***************************************************************** 05/27/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.132 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 BYU Prof to Battle Nuclear Waste Plan 2 POWER BOOM - Energy crisis may boost state 3 LETTERS: The DOE left out a few facts 4 MU reactor shipments will resume 5 Cornell Trustees Vote to Close Old Reactor Despite Protests 6 The Issue: What should the nation's policy be on nuclear energy? 7 President's new energy policy fires up a dormant industry 8 Pushing forward with energy plan is waste of money ... and energy 9 Bush's energy policy 10 Nuclear Power: A Cleaner Source 11 Workers will feel pain from closing of reactors in Slovakia 12 Storing Nuclear Waste Over the Long Haul NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Vilsack cites 'incident' in call for flyover 2 Audit: NIF is another $200 million over budget 3 Nuclear black market booming 4 Y-12 could cut 200 jobs 5 Weekend Ceremonies Honor Departing Inspectors 6 Russian Inspectors to Leave Utah With Fond Memories, Lasting 7 Gene tests for N-bomb veterans on fast-track 8 SNP fudges over N-plant 9 We were 'A-bomb guinea pigs' 10 State of Royal Navy Submarine fleet called into question 11 Britain used DU in 1950s Tnuclear guinea pig' tests 12 Crunch time for British tank ammunition policy 13 Pakistan reiterates call for plebiscite ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 BYU Prof to Battle Nuclear Waste Plan The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 27, 2001* BY JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE A few things about Monte Stewart's background make him well-suited to lead the state's effort to keep high-level nuclear waste from being stored in Utah's west desert. Not only does he have experience in moral battles of the day -- he just helped prosecute the Tom Green polygamy case -- but he also grew up in the grim shadow of nuclear arms tests. "I share Gov. Leavitt's passion for protecting the health, safety and environment of the people of Utah," said the Brigham Young University law professor. Gov. Mike Leavitt announced Friday that Stewart will resign as director of the Rex E. Lee Advocacy Program at BYU's law school to work on the waste case full time. Leavitt called the appointee "an outstanding litigator, highly qualified to do the job." Stewart grew up in Alamo, Nev., the nearest town to the Nevada Test Site. As a child, he wore a "radiation badge," and government officials recorded the amount of radiation he was exposed to. "The people of this state, more than almost any other, have good reason to be skeptical when hearing the soothing assurances of technocrats of 'no safety concerns' regarding highly radioactive material," Stewart said. A few hours after his announcement Friday, Stewart met with attorneys from Private Fuel Storage (PFS). The consortium of out-of-state utilities has signed a lease with the Skull Valley Indian band to store spent nuclear fuel on the Goshute Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Last month, the consortium went to court to have a judge throw out a law passed during the 2001 Legislature that bars such a facility and punishes anyone who does business with it. The consortium says the law is unconstitutional and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is now in the midst of verifying that the storage facility would be safe for Utahns and their environment. In addition to dealing with the PFS lawsuit, Stewart will be part of the team dealing with the NRC licensing review, future state legislation and federal liaison for high-level waste issues. That team will include at least four new lawyers from the state Attorney General's Office, as well as the three people who have worked on the issue for the past four years. Lawmakers dedicated $1.1 million to the nuclear waste fight during the 2001 Legislature. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 2 POWER BOOM - Energy crisis may boost state The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Sunday, May 27, 2001 POWER BOOM Recent developments on the energy front suggest that California's pain could be Kentucky's gain. While California struggles with its own mini-energy crisis, brought on by a botched scheme of price controls and deregulation, Kentucky finds itself in the enviable position of being a low-cost supplier of electricity. Power industry analysts believe the state will benefit significantly if the national process of utility deregulation proceeds as expected. With the advantage of relatively inexpensive natural resources and an excellent transportation system that includes navigable rivers, Kentucky utilities are well-positioned to generate low-cost electricity and sell it to customers in other states. Power supply problems in some of the nation's urban centers also present opportunities for Kentucky's power industry. During periods of peak demand this summer some cities in the Northeast may experience temporary blackouts of the sort that have plagued California for months. If this occurs, officials in the Northeast will be looking elsewhere to obtain power. Californians traditionally haven't liked having power plants as neighbors, which accounts for the fact the state imports 20 percent of its electricity from other states. By contrast, Kentucky is in the midst of a power-plant boom, with 18 new facilities in the works. If all the proposed electric plants are built, the state's electric generating capacity will increase by 50 percent. At last it appears that Kentucky has gained an economic advantage over its neighbors. Of course, it's unseemly to exult over the energy problems of other states. Nevertheless, we should welcome the opportunities created in the state as a whole — and in western Kentucky in particular — by the energy crisis. The Purchase region could see at least three new power plants come on line in the next several years. Duke Energy North America is planning to build a small natural gas-fired plant near Calvert City. This $200 million project will create hundreds of construction jobs and about 10 full-time jobs after the plant is completed. A more promising possibility is the huge $1 billion gas-fired plant that a consortium made up of the United States Enrichment Corp., a Baltimore-based power company and a Japanese firm is bidding to build near the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The proposed plant would supply power to the Tennessee Valley Authority. Also, a Lexington power company reportedly is considering building a "clean-coal" plant in western Kentucky. Possible locations for the plant include Ballard, Marshall and McCracken counties. Bush administration officials say that it takes 1,500 construction workers to build the typical electric power plant and at least 200 full-time workers to run it once it opens. Based on those estimates, it's quite possible that new power plants could create more than 500 permanent jobs in the Paducah area. Most of these jobs would offer salaries well above the average for the region. It also needs noting that renewed interest in nuclear power may translate into badly needed domestic business for the USEC uranium enrichment facility. Unquestionably, the plant's long-term prospects look brighter than they did six months ago. The same thing can be said of the economic outlook for western Kentucky. Although plant closings and layoffs have hit the area hard, the prospect of landing more than a handful of the 1,300-1,900 new power plants President Bush says the nation will need over the next 20 years offers encouragement for the future. Power plants alone won't bring greater prosperity to the region. But low-cost electricity is rapidly becoming a very valuable resource — one that can attract new industries and help ignite economic development on a broad scale. ***************************************************************** 3 LETTERS: The DOE left out a few facts [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Sunday, May 27, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: U.S. Department of Energy Public Affairs Manager Allen Benson, in his April 15 letter to the Review-Journal, criticized Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic's remarks about impacts the Yucca Mountain project will have on property values along spent nuclear fuel shipping routes. In that letter, Mr. Benson ignores studies sponsored by the DOE and carried out by the DOE's own consultants, including one that demonstrates real, concrete and significant loss of property value caused by just a few DOE shipments of foreign research reactor spent fuel in South Carolina. In fact, there is strong and compelling evidence from years of studies by scientists and researchers around the country that indicates the Yucca Mountain dump and high-level waste transportation associated with it will have negative -- and potentially disastrous -- economic, environmental and public health consequences, not only for Nevada but for the hundreds of cites in 43 states where this deadly material is transported. Other facts Mr. Benson forgets: -- The shipping campaign required to move waste to a repository would be the largest nuclear materials transport effort in history, involving up to 100,000 shipments and lasting more than 30 years. The chances of accidents involving the release of radioactive materials are far greater than the DOE is willing to acknowledge. -- The shipping containers that the DOE touts as safe and indestructible are not even required to be physically tested. The NRC requires only that scale-model tests and computer simulations be performed. And the DOE has refused to support full-scale physical testing of the containers, even though a majority of the states support such testing. -- Even the DOE's own minimalist environmental analysis concedes that a worst-case transportation accident would cause between four and 31 latent cancer fatalities. A 1985 DOE contractor report estimated that cleanup after a severe rail accident could cost $620 million in a rural area and more than $2 billion in an urban environment. State of Nevada evaluations of the same accidents, using DOE computer models, found that the consequences could be hundreds of cancer deaths and tens of billions of dollars in clean-up costs, not including decreased property values and business losses due to the stigmatizing effects of a nuclear accident. No matter what face you attempt to put on it, Yucca Mountain is bad for Las Vegas, bad for Nevada and bad for the nation. OSCAR B. GOODMAN LAS VEGAS The writer is mayor of Las Vegas. ***************************************************************** 4 MU reactor shipments will resume STLtoday - news Associated Press 05/26/2001 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal officials are lifting restrictions on shipments from the University of Missouri research reactor, Sen. Jean Carnahan said. The reactor is the only U.S. provider of three isotopes used to treat cancer. Because the Energy Department had barred shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the reactor, it was facing a June 30 shutdown. Energy officials assured Mrs. Carnahan during a meeting Thursday they would allow reactor shipments to resume, she said in a statement issued Friday. A Senate source who spoke on condition of anonymity said word came soon after Mrs. Carnahan blocked the nominations of four agency officials, using a maneuver called a ``hold'' that by Senate custom can stall or kill nominations. But a spokesman for Missouri's senior senator, Republican Kit Bond, said the department acted ``at our urging'' and ``yesterday.'' Gov. Bob Holden and other state officials had accused the agency of retaliation for Missouri's efforts to block shipments of German nuclear waste from traveling along Missouri interstates on the way from Idaho to South Carolina. The university also sends its waste to South Carolina. The Energy Department has insisted the university program and national shipment are not linked, and says the cross-country German waste shipments will be conducted safely. ***************************************************************** 5 Cornell Trustees Vote to Close Old Reactor Despite Protests By KENNETH CHANG The Cornell University board of trustees voted yesterday to close a little-used 39-year-old nuclear research reactor at the edge of campus despite the protests of some students and the federal Energy Department. The board voted unanimously during a 40-minute meeting to support a recommendation from university administrators, who argued the reactor was outdated and little used. The closure of the Cornell reacto r, the only remaining research reactor in New York State, drew the opposition of students, more than 1,900 people who signed petitions and senior officials at the federal Energy Department. An Energy Department advisory committee, which is looking into ways to keep university reactors in operation, recommended that the government give Cornell $250,000, half of the reactor's operating budget, for the coming year. The reactor, known as the Ward Center for Nuclear Sciences, opened in 1962. It p roduces a thousandth of the power of a typical commercial nuclear power plant, and was originally used in the university's department of nuclear engineering, which closed five years ago. Today, researchers use neutrons generated by the reactor to study material composition. The number of research reactors at the nation's universities peaked at 64 in the 1960's but has since dwindled to 28. 