rally in Salt Lake City April 27, 2001* BY SHIA KAPOS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Nearly 200 opponents of nuclear-waste disposal in Utah rallied in downtown Salt Lake City late Thursday. In a Berkeley, Calif.-like scene, long-toothed peaceniks stood next to 20-something environmentalists as toddlers ran about to the music of Utah's own Saliva Sisters singing trio. The peaceful rally was held at the Rio Grande train station because, say activists, it is on Utah's rails that nuclear waste could be brought into the state. Many at the sunset event carried placards reading "Stop Mobile Chernobyl!" and "Utah Is Not the Place for the Nation's Nuclear Waste." The group was brought together by the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster and by memories of Downwinders in southern Utah. But mostly, the group focused on plans by two different groups to bring nuclear waste to Utah. "You only have one environment. Once you ruin that, there's nowhere else to go," said Claire Geddes of Legislative Watch, a citizen watchdog group. "We did not create this waste; we see no reason to bring it to Utah." She was referring to proposals by Private Fuel Storage (PFS) and Envirocare of Utah to bring nuclear waste to the state. PFS is working to store spent nuclear fuel in steel and concrete casks on the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indian Reservation, southwest of Salt Lake City. Envirocare has plans to bring high-level waste to its facility in Tooele County. Both entities say they can store the waste safely and have been working to educate the public on how that can be done. Earlier this week, PFS criticized Thursday's planned rally, saying it was "misleading and unfair" to link the Soviet nuclear accident to its efforts to store waste in Utah. Activists disagree and have formed an alliance of citizens and organizations to voice that opposition. Called HEAL -- for Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah -- the group also hopes to educate the public to its cause. skapos@sltrib.com © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 5 Uranium Waste April 27, 2001 According to "Uranium Waste Cleanup Gets No U.S. Funds" (April 24), the Bush administration has allowed no money for the cleanup of the uranium waste outside of Moab, Utah, which has been leaking into the Colorado River and therefore into the water supply of several Western states. Some people have been critical of this omission, but they have failed to see that this is part of the Bush administration's brilliant solution to the energy crisis. When people have drunk enough of this Colorado River water, their radioactive glow will diminish considerably the need for nighttime lighting. And money is saved on the cleanup. R.C. RICHARDS La Mesa * * * Why worry about the Colorado River cleanup? It's only our Los Angeles water supply. After all, we can go out and spend a few dollars for a plastic jug of the stuff at any market. We need all the funds left just to build more nukes and continue the nuclear arms race. A race, by the way, to where? With whom? And uranium is no doubt needed to fuel the "safe" and "too cheap to meter" nuclear power plants--those that haven't been shut down already due to cost overruns and public danger. ANDREW KAY LIBERMAN Los Angeles Copyright © 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 6 Nuclear plants looking to extend licenses This story was published Fri, Apr 27, 2001 By The Associated Press and the Herald staff BETHESDA, Md. -- Operators of at least eight of every 10 nuclear power reactors are expected to seek permission to keep plants running beyond their initial 40-year licenses, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday. Among those is Energy Northwest, which hopes to get its Columbia Generating Station north of Richland relicensed to run for another 20 years when its existing license expires in 2024. With the resurgence of nuclear power, "the industry has pursued license renewal in earnest," NRC's Richard Meserve told reporters at the agency's headquarters. Meserve, a Democrat who became commission chairman 18 months ago, said he expects the Bush administration's energy task force to endorse nuclear power as an essential part of the nation's energy mix. "Perhaps the most startling recent development is the growing industry interest in the construction of new nuclear plants," Meserve said, although he acknowledged a license application for a new plant may still be some time away. He said he would not be surprised if some of the reactors abandoned in the 1980s for economic reasons were dusted off and reconsidered for completion. The agency would have to complete the licensing approval process in such cases. The NRC already has approved 20-year license extensions for two utilities, involving five reactors, and has applications for license renewals for 34 additional reactors on file. "We now expect that between 85 percent and 100 percent of the existing nuclear plants will seek license renewal," Meserve said. "It is even possible that we may receive an application to conclude certain reactor projects that were suspended for economic reasons in the 1980s." Energy Northwest is reviewing whether it would make economic sense to complete the Hanford No. 1 nuclear power plant, which was mothballed when it was about two-thirds complete. Meserve declined to speculate how many of these applications will be approved under an expedited review process. The commission has established a goal of completing each license renewal within 24 to 30 months, he said. "We have to be satisfied that if we allow an extension ... there will not be a reduction in safety," he said. "If they don't meet the criteria, we're going to reject the application." Declining budgets and an aging work force of nuclear specialists have concerned some commission officials as the agency prepares for a rush of new business. Meserve said he has some of those concerns and believes "we need to rebuild our bench strength." "We now have six times as many people over 60 (years of age) as we have under 30 in the building," Meserve said. Still, he said he was "confident that we are up to the task" of regulating the changing and rejuvenated nuclear industry. He rejected claims by some nuclear critics that the agency's attempt to streamline regulations and industry oversight amounts to less scrutiny and protection. The aim is "that our regulations do not impose needless barriers" while assuring that public health and safety are protected, Meserve said. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 7 Nuclear power sparks talks This story was published Thu, Apr 26, 2001 By The Associated Press and the Herald staff WASHINGTON -- Nuclear power is making a comeback two decades after the Three Mile Island reactor accident. Soaring natural gas prices, concerns about climate change and fear that California blackouts will spread have made electricity from the atom more attractive, though critics still worry about safety and what to do with radioactive waste. For the first time in decades, there is serious talk about building a new nuclear power plant in the United States. At least one utility has suggested it may submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within a few years. This stirring of interest for a new reactor "would have been unthinkable even a year ago," says the commission chairman, Richard Meserve, who has directed a task force to examine how to handle a new license application. Not since 1973 has an American utility sought to license and gone on to open a new nuclear power plant. Only a few years ago, industry analysts predicted scores of electric power reactors would be shuttered under the economic pressures of electricity deregulation. Instead, the country's 103 commercial reactors are churning out power at unprecedented efficiency, safety indictors have improved steadily, reactors put up for sale are attracting eager bidders and the line of applications for 20-year license renewals is growing. Owners of nearly half of the operating plants already have said they will seek extensions when their permits expire. So far, two extensions have been granted. Nuclear power was stunned almost into submission 22 years ago by the Three Mile Island reactor meltdown near Harrisburg, Pa., and was pummeled further a few years later by the Russian disaster at Chernobyl. Since then, it has struggled to keep itself on life-support while designers worked on what they maintain are safer reactor designs. Now it has caught the attention of the Bush administration as the White House maps out a broad energy blueprint to present to Congress. Vice President Dick Cheney, who heads the president's energy task force, has been touting nuclear power as essential to America's energy needs. At least some of the 65 new power plants that need to be built annually to meet future electricity demand "ought to be nuclear," he told an interviewer recently. "It's the only way to deal with the question of global warming," Cheney argues, a theme pushed by the nuclear industry for several years. Without a serious accident in years, nuclear power also is gaining acceptance at the grass roots. Half the people queried in a new Associated Press poll support using reactors to produce electricity, compared with 45 percent just two years ago. And 56 percent of the supporters say they would not mind a nuclear plant within 10 miles of their home. Three in 10 opposed nuclear power; the remainder said they were unsure. What's behind the turnaround? A combination of factors, energy analysts, regulators and utility executives say, including: -- The environment. Growing concerns about climate change and the cost of reducing air pollution from coal-burning power plants have made nuclear more attractive to utilities. Reactors emit neither greenhouse gasses nor smog-causing chemicals. -- Economics. Reactors have increased their electricity production by 25 percent over the past decade through improved efficiencies. Operating costs have steadily declined to where nuclear-generated electricity is competitive with power from natural gas-fired plants and is not far behind coal in costs. -- Safety. While long-term uncertainties about nuclear waste remain, reactors have been free of major accidents and the number of safety-related power plant disruptions has dropped dramatically. In addition, power woes in the West have highlighted the need for new generating plants, even prompting some in the Northwest and California to take a new look at mothballed and unfinished plants. The executive board of Energy Northwest, which operates the Columbia Generating Station north of Richland, already has given preliminary approval to study completion of the two-thirds completed Plant No. 1 nearby. Final approval could come as soon as today. The owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant have suddenly been besieged by companies wanting to buy their 27-year-old reactor. At least nine reactors have been sold in the past two years, many at prices much higher than earlier fire sales. "We are aggressively competing for additional nuclear units wherever they are for sale," says Randy Hutchinson, senior vice president at Entergy Nuclear Inc., a subsidiary of New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which has bought three reactors in the Northeast and is closing deals on two more. At the same time the industry is consolidating. The number of companies owning nuclear plants has been reduced by half to about two dozen. Eventually there may be fewer than eight, says Hutchinson. Still, industry critics and even some utility executives remain wary. "Nuclear power poses an unacceptable threat to humans and the environment," says Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. She argues that older reactors are deteriorating and that no clear solution has been found for disposing reactor wastes that remain dangerous to health and the environment for tens of thousands of years. Any long-term revival will depend on resolving lingering uncertainties, says John Holdren, a Harvard professor of environmental science and former chairman of the White House science and technology advisory panel in the Clinton administration. "Basically the issues are cost, safety, radioactive waste and nuclear proliferation," says Holdren. If any one of those factors shifts against the industry, nuclear power may again be doomed, he says. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 8 Study sought on Yucca Mountain itself April 27, 2001 By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN Independent scientists overseeing a study on Yucca Mountain are not convinced the mountain itself is a sufficient barricade in regard to reducing radiation levels emitted from nuclear waste. Scientists have requested that the Department of Energy study explain to what degree the mountain would reduce radiation levels, as compared to man-made barriers such as nuclear waste containers and titanium drip shields. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is being considered as the world's first high-level nuclear waste repository. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has asked the DOE for a computer analysis that depicts a worst-case scenario in which spent nuclear fuel has been dumped on the earth's surface and includes no shielding to block the radiation from entering the atmosphere or ground water. By calculating radiation exposure resulting from such an unlikely event DOE officials could better inform the public in regard to how much protection volcanic ash layers at Yucca Mountain would provide, board Executive Director Bill Barnard said. The DOE considers Yucca Mountain as the primary barricade from radiation that could ultimately find its way into the air or water sources, in which case people could be exposed. Engineered waste barriers, such as the waste containers and underground shields, are designed to act as secondary lines of protection. A March 30 letter from board Chairman Jared Cohon to the DOE's Lake Barrett, acting director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said there was "some confusion" in relation to DOE studies of the barriers. "Under such an approach the analysis would start off by estimating the dose, assuming that the radioactive waste is lying exposed at the earth's surface," Cohon said. The board's approach would give scientists an idea of how effective man-made barriers are in reducing radiation, compared to only mountain, the letter noted. DOE Yucca Mountain Project Manager Russ Dyer said in ongoing studies scientists have considered the effectiveness of radiation protection provided by the engineered barriers. Dyer said he had not seen a copy of the board's March 30 letter. Steve Frishman, technical coordinator for the state, said the DOE has changed direction as it relates to relying solely on the mountain's bulk to protect the public. Instead, engineered barriers provide the major shield against radiation exposure, according to the DOE. In a 1980 report DOE officials said Yucca Mountain would completely contain all radioactivity from commercial reactor and defense waste for at least 300 years without the installation of man-made barriers. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 9 CREHST offering series on Chernobyl This story was published Thu, Apr 26, 2001 By the Herald Staff The Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science & Technology and Battelle are offering a lecture series on the nuclear history of Chernobyl from 7 to 9 p.m. Thursday evenings beginning May 4 at CREHST. The lecture schedule is: -- May 3 -- "A Year's Experience in Slavutych: Standing Out as a Foreigner," by Peg Timmins, Mary Kay Schmidt and Linda Deal, spouses who engaged themselves in the community. -- May 10 -- "The Chernobyl Accident: How an Event Like This Impacts a Family," by Andrei Glukhov, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's International Nuclear Safety Program project manager. -- May 17 -- "Children of the Atom: What Do the Kids Think?" by student authors of the Nuclear Legacy book. -- May 24 -- "A Monumental Cleanup Effort: Helping Chernobyl Recover," by George Vargo, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's International Nuclear Safety Program scientist. Cost is $2 for CREHST members, $3.75 for nonmembers. Admission to all four lectures is $6 for members, $12 for nonmembers. For more information, call 943-9000. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear plant outage to tighten California power supply sacbee: Cal Report By Andrew Bridges Associated Press Writer LOS ANGELES (AP) -- California's already tight supply of electricity will be further restricted come Sunday, when one of the two units at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant will be taken off-line for 35 days for scheduled refueling. The 1,100-megawatt reactor is among the state's single largest generators of electricity, meeting about 3 percent of current total demand. The loss will make a bad situation worse for the state, which is already saddled with power plant outages -- planned or not -- that reduce total capacity by 13,000 megawatts and more on a daily basis. The amount is enough to power 13 million typical California homes. Many of the plants are off-line to carry out repair or pollution control work before early June, when statewide demand can begin to approach roughly 50,000 megawatts, or about 20,000 megawatts more than the average peaks during the last week. About half of AES Pacific Inc.'s 14 units around California are not producing power at present, for example, reducing the state's generation capacity by about 2,000 megawatts, said AES spokesman Aaron Thomas. And one of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station's two units remains off-line in the wake of a February fire, further cutting into the amount of atomic power the state can normally rely on. The 1,120-megawatt unit will not return to service before mid-June at the earliest, after the plant undergoes tens of millions of dollars in repairs, said Ray Golden, a spokesman for Southern California Edison. An early arrival of summertime temperatures may further complicate things. In the greater Los Angeles area earlier this week, temperatures broke the 90-degree mark, contributing in part to a 2,000 megawatt surge in demand, much of it for air conditioners. Temperatures are expected to cool heading into the weekend, but could flare again soon, sparking a corresponding rise in power use. "All along we've been saying May -- if we get hit by a couple of hot days right away -- and June are going to be tough," said Lorie O'Donley, a spokeswoman for the Independent System Operator, which runs the state's power grid. The ISO has attempted to curtail the number of power plants that are off-line during periods of high demand. Even if the state reins in the number of plants that are not producing power, blackouts could begin in May and stretch into October, said Kurt Yaeger, president and chief executive officer of the Electric Power Research Institute, a Palo Alto nonprofit group that studies the utility industry. Yeager said data suggest that California will be able to muster only 40,000 to 45,000 megawatts of electricity throughout the summer, falling well short of the 50,000 megawatts it will need at times of peak demand. If the summer is abnormally hot, or if more of the state's aging power generators should fail and require repairs, the deficit could easily grow larger. "Those are the two wildcards," Yeager said. Copyright © The Sacramento Bee ***************************************************************** 11 California Unplugged The American Spectator: April 2001 Environmentalists dreamed of soft power. The state woke up in the dark. by William Tucker In 1986, on a sunny afternoon in May, officials of the Pacific Gas & Electric Company cut the ribbon on Unit II of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles and right on the Pacific Ocean. It was a triumph of determination for the San Francisco-based utility. First proposed in the mid-1960s, the plant went through two decades of regulatory review before finally winning approval from the California Public Utilities Commission, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and half a dozen other county and state agencies. Things ground to a halt after 1979, when the Three Mile Island accident effectively