*****************************************************************
05/29/01 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 9.134
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************

                    NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS
 
 1  Nuke waste containers corrode in water test
 2  NRC seeks reassessment of quake threat
 3  Chair Changes Likely To Alter Priorities 
 4  Industry eyes new reactors; could Vermont Yankee get one? 
 5  Who'll Run America's Nuke Plants?
 6  Hard Questions on Nuclear Power
 7  Nuclear Dump owners manual
 8  Don't blame Turkey Point: Blame the sun.
 9  Fight Brewing Over Trade Law
10  DOE &State of Missouri Reach Agreement For Spent Fuel 
11  NRC Sends Special Inspection Team to Westinghouse Fuel 
12  AECL hid reactor failures from watchdog: Report
13  Leaky pipes at NB nuclear reactor raise concerns about all Candu plants 
14  Japanese Voters Reject Mixed Plutonium Uranium Nuclear Fuel
15  JAPANESE CITIZENS REJECT PLUTONIUM MOX USE - MAJOR SETBACK FOR 
16  Japan Urges Support for Nuclear Power
17  Tiny village upsets plans for global nuclear industry 
18  Premier: Govt must explain MOX use 
19  MOX fuel policy now in question 
20  Opponents pleased with anti-MOX vote 
21  Koizumi plans to boost PR after town votes no on MOX 
22  re letter to editor on hearing for SJR4 
23  U.S. think tank praises village for standing against fuel plan 
24  Japan offensive on nuclear power
25  Friends of the Earth UK Asks Court Inquiry into MOX Nuclear Plant
26  Production stoppage at Studsvik's Erwin facility
27  BNFL says Japanese vote against Mox is no 'setback'
28  Russia Allows Nuke Dump Inspection
29  Russia allows Norway into waste base
30  Waste Dump Opened 
31  Burial of nuclear waste back on political agenda   
32  Reid’s promotion a coup for Nevada
33  Action Alert! SDEIS Hearings
34  Ground zero in nuclear-power battle
35  Energy study gives black marks to coal, boost to nukes

                    NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS
 
 1  Goals outlined for Y-12 weapons plant 
 2  Opinion - In Oak Ridge, a fervor for science told well
 3  The right formula: UT-Battelle funds high school science labs
 4  Uranium plants harm ozone layer 
 5  Student representatives appointed to DOE SSAB 
 6  Gov't Holds Back Scientist's Book
 7  Intent to form a National Nuclear Security Committee
 8  Deadly uranium details prompt health study
 9  Nuclear scientist, former NTS official Perez dies at 73

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 Nuke waste containers corrode in water test
 
May 29, 2001 
 
By Mary Manning 
<manning@lasvegassun.com>
 LAS VEGAS SUN
 
Energy Department scientists are wrestling with potential 
weaknesses in the metal chosen to store highly radioactive waste 
in a proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

 The alloy that will make up containers holding rods of spent 
nuclear fuel showed signs of corrosion after worst-case exposure 
to water from the mountain, DOE scientists told a seven-member 
scientific review team last week in Las Vegas.

 Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only 
site being studied to hold 77,000 tons of waste from nuclear 
power plants and defense activities.

 The mountain must be proven safe for a repository, and so far no 
studies have presented insurmountable obstacles, according to a 
DOE report on the research released last month.

 The DOE is expected to make its recommendation on Yucca Mountain 
later this year. An independent scientific team began reviewing 
DOE's work on proposed nuclear waste containers last week. The 
team expects to finish its final report by April, Chairman Joe 
Payer said.

 The containers made of C-22 alloy are considered the first line 
of defense to protect the environment and nearby residents from 
radiation. The mountain's volcanic rock is the other.

 Scientists also are researching the potential for water to reach 
the repository level and for radiation to escape the mountain 
through ground water.

 The containers are being designed to keep the highly radioactive 
spent fuel and defense wastes intact for 10,000 years, the 
planned lifetime of the repository.

 The metal planned for the containers has been used in corrosive 
environments such as pulp bleaching and flue gas stacks, said 
Gerald Gordon of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Power, a DOE 
contractor. A sheet of an earlier form of the metal exposed to 
sea air since 1941 is still shiny, he said

 However, in some laboratory tests using water from a well near 
Yucca Mountain containing lead, arsenic or mercury, some stress 
cracks in the metal were recorded, he said.

 The temperature of the water was above boiling -- 212 degrees 
Fahrenheit -- in the experiments, Gordon said. Other studies have 
predicted that the preferred design for a repository would allow 
the mountain to get that hot.

 In September scientific consultants for Nevada who studied the 
metal alloy said C-22 corroded in samples of the same water in 14 
days.

 The danger of corrosion from water inside the desert mountain is 
not remote.

 Although the repository would be built 500 feet above the water 
table, the mountain's pores and cracks contain plenty of water, 
Gregory Gdowski of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 
said. "That is quite a bit of water you can generate."

 The water, as it flows through Yucca's rock, could become 
saltier, possibly corroding the metals proposed for containers, 
he said. It can also bring naturally occurring lead, arsenic or 
mercury into contact with the containers, speeding corrosion, 
Gdowski said.

 In addition to water, scientists have discovered organisms in 
Yucca's soils that can live in high heat and salty water. Some of 
the microbes can eat through carbon steel, which would be used 
for frames holding the containers, Gdowski said.

 "There are bugs in the mountain," Gdowski said. They can survive 
temperatures up to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, considered warm, but 
not boiling water, he said. While radiation from nuclear waste 
buried in the mountain is expected to kill those organisms, water 
seeping into the drifts where the containers could bring more 
microbes, he said. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 2  NRC seeks reassessment of quake threat

Spectrum
 
 05/27/2001 By: 

Commission: How would proposed Goshute nuclear facility hold up 
in a tremor “I’m hoping they will take a step back and re-look at 
all of the safety issues.” 