2001 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 6 The Issue: What should the nation's policy be on nuclear energy? ... and Nuclear Sunday, May 27, 2001 The Detroit News. By The Detroit News Nuclear power supplies some 20 percent of the nation's energy needs, and the Bush administration is advocating lots more of it. But there cannot be a rational consideration of expanding the nuclear grid unless a number of regulatory and tax barriers are first eliminated. It's been 28 years since federal regulators received the last permit application for a new nuclear plant. And in the wake of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, nuclear power was largely written off as a stupendously flubbed opportunity. But several factors have combined to revive nuclear energy's fortunes, including deregulation of the power supply, the surge in energy demand, environmental concerns about fossil fuels and price spikes in the natural gas and petroleum markets. Long a bottom-line burden, the nation's 103 nuclear plants have substantially risen in value. President George W. Bush drew the public's attention to nuclear's potential in outlining his new energy policy. He is proposing, for example, to streamline the notoriously difficult permitting process. Some progress already has been made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which recently approved 20-year license extensions for five nuclear facilities. Negotiations also are under way between the NRC and four companies on new application procedures. The White House is calling as well for reform of tax laws that inhibit cost-saving consolidation within the industry. Punishing permit fees also need revamping. And the president is urging Congress to renew the liability caps on nuclear plant accidents that expire next year, as well as to reconsider a 25-year-old ban on reprocessing radioactive waste. New reactor designs may make converts of skeptics -- the current favorite being "pebble-bed" technology. In place of old-style fuel rods cooled by water, the redesigned reactor core would contain 300,000 "pebbles" of enriched uranium oxide fuel coated in graphite and cooled by helium. Because pebble-bed technology operates at far lower temperatures, the risk of meltdown is virtually eliminated. Even without the tax and regulatory complications, the decision whether to build a new reactor would be a tough call. They are enormously complex and thus hugely expensive facilities to construct and operate. But there's no point in even calculating costs unless the regulatory impediments are resolved. ***************************************************************** 7 President's new energy policy fires up a dormant industry New Haven Register --> NUCLEAR'S NEW DAY Lolita C. Baldor, Register Washington Bureau May 27, 2001 WASHINGTON — The new owner of the two Millstone nuclear power plants in Connecticut is looking at renewing those licenses for another 20 years, as part of what newly-energized industry experts are calling a "nuclear renaissance" in America under the new Republican administration. But the government's main stumbling block — lack of a permanent storage facility for high-level nuclear waste — is also becoming a greater concern at Millstone. And Dominion Energy executives said that until a solution is found, they are looking at ways to store the radioactive waste from the decommissioned Millstone I plant on the Waterford site. Gathered at the Nuclear Energy Institute meeting in Washington last week, industry executives were upbeat as they reveled in the Bush administration's proposal for more nuclear plants. And they talked about feeling "a great deal of euphoria" as their "much maligned industry" faces a new and brighter day. "I think it's safe to say that this is a more positive meeting than three or four years ago," said Dominion's Chief Nuclear Officer David Christian. "I think there is a long-awaited recognition of nuclear playing a positive role in providing clean, efficient energy." But Dominion's Chief Executive Officer Thomas F. Farrell II warned against "irrational exuberance" until a long-term solution for the waste problem is found. The Bush energy plan supports "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States," encourages the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to re-license existing plants, proposes tax incentives, and suggests more funding for enforcement. The report, released last week, sent shudders through environmental activists, and has energized anti-nuclear groups. Connecticut lawmakers cautioned that new or expanded nuclear facilities won't be realistic until the waste problem is solved. "The federal government made a commitment to the people of Connecticut that they would take care of the high-level nuclear waste at the end of the normal life of the plants that we have," said U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2, whose district includes the Millstone plants. "And two of those plants are down and their high level waste is now being considered for storage on site, which is inappropriate and a violation of the promise that the federal government made." He added that lawmakers won't "make much headway on new initiatives involving nuclear power until this waste problem has been adequately addressed." Tyson Slocum, senior researcher for Public Citizen, said environmental activists are "so alarmed by the president's proposal." But he acknowledged that an extensive public relations campaign by the nuclear industry coupled with the lack of any serious plant accidents in the United States in recent years has led to a more positive public attitude. "It is really irresponsible for them to be talking about more nuclear power when we have no permanent way to get rid of the waste. (A proposed site at) Yucca Mountain (in Nevada) has not been deemed safe and it has no political support." Indeed, Connecticut lawmakers have voted against a temporary storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. And they were cautious about the Bush plan. "There's no answer to the waste and some of these companies have never managed very well," said U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., referring to persistent problems at Millstone in the late 1990s that closed one unit permanently and closed Millstone II for a lengthy period while serious management and safety lapses were corrected. "We need to get better control, give the NRC more authority." U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., who will now head the Senate Environment panel's clean air subcommittee, said he is open to more nuclear energy. But, he said, "the key challenge is to convince the public that we can do it safely and cleanly." Still, the companies that own the nation's 103 active nuclear power plants are already moving ahead. Farrell said Dominion will file for license renewals for all four of their Virginia plants, and "we're looking at license renewal for Millstone." The Millstone licenses expire in 2015 and 2025, and Christian said renewal would "be a good thing for Connecticut and its citizens. It's a stabilizing force in New England's electricity." He added, however, that the company is not considering adding more plants at the Waterford site, or reviving Millstone I. Farrell, who stopped by to meet Lieberman while in Washington, also agreed that the industry must continue to rally support for nuclear energy. "Fringe environmental groups and their celebrity spokesmen cannot be allowed to stop the plants," he said. In recent reports, however, oversight groups have suggested that more than good public relations is needed. Congressional agencies have slammed the NRC for failing to adequately regulate the industry. And the Nuclear Energy Information Center warned that while recent technological advances have improved nuclear prospects, the reliance on nuclear power is declining throughout much of Europe and the industrialized nations. Currently, nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of the United States' electric power, and last year the plants operated at nearly 90 percent capacity — an all-time high. Still, there have been no plant applications approved since 1973, and about one-third of the reactors are more than 30 years old. The NRC has granted license extensions for five plants and received applications for five others. Meanwhile, in the last five years, six plants have been shut down. At the NEI conference, however, the rallying cry was for the addition of "50,000 megawatts" of new plant capacity by the year 2020 — which would mean 50 new plants. "We share the failure for not winning the (public relations) war," he said. "We must build awareness of the link between nuclear power and clean air." And the industry must convince the public, he said, that nuclear energy is "stable, reliable, clean and affordable." *©New Haven Register 2001* ***************************************************************** 8 Pushing forward with energy plan is waste of money ... and energy sunspot.net - op/ed By Steve Chapman Originally published May 27, 2001 CHICAGO - The Bush administration usually stresses its faith in the market, in contrast to those meddlesome Democrats who want the government to run our lives. But when it comes to energy, the president thinks nothing could be better than a flurry of activity in Washington. What he doesn't seem to notice is that the market is already doing its job well enough to make you wonder why we need his new energy program. This is one of those occasions when we could use some leaders brave enough to deserve the adjective Harry Truman once flung at a Republican Congress: Do-nothing. Doing nothing may not be the only solution to our energy ills. But it beats whatever's in second place. The president insists on doing something, anything. His plan includes no fewer than 105 different proposals: opening up the Alaskan wilderness and other federal lands to oil and gas exploration, spending $2 billion to develop clean-coal technologies, making it easier to build nuclear reactors and handing out a slew of tax credits to subsidize gas-electric cars, solar heating, energy from organic waste and other "renewable" sources. The reason George W. Bush sees the need to offer this grand package can be summarized in two words: prices and shortages. Gasoline prices have jumped above $2 a gallon at the pump in some places. Heating your home with oil or natural gas was an expensive ambition in much of the country last winter. Californians are unhappy at the prospect of having to pay ransom to electric companies to keep the lights on. Mr. Bush suggests that without his program, we're in for a long spell of misery. He rolls out figures purporting to show that domestic consumption of oil and natural gas will rise faster than domestic production in the next two decades. But it doesn't really matter if we get our oil from domestic or foreign sources, since we pay the same price either way. What's more, his projection is based on the experience of the last 10 years - which until recently, was shaped by low prices, not high ones. When fuel is cheap, consumers consume a lot of oil and gasoline, and producers cut back output because some of it no longer pays. When prices are high, they have the opposite effect. People reduce their demand, and energy companies increase their output. In due time, high prices lead inexorably to lower prices. That process is already well under way. Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, notes that the amount of money invested in oil and gas exploration in North America soared by 40 percent last year and is expected to rise another 20 percent in 2001. The number of drilling rigs operating in the United States has jumped by nearly 50 percent in the last year. Gasoline production in April set a record for the month, while demand was comparatively tepid. The American Automobile Association expects a decline in prices after Memorial Day. Much of the blame for current prices lies with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which has been deliberately limiting output. But OPEC may find its power short-lived. The Energy Department says OPEC members are already exceeding their production quotas by some 600,000 barrels a day, while supplies from non-OPEC nations have also climbed. The same story holds in the electricity market. "The nation is currently experiencing a power plant construction boom," says Mr. Taylor, with a lot of new generating capacity due in the next couple of years. The administration proposes to pour billions of dollars into conservation and alternative-fuel technology, but it's trying to force something that shouldn't need forcing. Higher prices are already fostering conservation, by encouraging every consumer to turn down the thermostat and avoid driving to Yosemite and back. Higher prices may also boost the fortunes of unconventional sources like solar energy and wind power, which are dear to environmentalists. But if they are economically viable, they won't need government assistance, and if they are not economically viable, the federal help will merely be wasted. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and other federal lands, on the other hand, is a favor to the president's and vice president's innumerable friends in the oil business. It may eventually yield oil and gas, but hardly enough to justify the priority it's been given. At best, notes Mr. Taylor, ANWR might supply a little over 1 percent of world demand, which would lower crude oil prices by perhaps 10 percent - except that OPEC might very well reduce its output by an equal amount. In that case, we'd end up damaging wilderness here so the Saudis can extend the life of their oil fields. That's no bargain, and neither is most of the rest of what the administration proposes. Sitting back and letting the market work - now, that's a bargain. Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. SunSpot.net is Copyright © 2001 by The Baltimore Sun. ***************************************************************** 9 Bush's energy policy sacbee Voices: Letters to the editor B E E E D I T O R I A L S Letters to the editor *(Published May 26, 2001)* Once again we see Democrats howling out, criticizing Bush's energy program. Never mind that eight years of Bill Clinton produced no program or solutions of any kind. The president hardly finished his speech on energy before Binky (Tom Daschle) and Winky (Richard Gephardt) were before the cameras singing the same old Democrat song that contains no solutions whatsoever. One does not have to have an engineering degree to understand that with no new power plants being built in California for years and an increase in demand for energy due to a flood of people from Mexico into the state and a normal growth rate, electricity problems are going to arise! We have two ways to go: Face the problem head on, or follow Binky and Winky and continue to stick our head in the dirt. --P.R. Moses, Incline Village, Nev. It is really not hard to figure out how the Republicans get away with consistently screwing the working men and woman and their families, not to mention the seniors who live on fixed incomes. Enormous amounts of money and downright chicanery put Bush in office, and the American public must pay the big corporations back at the gas pumps and in our monthly energy bills. Oh, and by the way, can someone please tell me whatever happened to the Auburn dam? --Ciro M. Caruso, Carmichael This administration has an energy plan that is common sense and addresses conservation along with alternate sources of energy. Predictable critics immediately jumped on President Bush for being in the back pockets of big oil. If Bush is only for big oil, why would he be encouraging more nuclear energy? --Carol Hallford, North Highlands No Bush plan to trim gas tax; White House warnings that gas prices could go as high as $3 a gallon; rolling blackouts; federal energy commission fails to hold electricity prices; White House states California must solve its own energy problem, that it is not a federal problem, etc. Am I the only one who thinks that all of this baloney is related to our current "energy president." Why is it that the fifth-largest economy on the planet is having energy problems? Could it be that the first-largest economy has a leader that is in the pocket of big energy/business? It gives one cause to stop and think. --Forrest Long, Sacramento Whenever I hear some liberal or environmentalist talk about energy conservation, I keep thinking back to other things that have been conserved, and how that turned out. When children were starving to death in various left-wing dictatorships in Africa, nobody suggested conservation; the people needed more food that the left-wing dictatorships wouldn't provide. When Northeasterners whined about home heating oil prices, former President Clinton didn't talk about conservation; he took from the strategic national reserve for a nonstrategic, political reason. Whenever liberals such as Gephardt and Daschle talk about the federal budget, they never talk about conserving money. It's always tax and spend. In California we need more energy, whether it comes from clean-burning Utah coal; clean, safe, CO2-reducing nuclear power; or just additional gas-fired plants. --Karl Machschefes, West Sacramento It is time for people to hear some truth about the so-called energy crisis and the so-called economic slowdown that dominates the news these days. About the time it became apparent that Bush would win Florida's electoral votes, these crises began. Suddenly California is in an energy crisis and Bush keeps talking about how all the signs point to an economic slowdown. He even got his old pal Alan Greenspan to agree with him. Guess what folks? It's all a lie. Bush's top two priorities as president are his tax plan and his energy policies. As he has no intention of looking for alternative sources of energy, or even implementing a minimal conservation policy, the best way to get the public to back increased production at any cost is to engineer (with a little help from his close pals who head the energy industry) a major power crisis. And who knows, maybe Gov. Gray Davis will lose popularity, costing him California to a Republican as an added bonus. --Anthony Parker, West Sacramento Playing the blame game Gov. Gray Davis was "appointed" Democratic critic of Bush's energy policy. The governor cannot solve the state's energy problem, so that gives him the credibility to criticize the president. The state's energy problem started when the president was governor of Texas and while Davis was governor of California. I guess that's why Davis blames Bush for this "crisis," although it doesn't make sense. Davis should look upon this as an opportunity to excel instead of an opportunity to blame someone. --Ken Ely, Orangevale Our energy needs have gone up 20 percent, and the prices charged by Bush's friends have gone up 500 percent. Now we're going to be given a "tax break" so that we can pay those higher prices -- to Bush's friends. I can't be the only one who thinks this is a little weird. --R.C. Nosler, Rancho Cordova Please, somebody tell me that I'm not alone in my embarrassment watching Davis, our "leader," sit here (in the dark) and blame President Bush for his own inability to resolve the energy crisis in California. I am amazed at how quick he is to point his finger at a newly elected president for problems that we have brought upon ourselves over the last two decades through poor planning and placating radical environmentalist cries that the sky is falling by closing down our own supply with no plan for growth demand. A mature leader accepts accountability and responsibility and looks for sound solutions, short and long term. Quit playing the blame game and get to work. We don't have time (or money) for this. --Susan Colliflower, Sacramento It is so obvious that Bush is using (perhaps creating and perpetuating) the "energy crisis" for his own gains and for the financial gains of his corporate friends. He is using it as an excuse to tear our fragile ecology apart. Americans need an honest, balanced policy that promotes energy efficiency, use of clean renewable energy like wind and solar power, and responsible production. Americans also need an energy policy that provides quicker, cleaner, cheaper and safer solutions. If every family would declare a "No Energy Day" and spend the time playing in the yard with the kids, gardening, camping, reading and playing games we would end our energy shortage and have much happier families. --Dawn Baird-Chleborad, Sacramento Re "Cheney still shuns price caps," May 21: President Bush made the wise decision to shun price caps on electric power. Price caps would only stop development of new power supplies. California's current problem is lack of adequate energy supply thanks to environmental liberals, Democratic state legislators, liberal U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and our milquetoast governor, a disciple of Governor "Moonbeam." This illustrious group advocates and promotes a sacrificial lifestyle reduction for California citizens to lower our living standards. The solution is to force Davis to call these liberals together and tell them the state is going to develop nuclear power, fossil-fuel and hydro power and ask these elitists which of these three types of power projects they want the state to promote first. --John Rusk, Carmichael Re "Davis rips vice president over power-plant remarks," May 9: Vice President Dick Cheney needs to read The Bee. If he had read Sam Stanton's excellent special report "How California got burned" he would not be making such ridiculous statements on television about California's energy woes. The article makes it perfectly clear that our current situation is not the result of "Californians relying only on conservation measures and not addressing supply considerations," as Cheney claimed; rather, today's problems are the direct consequence of a poorly crafted deregulation plan. Cheney should also read the report recently submitted by scientists in our five national laboratories. According to The Bee, these scientists "have projected enormous energy savings if the government takes aggressive steps to encourage energy conservation." By putting conscious conservation into practice, our family was able to reduce our energy consumption by 25 percent in February and 29 percent in March, compared to the same months last year. No one in our family has suffered a deterioration of our "precious American lifestyle." Conservation works! --Donna Burgess, Meadow Vista "It's unfortunate that Vice President Cheney is so grossly misinformed about California's aggressive program to build new power plants," Davis said. "[M]y administration has approved 13 new plants, eight of which are currently under construction. ... No state in America is building more power plants than California." The governor's statement is both false and misleading. Of the 13 new power plants approved, nine of them have been OK'd in the last 63 days. Davis' eight power plants under construction represent 5,593 megawatts of generation. Texas has 27 power plants under construction representing 13,991 megawatts of generation. California does not have an "aggressive plan to build new power plants." California has a panicky, desperate need for power and is willing to sacrifice its own financial future to accomplish it. I do not blame Gov. Davis for this. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes for anything in the world. However, I do resent the fact that he continually and habitually puts his foot in his mouth and makes the rest of this great state look like the lobotomy ward on a bad day. --Ryan Ellis, Sacramento The May 6 article "How Californians got burned" asserted that San Diego Gas &Electric Company officials filed a 71-page statement with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, outlining concerns with the state's deregulation plan, but withdrew that document "under pressure from then-Gov. Pete Wilson's office and others." This is not true. I served as the governor's chief of staff in 1997 and 1998, and was involved at every stage of the electricity restructuring discussions before then. At no time did the governor or any member of the governor's staff pressure San Diego Gas &Electric Co. to take a specific position in its presentations to this federal agency, or to withdraw any filing the company had made. If a filing was withdrawn by SDG and a different one was subsequently offered in its place, whatever the difference and whatever the reason for change, it was not as the result of any pressure from the Wilson administration -- because there was none. --George Dunn, Sacramento I read with interest this report of the crisis and was a bit surprised that it ended with Gov. Pete Wilson. Did Gov. Gray Davis not contribute? Is Davis not continuing to contribute? Is the Public Utilities Commission (controlled by Davis appointees) not a part of the problem? Would not prompt payments to the alternate energy providers give California at least as much energy as conservation? Why are we delaying payments to a low cost source of energy? What part have green interests contributed to the problem? Have the state government and The Bee hidden their common sense way underground? --Fred Clow, Sacramento Figuring out Bush's stand on issues is proving to be just as hard as everyone thought it would be. Two months ago California's energy crisis was "a problem for California politicians to fix." Now