ended the nuclear power program in the United States. Environmentalists raised the specter of earthquakes. When an inactive fault line was discovered three miles away under the Pacific, the plant was redesigned to withstand 7.2 on the Richter scale, a quake larger than the one that shook San Francisco in 1989. Still, with $5.8 billion sunk in the ground, PG&E executives persisted. "It was a nightmare to build but it's been a dream to operate," says Jeff Lewis, plant spokesman, today. Purring along at close to 95 percent capacity and completely immune to oil or gas prices, Diablo Canyon now produces 2,160 megawatts -- enough to power 2.16 million homes -- at a rock-bottom $30 per megawatt-hour. That spring morning fifteen years ago was the last time a central generating power station of more than 380 megawatts was added to the California grid. Fifteen years later in mid-winter -- the lowest season for electrical consumption -- the Golden State was undergoing rolling electrical blackouts. PG&E and Southern California Edison had stopped paying bondholders and creditors and were essentially bankrupt. The state was enlisting the authority of the federal government to order utilities in neighboring states to ship electricity to California -- even though it was uncertain they would ever be paid. Utilities in Oregon, Washington, and Utah were raising rates to *their* customers in order to comply with federal orders to ship needed power to California. The head of the Independent System Operator, a politically appointed body that found itself buying one-third of the state's electricity, admitted he had no experience in wheeling and dealing in an unregulated market. Meanwhile, factories and retail stores were installing $250,000 backyard diesel generators to keep the lights on. Diesel fumes from trucks and buses already account for 70 percent of the state's air-pollution-related health problems, according to the California Air Resources Board, yet officials were reluctant to crack down because of the power shortage. There was no end of finger pointing. Pundits and politicians readily blamed what Governor Gray Davis called the "disastrous experiment in deregulation" of electricity the state initiated in 1996. Governor Davis also reviled "out-of-state independent operators" who were supposedly withholding power in order to drive up prices. Others pointed out that the purported deregulation was a halfway affair that deregulated only wholesale utility prices but forbade utilities from passing rising costs through to their retail customers. Others even more uncharitable noted that the reason many of California's power plants were in the hands of out-of-state companies was because the State of California had mandated that California utilities sell them. But all this begs the question: How did the state's power supplies become so inadequate in the first place? As Daniel Yergin, author of *Energy Future* and co-founder of Cambridge Energy Research Associates pointed out, "Deregulation is not the issue. The power-plant capacity simply isn't there." Even Governor Davis acknowledged this by saying that the state's first priority should be to throw aside regulatory delays and add 20,000 megawatts to the system as soon as humanly possible. Looking back over the past 25 years, one thing soon becomes dramatically clear. The current situation was planned from the beginning. Almost a quarter-century ago, California officials became entranced with the idea that the centralized generation of electricity -- the system of building large generating stations and distributing power through electrical transmission lines -- was becoming outdated. Instead it would be replaced by a "distributed" system of generation that would be anchored by much smaller industrial "co-generation" plants. This "small-but-beautiful" system would eventually atomize into a world where almost everyone would supply their own electricity through backyard fuel cells, windmills, or solar panels. This strategy, called the "soft path," has led California to where it is today. The story begins in 1977, when the nation found itself in the grip of an OPEC cartel. President Jimmy Carter donned a sweater, sat in front of a fireplace, and urged Americans to engage themselves in a battle he called the "moral equivalent of war." Carter's rallying point was an "Energy Plan" that would supposedly free the nation from foreign oil supplies and put us on the road toward self-sufficiency. The plan's point of departure was the belief that there were huge, unrealized gains to be made in energy conservation. Cars had been designed almost deliberately to waste gas. Electricity was squandered. With a concerted national effort, we could create our own OPEC simply by tapping these unused resources. Of course the tripling of gasoline prices was already encouraging Americans to conserve -- but that wasn't acceptable because it produced "unearned profits" for the oil companies. The Carter plan would resolve this dilemma by fixing oil prices at a politically acceptable level and then taxing up prices to the world market level. The unearned profits would go to the government which would use this money to develop alternate sources of energy -- synthetic fuels, windmills, solar energy, and whatever other promising techniques lay just over the horizon. Writing in *Harper's* at the time, editor Lewis Lapham noted that the blueprint for Carter's Energy Plan was the 1974 Ford Foundation tome *A Time to Choose,* which argued that energy consumption could be "decoupled" from economic growth. The director of the Foundation group, Lapham noted, was S. David Freeman, "a fervent advocate of environmental reform now employed in the White House Office of Energy Planning." Describing Freeman as a "wandering moralist" obsessed with the "wickedness of the oil companies," Lapham reported how Freeman had steered the Ford report toward virtual nationalization of the oil industry. "A slender and intense man, quite obviously possessed by a utopian vision of the just society," wrote Lapham in describing his interview with Freeman, "I remember being taken aback by his violent use of the word 'power.' His enemies had been delivered into his hands." Congress rebelled against some of the more extreme aspects of the Carter program but retained its essence. The government extended oil price controls, imposed an "excess profits tax," initiated a synthetic fuels effort, set up the strategic petroleum reserve, and funded various experiments in alternate energy. The Synthetic Fuels Corporation limped along for almost a decade, trying to turn coal into gas and tar into oil until the whole effort collapsed of its own weight in 1985. Meanwhile, the "oil shortage" magically disappeared when President Reagan decontrolled prices in 1981. In 1977 Freeman returned to the Tennessee Valley Authority, where he halted construction on eight nuclear plants and began an ambitious program on energy conservation. From there he went on to head Texas's Lower Colorado Power Authority and the New York Power Authority, eventually arriving in California. Radically restructuring the electrical generating system was not on President Carter's original agenda. But in 1976 Amory Lovins, already the youngest faculty member in the history of Oxford and British representative of Friends of the Earth, published "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?" a landmark article in *Foreign Affairs,* which argued that the root cause of the problems was the centralized generation of electricity. Continuing to rely on a far-flung grid, anchored by gigantic thermal plants, Lovins argued, was a losing strategy. Too much energy was wasted in generation and transmission, the energy that was delivered did not fit the scale of end-use, fossil fuels would eventually run out, and the whole system was brittle, complex, and vaguely inhuman. Instead there was an alternate future -- a world of decentralized sources where small-scale generating stations were matched to small-scale end uses. Following this "soft path" would mean: 1) making spectacular but achievable gains in energy conservation, 2) building small "co-generation" plants that produced both electricity and steam for industrial heat, and 3) setting up a "transitional" period in which fossil fuels would be employed until replaced by "soft" technologies such as solar, wind, and small hydro. By 2025, we could be living in Energy Utopia -- a world running entirely on renewable resources. The argument was specifically aimed at nuclear power. Up to that point air pollution and dwindling fossil fuels seemed to be pushing the nation toward a nuclear future, supported by, among others, the Sierra Club. This was wrong, Lovins argued. Nuclear technology would lead to terrorist bombs, intractable wastes, the rule of a "nuclear priesthood" and huge hidden social and environmental costs. It is important to recognize that the two paths are mutually exclusive. Because commitments to the first may foreclose the second, we must soon choose one or the other -- before failure to stop nuclear proliferation has foreclosed both. Lovins's 1977 book *Soft Energy Paths,* first published by the Sierra Club, became a minor best seller. When Lovins briefed Jimmy Carter on energy at the White House in 1978, he found the president had already read the book. A cover story in *New Times* called Lovins "The Pied Piper of Alternative Energy." Some of this made sense. Energy conservation had long been neglected. The efficiency of electric motors had hardly improved since the 1920s. State regulatory authorities had long kept electrical prices low to consumers. This led to the construction of ever-bigger generating stations, which the utilities readily undertook because they were promised a return on their investment. For all anyone knew, the whole system might be wildly uneconomical -- but there was no way to tell because of the regulated market. New technologies such as co-generation, wind, and solar faced almost insurmountable obstacles in cracking this monopoly system. Taking a hardheaded approach, Lovins argued that markets would favor the soft path and that utilities should be forced from behind their regulatory curtain. Thus, he favored deregulating prices at both the wholesale and retail levels -- the one peice of advice that California was never willing to take. Unfortunately, Lovins often overstated his case. In claiming that the entire U.S. transportation sector could run on gasohol, he used beer and wine production as a comparison: Each year the U.S. beer and wine industry microbiologically produces 5 percent as many gallons (not all alcohol, of course) as the U.S. oil industry produces gasoline. Gasoline has 1.5 to 2 times the fuel value of alcohol per gallon. Thus a conversion industry roughly ten to fourteen times the physical scale (in gallons of fluid output per year) of U.S. cellars and breweries...would produce roughly one-third of the present gasoline requirements of the United States. But notice Lovins doesn't bother to calculate the required flow of organic materials through the system. The hops crop and vineyards occupy about 40 million acres. Twelve times this amount would be 480 million acres -- half the farmland in the United States. But now we do have to factor in that beer and wine are only about 5 percent alcohol, which means multiplying again by 20. This leaves us with a requirement of 9.6 billion acres -- *ten times the entire cropland in the United States* -- to produce *one-third* of our transportation needs in 1977. Lovins's vision, often compared to Mao Tse-Tung's dream of backyard steel furnaces, had a toy-train quality to it. Everything was precious and simple yet somehow unreal. "If the electrical grid fails, there is nowhere else to go and not much you can do about it," he wrote. "If your solar system fails...you can put on a sweater and go next door." Nonetheless, in 1978 Congress was inspired to set America along the Soft Energy Path. The vehicle was PURPA -- the Public Utility Regulation Policy Act of 1978, which set the state utility commissions on the path of encouraging co-generation and renewable resources. Overriding the utilities' franchise monopolies, PURPA allowed "qualifying facilities" (QFs) -- meaning anything from windmill farms to fossil fuel back-up generators -- to plug into the grid. The utilities would be required to buy electricity from QFs at "avoided costs" -- what they would have incurred in building new plants. Manipulated by state regulatory officials, these avoided costs could often be set forbiddingly high, so that the utilities might want to avoid them altogether. But they could not. Needed or not, they must purchase QF power. Riddled with loopholes and incentives, PURPA was essentially optional to states. Some states ignored the program. Others implemented it gingerly. One state embraced it fervently. That state was California under Jerry Brown, a man of unmatched enthusiasm for all that was soft, small, or solar. As a start, the California Public Utilities Commission undertook the most ambitious energy conservation program in the nation. With Lovins acting as an adviser, the state rewarded utilities for investing in energy savings for their customers. The commission granted the utilities higher rates if they would rebate customers for buying energy-efficient appliances. In 1991, PG&E hired Lovins and Berkeley physicist Arthur Rosenfeld to head a $10 million program applying energy-efficiency ideas to new and existing buildings, with considerable success. Altogether, PG&E has spent $1.3 billion on conservation since 1976, displacing 2,300 megawatts of new power -- a relative bargain. From 1983 to 1995, Golden State energy consumption grew only half a percent per year, 20 percent below projections. Ratepayers saved $1 billion in electrical bills. California now ranks dead last among the 50 states for per-capita consumption of electricity. At the same time, California stopped building coal, nuclear, and oil "base-load" plants. In 1991, residents of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District even voted to close down the Rancho Seco Nuclear Plant, though it still had years to go in its life cycle. As a result, California also ranks 49th in its per-person capacity to generate electricity. The rest of the country went in a different direction. When environmental opposition made new nuclear power plants impossible, the majority of the nation reverted to "clean coal." (Lovins himself endorsed a "fluidized-bed" coal system and speculated it could be employed at the household level.) With its residue of sulfur and ash, coal can never be as clean as oil or natural gas, but other states were willing to pay the price. Illinois now gets half its electricity from coal, half from nuclear, and exports power. Texas relies on coal, nuclear, and natural gas and also exports. California now imports 20 percent of its electricity -- 25 percent during peak demand. The mechanism for eliminating coal plants from California was air pollution regulations. As a result, the state now has no sulfur dioxide emissions (acid rain) and ranks 40th in emission of carbon dioxide per square mile. "Since the late 1960s, we've known environmental regulations made it impossible to burn coal in Southern California," says Steve Hansen, spokesman for Southern California Edison. "The only option was to build out-of-state." And that is where the utilities went. Southern California Edison owns 48 percent of two 740-megawatt coal-burning plants at Four Corners, New Mexico. It also owns 56 percent of the Mojave coal plant in Nevada and 16 percent of the Palo Verde nuclear station near Phoenix. The Modesto Irrigation District and several municipal utilities also own out-of-state coal plants, as does the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The only problem has been in building transmission lines, which always raise scenic complaints and the speculative danger (now proven wrong) that high-tension lines may cause cancer. A pattern emerged. The "hard path" was built outside California. The "soft path" was pursued at home. In its aggressive attempt to implement the soft path, the California Public Utilities Commission set the "avoided costs" of new thermal plants extremely high. This prompted a "gold rush" into alternate energies. California now has 43 geothermal stations producing 2,500 megawatts. (Geothermal harnesses the steam produced when underground water comes in contact with radioactive heat from the earth's core. It could easily be called "nuclear energy.") There are few potential sites left, however, and many are considered scenic attractions. Over 100 new windmill farms now generate 1,400 megawatts of power -- 3 percent of the state's capacity. A 400-foot windmill can produce 1.5 megawatts, but they are not as attractive as originally imagined. The earliest versions also killed birds, including 50 hawks and golden eagles that died in the blades of a wind farm at Altamont Pass. The Audubon Society opposed new construction and even lobbied against federal subsidies for several years but has since become reconciled. "Biomass" plants burn garbage, essentially, or any other organic matter. Locals dislike the air pollution. One California plant burns old tires. But it is often difficult and expensive to procure large enough steady supplies of garbage. California now has 38 biomass plants -- many of them tapping methane from landfills -- that generate 690 megawatts. Small hydro, once the darling of clean-energy advocates, fell out of favor when environmentalists realized it meant building dams. Local groups usually oppose these facilities and environmental groups no longer promote them in their literature. Photovoltaics -- the direct conversion of solar energy into electricity -- has not yet proved practical. Total world output of new equipment each year is enough to produce only 150 megawatts at a forbidding cost of $200-300 per megawatt-hour. California leads the world but has only 14 stations generating 413 megawatts -- less than 1 percent of the state's needs. All told, despite years of effort and subsidies, renewables contribute only 12 percent of California's electrical requirements. Most of the significant additions to the Golden State's grid have come from small co-generation plants at large industrial facilities. Powered by natural gas and utilizing the waste steam from their boilers, these co-generation plants produce efficiently and also save on transmission losses. ARCO built a 385-megawatt co-generation plant in 1986 -- still the largest installation ever added. All told co-generating plants have yielded about 2,500 megawatts since 1985. Yet by forcing the utilities to pay inflated prices to Qualifying Facilities, the state was swapping cheap for dear. As Karl Stahlkopf, vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, points out, "Because the utilities couldn't avoid buying this power, they often displaced their own lower-cost generating sources." Brimming with enthusiasm, the Public Utilities Commission mandated 20-year contracts with QFs. Promised a rate of return, the utilities passed these costs through to their customers. As a result, California electricity became very expensive. "By 1991, our rates were double that of neighboring states," says Stahlkopf. "We were paying $90 per megawatt-hour while Washington State was paying only $40." Manufacturers fled the state. Unemployment stood at 10 percent. The state government had huge budget deficits. And so, the state Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable began agitating for deregulation, arguing that competition for wholesale electricity would lower retail rates. The impetus to deregulate came originally from the federal government. In 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) deregulated interstate prices, opening up a national market for electricity. That year there were 25,000 annual transactions over the interstate transmission system. By 2000 there were 2 million. FERC urged the states to follow suit, deregulating their own retail markets. In 1996, California took the plunge. The major roadblock to deregulation was "stranded costs." These are high-cost generating facilities built under regulation that will not survive competition against the independent energy producers -- newcomers such as Duke Power, Reliant Energy, and Calpine (see page 38). In many states, stranded