Connie Nakahara 

State’s lead attorney for the nuclear waste opposition 

Associated Press 

SALT LAKE CITY — The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 
seeking a reassessment of the danger an earthquake would present 
at the proposed nuclear-waste storage facility on the Skull 
Valley Goshute Indian Reservation. 

The NRC wants Private Fuel Storage (PFS), the consortium 
proposing the site, to reassess what might happen during an 
earthquake and how the facility would hold up, “Now they seem to 
be, on their own initiative, taking a really hard look at this,” 
said an aide to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. 

“I’m hoping they will take a step back and re-look at all of the 
safety issues,” said Connie Nakahara, the state’s lead attorney 
for the nuclear waste opposition. 

PFS did not respond to calls seeking comment. 

The consortium of eight utilities has signed an agreement with 
the Goshutes to store spent nuclear fuel at the reservation, 
about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The $3.1 billion 
facility would hold the steel-and-concrete casks of waste on a 
soil-and-concrete pad. 

PFS, the tribe, the Tooele County Commission and other supporters 
insist the storage would pose no threat to Utah residents or the 
environment, and would help solve national energy problems and 
bolster local economies. 

The site would be big enough to hold all of the waste commercial 
nuclear power plants have produced over the past four decades, 
including that stored at the 20 nuclear power plants owned by the 
PFS-member utilities in the East, Midwest and California. 

As the NRC has studied the storage permit application for the 
past three years, the state has criticized the earthquake safety 
analysis. New data provided by PFS last fall suggest the earth’s 
swaying and bouncing during a quake might be worse than 
originally estimated. 

The consortium has noted previously that the Goshute site sits on 
and around faults that could produce temblors as big as those 
that shook Seattle earlier this year and Oakland, Calif., in 
1989. PFS insists the pad and the casks can withstand that sort 
of jostling. 

The state filed papers with the NRC last week, asserting the new 
data beg a new analysis of the pad and earth beneath it. 

In a May 7 letter, the NRC told PFS its latest ground and 
earthquake analysis “does not contain sufficient information to 
permit a complete and adequate technical review.”
 
Copyright 1999 The Spectrum. Click here for Terms of Use, and 
*****************************************************************
 3  Chair Changes Likely To Alter Priorities 

(washingtonpost.com)
 
May 27, 2001; Page A10 

How the change in party control will affect the major committees:

 APPROPRIATIONS
 
In his new role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Sen. 
Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) will hold sway over President Bush's 
plans to increase spending on education, energy research and 
defense.
 
Byrd, self-described "granddaddy" of the clean coal technology 
program, shares Bush's desire to promote new, environmentally 
friendly ways to burn Appalachia's high-sulfur coal. But on the 
larger matter of discretionary spending, Byrd yesterday pointed 
to a problem. "We don't have the money," he said.
 
Over Byrd's strong objections, the GOP's budget resolution limits 
next year's growth in spending for government departments and 
programs to 4 percent. Much of the increase will go to defense. 
Byrd, renowned for channeling billions of federal dollars to West 
Virginia, has little use for an announced White House campaign to 
limit congressional earmarks.
 
In addition to Byrd, the 13 new Democratic Senate "cardinals" -- 
chairman of the appropriations subcommittees -- will each 
emphasize new priorities. These range from Sen. Patrick J. 
Leahy's (D-Vt.) interest in children's health abroad to Reid's 
opposition to storing U.S. nuclear wastes in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
 
-- Dan Morgan AGRICULTURE
 

Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the likely new chairman, will have the task 
of steering a new farm bill through Congress; the current one 
expires next year. But congressional sources say the final 
product may look pretty much as it would if Republican Richard G. 
Lugar (Ind.) were still wielding the gavel. Harkin and Lugar have 
worked together closely on a committee that is known for 
bipartisan comity.
 
Democratic control of the Senate could, however, affect the 
debate over farm policy. Incoming majority leader Thomas A. 
Daschle has complained bitterly that previous farm bills have 
shortchanged Upper Midwest grain farmers. The grain and dairy 
states of the Midwest and Great Plains are an important power 
base for Senate Democrats, several of whom are up for reelection 
in 2002.
 
Democrats also will be more receptive than the GOP to arguments 
of unfair foreign agricultural trade practices. Harkin, an ally 
of organized labor in its battle to protect U.S. jobs, is 
particularly sensitive to trade concerns. "It will complicate 
White House hopes for 'fast track' procedures for ratifying trade 
agreements without amendments," said Jim Webster, author of the 
Webster Agricultural Letter.
 
-- Dan Morgan ARMED SERVICES
 

Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who is taking over the committee from 
John W. Warner (R-Va.), brings skepticism to key Bush 
administration initiatives, such as building missile defenses and 
increasing Pentagon spending.
 
"Given the size of the tax cut that's being enacted, given the 
determination on the part of most senators to avoid taking the 
Medicare surplus, a hope on the part of most senators to [avoid] 
going back to the deficit situation, we need to know where the 
additional funds would be coming from," Levin said.
 
He also is likely to push harder than Warner to close more 
military bases that the armed services deem unnecessary but that 
many in Congress have wanted to keep.
 
But the changeover at Armed Services may prove most significant 
for how it changes the balance of power at the Pentagon. 
Democrats now will have a platform from which to hold hearings 
scrutinizing the administration's defense program.
 
The opportunity to summon the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify 
about that program could prove important because some members of 
the Joint Chiefs have been uneasy about Defense Secretary Donald 
H. Rumsfeld's emphasis on missile defense, space operations and 
intelligence gathering. They fear that spending on those areas 
could drain defense money away from more traditional warplanes, 
warships and tanks.
 
-- Thomas E. Ricks BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
 

Paul S. Sarbanes, a liberal Democrat from Maryland, likely will 
move up to chairman and is expected to bring a more open, 
inclusive style to the panel than that favored by his 
conservative Republican counterpart, Phil Gramm of Texas.
 