he seems to have decided that it's up to him to fix the "nation's energy crisis." Last month, Cheney said that energy conservation "is a nice personal decision that individuals may take," but not a solution to short- or long-term energy problems. But now that 65 percent of Americans favor conservation over new nuclear/fossil fuel solutions, Bush says his plan favors conservation and is environmentally friendly. After all, coal, oil and gas all come from the environment, right? What else would people expect from a president and vice president from oil-rich Texas? Solar power? --Kevin K. Tarbell, Sacramento Re "One year later, we know it wasn't just a simple game of golf," Dan Walters, May 20: While Rome burned, Nero fiddled. While the California energy crisis grew, Governor Gray-Out went fund-raising. The leadership of the state was turned over to handpicked political appointees, who planned strategies on how to blame others instead of offering solutions. After months of procrastination and more fund-raising, Davis decided the state should allow him to mortgage the future by purchasing power day to day and negotiate secret long-term contracts. The governor has not put forth any long-term solutions to this energy crisis and is in the political stance that has made him infamous. The state's economy is in a precarious position and the pragmatists of the administration should offer solutions instead of more pontificating and finger pointing by the governor and his handpicked PUC. --Bob L. Yeager, Orangevale So now we must drill for oil in Alaska so that "we can stop buying oil from Iraq"? Why not stop selling Alaska oil we are presently pumping and selling to Japan? The pageant being presented in Washington today is a sad mixture of Gilbert and Sullivan and Shakespearean tragedy. The star is a mediocre actor who can barely manage the careful dialogue provided by the producer, who stands behind him directing the play and writing the lines as he goes. The American public has been sold a man with a limited scope of government knowledge, and the false idea that problems of national proportions can be summarized into three line cards and solved with platitudes. --William Dooner, Carmichael All of a sudden it's highly fashionable in California to be regarded as not having much "Gray matter." The governor's political strategy: This energy crisis is too complicated; I don't want to commit to anything; we can make a case that I have no responsibility or accountability for the totality of this mess, soooooo, let's take the Gray road. Across many areas in California, too much Gray, in some cases any Gray at all, is not good, so here's to Grecian Formula --Drake Sinclair, Roseville Gas prices are up, and they are going to stay up. This is a manufactured energy crisis. It isn't going away until the energy conglomerates have glutted themselves on all the money left over from the prosperity created under the Democrats during the past eight years. Some things are just begging for it. The oil companies came into their own with this administration and didn't waste a day starting on their agenda. They're going to swallow up everything. California is minus billions of dollars, gone in a "fair market" coup into the pockets of Texas power suppliers. California is asking Washington for help. But Washington has no qualms about leaving California to its fate under market forces, saying it is focused on "long-term solutions, not quick fixes." They're selling this as a supply problem, not a price gouging problem. What they want is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge opened up. If sacrificing California serves those political ends, so be it. --Steve Pearson, North Highlands Please keep blasting away at this energy insanity. During the blackouts on one recent May day, there were 12,000 mw of California generating capacity off-line. This was nearly a third of the power they were delivering. This is terrible uptime for nearly any commercial endeavor. What if only two-thirds of our automobiles would start one morning? Certainly commercial generating equipment can operate in the high 90 percent uptime. If this is such an emergency, why are we having such mediocre performance? It has to be gross operating incompetence or game-playing. Let's have a wholesale investigation of these shoddy and grossly expensive practices. --Ted Jenkins, Sacramento Suing FERC Re "Legislators plan suit against FERC," May 5: Texas has a saying, "Remember the Alamo." California will have a saying for the upcoming election, "Remember the FERC." --David Blumenthal, Orangevale If these legislators sue FERC and are successful in getting price caps, do they really think we are going to get more electricity this summer? If the costs incurred by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Edison can't be passed on, can we really expect them to stay in business? If I sold hamburgers and it costs me $2 to make each hamburger but the government told me I could only sell them for $1, am I going to be able to stay in business? Do they think my employees are going to continue working for me when I can't pay them (i.e. the qualifying facilities that aren't getting paid)? Do they think my suppliers are going to continue to supply me if I can't pay the bills? As an employee not getting paid, I would leave. As a supplier, I wouldn't sell supplies until I was paid. What planet do these government agencies live on? --Becky Gunvordahl, Sacramento Paying for power Re "Energy costs jolting shoppers," May 19: So some of our California merchants are adding an energy fee to their prices. They are not the only ones. I was in Reno recently and the hotel charged $3 a day for energy fees. Instead of calling it energy fees it should be called Gray Davis fees. --Wayne D. Williams, Rocklin Consumers will see every bit of the energy increase from companies, which will just be passed on by higher prices for goods and services. Watch out America: Energy increases will be coming to stores near you! --Cindy Schiada, North Highlands Public power Re "Utilities are headed down troubling path," Op-Ed, May 14: Thank you for James McClatchy's commentary on private energy companies' quest for "power" (non-electric). Our California energy crisis may be a blessing in disguise. We can learn how free market pricing and free enterprise do not work for the public good, especially for critical services. A serious plan should be given to public/consumer controlled energy. The bigger, more complex problem is the need for a national energy program to confront the ultimate disaster of a few super-giant energy companies controlling our politics and economy. What's worse? These supergiant corporations are becoming multinational with world wide influence. The California crisis is a mere indicator to what the dimension of control these corporations would have over the world. --Dave Friend, Ione NIMBY power Re "Californians' priorities for solving the crisis are outlined in a Field Poll," May 23: Along with the results of the Field Poll showing more people in favor of nuclear power, I would like to see the answers to a follow-up question: "Do you favor or oppose building such a plant in your neighborhood?" An earlier Bee article said that a significant percentage of proposed power plant construction has been halted not by environmental groups but by "not in my backyard" types and these haven't even been nuclear plants. I would like to know how many people still favor increased use of nuclear power if the plants (and the waste) are going to be in their neighborhoods. I, for one, would rather turn off the air conditioner for a while to keep them out of mine. --Joan Lacktis, Rocklin Nuclear power Re "Too much risk bedevils nuclear power plants," May 19: I had to laugh at the shrill, near hysterical, tone of Paul Leventhal's hack piece on nuclear power plants and their supposed dangers. His rationalization that coal-fired power plants are better than nuclear plants is laughable in the extreme. What about clean air and global warming? If nuclear is so bad, why are 120 of our global neighbors using it (visit www.iaea.org/inis/ws/countries)? If there is so much danger in using it, why are we not reading or hearing about nuclear disasters all the time? Could it be that nuclear is not so bad as he'd like us to believe? And just to make sure we're good and scared he trots out the terrorists and nuclear bomb theory. How pathetic. Why don't we all just stick our heads in the sand and forget that we're a nation of TVs, personal computers and air conditioning? --Silas Lester, Rocklin Solar power According to SMUD, 2,000 kwh solar panels cost "over $9,000 for the total cost" when purchased in bulk. The general rule is 3,600 kwh produced a year for south-facing roofs, 3,000 kwh for east- or west-facing roofs. It would cost $920 million to install 100,000 2,000 kwh solar panels at $9,200 per home. The energy produced per year would be approximately 330,000 mwh ((3,300 kwh average 100,000)/1,000). Using $500 per mwh currently paid on the spot market, this results in a $165 million per year savings, thus paying for it in 5.57 years. For less than a thirteenth of the monies in the $13.4 billion bond, at a 10-year payback, we'd produce 330,000 mwh of electricity per year. This calculates to $278.78 per mwh over 10 years, almost half the current spot-market price and the money stays in California. Encourage conservation and reimburse the cost of the solar panels by charging the homeowners a low, fixed rate for self-produced energy, energy used from the grid at the same rates as if no solar panels existed, and excess electricity returned to the grid remunerated at baseline rates, until such time as paid in full. Everyone wins, well, except Texas. --Kimberly Starr, Sacramento Solar energy -- it's available, no drilling in delicate environments, cost effective, can't have prices raised by foreign nationals, reliable as long as the sun shines. Why not? Make it mandatory for all new housing above a certain threshold size/price factor and all public and government buildings too. What a tremendous possibility of cheap reliable energy production. Do it now! --Steven J. Harper, Folsom Drying clothes Re "What's the Hangup?" May 21: Ah, the old clothesline controversy. We need some clothesline creativity. To maintain uniformity, each homeowners' association could require one color for all washable items so each yard would have the same colored blob. Surround "those things" by sheets and pillow cases. Rebel against the Clothesline Police: Hang out at night. SMUD and PG could sponsor the Miss California Clothesline Contest, or give prizes for the Best Hung Clotheslines. A new game: "Clothes Flapping" with money the shape of clothespins, "Line-dried Unmentionables" (go to jail) and the winner is the first to save 1,000 megawatts. "We choose to live in neighborhoods that don't hang these things out," says Richard Monson, president of the Pasadena-based California Association of Homeowners Associations. Give me a break! That's my electric bill that's supporting his pseudoclassiness. --Miriam LeGare, Sacramento I have been hanging out my laundry for more than 30 years, but I never knew it was, according to Monson, "unsightly" ... "akin to graffiti" and that it knocks over 15 percent off the value of my property. Monson suggests I hang my clean, fresh laundry in the dirty, gas smelling, tool laden garage! I admit that in the winter I use the dryer more, but as soon as the weather starts to change, out the clothes go to the line, to be brought in with a fresh smell that no dryer sheet can duplicate. If Monson has a problem with laundry hanging outside, I can't imagine how he feels when folks like me wash their own car, in their driveway, outside! --Kathy Winkelman, Sacramento I cannot imagine living in this climate and not using a clothesline. I have never had a clothes dryer, nor has it ever crossed my mind that I needed one in California's Central Valley. As for those who would find the sight of laundry offensive, I can only suggest that the sounds of leaf blowers, power lawn mowers, loud car radios, freeway sounds and barking dogs are far more unpleasant. --Alice K. Krigas, Sacramento I was really amazed to read the article about neighborhoods banning clotheslines. I live in Southside Park co-housing, a self-managed condominium community of 25 families in downtown Sacramento. We have a nice sunny spot for our clothesline just a few feet from the community laundry room. Two-thirds of us use the community laundry room, and many choose to use the clothesline in agreeable weather. Hanging clothes in a garage or utility room when we live in such a mild sunny climate seems ludicrous. The only problems we have with the clothesline is from kids, who like to hang on it, and gardeners, who plant zucchini bushes too close for comfort. A neighbor putting up or taking down clothes provides an opportunity for passers-by to stop and chat, a most desirable side effect. With the guidance of the architectural firm