costs were aging coal and nuclear plants. But in California, the largest portion was in the high-priced, long-term contracts with QFs. "The independent producers have found it most economical to build gas-fired plants of between 350 and 600 megawatts," says Bill Brier, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute in Washington. "Their main criterion is to locate at the intersection of natural gas pipelines and the electric grid. They don't use steam co-generation because there usually aren't nearby industrial facilities. But they do use combined-cycle generation, which basically means building two turbines and using the steam twice." He adds, "These plants improve reliability because having a 500-megawatt plant go down isn't as bad as losing a 1,000-megawatt plant." With the independent producers in the game, wholesale prices were expected to drop. This would leave the older utilities vulnerable. In order to help them recover their stranded costs, the utilities were granted a fixed price *floor* of $65 per megawatt-hour -- $10 below their current rates but well above where prices were expected to go. This would continue until 2002 or whenever the utilities recovered their stranded costs. No one imagined that within two years electricity would be selling on the spot market for $350 per megawatt -- $1,000 per megawatt-hour at some especially tight moments -- and that these price floors would quickly convert to ceilings. For some reason, regulated utilities always bring out the sadistic impulses in politicians, just as tethered elephants bring out the sadistic impulses in small boys. Even though the utilities were now being turned loose into the deregulated arena, Democrats in Sacramento couldn't resist putting a few more knives in the bull's shoulders. Obsessed with the utilities' supposed "market power," the legislature added two more restrictions: 1) the utilities would have to sell all their non-nuclear and hydro generating facilities to the independent producers, and 2) any contracts for wholesale electricity would be subject to "prudency reviews." These are exercises in 20/20 hindsight whereby the CPUC decides years afterwards that a utility paid too much for electricity in a long-term contract and forbids it to pass the costs through to customers. Stuck in this can't-win situation, the utilities generally refused to sign long-term contracts and were stuck in the spot market. Even under "deregulation" the state remained the major player. All purchases would be made through the California Power Exchange, a state-appointed body, which would pay a uniform price and then redistribute power to the utilities. Since the Power Exchange had no financial credit, it could not enter long-term contracts. Instead, all purchases were made on the "day-ahead" spot market. Sales were made through a "reverse Dutch auction," where all buyers pay the price of the last bid. In a buyers' market, this would force everyone's price down. But in a seller's market, everyone's prices would be driven up. That's just what happened. The wildcard was the Internet, another California phenomenon, which suddenly began driving up demand for electricity. From 1986 to 1996, the state's per-capita consumption had declined steadily. With the coming of the Digital Economy, demand suddenly revived. The Internet is a vast, highly tuned electronic network of servers, switchers, and routers that are always on and require extreme reliability and lots of power. Lulled by the conservation successes of the 1980s and early '90s, California was unprepared. Lovins and other environmentalists argue that computers and their networks account for only a tiny fraction of electricity consumption, but both California's and the nation's energy consumption figures belie their efforts. In 1995 fewer than a million Americans were hooked into the Net; today more than 60 million homes and businesses are online. As late as 1998, the California Energy Commission forecast annual growth of only 2.3 percent through 2004. Actual 1999 growth was 8 percent and demand in Silicon Valley rose 12 percent in 2000 -- the fastest rate in the nation. No plausible explanation except the Net exists. And so, as the summer of 2000 approached, California found itself woefully short of power. The last plant added to the grid was Campbell Soup's 158 megawatts of co-generation in 1994. By the spring, month-to-month peak usages were up 21 percent over 1999. In April, the utilities begged the Public Utilities Commission to eliminate prudency reviews and open the door to long-term contracts. Unnerved, the PUC finally relented. But Democrats in the state legislature -- still paranoid about the utilities' market power -- reversed the decision in the June Budget Act. Within a month, the Independent System Operator (ISO) found itself buying one-third of California's power at prices up to $1,000 per megawatt-hour -- 15 times what the utilities could charge their customers. "We hired the very best system reliability operators, the people who know how to keep the lights on," admitted Kellan Fluckiger, chief operations officer of the ISO. "But in terms of matching wits with some MBA who's got a Ph.D. in chaos theory, who's working on the derivative of whatever, the answer is no way. We can't do that." Forced to buy through these amateurs, the utilities quickly lost $12 billion -- almost their entire net worth. Would things have been different if the utilities hadn't accepted the $65 price freeze in exchange for recovering stranded costs? Hardly. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), the state's third major utility, actually retired its stranded costs in July 1999 and entered the free market. A year later its price had dropped to $35 per megawatt-hour. But when natural gas prices took off in June 2000, SDG&E's costs shot up to $128 per megawatt-hour. By September they had reached $179. As permitted, SDG&E passed these prices through to its customers. San Diego ratepayers immediately ran to Sacramento and protested. The legislature forced prices back to $65 and let the utility take the losses. By February, SDG&E had bled $605 million. "The PUC has guaranteed us recovery but it hasn't told us when or how," said Ed Larson, spokesman for SDG&E. In January, with fearful suppliers refusing to sell to the nearly bankrupt utilities, the state legislature appropriated $1 billion so the California Department of Water Resources could purchase electricity. To everyone's amazement, the fund disappeared in six weeks. In February, the legislature adopted a "comprehensive solution" by authorizing a $10 billion bond issue -- the largest municipal borrowing in history -- so the state could enter long-term contracts. By 2011, California taxpayers will still be paying for electricity consumed in 2000. Should the state continue to roll forward its electrical bills -- well, we're looking at New York City in 1974. One likely outcome was a complete state takeover of the utility industry. Waiting in the wings was S. David Freeman, now general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Freeman emerged as a hero in the crisis because he had refused to join the deregulation. Because LADWP was not forced to sell its plants, it was able to supply Los Angeles with adequate power without raising rates. The utility even had surpluses to send San Francisco -- but couldn't because transmission lines were inadequate. Hailed as a "visionary" and a "wily old pro," the 74-year-old Freeman was Davis's selection to negotiate the state's long-term contracts with independent producers. He was also the leading candidate to head the new "California Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority," whose name perfectly described its conflicting mandate. Freeman has won praise for instituting "Green Power for a Green Los Angeles," which "marries renewable energy sources with energy efficiency measures," balancing power with environmental concerns. Yet "Green Power" is less than two years old and its impact has been trivial. The secret of LAPWD's success is that it still gets 50 percent of its power from coal plants in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona plus 10 percent from the Palo Verde nuclear plant near Phoenix. Another 30 percent comes from natural gas plants around Los Angeles that are mostly 40 to 50 years old. The final 10 percent is from hydro, half of that from the federally-owned Hoover Dam. What happened to co-generation and renewables? "We did not have to enter contracts with qualifying facilities," explains Eric Tharp, director of public affairs. "The PUC set our avoided costs very low so it wasn't economical for independent producers to approach us. They all went over to Southern California Edison." If and when Freeman takes over the new state utility company, he will have his work cut out for him. Governor Davis wants 20,000 megawatts of new generating capacity by the summer of 2004. That's 130 plants the size of the Campbell Soup co-generation station. It's 100 windmill farms the size of the state's largest installation in the Mojave Desert. Or, more realistically, it's 33 gas-fired plants the size of Calpine's proposed 600-megawatt Metcalf Energy Center in San Jose -- which has been stalled for two years by opposition from the City of San Jose and Cisco Systems, its largest employer. At present it takes at least four years to build a new power plant in California -- longest in the nation. Endless regulatory requirements make it easy for environmentalists and NIMBY groups (i.e., local environmentalists) to halt the proceedings at any point. That is why there is serious talk of locating plants in Mexico (which will make things interesting if Mexico ever decides to nationalize the plants). The only problem is lack of transmission lines. How long might it be before someone suggests nuclear power wouldn't be a bad idea? After all, improved technology now has nuclear plants running at 95 percent capacity. They produce no air pollution, no strip mining, no greenhouse gases. The amount of energy in a handful of uranium is equivalent to the amount of energy in a 100-car freight train of coal. Oh well, you've heard it all before. Even as the disaster unfolds, environmentalists continue to predict that the days of centrally generated electricity have passed and we will soon be living off back-yard generators. In the *New Republic,* Greg Easterbrook -- who usually writes sensibly on these things -- concluded an otherwise astute analysis of the California situation by proclaiming: Eventually, the central utility will be replaced by localized or even house-by-house generation. Steadily falling prices in solar cells will probably make home production of electricity practical for Sun Belt states within the next decade or so. Homes, schools, and stores will gradually kiss the grid goodbye, with generating stations serving mainly industry. When blackouts began in October, the legislature's response was to vote more funds for...soft path renewables. Ignoring his own dependence on coal-fired plants, Freeman predicted, "The California crisis may signal the end of the age of big power -- nuclear power plants and dams and coal-burning generators. The future is micro-turbines and fuel cells and clean sources for power." To its credit, the Sierra Club has supported a 600-megawatt gas-fired plant that is being opposed by the City of San Jose and Cisco. (Of course the Sierra Club may not necessarily support drilling for gas, but that's another story.) The Lovins school of distributed energy, however, still claims all this is unnecessary. As time passes, it's getting harder and harder to see why. Twenty years ago, the rest of America took the hard path, getting 51 percent of its energy from coal and 20 percent from nuclear. California gets zero from coal (10 percent with out-of-state plants) and 18 percent from nuclear. California has the "Energy Crisis." The rest of the country does not. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Tucker, a writer in New York, is author of *Progress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism.* This article also appears in the April 2001 issue of The American Spectator. Click here to subscribe now. (Posted 4/26/01) Copyright © 2001 The American Spectator. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Regulators anticipate requests to nuclear license requests By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, 4/26/2001 18:32 BETHESDA, Md. (AP) Operators of at least eight of every 10 nuclear power reactors are expected to seek permission to keep plants running beyond their initial 40-year licenses, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday. Reflecting the resurgence of nuclear power, ''the industry has pursued license renewal in earnest,'' said Richard Meserve told reporters at the agency's headquarters. Meserve, a Democrat who became the commission's chairman 18 months ago, said he expects the Bush administration's energy task force to endorse nuclear power as an essential part of the nation's energy mix. ''Perhaps the most startling recent development is the growing industry interest in the construction of new nuclear plants,'' Meserve said, although he acknowledged that a license application for a new plant may still be some time away. He said he would not be surprised if some of the reactors abandoned in the 1980s for economic reasons were dusted off and reconsidered for completion. The agency would have to complete the licensing approval process in such cases. The commission has approved 20-year license extensions to two utilities, involving five reactors, and has applications for license renewals for 34 additional reactors on file. ''We now expect that between 85 percent and 100 percent of the existing nuclear plants will seek license renewal,'' Meserve said. ''It is even possible that we may receive an application to conclude certain reactor projects that were suspended for economic reasons in the 1980s.'' Meserve declined to speculate how many of these applications will be approved under an expedited review process. The commission has established a goal of completing each license renewal within 24 to 30 months, he said. ''We have to be satisfied that if we allow an extension ... there will not be a reduction in safety,'' he said. ''If they don't meet the criteria, we're going to reject the application.'' Declining budgets and an aging work force of nuclear specialists have concerned some commission officials as the agency prepares for a rush of new business. Meserve said he has some of those concerns and believes ''we need to rebuild our bench strength.'' ''We now have six times as many people over 60 (years of age) as we have under 30 in the building,'' Meserve said. Still, Meserve said he was ''confident that we are up to the task'' of regulating the changing and rejuvenated nuclear industry. He rejected claims by some nuclear critics that the agency's attempt to streamline regulations and industry oversight amounts to less scrutiny and protection. The aim is ''that our regulations do not impose needless barriers'' while assuring that public health and safety are protected, Meserve said. On the Net: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/ ***************************************************************** 13 Rules could ease building of N-plants Boston Globe Online / Business License system OK'd in 1992 could make opposition harder By Ross Kerber, Globe Staff, 4/26/2001 With the nuclear power industry pressing for construction of a new generation of plants, little-known federal rules adopted nearly a decade ago could hamstring communities opposing new reactors in their backyards. The rules, meant to simplify the licensing process, allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve a plant design before a developer designates any particular site. The effect could be to sidestep local protests from safety activists - the sort that cut short the last round of nuclear plant construction in New England and elsewhere in the 1980s. The new licensing process had little impact when it was approved in 1992 because no nuclear plants were being proposed at the time. But it could prove to be a trump card for nuclear utilities today as they campaign for new reactors they say are needed to stem air pollution and end power shortages such as those now plaguing California. The NRC would still need to approve a plant's location, but at that point opponents would have less ground to challenge its technical merit. Once a plant's blueprints have been certified, ''all the issues that could have been litigated are off the table,'' NRC chairman Richard Meserve said in a speech in Cambridge this month. Under the old rules, license challenges helped block construction of a second reactor at the Seabrook Station in New Hampshire and stopped the Shoreham facility on Long Island from operating. Safety activists say the current process short-circuits public involvement. But their objections were overturned by a federal Appeals Court nine years ago. The new process, described in Part 52 of the NRC's operating regulations, may have reduced their leverage significantly. ''If we had this rule [in the 1980s], I guarantee there would be another Seabrook unit now,'' said industry consultant Stephen Maloney of Devonrue Ltd. in Hingham. He recalled that utilities once planned additional reactors at nuclear sites around New England, such as the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth. ''You might see more of those some day.'' The licensing debate shows how times have changed for the NRC, where chairman Meserve is scheduled to discuss the outlook for new plant construction today. Once the agency's proceedings drew little public notice except when safety problems cropped up. In 1999, for instance, Northeast Utilities pleaded guilty to 25 felonies and paid $10 million in penalties for lying to regulators and dumping chemicals near its three-reactor Millstone station in Waterford, Conn. Lately, however, rolling blackouts in California have sparked interest in new generating sources. Rising fossil-fuel prices are also a factor, and the Bush administration has indicated support for the nuclear sector. Meanwhile, the NRC has preapproved three reactor designs from General Electric and Westinghouse with new safety features. As a result, the NRC is positioned to oversee what could be the first commercial-reactor building starts since 1978. Among the expected developers are five large utilities, including Dominion Resources Inc., which recently purchased the Millstone plant, and Pilgrim owner Entergy Corp. David Christian, Dominion's top nuclear officer, said he expects the new reactors to be proposed for existing nuclear sites that are near transmission lines. Dominion owns the North Anna plant in central Virginia, where only two reactors were built on a site originally meant for four. Christian said Dominion isn't moving to put new reactors there yet, but he suggested the new licensing process could simplify such a step. Ron Simard, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, said the current process helps ensure safety by formalizing design issues early. Simard said the new rules ''will just prevent the sort of delays that we've seen in the past, where the construction time was extended for years and years while people raised and re-raised issues. That wasn't fair.'' But safety activists say the new rules would only allow utilities to duck public scrutiny. In the past, they noted, the biggest construction cost overruns often occurred at plants where safety problems were discovered. Investigators found so many issues at the Zimmer plant in Ohio in the 1980s, for instance, that it was ultimately converted to burn coal. Nonetheless, new plant designs ''are being preapproved in a vacuum,'' said Dave Lochbaum, an engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. No new design ''is specifically targeted for anyone's backyard, so it's difficult to get anyone excited or involved in the process,'' he said. ''When they propose building it in your backyard, it's too late.'' Lochbaum and James Riccio, of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen organization, also expressed concern over a proposed rule change that could limit the public's ability to cross-examine utility executives in hearings. Jerry Wilson, senior policy analyst at the NRC and one of the co-authors of Part 52, denies the new rules put any party at a disadvantage. Activists could still file objections after construction of a reactor has begun. ''The main theme in all this is predictability and minimization of financial risk,'' he said. Someday, the current policy may be tested at Seabrook, which its owners, led by Northeast Utilities, have put up for sale. A partially complete containment dome still stands on the site. Executives have mulled tearing down the structure, but those plans are on hold in case the new owner wants to build another reactor after all. ''It doesn't have to be another nuclear facility,'' said spokesman Alan Griffith. ''But we do have the capacity, and we do need the power. It's not as far-fetched as you might think.'' *Ross Kerber can be reached by e-mail at * kerber@globe.com This story ran on page 01 of the Boston Globe on 4/26/2001. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company. [ Send this story to a ***************************************************************** 14 Warren's nasty attack on Greenpeace just won't work Letters - Ottawa Citizen Online 26 April 2001 Jo Dufay The Ottawa Citizen Unfortunately, Citizen columnist David Warren's idea of "fairness" seems to mean excluding and threatening those who disagree with him ("I'm right wing, I believe in fairness," April 24). In his recent column on events in Quebec City, Mr. Warren suggests that politicians hold future free trade discussions on board ships in the South Pacific "where only Greenpeace can get in the way. (And accidents can be arranged)." This is an astonishing threat against a group that has used only non-violent forms of protest since it was founded 30 years ago in Canada. Mr. Warren seems to put himself in the same camp as the French government, which arranged the 1985 bombing of a Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, killing Greenpeace crew member Fernando Pereira. At that time, France was prepared to "arrange an accident" to stifle dissent over nuclear testing. Since that time, not only has France agreed to stop nuclear testing, it was the country that listened to its citizens and pulled the plug on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment -- MAI -- a deal in the same vein as the Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. It seems the French government has learned that you can't stop protests with exclusion and suppression. Current international trade practices -- enhanced by free trade deals -- put our economies and the environment at risk. Rules of international trade should protect the environment and benefit all people in a fairer, more equitable way. What a shame that Mr. Warren sees environmental protection merely as a local issue, and only free trade as truly universal. One of the chief concerns of protesters in Quebec City is that free trade deals prevent environmental protection at both the local and the international level. Greenpeace flew a giant hot-air balloon over Quebec City last Friday to advocate an end to dangerous climate change -- hardly a local issue. I was in that balloon -- fortunately for me and my children, no one arranged an accident. If free trade deals are so terrific, why are negotiations held behind closed doors, inside fortified fences or in sealed countries like Qatar? Mr. Warren may be prepared to advocate the exclusion and suppression of civil society in the interests of getting what he calls his "right-wing fantasy," but the reality is that people expect their governments to listen to them. When governments fail in this most basic of democratic responsibilities, people protest. Whether it is launching a hot- air balloon from right under the Citadel, or onboard a ship in the South Pacific, Greenpeace will continue its non-violent protests to protect our planet, as it has for three decades. You can't sink a rainbow. Jo Dufay, Ottawa, Campaigns director Greenpeace Canada [UP] Copyright © 2001 CanWest Interactive, a CanWest company. All ***************************************************************** 15 Editorial: Cheney's secrecy is bad policy April 27, 2001 Congressional Democrats understandably are frustrated with the needless secrecy that has enveloped Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. Last week two prominent House Democrats -- Henry Waxman of California and John Dingell of Michigan -- both questioned whether the task force is violating the federal government's open meeting law. Whether there was a violation of law is an issue that will be left to lawyers and, if needed, the courts. But the bottom line is that this task force's closed-door meetings, on what are critical national issues, don't instill public confidence. There already have been ominous signs in light of the fact that influential energy companies have met secretly with Cheney while environmentalists and public interest groups have been kept away. It is clear -- as word has leaked out about some of the emerging policies -- that a lopsided energy strategy will be the result, one that will be tilted in favor of energy companies at the expense of the environment. Of particular interest to Nevada is that Cheney and the task force are smitten with the idea of developing more nuclear power. That obviously jolts Nevadans since this state has been targeted by the federal government as a possible repository for the nation's high-level nuclear waste. Significant harm already has been done by excluding the public from Cheney's task force. At the very least the vice president could open up what remaining meetings are left so that the public has a chance to see the federal government at work on vital matters, which will have enormous implications for the nation's economy and the environment. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 16 Jabiluka work a long way off: Wilson news.com.au 27 April 2001 From AAP 10:55 (AEST) THERE is no prospect that the development of the Jabiluka uranium mine will be contemplated in the near future, Rio Tinto chairman Sir Robert Wilson said today. He also said Rio Tinto had no current intention to sell its 68 per cent stake in uranium miner Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA), which has the lease for the Jabiluka mine in the Northern Territory. "As we see it Jabiluka in current market conditions and indeed foreseeable market conditions is economically unattractive to invest in," Sir Robert said. He said there were existing commitments by ERA which effectively meant Jabiluka would not be brought into production as long as the existing Ranger uranium mine was still at full capacity. There were probably at least 8 years or longer of life left in the Ranger mine, also in the NT, he said. "There is no near term prospect of development at Jabiluka even being contemplated." The Australian Daily Telegraph Sunday Telegraph Herald Make news.com.au ***************************************************************** 17 U.K. lawmaker regrets data falsification by nuclear fuel firm AOMORI, Japan April 26 Kyodo - A British lawmaker expressed regret Thursday over data falsification by British Nuclear Fuels PLC (BNFL) on fuel manufactured for shipment to Japan, which surfaced two years ago. Jack Cunningham, a House of Commons member, told an annual conference of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, held in the northeastern Japan city of Aomori, that the incident damaged relations between Britain and Japan. However, Cunningham noted the way in which BNFL deals with data on mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel (MOX) has improved significantly since being advised by British nuclear facility regulators. About 1,400 nuclear experts from Japan and abroad were participating in the three-day conference that began Wednesday. The venue of the conference was to be shifted Thursday afternoon to the village of Rokkasho, some 55 kilometers east of Aomori, where a used nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is being constructed. In September 1999, it came to light that quality-assurance data on a consignment of MOX fuel intended for use in the Takahama No. 3 reactor in Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture had been falsified by workers at BNFL's Sellafield plant in Cumbria, northwest England. Cunningham is elected from Copeland constituency that includes Sellafield. The fuel was waiting to be shipped to Japan at the time of the disclosure. In December the same year, there was more embarrassment for BNFL when it was revealed that data on a consignment already in Takahama -- to be used for the No. 4 reactor -- had also been falsified. The shipment was delivered from Britain in September. 2001 Kyodo News (c) Established 1945. ***************************************************************** 18 Centre’s nod for two more reactors at Kaiga April 27, 2001 DH News Service NEW DELHI, April 26 The Central government has approved setting up of two more nuclear reactors at the Kaiga atomic power station which is expected to generate 2420 million units of power every year. This decision was taken today at a meeting of Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs chaired Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. The two Units will be set up at an estimated cost of Rs 2856 crore. This estimate was reached in March 1999. The third unit will enter commercial operation by October 2008 and the fourth unit by October, 2009. The project is located in Kaiga village in Karwar Taluka, Uttara Kanada district of Karnataka. The Kaiga 3 & 4 units will generate 220 MW each. The estimated Unit Energy Cost at 1999 constant value of Rupee is 436.47 paise per KW hour. The Kaiga site has been evaluated to be suitable for nuclear power generating potential of 2000 MW. Already, Kaiga Units 1 and 2 are in operation and are generating 220 MW power each. The CCEA also approved the Revised Cost Estimate of Moga-Hissar-Bhiwani Transmission System at a completed cost of Rs 150.90 crore. The project consists of 400 KV DC stretched over these three areas with a distance of 224 kilometres and 20 KV DC Hissar line of 13.75 kms. The Transmission System was given approval by the Central Electricity Authority in September 1988 at an estimated cost of Rs 95.16 crore. The revised estimate became necessary because of cost escalation, change in scope of work and inclusion of certain items at the Hissar sub-station. The project has now been completed. The CCEA also accorded approval to the Revised Cost Estimate of Nathpa Jhakri Power Project at a cost estimate of Rs 1561.63 crore. The original estimate was approved by CCEA in April 1989 at an estimated cost of Rs 889.95 crore. The Revised Cost Estimate has become necessary because of changes in price, exchange rate variation and increase in the prices. The project is expected to be completed by May 2001. © Copyright, 1999 The Printers (Mysore)Ltd. ***************************************************************** 19 Plan to hike N-power output 27 April 2001 : The Times of India ANUMALA-SURAT: Plans are afoot to produce around 20,000 MW of nuclear power in the country by year 2020. At present, nuclear power stations in the country generate a little over 1700 MW of electricity which is just over 2.5 per cent share of the total electricity generation in the country, according to R Bhiksham, station director of Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS) at Anumala in Surat. The need is to generate power through nuclear reactors in wake of the growing demand of power in the country and conventional methods to produce electricity being obsolete and costlier as well, Bhiksham opined. Listing the achievements of KAPS to the media at Anumala on Monday, Bhiksham said KAPS had set a new record in power generation with a capacity factor of over 95 per cent during year 2000-2001, among all power station units in the country, under the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL). KAPS, the fifth nuclear power station of NPCIL, registered a net profit of over Rs 317 crore in the last fiscal year. Each of the two units at KAPS have a capacity to generate 220 MW of electricity which caters to Maharashtra, Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, besides Gujarat. KAPS has been built at a total cost of Rs 13.65 billion. The units went into commercial operation in 1993 and 1995 respectively. Around 250 kgs of uranium is used everyday to produce 440 MW of electricity in these two units at KAPS. Bhiksham said after the Pokhran test, the nuclear power stations had to face some constraints, in wake of withdrawal of technological support by international agencies. However, efforts at indigenous level have helped the power stations to overcome the earlier shortfalls, he added. Now, nuclear reactors were being designed and constructed indigenously with sophisticated equipment, at par with international standards. KAPS was recently awarded ISO-14001 certification for environment management and the Indo-German Greentech Environment Excellence award in year 2000. In view of the power generation being cheaper through nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, compared to other means of generation, the need is for capacity expansion of the atomic power stations, he said. Four hundred and thirty-three nuclear power reactors are presently operational in the world and 40 reactors are under construction. Considering the other fact that nuclear power production was environmentally friendly, the power from nuclear stations would be the only viable option in the future, Bhiksham said. Nine lakh trees have been planted in and around the KAPS, to make the area a green belt, he said. When confronted, station director said that in view of the general misperception about nuclear power installations being only for the purpose of national defence and security, the need is to project the right purpose of these atomic power stations, which are like any other power generation units. To contain the radiation level in and around the nuclear station, Environmental Survey Laboratory (ESL) head T A Sebastian said that the radiation level in the area over the years has been negligible and far below the prescribed level by the international agencies. However, the power station has been fully geared with emergency preparedness with radiation emergency plan, he added. ***************************************************************** 20 Germany To Cut Nuke Waste Transports April 27, 2001 FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) - Germany said Friday that it will cut the number of nuclear waste shipments to try to reduce protests, but anti-nuclear groups denounced the decision. Environment Minister Juergen Trittin said that, starting next year, trains will haul the waste to the Gorleben dump in northern Germany only once a year. Gorleben is Germany's main storage site for the reprocessed waste. The amount of nuclear waste shipped will be doubled to 12 containers per train, Trittin said on ARD television. "Such a decision does not defuse the situation, it escalates the conflict," said Wolfgang Ehmke, a spokesman for area residents who have fought the dump for two decades. A Greenpeace spokesman accused the government of simply wanting to make transports cheaper. "It will be the largest transport ever, with 12 containers, so there is a bigger danger of pollution because more radiation is being transported," Veit Buerger said. Germany sends spent nuclear fuel from 19 power plants abroad for reprocessing under contracts that oblige the country to take back the resulting waste for storage. Germany's anti-nuclear lobby staged huge demonstrations last month when a shipment of German waste was taken to Gorleben from a French reprocessing plant. Protesters, some of whom chained themselves to rail tracks, delayed that shipment by 18 hours and promised to disrupt future shipments as well. Dozens were injured in scuffles. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 Austrian Hands Over Diplomatic Note on Temelin Nuclear Power Plant to Prague Czech Today on Central Europe Online - Czech Today - Apr 26, 2001 -- () Text of report by Michael Lohmeyer headlined: "Temelin: Diplomatic note to Prague; standstill in nuclear power plant check" from Austrian newspaper Die Presse on 21 April; subheading as published: Vienna: The environmental compatibility check (UVP) of the Czech nuclear power plant in Temelin near Ceske Budejovice is standing still, because Austria handed a diplomatic note to Prague on Friday [20 April]. In it Austria not only requests a list of missing documents but also emphatically demands at least an English translation of the report. In detail: Austria wants "a specific description of the situation of energy management and emission", in particular topical data. For the Austrian Environment Ministry, which is responsible for conducting this joint UVP, it is important to get access to the profitability studies. The documents recently sent to Austria are more than cursory in this respect. Item I/5 deals with the total costs of the nuclear power plants and the text is brief: "98.6 Czech korunas", nothing more. Of course, it means 98.6 billion Czech korunas; detailed calculations are missing as well as the substantiated assessment of the conditions under which the plant would be profitable. NO GUIDELINES The second issue the diplomatic note focuses on is serious accidents. The documentation is "insufficient and incomplete since it does not permit estimating the potential danger to Austrian territory". Among other things, Austria demands "investigations as to the potential effects of serious accidents", as well as "information about the radioactive inventory of the reactor" and the "extensive description of the condition of the containment". For the time being, there has been no reaction by the CEZ energy corporation or the Czech Foreign Ministry. From the Austrian viewpoint, the 30-day period within which the UVP documents must be available has thus not yet started. In this connection, Austria also wants access to the SAMG (Severe Accident Management Guidelines) - guidelines for the staff as to which measures they must take in the case of a severe accident. So far, this access has been blocked because "they contain company secrets", it was said. Spokesman Pavel Pittermann of the Czech State Authority for Nuclear Safety, SUJB, says: "In Temelin there is at least one copy of these documents. However, handing them over is the operator's business". In the United States such SAMG are published on the Internet. If necessary, data related to a specific power plant is blackened, but the guidelines are published, nevertheless. Source: Die Presse, Vienna, in German 21 Apr 01 p 15 (C) 2001 News Headlines Top Stories Business News + Polish ***************************************************************** 22 Anti-Temelin Activists to Hold Major Protest on Friday Central Europe Online - Radio Prague - PRAGUE, Apr 26, 2001 -- (Radio Prague) A spokesman for Austria's anti-nuclear committee has said a major demonstration is being planned for this Friday at the Wullowitz border crossing between Austria and the Czech Republic. The demonstration will commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, but will also highlight problems involving Temelin. Politicians and well-known personalities from the arts world are expected to address the rally and the organizers say that they cannot rule out "spontaneous blockades" of the border. A series of border blockades over Temelin earlier this year led to strained relations between Prague and Vienna, with the Czech side claiming the Austrian authorities were not doing enough to stop them. (C) 2001 Radio Prague. News > World Friday, April 27, 2001 UNITED NATIONS (AP)--Fifteen years after the world's worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl, scientists are using the site to develop new technologies to prevent leakage of radioactive dust and particles. Speaking at the United Nations on Thursday--the anniversary of the reactor meltdown at the Chernobyl plant--Artur Korneyev, deputy head of the Chernobyl project, said a special material called EKOR developed to coat the sarcophagus in a destroyed reactor could in the future be used to prevent hazardous waste leakage worldwide. "EKOR offers a solution to the myriad of problems associated with nuclear waste handling, disposal and storage,'' Korneyev said. The April 26, 1986 explosion and fire sent a radioactive cloud over much of Europe and contaminated large areas of then-Soviet Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. More than a decade after the accident, 7 million people in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are estimated to be suffering physical or psychological effects of radiation. About 3 million children require immediate medical treatment--more than 11,000 for thyroid cancer. Continued leakage of radioactive waste from the Chernobyl reactor is linked to many of the health problems. EKOR, which was developed by scientists at the EuroAsian Physical Society and tested at Kurchatov Research Institute in Moscow, has so far proven effective in stopping leakage. Since last March, when the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl was coated, the material--which thickens after application and hermetically seals in waste for up to 400 years--has been the most successful protectant so far, according to Korneyev. Korneyev was one of several experts on the Chernobyl accident who gathered Thursday at the United Nations to commemorate the anniversary of the disaster. In a symbolic gesture earlier in the day, the undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Kenzo Oshima--himself a survivor of Hiroshima--rang the peace bell in memory of the Chernobyl victims. The bell was a gift to the United Nations from Japan. "This accident at Chernobyl is much more than the worst technological disaster in the history of nuclear power generation, it is also a grave and continuing humanitarian tragedy,'' said Oshima. Copyright (2001) The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. © 1995-2001 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No ***************************************************************** 34 Chernobyl Victims Need Financial Help Environment News Service: NEW YORK, New York, April 26, 2001 (ENS) - United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on the international community to "do far more" to help those still living with the after effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, which happened 15 years ago today. About 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident are among those effects. So too is the psychological trauma felt by millions of people who lived near Chernobyl who have been relocated, lost social ties and fear radiation. [Chernobyl] The remains of Chernobyl's fourth reactor. (Photo courtesy ) Farming communities in Belarus and Ukraine continue to suffer heavily from radioactive contamination. While much has been learned about the cause of the two devastating explosions that ripped through the Soviet built RBMK reactor April 26, 1986, the full humanitarian impact of the disaster is not yet known, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). At a joint press conference at UN headquarters in New York, OCHA chief Kenzo Oshima said it could be years before the many medical manifestations appear from the accident, which released 50 million units of radiation, contaminating an area of more than 160,000 square kilometers. Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine should not be the only ones shouldering the financial burden of helping their populations, said Oshima, who is also UN Coordinator for International Cooperation on Chernobyl. The UN Secretary General agreed. "The legacy of Chernobyl will be with us, and with our descendants, for generations to come," said Annan. [Annan] UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. (Photo courtesy United Nations) "I appeal to member states, non-governmental organizations and private individuals, to join with me in a pledge never to forget Chernobyl. "Together, we must extend a helping hand to our fellow human beings, and show that we are not indifferent to their plight." Annan and Oshima were joined at the press conference by UN ambassadors from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Each emphasized the need for financial assistance in humanitarian efforts. Much of the international aid has gone to the monumental task of decommissioning the four reactors at Chernobyl, which is 113 kilometers (70 miles) north of the Ukrainian capital Kiev. Decommissioning is the final phase in the lifecycle of a nuclear installation, covering all activities from shutdown and removal of fissile material to environmental restoration of the site. Technical operations include decontamination, dismantling and waste management. In November 1986, a so-called sarcophagus was built to contain the remains of the devastated fourth reactor core and bring the release of radioactive material under control. The sarcophagus is thought to contain about 200 tonnes of irradiated and fresh nuclear fuel, mixed with other materials in various forms, mainly as dust. Under a deal between the Ukraine and the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations, the sarcophagus will be replaced by a safer, more permanent structure. [Pripyat] More than 100,000 people were evacuated from the area surrounding Chernobyl, including the city of Pripyat. (Photo courtesy ) In return for loans from the G7 to do this, the Ukraine agreed to shut down Chernobyl's last working reactor, reactor three, last December for safety reasons. Reactor two was shut after a fire in 1991 and reactor one passed its expiration date in 1996. Reactor three had been producing five percent of Ukraine's electricity until last December. The financial deal included the completion of the half built nuclear reactors Khmelnitsky 2 and Rovno 4, known as "K2R4", as part of a package of energy options for replacing the power from Chernobyl. Last December, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) approved a loan of US$215 million for the completion of the K2R4 reactors. The European Commission agreed to an additional loan of US$585 million. A statement issued by the Ukrainian government Wednesday praised the efforts of the G7 and European Commission, but said the "slow pace" of action on the ground remained "a significant concern." The statement, issued to mark the 15th anniversary of the accident, also spoke of the human cost. "The Ukrainian nation continues to pay a dear price for the accident that is today measured in not only lives lost and the health of its people, but in terms of the huge material and financial resources lost," it said. "In Ukraine alone, more than 3.5 million people have been affected by that catastrophe, while over 160,000 people have been resettled from the disaster stricken area and almost 10 percent of the nation’s territory has been contaminated by radioactive fallout. "There remains an acute need to address the ongoing social ramifications of the Chernobyl disaster and the station’s subsequent closure. "Improving the health conditions of the station personnel and the residents of the town of Slavutych remains a high priority. While creating new employment for the more than 5,000 people who are expected to lose their jobs in the next few years as result of the station closure must soon be addressed." To deal with the aftermath of the disaster, the UN set up a 19 member Inter-Agency Task Force on Chernobyl, which, together with non-governmental organizations, provides health care to people affected by radiation. The task force helps with psychosocial rehabilitation, job creation for resettled families, the study of radiation's environmental impact, waste disposal and decontamination, as well as technical support for improved nuclear safety. [reactor] Chernobyl's fourth reactor is covered by a sarcophagus. (Photo courtesy IAEA) Another UN agency, the Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reported last year that there have been about 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident. The agency added that if the trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. "Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident," said UNSCEAR's report to the UN General Assembly last June. "There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers. "Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident." Thirty-one people, mostly firemen, were killed immediately after the Chernobyl explosion. Over the following four months, about 116,000 people were evacuated from the region to avoid continued radiation exposure. The radionuclide composition of the material released in the accident was complex. The radioactive isotopes of iodine and caesium were of the greatest radiological significance. Iodines, with their short radioactive half lives, had the greater radiological impact in the short term, but the caesiums, with half lives of the order of tens of years, have the greater radiological impact in the long term. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), material released from Chernobyl to the atmosphere and eventually deposited onto the surface of the earth was measurable over practically the entire northern hemisphere. [El Baradei] IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei. (Photo courtesy IAEA) IAEA director general Mohamed El Baradei said today that the Chernobyl disaster "was a tragic but important turning point for the IAEA." "It prompted us to focus unprecedented energies and resources to assist the affected people and help ensure that such a serious accident would never happen again," he added in a news conference at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Those energies and resources include novel initiatives, such as the "Prussian Blue Project," administered by the IAEA and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to reduce caesium contamination in milk and meat. The IAEA is providing assistance in treating thyroid cancer in Ukraine by supplying the radioactive iodine used to treat patients. In another project with the FAO, the IAEA is helping to restore agricultural land by producing rapeseed on 50,000 hectares (123,552 acres) of contaminated land in Belarus. The seed takes up and stores radionuclides from the soil in its stalks and seed coat, but not in the seed. This seed can then be used for economically viable products such as biolubricants, cooking oils or high protein cattle feed. Free ENS Daily News Feed by Email ***************************************************************** 35 10,000 gather to mourn Chernobyl victims theage.com.au, Breaking News Source: AP|Published: Friday April 27, 11:33 AM KIEV, Ukraine - With prayers and flickering candles, people across the former Soviet Union honoured those killed and made ill 15 years ago by the world's worst nuclear disaster at Ukraine's Chernobyl power plant. In Moscow, hundreds of people mourned firefighters who died after the radioactive explosion and were buried in radiation-proof coffins. In Kiev, hundreds more people attended an overnight memorial service at a chapel built to commemorate the disaster. The scene was repeated in the Belarusian capital and in Slavutych, a town of Chernobyl workers near the plant. In Rome, Pope John Paul II prayed for the victims. The pope is scheduled to visit Ukraine in June. The April 26, 1986, explosion and fire sent a radioactive cloud over much of Europe and contaminated large areas in then-Soviet Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The Ukrainian government says more than 4,000 people involved in the hastily and poorly organised Soviet clean-up effort have died, and that more than 70,000 Ukrainians were disabled by the disaster. In all, seven million people in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are estimated to suffer physical or psychological effects of radiation related to the Chernobyl catastrophe. At the chapel in Kiev, mourners held burning candles as priests prayed for the dead. The chapel bell rang shortly after 1am, the time the reactor exploded. Some in the crowd broke into tears. Early yesterday, Ukrainian leaders laid wreaths at a monument to firefighters and emergency workers next to the chapel. A similar service was held in Slavutych, where President Leonid Kuchma said the disaster continues to hobble Ukraine's development. "Human calamities and problems born by the disaster remain," Kuchma said. "For 15 years, Ukraine has borne the cross of Chernobyl practically alone. We had to do everything on our own in unfavourable economic conditions." In Belarus, some 10,000 people turned out for an evening rally in the capital, Minsk, to commemorate the tragedy. "We are a sick nation and we must do everything to become a normal nation," opposition politician Pavel Severinets said. In the Vatican, the pope prayed for the Chernobyl victims at a service attended by Ukrainian children. At Moscow's Mitino cemetery, hundreds of relatives and friends paid tribute to dead firefighters. "We have come here for 15 years and I will come with my husband as long as we have our health," said Valentyna Lopatiuk, whose son was a Chernobyl firefighter. Following the explosion, other reactors at Chernobyl continued operating until shutting down in December under intense international pressure. At the plant itself, workers still monitor the now-idle reactors, and they are building a heating plant and facilities for nuclear waste disposal and reprocessing. They are also involved in a $758 million internationally funded project to repair the leaky concrete and steel sarcophagus over the ruined reactor. Copyright © 2001 The Age Company Ltd. Any unauthorised use, ***************************************************************** 36 The Age: Recalling the dark day of Chernobyl KIEV Friday 27 April 2001 Ukrainians were commemorating perhaps the darkest day in their history yesterday, the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Religious services were scheduled at 1.23am in Kiev and Slavutitch, the small town that was home to the power plant employees and their families, to coincide with the time that reactor No.4 exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing a cloud of radioactive matter across much of Europe and claiming up to 30,000 lives. The two explosions in the reactor shattered the world's complacency over nuclear power and set off a 10-day meltdown that threatened an ecological catastrophe. The explosion, which released radiation into the atmosphere equivalent to 500 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, remains the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster. The nuclear fallout has been blamed for a subsequent rise in the incidence of cancer and other diseases throughout Europe. The blast had political fallout too, coming little more than a year after Mikhail Gorbachev had moved into the Kremlin and contributing to his decision to launch the twin programs of perestroika and glasnost, setting in train a process that led ultimately to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Chernobyl was seen at the time as one of the proudest achievements of the Soviet nuclear industry, launched during the 1970s as part of an ambitious program of power production. It had been intended to build six reactors, but the fifth and sixth, which had gone into construction in 1981, were rapidly discontinued. Kiev closed Chernobyl's last operating reactor last December with the aid of $US2.3 billion ($A4.6 billion) from the international community. However, the notorious power plant remains a threat. Experts have warned that the crippled site will remain a radioactive time bomb for decades, with 160 tonnes of radioactive material locked inside a hastily erected stone casing that is already crumbling. - AFP ***************************************************************** 37 EUROPEAN UNION EXAMINES LIFE TIME EXTENSION FOR CHERNOBYL TYPE REACTORS GREENPEACE: 26 April 2001 Brussels - The European Commission is considering working with Russia to extend the life of Chernobyl-type nuclear reactors across Europe in a complete reversal of the previous EU policy of phasing out such reactors as soon as possible, according to confidential documents released by Greenpeace today. The minutes of a EU Russian expert energy group, contained in an April 4 letter from General Director of Transport and Energy, Francois Lamoureux, proposes in the nuclear energy sector : "… international co-operation promoting the rehabilitation of first generation units and the development of fast breeder reactors with radiation-equivalent waste disposal, as well as technical support for non-proliferation." Russia has currently 15 "first generation" reactors operable: 11 RBMK or "Chernobyl type" reactors at St Petersburg, Smolensk and Kursk as well as 4 VVER 440/230 reactors at Novovoronezh and Kola. So far it has been consensus among all EU and G7 countries, that these reactors have inherent deficiencies and must therefore be considered as "non-upgradeable" or "high-risk reactors". "The EU's latest plans mean a slap into the face of the thousands of victims of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe," said Tobias Muenchmeyer, nuclear expert of Greenpeace International. (April 26, is the 15th anniversary of the Chenrobyl nuclear disaster) "These considerations represent a 180 degrees turn from the earlier EU position to phase-out first generation reactors as soon as possible and would clearly undermine all EU efforts for an early closure for the first generation reactors at Ignalina (Lithuania), Kosloduy (Bulgaria) and Bohunice (Slovakia)." The oldest two RBMK reactors near St. Petersburg have been in operation since 1974 and 1976 and are due to close in 2001 and 2002. A "rehabilitation" of these extremely dangerous units with EU support would lead to an extension of their lifetime - and increase the risk of a serious nuclear accident. Since 1991 no new nuclear reactor has been ordered in any EU country and seven of the EU's 15 member states are non-nuclear while another 4 (Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands) are in a process of phasing-out nuclear power. Currently the European Commission is also considering increasing the ceiling for Euratom loans for Eastern European nuclear projects by another EUR 2 billion. Also the EUR 1.23 billion worth Euratom R budget as well as the budgets for the Euratom Supply Agency and for the Euratom Safeguards Directorate are massive. "The considerations on extending Chernobyl type reactors comes at a time when the cash-strapped European nuclear industry is trying to squeeze out billions from the EU budget from all possible sides by referring to the most anachronistic Euratom treaty. The Euratom treaty is from another age and needs to be abandoned immediately," said Muenchmeyer. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: - Tobias Muenchmeyer, Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaigner, +49 30 440 58 960 or Jon Walter +31 653504731 ***************************************************************** 38 Chernobyl Couldn't Happen Again, Says Russian Official Russia Today - MOSCOW, Apr 26, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) Russia's remaining RBMK reactors of the kind that exploded at Chernobyl 15 years ago have automatic cutout devices that rule out the chance of such a disaster happening again, a leading nuclear power official said Thursday. "We see the security issue as primordial," said Andrei Polous of Rosenergoatom, the agency that runs Russia's nuclear power installations. On all 11 reactors, power will be cut off automatically as soon as any one of thousands of control parameters deviates from the norm, he told the ITAR-TASS news agency. "Our security requirements are so stringent that sometimes it becomes ridiculous," he said, citing the example of a shutdown ordered when a bulb on an indicator panel blew out. Polous said the RBMK reactors were soon to be made even more secure with the introduction of graphite rods capable of halting the chain reaction within the reactor. On Tuesday an official with the environmental protection group Green Cross, Vladimir Kuznetsov, had warned that the security level of the RBMK reactors was insufficient. Three nuclear power stations using reactors of this kind were put into service in Russia between 1974 and 1989, one at Smolensk, in western Russia -- three reactors -- one at Kursk, also in western Russia -- four reactors -- and one at Leningrad in northern Russia -- now Saint Petersburg, four reactors. Chernobyl's fourth reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, spewing radioactive material across much of Europe. Its last operational reactor was closed down last December 15. *((c) 2001 Agence France Presse)* As our modern ancestors acquired smaller builds and new social and language skills, they migrated across Africa and in all other directions. They peacefully supplanted their archaic counterparts in Europe and then entered the Americas about 12 000 years ago. All this took very little time, in evolutionary terms, which helps explain why humans are far more homogeneous in their essential genetic make-up than most other creatures. Among man's most tragic follies has been his persistent and willful restriction of access to social status, economic opportunity, education and political power according to so trivial a criterion as race or some other equally meaningless physical difference. Adaptations to climate, which was in no way linked to intelligence or other abilities, geneticists now agree, are responsible for the slight DNA differences that affect skin colour. Science at last has confirmed what most theologians and democrats have long believed: all people are created equal. At issue is how to provide equal opportunities and protection for everyone to realise his or her full potential. Not only do people in all racial and ethnic groups have essentially the same set of genes, we now know all groups also share all the major variants of those genes. This does not really matter in the case of a simple trait such as skin colour but has profound implications for the development of complex attributes such as intelligence or our ability to defend against disease. Differences in rates of infections among racial groups are not, for the most part, the result of any inherent or genetic differences, but of access to medical care, a basic education and information, an adequate diet, or the degree of mental stress so often a function of economic inequity and social discrimination. Understanding the complexities of individual genetic variations and how to target medical interventions to prevent or treat disease will benefit all groups. Makgoba's challenge to the Wits graduates was to see South Africa as one of the world's most important scientific and social laboratories in the global revolution in human biology. Not surprisingly, he chose as his main example HIV/Aids. To inform our understanding of how to attack the HI virus at the molecular level and in ways that can be tailored to individual genetic composition, Makgoba noted that South Africa is home to the Khoi and San people, who have the oldest set of genes among mankind today. By studying them, as units at the universities of the Witwatersrand, Western Cape and Cape Town are now doing, South African scientists can take advantage of the genomic and bio-information revolution and make their own major and novel contributions. This could contribute to the development of vaccines for HIV, tuberculosis (TB), malaria, and more generally help unlock other genetic secrets for developing human capacity. In unusually frank language for a graduation ceremony, Makgoba issued a familiar but shocking litany of what the Aids crisis will do to our families, friends and nation unless the virus is not contained and defeated. He compared our plight to the plague, or black death, that preceded the European renaissance, reaching Europe in 1347 and England a year later, where it reportedly killed half the people. Such catastrophes are not, he argued, inevitable. Both Thailand and South Africa had an HIV prevalence rate of 0,7% in 1990, while today Thailand is at 2% and South Africa at 22%. South Africa is now at the leading edge of HIV vaccine development and TB drug innovations. The MRC will invest R75-million more in the next three years to deploy 370 scientists locally and internationally in the search for an HIV vaccine. South Africa already has nine candidate vaccines, six from our own scientists. Trials will begin shortly. The MRC is also headquarters for a 10-year, R4-billion effort to develop better treatment for TB. For young South African scientists the opportunities to contribute to the well-being of people here and throughout the world is enormous. Realising the benefits from scientific discoveries for treating HIV/Aids will be meaningless without changes in national policies and personal behaviour. Science, politics and ethics now converge in justifying affirmative action in public health, education and other aspects of capacity building to help historically disadvantaged people better defend themselves against such deadly viruses as HIV/Aids. Equally important, everyone at all levels of society must face and speak the truth about such deeply personal issues of whether, how, and with whom to have sex, for that is the frontline of HIV/Aids prevention. For the poor and vulnerable, especially girls and women, talk of choice can be cruelly meaningless. It therefore falls to the rest of us to vindicate Makgoba's belief that South Africa will make major contributions to global understanding of genetic diversity, its relationship to behaviour and health, and halt the spread of deadly diseases that are aggravated by deprivation, most crucially HIV/Aids. *John Stremlau heads the international relations department at the University of the Witwatersrand* *-- The Mail&Guardian, April 26, 2001.* ***************************************************************** 41 Citizen Groups Denounce Proposal for Nuclear Waste *April 25, 2001* Transport Through Georgia * Radioactive Roads and Rails Campaign Arrives in Atlanta Marking 15th Anniversary of Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster * ATLANTA – A proposal to transport nuclear waste through Georgia to Nevada for permanent storage could place Atlanta at risk to experience serious threats to public health, the environment and the economy in the event of a crash or a radiation leak, citizen groups said today. On the eve of Chernobyl Day, environmental and public interest groups, concerned citizens and elected officials held a news conference today in downtown Atlanta to call attention to the dangers associated with transporting high-level radioactive waste through Georgia. A public workshop on the topic of high-level waste transportation will be held from 7-9 p.m. Thursday at Southface (241 Pine Street, Atlanta). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing to recommend Yucca Mountain, located near Las Vegas, Nev., as a permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste generated by atomic weapons facilities and commercial nuclear reactors across the country. An analysis prepared by the Clark County Comprehensive Planning Division in Nevada found that the waste would have to travel through 734 counties with a total population of 138 million people. "If Congress gives in to the pressures of the nuclear power industry for a dump at Yucca Mountain, it will initiate the largest nuclear transportation plan in history," said State Rep. Nan Grogan Orrock, who chairs the House Intra-Governmental Coordination Committee. Against the backdrop of a full-sized inflatable model of a nuclear waste transport cask, participants at today’s news conference commemorated the fifteenth anniversary of the catastrophic explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant -- the world's worst commercial nuclear disaster -- and raised concerns about the safety of proposed radioactive waste transportation schemes. "Given the inherent dangers of transporting high-level radioactive waste and the regulatory deficiencies in DOE's current proposal, even the government’s own reports predict accidents with these Yucca Mountain shipments," said Ed Arnold, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility/Atlanta. Lisa Gue, policy analyst for Public Citizen, explained that the transport casks never have been subjected to full-scale physical testing. A 1987 study sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission relied on computer modeling to predict how the casks would perform in the event of an accident. DOE risk analysis data indicate that between 70 and 310 accidents could be expected involving waste shipments to Nevada. "It’s unclear whether hospitals, police and rescue personnel would have the capacity to effectively respond to radiological emergencies in our community," said Arnold. DOE has refused to specify which routes would be used to ship waste. However, potential routes evaluated in a draft Environmental Impact Statement include I-75, I-16, I-20 and I-85 through Georgia, as well as rail lines. Evidence suggests that property values are likely to drop along nuclear waste transportation routes due to public perception of danger. "Nuclear waste transportation is not the only risk associated with the proposal to build a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain," added Susi Snyder of Nevada's Shundahai Network. "Yucca Mountain is riddled with earthquake faults, is full of water and is completely unsuitable for a repository." Yucca Mountain is sacred land claimed by the Western Shoshone Nation under the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. The Western Shoshone oppose the Yucca Mountain repository proposal, Snyder explained. Further, scientists in Nevada have pointed to the danger of groundwater contamination if waste stored at Yucca Mountain were to leak. Also, Nevada ranks third in the country for seismic activity, and if an earthquake occurs, the storage canisters themselves could break open. "The proposal to build a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain does not address the nuclear waste problem," said Gue. "It merely transfers the risk to the state of Nevada and to communities like Atlanta, which are unlucky enough to be located along transportation routes targeted for the large-scale shipment of nuclear waste." Today's press conference followed the annual meeting of General Electric, a major nuclear supplier. Participants applauded a shareholder resolution that would direct the company to assess the feasibility of GE's phased withdrawal from nuclear activities. A statement from GE Stockholders' Alliance was read on behalf of Patricia Birnie, who introduced the nuclear phase-out resolution. "The best way to solve the nuclear waste problem is to stop generating it," concluded Glenn Carrol, of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE). The event was held as part of the Radioactive Roads and Rails Campaign, a national project of Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), sponsored in Georgia by GANE, the Physicians for Social Responsibility/Atlanta, and Women’s Action for New Directions/Atlanta. Return to Public Citizen Home Page ***************************************************************** 42 WIPP Truck Carried Mock Cargo Tania Soussan Friday, April 27, 2001 Albuquerque Journal--> By Tania Soussan *Journal Staff Writer* Drivers who saw a WIPP truck go through the Big I on Thursday morning don't need to worry about radioactive waste traveling on Albuquerque highways, federal officials said. The truck was hauling a "road show" trailer outfitted with mock TRUPACT waste containers — not the real containers that carry nuclear waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad for permanent disposal. The U.S. Department of Energy truck will be used at an emergency-response training session at Kirtland Air Force Base this week, said DOE spokesman Gregory Sahd. "Those things go all over the country for meetings, conferences, training and that kind of thing," he said. The training this week is for members of the Radiation Assistance Program, a network of teams around the country that can respond to any emergency involving radioactive materials. Unlike the TRUPACT containers that carry nuclear waste, the training unit containers are painted silver and do not carry the rectangular transportation placards that are required on real waste shipments. In addition, one of the road show TRUPACTs has a window cut in it so people can peek inside to see waste drums and the kinds of materials that are taken to WIPP. Although trucks hauling real radioactive waste to WIPP must stick to a designated route, they can go off course by mistake. Last November, a truck missed a turn in Santa Fe and illegally headed down Interstate 25 toward Albuquerque before being turned around by State Police. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 43 Group says radiation levels high in baby teeth - Asbury Park Press April 27, 2001 Published in the Asbury Park Press 4/27/01 By KIRK MOORE and JEAN MIKLE STAFF WRITERS Researchers looking for elevated levels of radioactive strontium 90 in children's teeth yesterday said they've found the traces are as high now as they were during the height of nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s. At a news conference and meeting held on the 15th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, Joseph J. Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project said his group's Tooth Fairy Project has so far tested baby teeth from 106 people in Ocean County, where the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant operates in Lacey. Testing shows strontium 90 levels in those teeth similar to those found during the era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, when worldwide fallout introduced increases of the cancer-causing radioactive isotope to humans through vegetation and dairy products, Mangano said. "We're finding the levels of strontium 90 in teeth are similar to what they were in the late 1950s," Mangano said. In Ocean County, the highest average strontium levels were found in teeth submitted from 18 individuals in Brick, Mangano said. Strontium 90 is a health concern because it follows pathways in the body similar to calcium, and concentrates with calcium in bones and teeth -- which is why children's first teeth are useful as a marker of environmental exposure to the isotope, Mangano said. "Strontium 90 comes only from nuclear bomb explosions and reactors," Mangano said. Since atmospheric testing was outlawed in 1963, "there's got to be a source for this and it's got to be nuclear reactors," he said. Oyster Creek owner Amergen is "constantly monitoring the environment around the plant," company spokesman Ralph DeSantis said. Plant emissions "are well within federal and state standards," he said. "We're really concerned about the childhood cancer crisis in Toms River. There doesn't seem to be any answers," said Edith Gbur, co-chair of the activist group Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch. Average strontium 90 levels in New Jersey baby teeth are 1.55 picocuries per gram of calcium, with Ocean County teeth averaging 1.39 picocuries. The Brick teeth averaged 2.19 picocuries, while teeth from Lacey around the plant averaged 0.94 picocuries, according to Mangano's report. By comparison, teeth testing during the height of atmospheric nuclear testing showed an average 1.57 picocuries in teeth sampled around St. Louis, Mo. during 1956, the report notes. The assumed baseline for those Cold War studies was 0.20 picocuries, based on baby teeth from the years 1949 and 1950 when the arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union was just starting. Mangano speculated that the strontium 90 levels measured in Brick teeth were higher than those measured in Lacey, where the nuclear plant is located, because prevailing southerly winds carried plant emissions to the north. However, the interim report released yesterday contained no detailed wind data. Mangano said he thinks the teeth analysis for Ocean County will show common patterns between strontium 90 and childhood cancer incidence. The group's work has meet with skepticism -- not just from the nuclear industry and other scientists, but from local cancer activists, too. Linda L. Gillick, who chairs the Citizens Action Committee on Childhood Cancer Cluster, said she has repeatedly asked leaders of the Radiation and Public Health Project for a formal protocol detailing the methods of their radiation study, as well as a comparison with radiation levels in areas without nuclear plants. "You need to check in areas that also do not have nuclear plants to see if they also have higher amounts from stuff that has been released into the environment for years," said Gillick, who is also executive director of Ocean of Love, a support group for families of children with cancer. Gillick said she was not discounting radiation as a possible factor in childhood cancer cases, but she needs to see scientific research establishing the connection. "I need to see numbers," she said. "I need to see a formal protocol that I have asked for repeatedly. It needs to be done in a scientific way that cannot be pulled apart." Research by the Radiation and Public Health Project and its founder, Jay M. Gould, has been focused on areas with nuclear power plants, and where state cancer registries are maintained to track higher-than-average cancer rates. Their findings have been challenged by the nuclear industry and other scientists, who say Gould's thesis -- that low-level exposure to radioactive power plant emissions cause cancer and birth defects -- is not consistent with observed emission levels from reactors. Critics also say the tooth project is not following rules for epidemiological studies. "According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, almost all strontium 90 in the biosphere is from nuclear weapons testing many years ago, and the Chernobyl accident in 1986. The contribution from nuclear power plants is miniscule," said Amy Collings, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. In 1990 a National Institutes of Health study found no evidence of excess cancers from radiation among any age groups under 40 living near 62 nuclear power plants, including Oyster Creek, and the DEP's Bureau of Radia-tion Protection experts question methodology used by the tooth researchers, Collings said. "One problem with the Tooth Fairy study is it doesn't include any control groups," populations living away from nuclear plants, Collings said. Mangano, trained as a public health epidemiologist, has been with the Radiation and Public Health Project since 1989 and is its national coordinator. He said the group's work, including his published studies, will stand up to scientific scrutiny. Last year, Mangano said the researchers published three papers in peer-reviewed journals, meaning other scientists examined the findings for credibility before they were published. Two papers discussed linkages the group saw between strontium 90 and childhood illnesses, and the third linked "improvements in local health" to nuclear power plant shutdowns. The papers were published in the fall 2000 issues of Archives of Environmental Health, the European Journal of Oncology and the International Journal of Health Services. "That's our answer to the charge that what we're doing is 'junk science,' " Mangano said. The tooth project dates back to 1996 and has roots in worries about elevated levels of breast on other cancers on Long Island. But the notion of using baby teeth as radiation markers has a much longer history -- back to the 1950s, when St. Louis social activists and scientist Barry Commoner began asking families to contribute baby teeth to survey the results of weapons fallout. Their findings built public pressure for the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963. But government support for strontium 90 monitoring evaporated after 1970, Mangano said. For information about donating teeth to the Tooth Fairy Project, call (800) 582-3716. Copyright 1997-2001 INJersey. ***************************************************************** 44 UN: Message from General Assembly President on anniversary of Chernobyl nuclear disaster [M2 Communications Ltd.] Story Filed: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:42 AM EST Apr 27, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Following is the text of a message from the President of the General Assembly, Harri Holkeri (Finland), on the occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of Chernobyl nuclear disaster on 26 April 2001: On this occasion of the fifteenth anniversary of Chernobyl disaster, the international community commemorates the explosion of the nuclear power plant which was finally closed less than six months ago, in December 2000. By far the worst disaster in the history of nuclear power, the accident had many dimensions and consequences. It resulted not only in severe environmental and health impacts, but also in social, psychological, and economic emergencies. Total effects of the accident may still not be known even 15 years after the event. Follow-up surveys on the long-term effects of the magnitude of Chernobyl require formidable financial and human resources. Therefore, pooling of expertise through cooperation is essential. The role of the United Nations in assisting the international community through its agencies has been an important one in provision of safe agricultural land, on mitigating the psychological effects of the accident and in many other aspects. Fifteen years after Chernobyl, we realize that more needs to be done. Looking at the future, beyond this anniversary, we should prioritize our actions in researching, monitoring and securing the safety of older nuclear plants currently in operation. For the future of our global village, we should be able to answer its call for stringent disaster-prevention measures, and functioning emergency crisis-management systems, where radioactive materials are being, or will be, processed. Regulations on illicit trafficking of hazardous materials, and securing the safety of nuclear material transport are also of high importance. Close to Earth Day celebrations on 22 April, we recognize the lessons of Chernobyl. Therefore, it is my sincere hope that the international community will succeed in its efforts in preventing similar accidents from happening again -- anywhere in the world. M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.neton the world wide web. Inquiries to info@m2.com. Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Fluor names new chief This story was published 4/27/2001 By John Stang Herald staff writer Fluor Hanford President Ron Hanson is headed to a new post in Washington, D.C., with E. Keith Thomson, a senior vice president with Fluor Corp., replacing him, Fluor confirmed Thursday. "This is a tough, tough job -- running (Hanford) as a (chief executive officer). It's as tough a job as there is," said Ron Peterson, Fluor Corp.'s group executive for plant properties and equipment services. Fluor Hanford's president reports to Peterson. "I'm excited about (the new assignment)," Thomson said. "I've seen a lot of major projects, and this is one of the most complex." Fluor Hanford is the site's lead contractor. Fluor and its subcontractors employ about 4,200 people, making them Hanford's largest corporate team. Thomson, 63, has worked in engineering and environmental project management for 35 years -- including 22 years with Bechtel and 10 years with Fluor Corp. In his last post, Thomson was based in London and oversaw development of an extensive, worldwide corporate relationship between Fluor Corp. and BP, formerly known as British Petroleum. A British native, Thomson spent eight years in the Royal Air Force, which included a hitch flying B-52 bombers in the Middle East. He moved to the United States in 1964, where he joined Bechtel National as a mechanical engineer. He later earned business-related degrees at Stanford University, Golden Gate University and the University of California. After serving as a chief executive officer with URS International Inc. and Sterling Venture Management, he joined Fluor Corp. in 1991 -- serving the corporation in Europe, India, Africa, South America and the United States. Now, Thomson is the fourth president in Fluor Hanford's 412 years at the site. Fluor Hanford's first president was Hank Hatch from Oct. 1, 1996 to May 1998, when he left for a high-ranking post at the American Society of Civil Engineers. His replacement, Ron Green, stayed six weeks before jumping to Houston-based Tejas Energy. Green's deputy, Hanson, then took over. The transition from Hanson to Thomson is expected to last through May. The Department of Energy still has to give final approval to Thomson's appointment, but DOE spokeswoman Marla Marvin said that is expected to sail through smoothly. DOE Hanford Manager Keith Klein, Hanson's and Thomson's immediate federal boss, said: "The Fluor team had made significant progress these last few years under Ron Hanson's leadership. ... Keith Thomson looks like an excellent person to keep that momentum going. He has impressive credentials and a wealth of experience in project management." Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said: "Ron has overseen several significant cleanup successes, most notably the first shipment of spent fuel from the K Basins last fall." The switch in Fluor Hanford presidents is sparked by Fluor Corp.'s long-range plans to expand its federal government work, company officials said. Peterson said while Fluor Corp. has a strong foothold in DOE-related work, the corporation believes it can obtain more Department of Defense and other federal work. "We're very serious about increasing our market share in federal work," said Alan Boeckmann, president and chief operating officer of California-based Fluor Corp. Boeckmann arrived Thursday in Richland for his first visit to acquaint himself with Hanford and to help Fluor Hanford's team celebrate 11 million hours worked without an accident that kept employees off the job. Fluor Corp. is expanding its Washington, D.C., office to seek more federal contracts and to better coordinate its DOE contracts at Hanford, Fernald, Ohio, and Los Alamos, N.M. Hanson spent 25 years with DOE before joining Fluor in 1995. And that led to his selection to head the Washington, D.C., office, Peterson said. He said Thomson's track record with Fluor's overall corporate culture, plus his success in building a successful relationship with BP, led to his selection as Fluor Hanford's new president. A few months ago, DOE extended Fluor's contract, which was due to expire Sept. 30, to 2006. And Fluor is interested in keeping the contract beyond 2006, Peterson said. The company consequently brought in 40 upper-level managers recently to bolster its performance, and Thomson's appointment is to continue that, Peterson said. Thomson has very little nuclear cleanup experience, but Fluor Corp. is counting on Fluor Hanford's No. 2 man, Dave Van Leuven, to provide extensive Hanford and nuclear cleanup experience, Peterson said. Van Leuven came to Hanford in 1996 as president of a Fluor subcontractor, Waste Management Hanford, which posted perfect DOE grades for two years under his leadership. Van Leuven was then promoted to Fluor Hanford's executive vice president. He personally took charge of Hanford's K Basins project, helping it to meet its deadline of starting to move spent nuclear fuel to a safer site late last year. n Reporter John Stang can be reached at 582-1517 or via e-mail at jstang@tri-cityherald.com. Back to top stories Copyright 2000 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 2 DOE suspends FFTF shutdown This story was published Thu, Apr 26, 2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced Wednesday that he will give the dormant Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford a 90-day reprieve. He also said he hopes to visit the mothballed nuclear test reactor in the next three months. The Clinton administration in January ordered FFTF to be permanently shut down. But Abraham said Wednesday that he will suspend the decision while DOE considers partnerships that might cover costs of operating the reactor and analyzes benefits and difficulties in operating the reactor. "The status of the FFTF has been an issue for almost a decade, and the years of debate have produced a wealth of information in support of both reactivation and the deactivation," Abraham wrote in a letter to Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. "I understand, however, that the perception exists that, to date, the decisions made with respect to the facility have not been open and fully considered public input." Supporters of restarting the reactor to produce various isotopes -- including Hastings -- have questioned how the Clinton administration had concluded there was insufficient support from companies and government agencies to restart the reactor, since it did not request proposals. Earlier this month, Hastings asked Abraham to suspend the decision to allow a review of new information on the reactor's potential uses. Abraham said he was initiating the review of the decision in response to the congressman's request. "The bottom line is we have always said isotopes are commercially viable, but we have not known to what extent," Hastings said. "The only way to measure that is to have an open solicitation process." Citizens for Medical Isotopes and a coalition of government and community agencies led by Benton County also had requested the secretary reconsider the Clinton administration's decision. "As I understand it," Abraham wrote, "a variety of experts believe the FFTF may yet have the ability to play an important role in nuclear energy research and development, the production of medical radioisotopes to treat cancer and other diseases and the production of plutonium 238, an isotope used to provide electrical power for space missions." Hastings called Abraham's action "prudent and responsible." The announcement came a day before DOE's deadline to submit a deactivation schedule required by the Tri-Party Agreement. The agreement is a legal pact among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Washington that governs Hanford's cleanup. FFTF had been removed from a list of cleanup milestones while its future was decided, but DOE is required to submit a new plan on FFTF 90 days after a decision to permanently shut it down. Opponents of restarting the reactor want Hanford to focus exclusively on cleaning up the nuclear site, which was used to produce plutonium for bombs in World War II and the Cold War. Now, DOE is operating no reactors at the site. "If Spencer Abraham attempts to take another 90 days to reopen the FFTF restart issue, he will almost certainly face legal action and immense political outcry over the waste of funds that are supposed to go to cleanup," said Jerry Pollet of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford cleanup watchdog group. The reactor was built in the 1970s as part of a government breeder-reactor research program, but the program was ended in the 1980s under the Carter administration's nuclear nonproliferation policy. FFTF remains one of DOE's largest and most modern reactors at a time that DOE's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee has said DOE's nuclear capabilities are in "a near free-fall." Once sodium is drained from the reactor's cooling system, it cannot be restarted again. Keeping it in standby condition costs about $40 million a year. Abraham wrote that the decision to suspend shutdown of the reactor will not prejudice DOE's final decision on FFTF's fate, which will be made at the end of the review. Hastings said the 90-day review will allow a decision to be based on "fact and reality, not political motivation." Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 3 Hanford ordered to halt FFTF shutdown This story was published Fri, Apr 27, 2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Hanford officials were told Thursday to stop work on shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility in a letter from a Department of Energy director in Washington, D.C. They in turn notified the state Department of Ecology that the federal agency would not be filing a schedule for shutdown of the nuclear reactor. Notification had been due Thursday. Under an agreement with the state and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the closure schedule was to be added to Hanford's cleanup timeline three months after January's decision to shut down the reactor. Attorneys for the state haven't had a chance to study the legal basis for the postponement, said Sheryl Hutchinson, spokeswoman for the Department of Ecology. Jerry Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, a Hanford watchdog group, complained it "is another example of the (energy) secretary and the Department of Energy acting as if they are exempt from their cleanup agreement." In the final days of the Clinton administration, former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ordered the Hanford reactor shut down. But Thursday, Bill Magwood, director of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, notified Richland DOE managers Abraham had suspended Richardson's decision for 90 days. That time will be used to collect facts and figures on the reactor to be summarized and sent to Abraham, said Joe Davis, a DOE spokesman in Washington, D.C. DOE will be looking at possible uses of the reactor and preparing an analysis of the benefits and difficulties of operating it, he said. The report also will take into consideration whether DOE can find significant partnerships that would decrease the government's costs, Davis said. A DOE official will be assigned to collect the information, including determining any private interest in the reactor. Since the January order to shut down the reactor, a drug company and researchers have written letters saying the reactor is needed to ensure a reliable supply of isotopes for new medical treatments. In addition, a report by an independent advisory committee to DOE in January concluded the nation's nuclear resources are inadequate and called FFTF an irreplaceable asset. Supporters of FFTF want it restarted to make isotopes for treating cancer and other diseases in new ways and for nuclear energy research and development. It also could be used to make an isotope to provide electrical power for space missions. FFTF is DOE's most modern reactor, but the government has not had a use for it in recent years. It was built in the 1970s as a test reactor for the nation's breeder reactor program, but the program was scrapped in the 1980s because of nuclear proliferation concerns. The reactor has been dormant in recent years. After the decision to shut down the reactor in January, its supporters, including Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said DOE had not tried hard enough to assess private interest in the reactor. The reactor costs about $40 million a year to keep on standby. But once its sodium coolant is drained, it can never be restarted. Pollet is concerned that continued study will waste money he wants spent on cleanup. He and other opponents of restarting FFTF want Hanford to focus exclusively on cleaning up the nuclear site, which was used to produce plutonium for bombs during World War II and the Cold War. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 4 Money well-spent on dismantling weapons ** Date: 04/25/01 22:00 The Bush administration is reviewing programs aimed at dismantling many of the nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union and ensuring that other weapons of mass destruction -- such as those of the chemical and biological variety -- don't fall into the wrong hands. Congress has appropriated more than $760 million a year for this purpose, and so far the record indicates it's money well spent. Still, it makes sense to take a fresh look at where the money's going, especially in light of revelations regarding Russia's sale of nuclear technology to Iran. Given the large sums involved, a certain amount of waste is inevitable. Another issue -- expected to be addressed during the administration's review -- is whether some programs are receiving adequate Russian support. The weapons-deactivation effort is unusual in that it involves U.S. military personnel and American contractors working on foreign soil, dismantling or destroying weapons of a former adversary. U.S. teams have deactivated more than 5,000 warheads, dismantled hundreds of missiles and closed a former Soviet nuclear-test site. This summer, said Capt. Bob Bennett of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the last of the Soviet "Bear" bombers will be destroyed. "We have made the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan non-nuclear nations," he said. "That has been completed." That's a good track record. But some programs have faced criticism, such as a $6 billion effort to dispose of U.S. and Russian plutonium stocks. As former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn told *The New York Times*, the weapons-reduction programs would benefit from a comprehensive review. Some aspects of this effort may need to be strengthened -- and some may have already accomplished their purpose. All content © 2001 *The Kansas City Star* ***************************************************************** 5 Test Facility Hones In On Impact Of Nuclear Explosions In Space by Tina Barton Arnold AFB (AFNS) April 25, 2001 Determining how nuclear explosions in space affect U.S. defense systems is what an Arnold Engineering Development Center team hope to determine using its new plasma radiation source "cold" X-ray test capability. Completed in 1999 in partnership with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the decade-quad simulator produces the X-ray portions of a nuclear explosion within a highly shielded test cell. The entire test lasts approximately 40 nanoseconds, or about the time it takes light to travel across a large room. The simulator consists of a pulse power train with 288 high-energy storage capacitors that store electrical energy for a short time before producing X-rays. In 2000, the nuclear weapons effect team added four Bremsstrahling diodes that produce up to 20 krads of "hot" X-rays over a 2,250 square-centimeter area for testing larger systems like communication satellites, ground-based interceptor sensors and missiles. During a hot X-ray test, operators charge capacitors to levels of up to 100,000 volts of electricity. Then, they discharge the capacitors through the diodes to produce a 10 terawatt-pulse electron beam which impacts on a target producing the "hot" X-ray pulse. Sensors on or near the test article measure and document the amount and type of X-rays produced. The entire sequence takes approximately two minutes. "These X-rays deeply penetrate space systems and damage the internal components such as cables, computer circuits and processor boards," said Dr. Larry Christensen, one of the AEDC plasma physicists supporting the testing effort. The latest upgrades produce "cold" X-rays by replacing the four Bremsstrahling diodes with a water coupler that funnels the electric current from the individual modules into a single load. "Cold X-rays do not penetrate as effectively as hot X-rays, but 'land' on surfaces of satellite optical components such as telescopes, mirrors and lenses," Christensen said. "By depositing their energy at the surface of the test article, they can damage those components by marring the telescope lens or mirror coatings." During cold X-ray testing, a conducting medium, such as aluminum wire or argon gas, is loaded into the center of the plasma radiation source coupler opening. Then, using the same process as hot X-ray testing, 10 million amps of electricity flows through the medium creating temperatures hot enough to vaporize it and strip "K-shell" and "L-shell" electrons from its molecules. The electrons produce the cold X-ray when they give up energy and fall back into their orbit. "Since a nuclear explosion produces a broad spectrum of X-rays, including both 'hot' and 'cold,' we need to test with both types to accurately simulate the potential effects," said Lavell Whitehead, project manager and nuclear weapons effect team coach. "Because different nuclear bombs emit different X-ray spectrums, our goal is to produce a spectrum that matches the type able to effect the customer's test article," he said. Different mediums can be used depending on the X-ray spectrum being simulated, according to Whitehead, "In the [testing] quad, different conducting mediums produce different X-ray spectrums, Whitehead said. "When our customer brings a test article in for testing, we determine which spectrum's could effect the system and then decide which conducting medium will produce that particular spectrum." The nuclear weapons effect team will conduct its final cold X-ray check during April. The first test using the new capability will be the telescope portion of an exoatmospheric kill vehicle and is scheduled near the end of the fiscal year. SPACE.WIRE ***************************************************************** 6 Navy Resumes Bombing on Vieques April 27, 2001 VIEQUES, Puerto Rico- The U.S. Navy dropped 500-pound dummy bombs from jet fighters and fired shells from ships as it resumed exercises on Vieques island Friday, despite the presence of protesters so close they forced a temporary halt to the fire. "They're risking the lives of our people by dropping bombs," said Robert Rabin, an organizer of demonstrators who say the exercises harm islanders' health and environment. Navy officials in the U.S. Caribbean territory insist the training does not hurt the island's 9,400 people and is vital to save American lives in combat. Rabin said an unknown number of demonstrators who cut through fences and breached the area by boat remained in the 19-square-mile military zone Friday afternoon. Four Puerto Rican legislators sent by boat to see whether the exercises were violating a local noise law were detained briefly by the U.S. Coast Guard as they approached restricted waters, then allowed to continue sailing outside the military zone. The Navy said there were no intruders on the 900-acre firing range on the island's eastern tip, which federal agents scoured through the night with helicopters, dogs and foot patrols. "The range is green ... There's nobody out there to pose a danger to," said spokesman Lt. Corey Barker. "They wouldn't do the exercises unless it was perfectly safe." Nevertheless, eight protesters were discovered on a small island within 100 yards of the target zone, where the exercises began with bombing runs shortly after 9 a.m. Navy spokesman Jeff Gordon said the protesters were spotted just before a ship was to begin shelling - "close enough to the range to suspend the exercise." The shelling began about 1 1/2 hours later. Those arrested will be prosecuted for trespassing on federal land along with 38 others detained Thursday and Friday, Gordon said. Thirty-two of the protesters cut through the fence near the entrance to the Navy's Camp Garcia on Friday, unimpeded by about a dozen Puerto Rico police officers just yards away. During the night, protesters hurled stones at a Navy vehicle, shattering the windshield, and others set a field of grass ablaze in the military zone, the Navy said. Navy guards sprayed pepper spray at protesters trying to cut through fences. Among protesters who may still be in the restricted area are opposition Sen. Norma Burgos and Myrta Sanes, sister of civilian security guard David Sanes, whose April 1999 death by 500-pound bombs dropped off target on the range provoked an explosion of public anger and anti-U.S. sentiment. Protesters occupied the range after the guard's death, preventing exercises until they were removed by U.S. marshals in May 2000. Since then, training has been limited to inert ammunition and hundreds of protesters have been arrested. About 15,000 sailors and Marines are taking part in the latest exercises, which involve the Norfolk, Va.