Unlike Gramm, Sarbanes is eager to bolster consumer and investor 
protections, including those intended to guard financial privacy 
and prevent abusive mortgage-lending practices.
 
But business and consumer lobbyists agree that while Sarbanes 
would shift the committee's focus, his ability to actually move 
controversial privacy or mortgage-lending legislation is less 
certain because of the Democrat's slim lead. Industry lobbyists 
fear that voter concern about financial privacy might be high 
enough to induce a majority of committee members to join Sarbanes 
in trying to tighten restrictions against the sale of private 
consumer data.
 
-- Kathleen Day BUDGET
 

The Budget Committee has discharged its main responsibility for 
this year -- drafting the annual budget resolution, which sets 
guidelines and ceilings for the appropriations bills that 
Congress must pass later in the session. But procedures governing 
the budget process expire next year, and new chairman Kent Conrad 
(D-N.M.) can use his power to shape the rules.
 
Moreover, another budget resolution will be needed next year, and 
Conrad vowed that he will steer resources toward Democratic 
priorities, in particular using the budget surplus to pay down 
the national debt and funding prescription drug benefits for 
seniors.
 
"Having Kent Conrad in charge will lead to a very different 
result than if the Republicans have control, because the 
committee won't be trying to do things that guarantee tax cuts," 
said Stanley Collender, a budget expert with Fleishman-Hillard, a 
public affairs firm.
 
-- Paul Blustein COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
 

This committee has traditionally operated on a bipartisan basis 
on many issues, with Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) exercising 
considerble clout despite the Democrats' minority status. Still, 
a Hollings-run committee is likely to generate some different 
results, especially in the area of telecommunications policy.
 
Much more than John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hollings takes a jaundiced 
view of the deregulatory approach embraced by Federal 
Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell on issues 
such as the consolidation of ownership in the broadcast industry.
 
Hollings is a fierce critic of the regional Bell telephone 
companies and wants to prod the Bells to open their markets in 
local telephone service to competition.
 
The switch in chairmen could also affect the nomination of Mary 
Sheila Gall to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission. A 
CPSC member since 1991, Gall has been criticized by consumer 
groups for voting against regulating many consumer products.
 
On the transportation side of the panel, Hollings has also 
differed from McCain on Amtrak -- Hollings is a big advocate of 
the financially beleaguered national passenger railroad, while 
McCain was a severe critic.
 
-- Paul Blustein ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
 

On the day before Jeffords's defection from the GOP, Frank H. 
Murkowski (R-Alaska) was making plans to put a comprehensive, 
300-plus-page energy bill in front of the committee, hoping for 
approval by July 4. But now the committee will be under Jeff 
Bingaman's gavel, and the New Mexico Democrat says he's going to 
tackle energy issues in separate, smaller packages and on a 
slower timetable -- the same approach the House is following.
 
With Democrats in charge of the Senate's energy agenda, the door 
to oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge's coastal plain appears to be shut tight. Bingaman does 
support construction of a new natural gas pipeline linking the 
United States with gas fields in Alaska and Canada.
 
One of the committee's top priorities now will be legislation 
directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to restrain 
soaring wholesale electricity prices in California. And in a 
conference call Friday with industry analysts, Bingaman endorsed 
a range of energy strategies from conservation to nuclear power.
 
The committee will look at new approaches to regulating pollution 
discharges from refineries and power plants, including future 
limits on carbon dioxide emissions -- a key "greenhouse" gas. 
Bingaman said he hoped Congress could put the United States "into 
a responsible leadership position on climate change."
 
-- Peter Behr ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
 

As if bolting the GOP wasn't bad enough, Jeffords, who is in line 
to assume the chairmanship of the environment committee, has 
championed an agenda that is likely to put him at odds with the 
White House over key environmental issues.
 
Jeffords has opposed drilling for oil in Alaska's wildlife 
refuge, part of Bush's energy plan. He also differs with the 
administration over global warming and the importance of reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions -- a chief cause of the Earth's rising 
temperature -- from coal-fired power plants.
 
Jeffords and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) have introduced 
the Clean Power Act, which would sharply reduce power plant 
emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury and carbon 
dioxide. Bush reneged on a campaign promise to reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions and instead is calling for a "three-pollutant" 
approach focusing on the reductions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur 
dioxide and mercury pollution.
 
-- Eric Pianin FINANCE
 

Max Baucus (Mont.) angered many in his party by working closely 
with his GOP counterpart, Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), on Bush's 
tax cut plan. He emphasized repeatedly that he was working in the 
traditional spirit of bipartisanship on the powerful panel, which 
he said would continue when he becomes chairman.
 
While Grassley had planned to begin crafting a trade bill next 
month, Baucus is likely to put that aside to focus on adding a 
prescription drug benefit to Medicare -- one broader than that 
contemplated by Republicans.
 
Baucus spokesman Michael Siegal said the senator supported the 
administration's efforts to seek fast-track negotiating authority 
for trade deals, but environmental and labor concerns must be 
addressed in future trade pacts. Baucus would turn first to a 
patients' bill of rights, which partially falls under Finance's 
control, and the prescription drug benefit. Baucus, who 
represents a rural state, is especially interested in equalizing 
inequities between rural and urban access to prescription drugs.
 
One item that is not high on Baucus's agenda is more tax cuts. 
"It is fair to say he will reserve judgment on any other tax 
bill," Siegal said.
 
-- Glenn Kessler FOREIGN RELATIONS
 

Democratic control of the committee will mean the departure as 
chairman of Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), a strong conservative who has 
used the committee to block nominations, arms control treaties 
and funding for the United Nations. It also means tougher 
questioning of the Bush administration's policies on national 
missile defense, negotiations with North Korea and peacekeeping 
in the Balkans.
 
While Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) is in line to be chairman -- 
he is also considering Judiciary -- the committee would adopt a 
more skeptical posture toward the administration's handling of 
these issues regardless of who assumes the top post.
 