of Mogavero Notestine, we designed our homes to be very energy efficient, including plenty of insulation, whole-house fans and heat pumps. I am very proud to live in such a practical community, and pleased that our foresight results in low energy bills even during this crisis. --Pamela Silva, Sacramento Letters Policy Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. All letters are subject to editing. More information is available at: www.sacbee.com/voices MAIL: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852 E-MAIL: opinion@sacbee.com FAX: (916) 321-1996 Copyright © The Sacramento Bee ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear Power: A Cleaner Source (washingtonpost.com) Sunday, May 27, 2001; Page B06 A May 19 letter by Tom Clements said that nuclear power contributes to global warming because enrichment of uranium depends in large part on coal-fired electrical plants. However, the coal-fired electrical energy needed to produce a given amount of enriched uranium is far less than the electrical energy that can be produced in a commercial power plant using that amount of enriched uranium. Thus, the system produces far less greenhouse gas than would be the case if coal-fired generation were used entirely. Of course, if the enrichment process were powered by nuclear power, then even that contribution to greenhouse gas production would disappear. Further, programs to convert highly enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium provide another source of fuel for nuclear power plants and have the added advantage of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. WILLIAM BAILEY Oakton © 2001 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 11 Workers will feel pain from closing of reactors in Slovakia abc.philly.com --Weather -- --Yellow Pages -- --Philly Finder -- Sunday, May 27, 2001 Go to: S M Workers will feel pain from closing of reactors in Slovakia When two units are shut in the nation's bid to join the EU, 1,200 will lose jobs. Energy prices will rise. By Andrea Lorinczova ASSOCIATED PRESS JASLOVSKE BOHUNICE, Slovakia - Tears roll down Michal Klepac's cheeks as he shakes his cane at the nuclear power plant where two Soviet-era reactors are slated for closure by a government eager to please the European Union. The retired maintenance worker thinks it's foolish for Slovakia to close part of the Jaslovske Bohunice plant - slashing hundreds of jobs. It's part of a sweeping reform program aimed at winning membership for Slovakia in the 15-nation EU, some of whose members are wary of nuclear power. "It's the biggest stupidity that the government could have made," said Klepac, 74. "Why do we have to change what works?" The plant's closure underlines the struggle that Slovakia and other former Soviet-bloc countries are facing in making hard choices to win membership in the European club. They are imposing inflation controls, cutting jobs at inefficient businesses, and inflicting other kinds of pain to reform their economies. Fears of instability Some fear the changes will lead to social and political instability in this country of 5.4 million, formerly a part of now defunct Czechoslovakia. "There is a danger that since the country must make these painful changes, some populist and ultranationalist politicians could come back to power. And that is very dangerous," said Milan Reban, a political scientist at the University of North Texas who studies the former communist countries of Europe. The risk of the screws being tightened too hard or too fast threatens places such as Jaslovske Bohunice, a village 35 miles from the capital, Bratislava. About 1,200 people - mostly from this village of 1,700 - will lose their jobs when the two reactors are taken off line in the next five years or so. Thousands more who do contract work in 200 villages surrounding the plant will also lose their main income. But the effects will be nationwide, say energy experts who warn that energy prices are certain to rise when the reactors are closed. Shutting down the two oldest of the plant's four reactors will take away 16 percent of Slovakia's electricity production. The two others produce 22 percent, and a nuclear-powered plant in Mochovce provides 21 percent. "We were pressured to make this decision," said Pavol Hamzik, deputy prime minister for EU integration. "We had to pay this high price if we wanted to catch up with our neighbors." A delayed start Slovakia's leaders began campaigning for EU membership later than neighbors such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. Post-communist leader Vladimir Meciar kept the country out of Western institutions and attempted to move Slovakia closer to Russia's orbit. Meciar was voted out in 1998. His successor, Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda, moved to reform the shaky economy, passing austerity measures that have propped up the currency. He almost halved the trade deficit, from $1.8 billion in 1998 to $922 million in 2000. Although European Union membership for Slovakia is probably years away, Dzurindais is trying to prepare the way. He has begun pushing through changes to make laws conform to the EU's, and he has made other concessions such as pledging to shut the reactors at Jaslovske Bohunice. The EU studied the issue in 1992, and decided the plant could not be upgraded at a reasonable cost. It made shutting the two old reactors a condition for Slovakia joining the bloc. To the village, losing even part of the sprawling facility - incongruously named "Atomka," or "tiny nuclear plant" - is likened to losing a friend. "Atomka" is the center of village existence. Just about everyone here has worked in it, toured it or at least seen it on television, where it was often showcased during the communist years as an example of Soviet engineering prowess. Even after communism's fall, people kept their affection for its eight cooling towers, taking comfort in the gentle puffs of steam that hang over the barren fields surrounding the plant for 11/2 miles on every side. Workers at "Atomka" earn twice the average monthly wage of about $250. The unemployment rate in this area is 8 percent, compared with up to 40 percent in some parts of Slovakia. Workers have invested in their homes, building peaked-roof cottages in pastel shades with gardens, trees and swing sets for the children. BMWs and minivans are parked on paved roadways. Though the U.N. nuclear agency deemed the plant to be safe, anti-nuclear campaigners fear the aging reactors could create a catastrophe reaching far beyond this small central European country's borders. "The plant does not fulfill all of the security requirements," argues Lubica Trubiniova, director of Greenpeace activities in Slovakia. "Nobody really knows how long a reactor should operate." People like Klepac, the retiree, think the price of EU membership is too high. He's betting the government will cave in to public pressure and keep the reactors operating. "All of my family works at the plant - all four of my children," he said. "Who will give them work now?" ***************************************************************** 12 Storing Nuclear Waste Over the Long Haul May 27, 2001 The president and nuclear power advocates have never addressed the key issue of how to safely store and dispose of highly toxic nuclear waste that will be around for at least a few thousand years. The Hanford nuclear repository in Washington state is giving us a clue on what to expect: Of the 177 underground tanks, 69 are acknowledged to have failed to date, leaking an estimated 1 million gallons of radioactive and chemically toxic solutions into the soil; this is after less than 100 years of storage. Nuclear power is a short-term response with unacceptable long-term risks. But then none of the people who benefit from nuclear power (you and I) and those who decide its fate will be alive when its deadly legacy is fully realized. To help with the fuel supply problem and to put genetic engineering to good use, why not turn genetically grown crops into fuel for gasohol? Ted Russell Neff * Los Angeles* * * * Conservationists, of course, love to harp on the problem of what to do with the spent nuclear fuel. They say that it needs to be safely stored for 50,000 years. That, however, is based on the false assumption that we won't be able to figure out what to do with it for the next 50,000 years. Remember that 10 years ago we didn't know how to make a DVD player, 20 years ago we didn't know how to make a cell phone, 30 years ago it was the PC and 40 years ago it was the color TV. I believe that, given some incentive, we can easily figure out what to do with nuclear waste in our generation, not the next 50,000 years. Kevin Petersen * Eagle Rock* Copyright © 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Vilsack cites 'incident' in call for flyover The Hawk Eye Newspaper May 26, 2001 By Dennis J. Carroll The Hawk Eye • Governor's letter to Army reiterates call for aerial survey of plant. Copyright 2001, The Hawk Eye Gov. Tom Vilsack, in a recent letter to the secretary of the Army calling for an aerial radiological-detection flyover of the Middletown munitions plant, cited declassified documents that refer to plutonium, ground zero and "an incident that may have led to contamination" in the early 1970s. In the April 19 letter to now former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera and obtained by The Hawk Eye, Vilsack said the documents, reviewed by the Iowa Department of Public Health, "raise the question whether or not the scope of the storage and handling of the radioactive materials might have been perhaps broader than previously acknowledged by the Department of Energy or the U.S. Army." The governor said the documents make reference to "plutonium," "ground zero" and "an incident that may have led to contamination." Some former workers at the plant have spoken of a "blue flash" that occurred there in the early 1970s that some suspect may have released dangerous amounts of radiation. The AEC assembled, test-fired and, in later years, disassembled nuclear weapons and their components at IAAP from the late-1940s to the mid-1970s. In his letter, Vilsack said the Department of Public Health has proposed a set of questions to the Army and the Department of Energy to "flesh out more detail concerning the problems potentially raised as a result of these documents." Because of those documents and other reasons, Vilsack said a flyover of the plant, pushed hard by the Health Department as well as Iowa's two U.S. senators, Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley, is warranted. "While I recognize that there is significant cost involved in such a flyover," Vilsack said, "the peace of mind and security of knowing that we have all the information necessary before developing a remediation (plan), it is certainly worth the additional resources. Vilsack said the state now wants "a much broader review" of possible radioactive contamination because of the information in the declassified documents. Vilsack specifically asked for the Army's position regarding scheduling and conducting a flyover, and said he was asking the same of the Department of Energy. In a May 11 response to Vilsack, Raymond J. Fatz, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for environment, safety and occupational health, noted that the Army has initiated two coordinated efforts to track down and assess possible radiological contamination at the plant. Fatz said a preliminary assessment is being conducted and should be completed this summer to determine whether "further investigations are required and whether a flyover would facilitate such an investigation." "Please be advised," Fatz said, "that (the) Army shares your desire for a thorough review of activities at (IAAP)." At the time Vilsack wrote Caldera, he was no longer secretary of the Army, and a new Bush-appointed secretary has yet to be confirmed. On Thursday, Col. Bruce Elliott, plant commander, said the Army's "official position" is that a flyover with sophisticated radiation detection gear, as sought by the radiological division of the Health Department, is unwarranted and that state regulators do not have the authority to insist on one. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 Front Desk · 319-754-6824 FAX · 1-800-397-1708 Toll Free ***************************************************************** 2 Audit: NIF is another $200 million over budget Lab officials find price estimate overinflated *May 26, 2001* By Lisa FriedmanWASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A major government laser program at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will cost at least $200 million more than even the highest previous estimate, a federal audit will report next week. The new price tag in the long-running fiscal saga of the National Ignition Facility is based largely on the federal Department of Energy's own recent recalculations about how management and other problems with the project have affected its cost. Agency officials, however, argue that auditors have over-inflated the price by factoring in unrelated costs. The audit will set the newest NIF price tag at $4.2 billion, according to sources familiar with the General Accounting Office investigation. The NIF is designed to simulate nuclear weapons explosion, blasting tiny fuel pellets with 192 powerful laser beams, in order to further nuclear weapons research. It was intended to cost $1.2 billion to construct. Problems with the project caused a stir in Congress last year, and though lawmakers approved substantial continued funding for it, they demanded that auditors continue to investigate. And, in response to allegations that the NIF might not even work properly, lawmakers also raised the possibility that scientists only partially build it -- to 48 or 96 beams, perhaps -- and perform tests. According to the forthcoming GAO report, lab officials believe stopping, testing and restarting the NIF could cost as much as $600 million extra. The report does not independently verify those figures, sources said. The report also found the lab has spent about $1.3 billion so far on the NIF, plus about $250 million in extra costs. Livermore officials estimate the program will cost about $108 million annually to operate once it is complete. Sources familiar with the upcoming audit said investigators have characterized that amount as "optimistic." Lab spokesperson Susan Houghton said lab officials in Livermore had not yet seen the report and could not comment. This would not be the first time that government auditors have accused Livermore Laboratory officials of intentionally understimating the NIF price tag. In an August investigation, the GAO reported energy officials knew the laser program would cost more than $1.2 billion but pushed the unrealistic figure "in the belief that Congress would not fund NIF at a higher cost." In order for the NIF to operate on $108million annually, scientists would have to come up with a system of glass lenses that could withstand the high levels of intense ultraviolet energy needed to "ignite" compressed nuclear fuel and simulate a thermonuclear explosion. Without such a technological breakthrough, glass lenses would have to be replaced more often, increasing the annual cost. As of August the GAO had reported that "there currently is no solution to this problem," but DOE officials have told auditors scientists are close to a breakthrough. The report, said congressional aides familiar with it, also says that management problems continue to exist at DOE and that investigators believe the NIF still does not have an adequate review process. The department plans to ask Congress for $245 million next year to keep the NIF on track. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 3 Nuclear black market booming Experts at conference study illegal trafficking *May 25, 2001* By Glenn Roberts Jr. STAFF WRITER International smuggling of radioactive materials is on the rise, with 370 confirmed cases since 1993, and nations must do more to stop the illegal trade, experts said at a conference in Sweden this month. "While most of these incidents do not involve material that can be used for making nuclear weapons, the high number of events shows that we have reason to be concerned," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in his opening address. About 300 experts, including Lawrence Livermore Laboratory researchers, participated in the agency's International Conference on Security of Nuclear Material and Radioactive Sources. Researchers for the energy agency reported at the conference that a database of nuclear trafficking has recorded about 550 reported incidents from Jan. 1, 1993, to March 31, 2001, and two-thirds of the incidents have been confirmed. Numbers show drastic increase "The frequency of confirmed incidents has grown in recent years," the researchers reported, and the number of cases per year in 1999 and 2000 was about double the amount in 1996. About 9 percent of the cases involved highly enriched uranium or plutonium, according to the report. These materials could be useful to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. In one of these incidents, about 2.2 pounds of highly enriched uranium was seized. Stanley Erickson, who works in Livermore Lab's Nonproliferation, Arms Control and International Security program, attended the conference, presenting possible strategies for protection against nuclear smuggling. "The smuggling of nuclear materials is a matter of grave consequence, and if allowed to occur in sufficient amount could lead to nuclear terrorism or nuclear proliferation," Erickson stated in a paper that he prepared with a U.S. Energy Department expert. Paper plans defense Informants can be very useful in tracking illegal nuclear trafficking, the paper states. And disinformation campaigns intended to thwart would-be smugglers can also prove effective. "What deters is perception. If the perception that nuclear smuggling is unlikely to succeed is spread to potential smugglers, deterrence will be achieved," the paper states. Establishing radiation-sensing equipment at the "least risky smuggling routes" should be a priority, and conducting specialized training for law enforcement and transportation workers could curb nuclear trafficking, the paper also states. Sidney Niemeyer, a Livermore Lab researcher, discussed the expanding focus of an International Technical Working Group, formed in 1995 to foster cooperation in combating illicit nuclear trafficking. While the group initially concentrated on developing laboratory methods to help pinpoint the source of smuggled nuclear materials, its mission now includes the detection of nuclear materials during transit. According to a paper prepared by Niemeyer and a collaborator who works for the European Commission Joint Research Centre in Germany, many of the group's members "are directly involved in detecting transit of material" for their respective governments, and "this topic frequently arises" during the group's meetings. Friedrich Steinhausler, a physicist at the University of Salzburg in Austria who has served as a visiting expert at Stanford University, concluded in a paper presented at the conference that even in the highly regulated United States, "about 200 radioactive sources are reported lost, stolen or abandoned every year." And "internationally, customs officers and border guards are facing an increasing illicit flow of nuclear material." The materials can be difficult to detect, he states in the research paper. Conference participants concluded that nations must do more, both individually and cooperatively, to improve security for nuclear materials. NewsChoice.com ***************************************************************** 4 Y-12 could cut 200 jobs May 27, 2001 By Frank Munger, News-Sentinel senior writer OAK RIDGE -- The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant will probably eliminate about 200 jobs in the months ahead, as the contractor tries to get the right "skills mix" in the workforce, but the plant's overall employment picture looks stable, the government's defense chief in Oak Ridge says. Bill Brumley, who oversees Y-12 for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the layoffs will come from support services and functions not directly associated with the plant's defense mission. "Where we can reassign people, we will do that ... but if you have an accountant, for example, you can't make him into a machinist," Brumley said. Because BWXT, the plant's contractor, is expected to hire some workers for manufacturing operations, the total payroll at Y-12 will be virtually unchanged, the federal official said during an interview Friday. The plant currently employs about 4,200 workers. The National Nuclear Security Administration is the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that's responsible for the nuclear weapons complex, including Y-12. Brumley said the jobs cut are not because of a funding shortfall, but more the result of a long-term contract reform effort in Oak Ridge. At one time, a single management contract included three major DOE facilities in Oak Ridge, but in recent years the work has been split into multiple contracts. Brumley said BWXT is trying to eliminate some administrative excess left from times when a much larger support system was required. BWXT replaced Lockheed Martin last November as Y-12 manager, and Brumley gives the new contractor generally good marks. "Overall, they're really doing very well," he said. "Probably for the first three months or so ... we didn't see a lot of actual output -- a lot of good activity but not output. In the last few months, we're now starting to see the results." He cited BWXT for the recent restart of key recycling operations, enabling workers to purify enriched uranium for first time in several years. Meanwhile, the plant's principal mission continues to be production of new parts for W-87 warheads (which are deployed on MX missile systems). The Oak Ridge work is part of the government's "stockpile life-extension program," which involves manufacturing of replacement parts for aging nuclear weapons. After Y-12 makes new warhead parts, they are shipped to the Pantex Plant in Texas -- "where they're reassembled and returned to the field," Brumley said. The production rates at Y-12 are classified, he said. Preliminary plans are being made for future manufacturing missions at Y-12, including refurbished parts for two variations of B-61 bombs (the so-called "earth penetrator" and "gravity bomb" ) and the W-76 nuclear warheads, which are associated with Navy weapon systems. Those two production programs will have a "large impact" on Y-12, Brumley said. The plant's first production for B-61 units is expected in fiscal 2004, while the W-76 manufacturing effort will get under way in 2007. Brumley said it's important to begin preparations well ahead of production schedules -- even though Y-12 manufactured the same parts for the nuclear weapons years ago. "Things have changed since the way we manufactured components in the 1970s and '80s," he said. "Sometimes the actual equipment may not be available, so we have to do process prove-in to ensure ourselves that we can re-manufacture these things the same as we did in the early days." Brumley said a third weapon system -- the W-80 -- is coming into the stockpile life-extension program, but Y-12 will have a relatively minor role. "It is quite likely that we will be manufacturing some test components to support that," he said. Although the new work may have an impact on Y-12 employment, Brumley said it's important to make a smooth transition from production of W-87 parts to those for the B-61 and W-76. "We would really like to manage that workload and keep it as level as possible," he said. "If we hire up to support one campaign, then as soon as it goes away then you have to lay off." Frank Munger can be reached at 865-482-9213 or twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. Copyright 2001 The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 5 Weekend Ceremonies Honor Departing Inspectors The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 27, 2001* BY DAWN HOUSE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Jennifer Andelin will say goodbye to many friends on Memorial Day when the Russian flag over the inspectors' compound in West Jordan is lowered. Andelin, mother of five, found herself involved in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty not long after the agreement went into effect in 1988. She has made countless meals and homemade ice cream for many of the rotating teams of Russian inspectors sent to Utah. Her family has taken inspectors on picnics and hikes in Little Cottonwood Canyon. When West Jordan designated the treaty's reciprocal inspection site in Votkinsk, Russia, Andelin joined the West Jordan Sister City Committee and is now its chairwoman. "Our decisions bring unexpected opportunities and returns,'' said Andelin. "I've learned that we were pumped with as much propaganda during the Cold War as the Russians were. Yet people have the same basic needs and wants. I know that the Russians love their country and their heritage, and they have much to be proud of." Andelin remembers breaking down in tears during her trip to the once-closed city of Votkinsk in the Udmurt Republic last September. She had worked with Russian inspectors in Utah to send boxes of shoes, boots and coats to poor children living in Votkinsk. "It was overwhelming. So many good people had made such an effort to help." In other exchanges, West Jordan police and fire officials have visited Votkinsk. "Overall, their social and mental issues are the same -- long hours, salaries lower than the norm and spouses at home who worry,'' said West Jordan Police Chief Ken McGuire. When Votkinsk police and fire officials visited West Jordan, officers shared current fingerprinting techniques, rescue methods and information on women's shelters. Andelin will be part of the ceremonies marking the expiration of the treaty in which Russian inspectors will return home. On Sunday, the inspectors will be at noon ceremonies in the Salt Lake International Peace Gardens at Jordan Park, 1000 S. 900 West in Salt Lake City. On Monday, they will conduct their final perimeter inspection at Alliant Techsystems in West Valley City. Russian dignitaries will gather Tuesday for a ceremony at 4:30 p.m. at West Jordan's International Peace Center, located at 2200 W. 7800 South, where names will be added to a plaque commemorating the treaty. Later that evening, the Russians will be feted at a banquet before they return home. © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 6 Russian Inspectors to Leave Utah With Fond Memories, Lasting Friendships The Salt Lake Tribune -- May 27, 2001* BY DAWN HOUSE (c) 2001, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE WEST VALLEY CITY -- Utah's role in setting the precedents for international arms-control agreements ends next Thursday when Russian inspectors monitoring Alliant Techsystems here return home. At West Valley City and Votkinsk, Russia, the world's only continuous monitoring sites, inspectors made sure each side was abiding by terms established under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty. Teams of up to 30 inspectors took rotating shifts of three to nine weeks, Russians in West Valley and Americans in VotÂkinsk, 600 miles east of Moscow. They have examined trucks and trains leaving missile plants every day for the past 13 years, making sure no banned nuclear weapons were being manufactured. About 500 Russian inspectors have rotated through Utah since President Ronald Reagan and then-Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty in December 1987. The first Soviet team arrived in Utah six months later, greeted by civic leaders and Magna schoolchildren waving hand-painted welcome signs. Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, however, warned that Russian inspectors might try to spy on vital U.S. defense industries. And Reagan advised American treaty inspectors at bases throughout the world: "Trust everybody, but always cut the cards." In Utah, Russian travel was limited to a 31-mile range of the Alliant (former Hercules Aerospace) plant. It kept technicians from attending Provo's Fourth of July fireworks show or touring national parks. They also were not allowed to visit private homes. "Relations were much more rigid in the first few years,'' said Robert H. Erickson, U.S. chief of the Magna Detachment, so named due to the proximity to the western Salt Lake County community. As trust grew between the countries, the restrictions were lifted. Now, Russians dine with Utah friends and tour the state's parks. They have made hundreds of appearances at schools, churches and civic clubs. One precaution remains: All technicians in West Valley and Votkinsk are escorted by their respective host countries the moment they leave their housing compounds. "The [Russian] inspectors' basic mission of monitoring our plant to make sure we're no longer producing Pershing missiles has not changed," said Amy Fielding, acting public affairs officer for the Magna Detachment. "We're professional, but we've done this for so long that there likely isn't one individual on either side who has not formed some kind of friendship." Russian inspectors volunteered to care for Fielding's puppy, Lily, when Fielding was called out of town. When she returned, the dog was so attached to the inspectors that it only answered commands in Russian. Erickson chuckles recalling the night two years ago when he went to the airport to welcome Maj. Gen. Sergey Tsygankov, deputy director of the Russian Nuclear Risk Reduction Center. In the terminal, Erickson recognized basketball great Bill Russell, who was waiting for a connecting flight. Knowing the Russians are avid NBA fans -- the inspectors' favorite excursion was attending Utah Jazz games -- Erickson asked Russell to welcome a Russian dignitary. "It was late, and Bill Russell had already refused a number of autographs,'' said Erickson. "But he graciously agreed." A stocky, gray-haired Tsygankov disembarked with other passengers from the Delta Air Lines commercial flight. Because the treaty forbids military personnel from wearing uniforms, the general was dressed in tan slacks and a blue and white golf shirt. He was flabbergasted to meet Russell. Erickson took photographs and later presented the general with a scrapbook. To the delight of the Russians, Erickson has assembled dozens of similar mementos chronicling their stay in Utah and their role in the historic treaty. One Russian, Col. Valeriy Turlaev, did not live to see the treaty expire. In 1996, Turlaev suffered a heart attack and died at the Russian compound in West Jordan. On Sunday, inspectors will leave a small glass of vodka and piece of bread near a memorial to Turlaev in the International Peace Gardens. "His death was traumatic,'' said Erickson. "Yet there have been good times, too." Erickson remembers the Russians' bewilderment over Halloween trick-or-treating, and those who sampled turkey and pumpkin pie for the first time on Thanksgiving. The Americans recall the pelmeni (Siberian meat dumplings), shashlyk (barbecued lamb) and the solemnity of Victory Day commemorating the end of World War II. The Soviet Union suffered more than any other nation, losing 20 million people in the war. "When one thinks about the breadth of these new arms control treaties, agreements, and developments, they dwarf the scope of the INF Treaty," wrote historian Joseph Harahan in On Site Inspections Under the INF Treaty. "All, however, are indebted to that treaty and the precedents it established. . . . Perhaps it is time to incorporate into our knowledge of arms control treaties, the efforts of those nations and people who carried out the on-site inspections under the INF Treaty.'' © Copyright 2001, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on ***************************************************************** 7 Gene tests for N-bomb veterans on fast-track New Zealand News - NZ - Independent Group * New Zealand News HMNZS Pukaki crewmen, in protective gear, watch the Christmas Island test. Gene tests for N-bomb veterans on fast-track 26.05.2001 By MATHEW DEARNALEY Scientists are racing against time to pore over the chromosomes of New Zealand survivors of Britain's 21 nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific and Australia in the 1950s. The Nuclear Test Veterans' Association is sending a high-tech microscopy expert from Massey University in Palmerston North to Scotland to study the latest techniques in radiobiological analysis. But with the age, and in some cases ill-health, of the survivors the project has taken on some urgency. Liz Nickless, of Massey's Institute of Molecular Biosciences, leaves for St Andrews University next month to learn how to use the techniques to scrutinise blood samples from New Zealand test veterans for any excessive genetic impairment. Veterans' association president Roy Sefton, whose organisation has a $200,000 Government grant for legal and medical research, is pleased others are getting behind the project. The original plan had been to conduct research on British veterans, as it would have been impossible to send blood, saliva and tissue samples from New Zealand to Scotland without spoiling them in transit. But then he got talking to Massey chromosome researcher Dr Al Rowland and found most of the work could be done at his institute, with some training assistance from St Andrews. Palmerston North-based Mr Sefton says researchers are starting to realise time is running out for studying such a unique collection of medical cases, given that most veterans are aged over 65 and many are in ill health. Such is the mounting scientific interest that the Cancer Society and Royal Society are chipping in for Liz Nickless's air fares and accommodation, he says. She will work after her return with Dr Rowland to analyse samples from 30 to 45 of the veterans, although the exact number to be randomly tested has yet to be determined. Dr Rowland says new technology developed at St Andrews, a world leader in radiobiological analysis, is applicable across a wide field of genetic damage and cancer research. Mr Sefton, one of 551 Navy crewmen who sailed with the frigates Pukaki and Rotoiti into nuclear test zones around Christmas (now Kiritimati) and Malden Islands, also welcomes research contributions from Palmerston North Hospital cancer specialists. He says four oncologists and a radiologist intend spending time each week on the project, without cost to his association or the university. It is unknown how many of the original crew members are still alive, and how many may have died prematurely, but Mr Sefton says his organisation represents 220 survivors and 50 widows. Association research officer Ruth McKenzie, a retired nurse and school-teacher and widow of a chaplain on one of the ships, told a Government committee of inquiry two years ago that only 209 of 475 children born to 282 veterans were in good health. She said then that 25 died in childhood; 15 had severe heart problems; 18 had cancer; 25 had skeletal deformities; 11 had deformed internal organs; 23 had intellectual handicaps or psychiatric disorders; 16 had bone problems; and 54 had serious skin ailments. There had also been 145 miscarriages and 18 stillbirths, and she noted that only 2.5 per cent of the general population could expect to be impaired genetically. At least six New Zealanders were also exposed to radiation at British test sites in Australia, with the British Government forced to acknowledge five of them were among a select group of officers put close to the blasts for experimental purposes. Another was a Royal Air Force helicopter pilot whose family wonder if his death of a heart attack at 46 was related to radiation exposure both in Australia and at Christmas Island. Unlike the United States, which has paid compensation to hundreds of nuclear test veterans and civilians exposed to atomic fallout, Britain has steadfastly denied any responsibility for health problems among Commonwealth forces. But the New Zealand association is expecting legal advice in the next few weeks on whether it has a strong enough case for a class lawsuit, which it believes will gain strong assistance from the British admission about the Australian tests. ©Copyright 2001, NZ Herald ***************************************************************** 8 SNP fudges over N-plant Guardian Unlimited Politics | Election 2001 | Guardian Unlimited Politics Stephen Khan, Scotland editor Sunday May 27, 2001 The Observer The Scottish National Party has failed to give details of how it would meet the multi-billion pound cost of winding down the Dounreay nuclear power facility were it to lead the country to independence. Despite a pledge in its manifesto that the plant would be 'supported as an international centre of decommissioning', the SNP has not explained where the money would come from to cover the £4 billion price tag currently being paid by UK taxpayers. The three reactors built on the site - the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) and the Dounreay Materials Test Reactor - are now closed and the core programme of work on the site near Thurso, on the north coast of Scotland, comprises the decommissioning of the DFR and PFR units. That work, expected to last up to 60 years, is carried out by the UK Atomic Energy Authority with money channelled through the Department of Trade and Industry. Government estimates say the operation could cost £4bn; the DTI is currently spending in the region of £150m a year on the project. In its election manifesto, the SNP says of nuclear power: 'Existing facilities will be decommissioned at the end of their economic or technical capacity. Dounreay will be supported as an international centre of decommissioning, allowing Scotland to export its expertise.' Helen Liddell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, last night called for a complete breakdown of how the SNP would pay for the work at Dounreay, adding that the decommissioning of other public sector nuclear installations would also fall under the control of a post-independence Edinburgh administration. Liddell told The Observer: 'In an independent Scotland the SNP would not only have to take on the decommissioning costs for Dounreay, but pay for the closure and clean-up of other nuclear facilities, such as those at Rosyth and Faslane. It's hard to say their sums don't add up over this as we have never seen them.' 