-based aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and about a dozen cruisers and destroyers. They are expected to last several days. On Thursday, a federal judge turned down a last-minute court action from the Puerto Rican government complaining that the exercises could harm islanders' health and violate the new noise law. Puerto Rican officials claimed a partial victory in the court case, noting U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler was disturbed by "an implied promise" from Navy officials to postpone the drills until the Department of Health and Human Services completed a review of studies linking noise from the exercises to islanders' heart problems. Friday's exercises were the first since Gov. Sila Calderon was elected in November, in part because of her demands for an immediate end to the bombing exercises. The Navy owns two-thirds of Vieques and says the bombing range, which covers 3 percent of the island, is the only one where it can simultaneously practice amphibious invasions, ship-to-shore shelling and bombing from aircraft. On the Net: U.S. government statements on Vieques: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/facilities/vieques U.S. Navy site: http://www.navyvieques.navy.mil Vieques resident's site: http://www.vieques-island.com/board/navy/study.html All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 US Navy Vieques Bombings Protested April 27, 2001 VIEQUES, Puerto Rico- Protesters tried to cut through fences and breach a military zone by boat Saturday, hours before the U.S. Navy was to resume bombing at its prized range on this Puerto Rican island. At least five activists were arrested. Scores of other demonstrators bowed their heads in prayer at an all-night vigil, seeking divine intervention to prevent exercises the Navy said would begin Friday morning. That would be hours after a federal judge turned down a last-minute complaint by the Puerto Rican government aimed at blocking the Navy. "This is a sad day for Vieques," Roman Catholic priest Nelson Lopez said as he led a prayer in the town of Isabel Segunda. Lopez said he was hopeful: "If the Berlin Wall fell, so can the U.S. Navy." Navy officials - who insist training on Vieques does not harm the island's 9,400 people and is vital for the national defense - were bolstered by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's ruling Thursday. But reservations expressed by the judge in Washington also buoyed protesters. Kessler said she found disturbing aspects, including "an implied promise" from Navy officials to postpone the drills until the Department of Health and Human Services completed a review of studies linking the noise to islanders' heart problems. The complaint, against the Navy and its top officials, contended the bombing could harm islanders' health and would violate a new local law against noise pollution. Puerto Rico's Gov. Sila Calderon said attorneys would press on, adding "I have no doubt that we will prevail." In San Juan, the capital, more than 6,000 people waving blue-and-white Vieques flags held a peace rally. Then about 400 joined a car caravan heading for the eastern port of Fajardo and boarded a ferry to continue protests on Vieques. There, cars and trucks sporting slogans "Navy out now!" circulated with flags flapping out windows. On the range, federal marshals searched for intruders, including prominent opposition Sen. Norma Burgos. "We intend to prosecute trespassers to the fullest extent of the law," Navy spokesman Lt. Jeff Gordon warned. Thursday evening, five intruders were caught by sailors and would be charged with trespassing on federal property, Gordon said. Among others reported on the range was Myrta Sanes, sister of security guard David Sanes, whose April 1999 death by bombs fired off-target on the range provoked an explosion of public anger and anti-U.S. sentiment. Protesters then invaded the range, preventing exercises until they were forcibly removed by U.S. marshals in May 2000. Under an agreement with the White House, scaled-back exercises resumed using only inert ammunition. But opposition swelled again after the popular Calderon won November elections, repudiated the agreement and demanded an immediate end to the bombing. About 15,000 sailors and Marines were to participate in the exercises, which involve the Norfolk, Virginia-based aircraft carrier USS Enterprise and about a dozen cruisers and destroyers. On the Net: Statements by ex-President Clinton, secretaries of defense, Navy on suspension agreement: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/facilities/vieques U.S. Navy site: http://www.navyvieques.navy.mil Vieques resident's site: http://www.vieques-island.com/board/navy/study.html All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 Children Most at Risk From Depleted Uranium Environment News Service: GENEVA, Switzerland, April 26, 2001 (ENS) - The World Health Organization (WHO) today published research on depleted uranium, including guidelines on how to deal with the substance's impact on human health. Weapons made with depleted uranium (DU) pierce solid objects, like tanks, before erupting in a burning cloud of vapor. The vapor settles as dust, which is chemically poisonous and radioactive. "Depleted uranium has the potential to have chemical and radiological effects on health, but we found in the review that exposure to DU would have to be significant before any health effects are observed," said Dr. Mike Repacholi, WHO's coordinator for occupational and environmental health. [children] Children caught in the Balkans conflict in which depleted uranium munitions were used. (Photo courtesy ) WHO recommends measures are taken to prevent exposure of young children to depleted uranium because they may face particular risk. "Young children could receive greater depleted uranium exposure when playing within a conflict zone because of hand to mouth activity that could result in high depleted uranium ingestion from contaminated soil," said the WHO research. "This type of exposure needs to be monitored and necessary preventative measures taken." "Heavily affected DU munitions zones should be cordoned off and then cleaned up and treated as if any other heavy metal waste had contaminated the soil," added the organization. Uranium is a naturally occurring, ubiquitous, heavy metal found in various chemical forms in all soils, rocks, seas and oceans. It is also present in drinking water and food. Depleted uranium, a byproduct of nuclear power, has a density about twice that of lead, which has led to its use as counterweights or ballast in aircraft, radiation shields in medical equipment used for radiation therapy and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. Those same physical properties have seen DU used in munitions designed to penetrate armour plating and for reinforcement of military vehicles. First used in the Gulf War in 1990-1991, DU's possible health risks gained wider attention after its use during the Balkan conflict in 1998 and 1999. NATO is estimated to have fired 31,000 DU shells during the Kosovo campaign in 1998 and 1999. Some of that ammunition still litters Kosovo, and other parts of Yugoslavia. [weapon] DU penetrator. (Photo courtesy ) After a peace agreement in the summer of 1999, that saw Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo to be replaced by NATO peacekeepers, the United Nations set up the Balkans Task Force to assess the environmental damage of the Kosovo conflict. In response to a request from UN secretary general Kofi Annan and the United Nations Environment Program, NATO provided the exact coordinates of the target sites, enabling the task force to make proper measurements of DU sites in Kosovo. With help from other UN agencies, such as WHO, researchers hope to find out whether the use of depleted uranium during the conflict may pose health or environmental risks. "Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects," makes several recommendations regarding DU, which according to WHO, has 60 percent of the radioactivity of natural uranium and "significant chemical toxicity." WHO says it is not necessary to screen the general population in areas where DU munitions have been used. But, it adds that those who believe they have been exposed to the substance should see a medical practitioner. [crowd] People in Glogovac, Kosovo. (Photo courtesy ) "The greatest potential for DU exposure occurs after conflicts when people living or working in affected areas could inhale dust or consume contaminated food and drinking water," WHO said. The agency warns that after DU munitions are used, "in some instances the levels of contamination in food and groundwater could rise after some years and should be monitored and appropriate measures taken where there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of depleted uranium entering the food chain." "Potentially, DU has both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs," said the WHO review, which notes that DU munitions have been used only relatively recently and the science has not yet thoroughly addressed the effects. The agency recommends further research, including studies to clarify the extent of kidney damage and its possible reversibility. To read "Depleted uranium: sources, exposure and health effects," click . [map] Map illustrating sites targeted by NATO for strikes using weapons containing depleted uranium. (Map courtesy UNEP) Free ENS Daily News Feed by Email ***************************************************************** 9 Senator wants to add money to nuclear weapons budget [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Friday, April 27, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal $5.3 billion proposal inadequate for repairs, upgrades, lawmaker says By STEVE TETREAULT DONREY WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The chief of a Senate energy panel said Thursday he plans to add $800 million to Energy Department spending on nuclear weapons in the next year. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said $5.3 billion proposed for weapons activities -- including programs run at the Nevada Test Site -- was inadequate to start repairing aging laboratories and keep a schedule for refurbishing weapons components. He asked Gen. John Gordon, the chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, to list what could be bought with a budget closer to $6.1 million. Gordon has proposed an ambitious program to repair aging laboratories and factories of the nuclear weapons complex, but the Bush budget contains no money to get started, Domenici said. He said the agency would be unable to meet a schedule to refurbish components in three major weapons systems. "It's high time we get on with it," Domenici said during a budget hearing for the nuclear projects agency. "I believe the budget we received is about $800 million short of what we should have to do the job of stockpile stewardship in 2002." Domenici is chairman of the Senate subcommittee that sets annual spending for the Energy Department. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is the ranking Democrat on the panel. Programs that seek to maintain the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile were among the few in the Energy Department to be given budget increases. The Bush administration request for fiscal 2002 is 4.6 percent higher than the amount Congress appropriated last year. Gordon said the budget request could change after the Bush administration completes a review of defense programs later this year. Domenici questioned whether the strategic review was being used as an excuse to mask defense budget cuts. "I think nobody wanted to put in the money this year," he said."I hope this is done pretty quickly. If we don't see something in the next couple of months, we won't wait around for it, we'll just fund (the programs.)" This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/Apr-27-Fri-2001/news/15970293.html ***************************************************************** 10 *EGYPT, RUSSIA PREPARE TO SIGN NUKE ACCORD Middle East Newsline - Area News - Updated Daily MOSCOW [MENL] -- Egypt and Russia are scheduled to sign an accord that would allow Cairo to purchase nuclear and satellite reconnaissance technology. Officials said the accord will be signed on Friday after talks between visiting President Hosni Mubarak and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The two presidents will then sign four accords that will launch cooperation on economic, defense and technological issues. The two men will discuss such issues as security in the Mediterranean, the situation in Iraq and Libya as part of an upgraded dialogue between Cairo and Moscow. Officials said Mubarak and Putin will also discuss joint aerospace development and the purchase of Russian missiles by Egypt. Egyptian-Russian nuclear cooperation will comprise one of the agreements to be signed on Friday. Officials said Egypt wants Russia to help build a nuclear reactor in a program deemed as civilian. The agreement also calls for joint research, exchange of visits, the production of isotopes, construction of nuclear reactors and other resources. Egyptian-Russian commerce has dropped steadily over the last 20 years and annual trade is reported at $550 million. ***************************************************************** 11 Averting a nuclear battle The Cincinnati Post *Column by The Post's Michael Collins *WASHINGTON - Labor Secretary Elaine Chao wisely avoided what could have been a nasty and embarrassing fight with Congress when she backed away from plans to put another government agency in charge of a new program for sick uranium workers. Secretary Chao announced last week that the program would remain in the Labor Department, although it won't be up and running by the July 31 deadline set by Congress. Secretary Chao said she plans to ask for an extension, and it appears Congress is willing to grant her request. The secretary's decision to keep the program under her jurisdiction amounts to some serious backpedaling. She had been lobbying behind the scenes for weeks for the White House to move the program to the Justice Department, which she said already has the staff in place to process the sick workers' claims. Even a week before she reversed course, Secretary Chao seemed determined to go forward with the move. One critic who opposed the switch because it would further delay needed benefits to sick and dying workers said he pled his case to Secretary Chao a couple of weeks ago but that she dug in her heels and seemed convinced she was doing the right thing. However, with pressure from Congress and labor groups mounting, she had little choice but to abandon those plans and save face. In an obvious fence-mending gesture, Secretary Chao called the head of the employee's union at the Paducah, Ky., Gaseous Diffusion Plant to personally deliver the news that the program would remain under her watch. It was a sign that the Louisville, Ky., resident knew how close she had come to jeopardizing her relationship with Congress and damaging her credibility among working men and women. Rep. Ted Strickland, an Ohio Democrat who was instrumental in setting up the program last year, had been especially critical. Strickland's district includes the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, where workers processed uranium to build nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War. Workers at the Piketon and Paducah plants and their sister facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn., would be eligible for benefits under the new program, which was created last year with strong bipartisan support in Congress. The program will offer lifetime medical benefits, wage replacement and a lump sum payment of $150,000 to government employees and contractors who contracted cancer or other illnesses due to work-related exposure to radiation. Strickland said Secretary Chao's attempts to move the program amounted to the federal government shirking its responsibility to those workers. He predicted she would do ''significant, permanent damage'' to her relationship with Congress if she proceeded. But it wasn't just Democrats who were complaining. Ohio Republican Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine wrote letters to Secretary Chao and others in the administration asking that the program remain in the Labor Department. Even Republicans such as Sen. Jim Bunning and Rep. Ed Whitfield from Secretary Chao's home state of Kentucky urged her abandon to her plan. Whitfield and Strickland introduced a House bill that would require the program to remain under the Labor Department's control. Secretary Chao's decision to back off appears to have ended the debate. Strickland called it ''a step in the right direction'' and noted, ''I am relieved that we can stop fighting over who will administer this program and focus on making sure the workers quickly get the compensation that is long overdue.'' Bunning said this week he would be willing to give the Labor Department an extension for starting the program, as long as the delay isn't too long. An aide to Strickland said the Strickland-Whitfield bill will probably sit idle for now. Even Secretary Chao's husband, Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, who had been awkwardly non-committal during the whole controversy, weighed in at the end. He called his wife's announcement ''an important step toward achieving the goal we fought so hard for last year.'' *Michael Collins is The Post's Washington bureau chief. E-mail: *collinsm@shns.com. * Publication date: 04-27-01 [E.W. Scipps] ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************