Though many Democratic members have supported research and 
development of some missile defense technology, the 
administration's determination to build a national shield costing 
more than $50 billion has drawn criticism from the Democrats. 
They question whether the system can be developed and whether it 
would serve U.S. interests.
 
The change of control will also put more congressional pressure 
on the administration to explain its reluctance to continue 
missile talks with North Korea. When Bush abruptly suspended 
those negotiations in March, saying the United States had 
concerns about the verification of agreements with the Pyongyang 
government, Democrats on the committee vigorously objected that 
this would undermine efforts to stabilize the Korean peninsula.
 
If Biden becomes chairman, the committee will likely pay far more 
attention to the administration's policies in the Balkans, a 
region that has long been one of his passions. He has been 
particularly critical of remarks by officials, most recently 
Rumsfeld, indicating the United States plans to withdraw its 
peacekeeping troops from the region.
 
-- Alan Sipress HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
 

Fellow New Englanders Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Jeffords 
share many of the same policy goals, but they frequently saw 
their legislative efforts die at the hands of GOP congressional 
leaders and, more recently, the Bush White House.
 
As a result, the most significant change for this committee may 
be the fresh opportunity to move progressive health care 
legislation to the Senate floor. "This will be a more extensive, 
more expansive agenda," Kennedy said in an interview Friday as he 
ticked off a long list of bills he plans to present to the full 
Senate.
 
Even before the change in power took place, Kennedy and Daschle 
had promised to make a patients' bill of rights the top priority 
after completing an education reform bill. Bush opposes the bill, 
and the White House has shown little inclination to negotiate. 
"For eight weeks they stiffed us," Kennedy complained. "I am 
amazed we can work on the area of education, but not health 
care."
 
Kennedy and co-sponsor McCain say they are close to having the 60 
votes needed to prevent a filibuster. "We've got all the medical 
groups," said an unusually chipper Kennedy. "That's our ace in 
the hole."
 
Democrats are also optimistic about proposals to expand the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to low-income parents. 
A joint federal-state project, CHIP targets youngsters who do not 
qualify for Medicaid but are without health care.
 
-- Ceci Connolly INTELLIGENCE
 

Florida Sen. Bob Graham's replacement of Richard C. Shelby 
(R-Ala.) should not lead to major change in the panel's agenda, 
since both are strong supporters of the U.S. intelligence 
community.
 
Graham is said to have a solid, if not close, working 
relationship with Director of Central Intelligence George J. 
Tenet. Shelby, by contrast, has been far more combative toward 
Tenet, although tensions have abated since Bush announced he 
would be keeping Tenet on at Langley.
 
One key difference between Graham and Shelby, noted last week by 
the Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood, is that 
Graham favors public disclosure of the intelligence community's 
overall budget -- thought to be about $30 billion a year -- while 
Shelby believes it should remain a secret.
 
-- Vernon Loeb JUDICIARY
 

Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who is expected to assume the chair of 
the committee, has made it clear he would restore the role of the 
American Bar Association in evaluating prospective judges. He 
would also require approval from both of a judicial nominee's 
home-state senators before taking up the nomination, a 
requirement that would significantly constrain the ability of the 
Bush administration to win approval of very conservative judges.
 
An opponent of the death penalty, Leahy can be expected to use 
his chairmanship to win approval of his Innocence Protection Act, 
which calls for the hiring of "competent" counsel in death 
penalty cases and post-conviction DNA testing if such procedures 
are possible.
 
He is also expected to push for legislation increasing privacy 
protections on the Internet, in financial transactions and in 
bankruptcy proceedings.
 
-- Thomas B. Edsall RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
 

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) would likely move rapidly on 
his bill to revamp the nation's election laws. The legislation, 
endorsed by every Democrat in the Senate, would set minimum 
national standards for access to the polls and educating 
potential voters. It would offer grants to states to purchase new 
voting equipment and to train poll workers. Under Mitch McConnell 
(R-Ky.), the committee held one hearing on election reform but 
had not pursued the Dodd bill.
 
-- Ceci Connolly
 
                      © 2001 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 4  Industry eyes new reactors; could Vermont Yankee get one? 

May 29, 2001   
  
VERNON, Vt. (AP) — The three power companies interested in buying 
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant have all expressed 
interest in building new reactors: Could there be a Vermont 
Yankee Unit II in the future?
 
No one has made the suggestion, formally or otherwise.
 
But industry officials say that given the current power crunch in 
the United States new nuclear power plants are, for the first 
time in years, a possibility.
 
And Vermont Yankee has the infrastructure in place to feed more 
power to the region’s power grid.
 
The Nuclear Energy Institute announced last week that nuclear 
power companies would seek to build 50 more reactors within the 
next 20 years, a move which would increase the nation’s fleet of 
103 reactors by nearly 50 percent.
 
Opponents and proponents of nuclear power alike say the most 
likely site for a new nuclear power plant would be next to an 
existing reactor. And the apparent big players in the new reactor 
drive are the same companies who have shown a strong interest in 
Vermont Yankee, and are likely preparing purchase bids at this 
time.
 
"Excelon (parent company of AmerGen Energy Co.) came in to meet 
with us earlier this year to talk about the pebble bed modular 
reactors," said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil 
Sheehan. "They’re looking at what it would take if they decide to 
move ahead with (new) reactors in this country. We’ve heard from 
some other utilities more informally."
 
Those utilities are other big players in the nuclear world: 
Entergy Nuclear, Inc. "certainly indicated they might be 
interested" in building new reactors, according to the NRC; 
Dominion Resources is another possible player.
 
Both, like AmerGen, have expressed interest in buying Vermont 
Yankee, which is currently being auctioned by investment banking 
firm J. P. Morgan.
 
Three new designs for nuclear reactors have already been approved 
by the NRC. The potential applicant’s next challenge is to find a 
site. Officials agree the best place to build a new reactor is 
where one already exists.
 