'The cost of their financial incompetence will be felt by every family in Scotland, and the case of Dounreay is one example of just what is being soaked up by UK budgets at the moment in ways which the SNP have never wanted to take into account. There are huge hidden costs of separation for Scotland of which this is just one.' But a spokesman for the SNP said: 'Dounreay is a UK facility and London will have a legally inherited obligation to pay their share of decommissioning. To suggest otherwise is totally absurd and without foundation.' ***************************************************************** 9 We were 'A-bomb guinea pigs' The Sunday Times: May 27 2001 LETTERS Letters to the Editor - Farm muddle goes on as election looms | 'Blue beast' Portillo mauled at Bradford school | More battling over Brussels | Buy public sector efficiency privately | Points Your article concerning the use of servicemen as guinea pigs has spurred me to write this letter (Britain accused of lying over Australian A-bomb 'guinea pigs', World News, May 13). For part of the nuclear testing at Maralinga I was on detachment, 24 squadron Transport Command, our task being to fly equipment and personnel to the test site. The aircraft would return to Edinburgh Field (the home base) within a short time of the particular test having been carried out. They were often covered in dust and the aircrew told us they had flown through dust clouds while returning. At no time were we given information relevant to radiation contamination. On one occasion our overalls were tested with Geiger counters and taken away, and we were given clean overalls. I recently had surgery to remove a malignant melanoma. J Weeden * Sunbury on Thames, Middlesex* Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided ***************************************************************** 10 State of Royal Navy Submarine fleet called into question BBC Online - Devon - News - 28th May 2001 The Devonport-based nuclear submarine HMS Tireless returned to her home port for the first time in more than a year yesterday. The vessel's arrival marked an end to an embarrasing 12 months for the Navy's submarine fleet. But with all 12 hunter killer subs currently in port, there's renewed speculation about the state of the fleet. HMS Tireless slipped sheepishly into Plymouth Sound just before 7am. But this was no triumphant return. It marked the end of an embarrassing 12 months for the Royal Navy's submarine fleet. Mike Critchley- the editor of Warship World says; "For this hundredth anniversary this is the worst year the submarine service has probably had but one has got to say that they err on the side of caution, people's lives are at risk, and you can't blame them for that". Submarines at Devonport Tireless limped into Gibraltar and a storm of protests in May last year after suffering a leak in her reactor cooling system. What was described by the Navy as a "minor fault" eventually led to all 12 Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines being recalled. And the fleet was decimated. Today five Trafalgar Class submarines, are undergoing repair or refit at Devonport. Just two, Triumph and Tireless are operational, but they are also in port at the moment. The five Swiftsure submarines based at Faslane in Scotland are also out of action. It's rare for at least one submarine not to be at sea and the news has prompted fresh concerns. [John Reed] Defence analyst John Reed Defence analyst John reed says the MoD has been inconsistent; "The language of the ministry of defence throughout the year has been - if not actually covering up the truth - much less than frank."he said, "It hasn't been consistent with the policy of telling the truth - or trying to satisfy considerable public concerns about the safety of nuclear submarines when they have some form of breakdown." The navy has always maintained it's been as open as possible throughout the Tireless saga - it says it's not unusual for a submarine to visit her home port and she'll remain there for a few weeks. ***************************************************************** 11 Britain used DU in 1950s Tnuclear guinea pig' tests Sunday Herald By Rob Edwards Environment Editor Tonnes of depleted uranium (DU), the toxic radioactive metal blamed for causing cancers in the Gulf and Balkan wars, were blasted into the environment by Britain's nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific and Australia in the 1950s, the Sunday Herald can reveal. The disclosure has shocked veterans of the nuclear tests, who now suspect that DU may be implicated in the illnesses that many of them have suffered in the years since. And scientists are calling for the government to reopen its inquiry into the health of the 21,000 British servicemen who took part in the tests on Christmas Island and at Maralinga in the Australian desert. 'It beggars belief,' said Sheila Gray, the secretary of the British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association. 'They gave us the impression that DU had never been used before the Gulf war and now it turns out it was used in the 1950s. It's yet another hazard our men had to face.' Last week the Sunday Herald revealed that the government had a top-secret plan, codenamed Operation Lighthouse, to put hundreds of British and Australian troops 'as close as possible' to nuclear explosions at Maralinga in 1959 to test the effects of the bomb. On Wednesday, that prompted the Australian federal government to launch an inquiry into whether servicemen had been used as radiation guinea pigs. Bruce Scott, the veterans affairs minister, was seeking an urgent briefing on 50 classified documents posted on the internet which outlined the planned operation. He is also investigating another disclosure by the Sunday Herald in April that two dozen soldiers tested protective clothing by crawling, marching or driving through a fall-out zone three days after a nuclear test at Maralinga in 1956. The first confirmation that DU was present in the Pacific tests came in a private letter last month from the Ministry of Defence to a Scottish veteran from Fraserburgh, Bob Brown. 'There were quantities of depleted uranium used in the weapons tested at Christmas Island,' wrote anMoDofficialfrom Whitehall. The official said that much of the DU would have been consumed in the nuclear explosion, but that some would have been shot upwards in a fireball and contained in the mushroom cloud. Brown, who was at Christmas Island in 1957 and 1958 and now chairs a veterans' research group known as G2, feared that DU could turn out to be the cause of much illness. The uranium was wrapped around the core of bombs to boost their yield because it was cheap and available, said Brown. 'But they have kept it under wraps until now. I believe the MoD knew about the effects of the weapons, including DU, long before the Gulf war but they kept it quiet.' Evidence that DU was also used at Maralinga came in an e-mail to an Australian veteran, Major Alan Batchelor, from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The agency's Geoff Williams said that more than eight tonnes of uranium was 'dispersed' by explosions at Maralinga. The British government had admitted that this consisted of 7.4 tonnes at Kuli, 47.3kg at Taranaki and the rest at a series of 'minor trials'. The uranium, which included both the 235 and 238 isotopes, 'formed very fine particles under implosion'. According to Batchelor, the British bombs contained up to 20 times as much uranium as plutonium. 'These materials, when vaporised in the fireball, would condense out as finely divided invisible oxides of these metals, potentially lethal or capable of causing cancer in the lung, liver, kidney or blood-forming bone marrow.' The uranium from a bomb would form much smaller particles than the DU from a shell and would be easier to inhale, argued Batchelor. If DU had harmed soldiers in the Gulf, he said, 'this could have been worse for servicemen working in areas close to ground zeros (the sites of nuclear explosions), and with no follow-up actionwouldhavegone unnoticed.' However, last week the MoD argued that there was no comparison between the DU used in armour-piercing shells during the Gulf and Balkan wars in the past decade and that exploded in nuclear tests during the 1950s. Except in the most extreme circumstances, the metal posed no significant threat to human health, a spokeswoman claimed. But Malcolm Hooper, emeritusprofessorofmedicinal chemistry at the University of Sunderland, disagreed. 'Youcan'tdistributesmall aerosol particles of DU and then deny there is a hazard,' he said. 'They are trying to belittle what is a serious problem.' ©2001 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088. all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Crunch time for British tank ammunition policy - Jane's Land Forces 23 May 2001 The tungsten kinetic energy anti-tank ammunition for the British Army's Challenger 2 tank fleet may be withdrawn from service in 2003, *IDR* has learned. This could precipitate a supply crisis among existing export customers for British tanks, and become a further source of embarrassment for the British government recently enmeshed in international arguments about the political and medical acceptability of the alternative, depleted uranium rounds. The L23 120mm tungsten penetrator ammunition began in development as an operational emergency (OE) upgrade for the Chieftain (and subsequently the Challenger 1) tank in 1978. It is considered that L23 has insufficient lethality to penetrate the frontal armour of modern tanks. Nonetheless, for the British Army it has remained on the operational inventory, not least because of the relative paucity of modern tanks encountered in the hands of potentially hostile forces in recent peace support missions, but also to exploit the less burdensome political image of tungsten ammunition in comparison with depleted uranium types. For other armies using Challenger 1 or Chieftain-type tanks the L23 has been and remains the only available kinetic-energy (KE) round. Last year, as reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, the L14A1/A2 charge stockpile associated with the L23 projectile had to be trialled for life extension. This was undertaken, among other reasons, because of accuracy debits manifested in the Greek firing evaluation of the Challenger 2 tank; the British Army found that some of its ammunition charges had been through too many temperature cycles whilst stored in the open in the Gulf and they were removed from stock - it was some of this ammunition that was used in Greece. The British Army has adopted the line that it does not need to take any action, because it now has stocks of a much more accurate and lethal substitute for the L23, in the form of the L27A1 (CHARM 3) projectile, which has a depleted uranium penetrator and new high-pressure charge. The British Army's Master General of the Ordnance, Major General Peter Gilchrist, when asked about the desirability of retaining a tungsten KE capability, insisted to *IDR*, "We have a requirement to meet the threat and this can currently only be achieved by using DU. There is no scientific evidence that DU has caused ill-health to anyone and we have concluded that there is no significant health risk from exposure to DU providing the proper procedures are followed. The government fully supports this position." Some observers might consider that British troops would be well-served by having a new tungsten KE penetrator round for many of the same reasons that it has retained the L23 until now. Obsolescence issues apart, the option of re-introducing into production the L14A1 charge currently used with the L23 is untenable without incurring considerable expense, since the propellant facility operated by BAE Systems at Bishopton is scheduled to close as soon as its CHARM 3 production obligations are fulfilled. Qualifying a second producer would be an expensive step for an out-of-date design. A Challenger 2 fires its 120mm L30 gun. Production of a non-DU alternative to the CHARM 3 round would seem to be dependent on Challenger 2 successfully winning the Greek tank contest, but this has apparently been deferred until after 2004. Jane's International Defense Review Online (frequent updates + ***************************************************************** 13 Pakistan reiterates call for plebiscite -DAWN - Top Stories; 28 May, 2001 NEW DELHI, May 27: Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, Pakistan's High Commissioner to India, said on Sunday that Pakistan's willingness for a bilateral dialogue with India did not signify any change in Islamabad's fundamental position on Kashmir. Speaking to The Hindustan Times following a formal invitation to Pakistan for a summit by India, Qazi said: "A plebiscite is what we have in mind. It did not happen earlier because India did not agree to it." In a programme to be broadcast by Star News channel Sunday, Qazi said that if there was a plebiscite in Kashmir, a majority of people would vote in favour of accession to Pakistan. Asked how Pakistan would respond if Kashmiris on both sides of the border, were to choose independence, Qazi said UN resolutions offer only India or Pakistan as options. If there was a third one, the charter would have to be amended.-dpa © The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2001 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************