"If (Vermont Yankee) has the transmission system there that could 
handle the additional (megawatts)," it might make sense to build 
another reactor on the site, said David Lochbaum, the Union of 
Concerned Scientists’ nuclear engineer.
 
© 2001 Geo. J. Foster Co.   
*****************************************************************
 5  Who'll Run America's Nuke Plants?

BW Online | May 29, 2001 | 
 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 		 			 			 			 		 		 		 		 		 <IMG
  Just as President Bush is trying to boost this energy source, 
the industry faces a critical shortage of qualified personnel 

Jim Little earned a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering and 
has worked for a nuclear power plant in the middle of Missouri 
for 15 years. Every so often, he has pulled aside college 
students who hoped to follow in his footsteps and give them this 
advice: "Turn back. It's not too late." 

Don't misunderstand. Little, 37, believes in nuclear energy. He's 
the son of a civil engineer and saw his future in seventh grade 
when St. Louis-based energy company Ameren (AEE ) announced it 
would build a reactor in Callaway County. It's just that Little 
didn't see the '80s bust in nuclear energy coming. 

As a senior at the University of Missouri-Rolla, Little would 
flick on the TV and see another news report of a utility 
canceling construction of a nuclear power plant, or a story about 
yet another lay off of nuclear engineers. "I'm getting a degree 
for a dead industry," he recalls thinking. Despite the tight job 
market, Little landed at Ameren. Some of his buddies with 
engineering degrees weren't so lucky. 

CAREER SWITCH.  Safety and environmental concerns were heightened 
by the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown. Since then, many 
engineering students have come to perceive nuclear power as 
having no future, even though the nation's 100-plus nuke plants 
still supply about 20% of U.S. power. Rather than sign on with 
power companies, many of those devoted to nuclear science have 
chosen to work in radiation treatment at hospitals or in 
radiological safety at companies and research centers. 

These days, however, things are looking up for the beleaguered 
nuclear-power industry. As part of his new energy plan, President 
George W. Bush hopes to revive interest in nukes, even though the 
last U.S. reactor was built back in 1973. But now, just as 
interest in nuclear power may be reviving, the nation could be 
running low on the engineers, particularly the nuclear engineers 
needed to keep reactors humming. 

As many as 30% of the industry's workers will be eligible to 
retire in the next five years, estimates the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, while few replacements are being groomed. Student 
enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs in nuclear 
engineering is half what it was a decade ago. 

"WOEFULLY SHORT."  Nuclear science's low popularity among 
students is worrisome. Even if Bush's proposed energy plan bombs 
and no new nukes are built, the industry still will need young 
blood to keep existing plants running. That's because many plants 
operating under original licenses are up for renewal, which could 
keep many of them online for 40 years or more. 

"We're just woefully short of being able to provide the number of 
students these companies are telling us they are going to need," 
says Gary Was, a University of Michigan professor of nuclear 
engineering, who has been studying staffing needs in the industry 
since 1998. According to the U.S. Energy Dept., about 160 
students earned bachelor's degrees in nuclear engineering in 
2000, a drop of 20% vs. 1999. Meanwhile, about 130 students 
received master's degrees in the same field in 2000, 6% less than 
the previous year. 

The upshot: Demand for young nuclear engineers far exceeds 
supply. No one tracks how many nuclear engineers are working in 
the power industry, though the Energy Dept. is starting to 
research the issue. But the number of nuclear-engineering degree 
programs at colleges has shrunk in the last decade from 60 to 30. 
Until 2000, when the dot-com boom began to sour, most of the 
engineering action was in computer sciences and biotechnology. 
"It's a big problem," worries Was. "But how do you [convince] 
them to come here, rather than go to Microsoft?" 

SOARING SALARIES.  Despite the difficulties, educators, 
utilities, and the U.S. government have been taking aggressive 
measures to ensure that there's no personnel shortfall. Many 
power companies began worrying about their aging staff several 
years ago and already are hitting the recruiting circuit harder. 
College job fairs for nuclear-engineering students were hopping 
this year. "Employers were out here, crawling all over each 
other, trying to hire these kids," says Alan Waltar, head of the 
Nuclear Engineering Dept. at Texas A&M University. Recent 
nuclear-engineering grads fetched base salaries of $50,000, 
compared to $35,000 just five years ago. 

It's no longer business as usual at power companies, either. At 
Ameren's Callaway plant, workers rotate jobs to avoid burnout. At 
Richmond (Va.)-based Dominion Resources (D ) and New 
Orleans-based Entergy (ETR ), top executives have accompanied 
personnel managers to stump for their companies during recruiting 
visits. "We've gone through a tremendous hiring push," says Cindy 
Nelson, a staffing coordinator at Atlanta-based Southern Co. (SO 
). 

Even the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal 
regulatory agency that oversees the industry, is worried about 
running short of engineers and other nuclear-science 
professionals. Workers in their 60s at the NRC outnumber those in 
their 20s by a ratio of five-to-one. In an unusual move, 
commission officials recently visited the University of Puerto 
Rico, offering jobs on the spot to nuclear grads. Other 
candidates were flown to Washington, D.C., for more wooing. The 
NRC eventually hired more than a dozen new staffers as a result 
of this initiative. 

TALENT HUNT.  Beyond independent recruiting efforts by companies, 
the Nuclear Energy Institute in March sponsored a first-ever 
industry-university engineering recruiting workshop in Florida to 
secure engineering talent. More than 100 participants discussed 
ideas for building stronger relationships between utilities and 
colleges. Solutions lay in the details: Develop contacts, nurture 
relationships, send executives to speak at high schools to spread 
the word about nuclear science. 

Even Congress has gotten involved. In February, New Mexico 
Republican Senator Pete Domenici and Democratic Senator Jeff 
Bingaman introduced a bill to allocate $238.8 million over five 
years for university research and recruitment in nuclear 
engineering, starting with $30 million in fiscal 2002 and rising 
to $64.1 million in 2006. 

In early May, a joint hearing before two Senate groups focused 
attention on the need to attract students to nuclear engineering 
and nuclear power. Heather MacLean, a PhD candidate in the 
Nuclear Engineering Dept. at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, offered frank testimony: "We must attract new 
students to nuclear-engineering programs, or we will not be able 
to run our current reactors or design new ones." 

LEAPS OF FAITH.  A few believers have defied the odds to go into 
the field. One is 30-year-old Jim Wines. In the 90s, he completed 
the six-year Naval Nuclear Propulsion Training Program, still a 
breeding ground for nuclear-energy professionals. "After my time 
was up, there was no real promise of nuclear-field advancements," 
he says. All the same, Wines pursued a bachelor's degree in 
nuclear engineering from the University of Michigan. He now has a 
job as an engineer at a Detroit Edison reactor. 

Still, queasiness about nuclear science remains. And students 
will be attracted to nuclear engineering only if they can discern 
exciting, long-term careers. The trick for the nuclear-power 
industry remains to lure more students into following Wines's 
leap of faith. Unless that happens, President Bush's new emphasis 
on nuclear power will have scant chance to build up steam. 

By Heesun Wee *Edited by Thane Peterson*
 
*****************************************************************
 6  Hard Questions on Nuclear Power
 
May 29, 2001 

[Readers' Opinions]   
          
[A] fter decades in the doghouse because of environmental, safety 
and cost concerns, nuclear power is enjoying a renaissance of 
expectations. The Bush administration's new energy plan gives a 
place of prominence to nuclear power as a clean and efficient 
energy source, and the industry itself is bubbling with new hopes 
and plans. In truth, there are good reasons to take a fresh look 
at this much- maligned source of energy that has been stalled in 
this country for the past three decades. But it is worrisome that 
the administration seems to have endorsed a nuclear resurgence 
with little sustained analysis of its pluses and minuses. 

As an article by Katharine Seelye in The Times revealed last 
week, nuclear energy was barely in the consciousness of the 
drill-centric energy team at the White House until a delegation 
of nuclear industry executives sought a chance to make their 
pitch and succeeded so well that Vice President Dick Cheney 
almost immediately started touting the virtues of nuclear energy. 
A case can be made for greater exploitation of nuclear power in 
this country, but before the nation plunges too far down this 
path the administration will need to address some critical 
questions.
 
The rationale for a reassessment comes partly from the 
performance of the industry itself, and partly from changed 
circumstances in the environment in which it must operate. By 
most accounts, the industry has learned to operate its plants 
more safely and efficiently than in the years leading up to the 
traumatic near-tragedy at Three Mile Island. American nuclear 
plants are operating with much greater reliability and many fewer 
minor incidents. Moreover, the industry is consolidating, with 
plants being purchased and operated by companies that have more 
expertise than some of the previous operators. So there is reason 
to trust the industry a bit more than in past decades.
 
Meanwhile, external events are increasing the appeal of nuclear 
power. One is the rising concern over global warming, which is 
caused primarily by the emission of carbon dioxide from burning 
fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide, thus 
to the extent they can replace plants burning coal, oil or 
natural gas they can be considered a plus. Nuclear power can also 
contribute to the diversity of the nation's energy supplies. 
Nuclear plants already supply some 20 percent of the electricity 
generated in this country, compared with fossil fuel 
contributions of 52 percent for coal, 16 percent for natural gas 
and 3 percent for oil. But the great majority of all new power 
plants are being built to burn natural gas, the cleanest of the 
fossil fuels, making utilities and consumers vulnerable to price 
spikes when supplies become tight as they have this year.
 
President Bush's energy plan offers a wide range of steps to 
accelerate the use of nuclear power. But before Congress and the 
regulatory agencies proceed too far, some crucial questions 
require answers.
 
Impact on global warming: If this is the main reason for turning 
to nuclear power, the proponents will need to do a much better 
job of spelling out just how far nuclear power would have to 
spread to make a real dent in the problem. Nuclear power is used 
almost exclusively to generate electricity, thus it cannot reduce 
the nation's reliance on imported oil to power transportation 
systems. Nuclear fuel will primarily be substituting for natural 
gas — the least of the carbon dioxide emitters — as the clean 
fuel to which electric utilities turn. Moreover, fossil fuels are 
burned in mining and preparing nuclear fuels and in building 
reactors, so even nuclear energy is not entirely free of 
greenhouse gases. Some analyses suggest that to make a real 
impact in slowing global warming, nuclear power plants would need 
to spread widely around the world, a prospect that brings new 
challenges of its own.
 
Weapons risks: Expansion of nuclear power in this country poses 
no weapons danger, but the spread of nuclear plants into other 
countries could pose a risk. The uranium fuel for nuclear power 
plants is not generally considered of high enough grade to be 
used in weapons. But as more and more technicians around the 
world learn the skills of working with nuclear materials, and as 
governments become engaged in procuring nuclear technologies, 
there is a danger that civilian nuclear programs could serve as a 
cover for clandestine weapons activities. That is why, for 
example, the United States is angry that Russia is helping Iran 
build a nuclear power plant. Even though Iran has pledged to 
abide by nonproliferation treaties and allow international 
inspections of the plant, there is grave concern that it will 
find a way to build weapons. Increasing the use of nuclear power 
in countries that already have either the bomb or nuclear power 
plants is not much of a danger. Spreading nuclear power to 
additional countries might be. 

Waste disposal: In the political world, the lack of a proven 
method to store spent fuel from nuclear reactors for the tens of 
thousands of years the material remains radioactive has long been 
considered the Achilles' heel of the nuclear industry. In truth, 
spent fuel has been stored safely for decades in pools at the 
sites of nuclear power plants with no adverse effect. The problem 
is, the storage pools are filling up and critics are loath to 
expand nuclear power with no clear idea where to store the waste. 
The Bush administration is considering a site at Yucca Mountain 
in Nevada that has been studied for years, and it has proposed a 
new look at reprocessing the fuel to remove the long-lived 
plutonium for reuse as reactor fuel. That could greatly ease the 
storage problem here but might encourage wider use of reprocessed 
materials abroad, increasing the risk of weapons-grade 
plutonium's falling into the wrong hands.
 
Reactor safety: The safety problem in conventional nuclear plants 
is that, if things start to go wrong, emergency cooling systems 
and human operators have to act correctly to prevent a 
catastrophic meltdown. That makes nuclear power a cruel and 
unforgiving technology that cannot tolerate equipment failures or 
human mistakes. But the industry is exploring new technologies 
that would not lead to meltdown even in a worst-case malfunction, 
making them inherently safer and cheaper to build and operate. 
This is where the administration and the industry should be 
focusing their efforts — to develop demonstrably safer power 
plants. That would ease many of the concerns provoked by the 
current generation of nuclear reactors.
 
Economics: No matter what else is done to make nuclear power more 
attractive, the industry will make little headway unless it can 
overcome the high capital costs that brought it to a halt in 
recent decades. Some relief should come from the advance approval 
of standardized designs, allowing plants to be built more quickly 
and cheaply than in past years when each plant had a customized 
design. But Congress will need to take a close look at whether it 
should renew one of the industry's economic underpinnings — the 
so-called Price-Anderson Act that limits the liability of nuclear 
companies in the event of an accident. If the industry is as safe 
as it says, it may not need such subsidized protection. On the 
other hand, eliminating the liability protection might scare off 
investors for good.
 
Nuclear power has been stalled for so long in the United States 
that it is surprising to see it back in the spotlight. There may 
be a case for extending the licenses of existing plants, as has 
already happened in several cases, or for building new plants on 
existing nuclear sites where the risks are already understood. 
But the case has not yet been made for truly large-scale 
expansion of nuclear power, in this country or around the globe.
 
The New York Times Newspaper. 
*****************************************************************
 7  Nuclear Dump owners manual
 		 		 		 		 		 	 		
[tahoe.com]                                     
News                                                                                  
May 29, 2001             
 		
Column by Jeff Ackerman
 		 		
I got my Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump Site Owner's Manual in 
the mail a couple of weeks ago. 

It even came with a kind of "money-back" guarantee, promising 
that if we aren't satisfied we can give it back in 10,000 years. 

If someone is going to just hand you a Nuclear Waste Dump, you 
may as well learn how to drive it. I mean it's not like we have a 
choice to accept it or not. Uncle DOE won't take no for an 
answer. Uncles are like that. Always giving stuff away. 

Just to show their genuine compassion for the environment, the 
folks at the U.S. Department of Energy (otherwise known as DOE), 
printed my Nuclear Waste Dump Site Owners Manual with soy ink on 
recycled paper. 

Not unlike most Owners Manuals, my Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump 
Site Owners Manual came with a detailed description of 
accessories. The Yucca Mountain site comes complete with: 

-- Steel sets for Ground Control (cheaper models come with 
plastic sets for Ground Control.) 

-- Steel invert Structure (again, note the steel versus, say, the 
Tupperware or Aluminum you see in Japanese models.) 

-- Gantry Crane Rail (Gantry knows Crane Rails better anyone in 
Southern Nevada.) 

-- Pressurized Water Reactor Waste Package (this makes your 
radiator purr like a kitten.) 

-- Codisposal Waste Package Containing Five High-Level Waste 
Canisters with One DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Canister (the 1998 
model only had three High-Level Waste Canisters and no DOE Spent 
Nuclear Fuel Canister.) 

-- Boiling Water Reactor Waste Package (you can cook rice in this 
mother while you wait at a stop light). 

-- Drip Shield (protects your shoes against dripping boiling 
nuclear waste). In other words, this ain't your daddy's nuclear 
waste dump. This baby is "tricked out," as they might say in 
nuclear waste dump social circles (these people actually get 
together every year for a radiation cocktail party). 

In the back of the manual there's a section called, "Performance 
Assessment Results." That's where I found the 10,000-year 
guarantee. "Eventually, components of the engineered barrier 
system will degrade, and small amounts of water will contact 
(nuclear) waste," reads the manual. "Analysis indicates this is 
not likely to occur within the first 10,000 years following 
repository closing." 

In other words, by the time anyone starts glowing in the dark 
we'll all be long gone. And that's exactly what you want from a 
warranty; a lifetime guarantee. Who gives a hoot if the bad boy 
falls apart after that? The lizards are on their own. 

Not unlike most Owners Manuals, my Yucca Mountain Nuclear Dump 
Site Owners Manual is also confusing. Even more confusing than my 
Sony VCR manual, if you can imagine that. 

For example, there's a paragraph under the heading of, 
"Uncertainties In Data and Models" that reads, "Quantitative 
assessments of the long-term performance of the potential 
repository consider a comprehensive set of features, events, and 
processes that may have an effect on that performance." 

Say what? 

If they're going to discuss "uncertainties" in my Nuclear Waste 
Dump Site the least they can do is explain them in plain English. 
I really don't want any uncertainties in a product designed to 
keep me and my nuclear waste at arm's length. 

According to the manual, our Nuclear Waste Dump Site is ideal for 
the driving conditions that exist at Yucca Mountain. Located on 
federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, 
Yucca Mountain is no stranger to nuclear fallout. It takes a 
licking and keeps on ticking. It's mostly volcanic rock 
(otherwise known as "tuff," so you know it's Battle Born) that 
was deposited there 11 million years or so ago. The manufacturers 
of our Nuclear Waste Dump Site (Uncle DOE and friends) have been 
poking and probing that "tuff" for years now and are convinced it 
was practically made to store nuclear waste. A match made in 
hell, so to speak. 

Yucca Mountain is also snuggled up to other popular resort areas 
such as Jackass Flats, Crater Flats and Ash Meadows (formerly 
Rolling Meadows before the volcano erupted). The weather is ideal 
for nuclear waste, with an average annual rainfall of 7 inches. 
Just enough to brush your one tooth (the one radiation didn't 
kill) every December. 

According to the manual, there's plenty of luggage space in our 
Nuclear Waste Dump Site. Enough to hold 70,000 metric tons of 
high-level radioactive waste. Try sticking that in an SUV. 

With a name like DOE (think Bambi), the manufacturers of our new 
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump Site have got to be a caring 
bunch who wouldn't even think of selling us a lemon. It's not 
DOE's fault we have run out of energy (although an energy 
department with no energy seems like a waste of energy to me). 

Besides, if our dump site ever springs a leak we can always send 
it back in 10,000 years. 

Jeff Ackerman is publisher and editor of the Nevada Appeal. 
		 		
*Copyright tahoe.com. Materials contained within this site may
*****************************************************************
 8  Don't blame Turkey Point: Blame the sun.

Sun-Sentinel:   
 	 	 	 	
For a few seconds, I had "absolute power." I stopped an atomic 
reaction and shut down a nuclear power plant.
 
I did it during a recent visit to Florida Power and Light Co.'s 
Turkey Point plant 24 miles south of Miami. I was researching an 
editorial about FPL's efforts to renew the plant's operating 
license.
 
"You want to turn off the reactor?" plant Vice President Bob 
Hovey asked me. "Do it."
 
I hesitated just a bit, then nervously reached across the control 
panel, grabbed an L-shaped red lever about four inches long and 
turned it about 45 degrees to the left, from "Normal" to "Trip."
 
Suddenly, an alarm began loudly beeping. My heart pounded. A line 
of red lights in front of me illuminated and other dials and 
instruments lit up or began moving. Within seconds, the indicator 
showing power output dropped from 723 megawatts to zero.
 
I heard what sounded like the roar of super-heated steam being 
vented into the atmosphere at 1,000 pounds per square inch by 
relief valves.
 
The gauges told me what else was happening in and around the 
40-foot-tall reactor inside a 210-foot concrete-and-steel 
containment building next door.
 
Forty-five assemblies of control rods, each 12 feet long and 
about as thick as a pencil, dropped instantly into the reactor's 
blazing-hot core and shut down the nuclear fission under way 
inside. These rods, made of silver, indium and cadmium, absorbed 
billions of neutrons being emitted by the uranium dioxide fuel 
and heating up the water in the reactor.
 
The fuel consisted of 10.5 million pellets, inserted in 32,028 
fuel rods, each 13 feet long. Each pellet is only about the size 
of a pencil eraser, and each contains the same amount of energy 
as 1,600 pounds of coal, 3.5 barrels of oil or 15,000 cubic feet 
of natural gas.
 
When the reactor tripped, and the steam vented, the 185-foot-long 
turbine generator, throbbing away at 1,800 rpm, immediately shut 
down.
 
I reacted to all this like any other cynical, seen-it-all 
journalist and mature senior citizen: I raised my fist to the 
heavens and shouted "Yes!"
 
If this had all been for real, I wouldn't have caused a power 
blackout, as I mistakenly believed. In fact, Hovey explained, you 
probably would only have noticed a momentary flutter in your 
home's electrical power, before other generators throughout FPL's 
network took up the slack.
 
But it wasn't for real. The control room was a simulator, a 
full-scale computerized replica of the real thing, used to train 
reactor operators every six weeks to keep their skills finely 
honed. The real control room, in a building nearby, continued 
operating smoothly. Earlier, while inside it, I sensibly kept my 
hands to myself.
 
Getting to visit wonderful places like this, which the public 
can't visit, is one of the nicest perks of being a journalist.
 
When Hovey first invited me to come by, I made a few lame 
whistling-past-the-graveyard jokes he has heard many times before 
about not wanting to come back "glowing" or "melted down." But I 
told myself privately this wasn't *The China Syndrome *and I 
wasn't Jane Fonda.
 
I saw a lot of fascinating things that day: high-tech security 
systems and heavily-armed guards. Massive buildings and 
equipment. A spotlessly clean facility run by dedicated 
professionals that has earned top awards in this last decade for 
performance, safety and reliability. Crocodiles, wading birds and 
other animals thriving nearby.
 
But I was particularly impressed to learn that the plant 
employees who wrestle the atomic giant every day bet a lot on the 
idea that he's well under control: They send their kids to a day 
care center and an elementary school on the plant site.
 
I asked all the tough questions I needed to write a fully 
informed editorial. When I left after the four-hour tour, I felt 
good about what I had seen.
 
As I headed home, I knew that my risk of death or injury was far 
greater on Florida's Turnpike than inside the nuclear power 
plant. That 15.6 gallons of unleaded regular Shell gasoline in my 
Honda Accord gas tank was a far greater threat to my safety and 
my life than all the uranium dioxide fuel pellets ever used at 
Turkey Point.
 
Although I passed through a radiation detector at the plant exit 
without triggering it, I could tell from my burning forehead that 
I was, indeed, slightly irradiated.
 
Don't blame Turkey Point: Blame the sun.
 
*Tom Sander can be phoned at 954-356-4621 and e-mailed at 
tsander@sun-sentinel.com
 
* *Copyright © 2001, South Florida Sun-Sentinel*          
 	 	   	       
*****************************************************************
 9  Fight Brewing Over Trade Law
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
May 28, 2001    
 	 	
 WASHINGTON (AP) - A trade battle is shaping up over a law that 
lets American companies pocket tens of millions of dollars in 
fines that the government collects from foreign competitors. 

Foreign governments say the law violates trade agreements and 
they have started proceedings against the United States in the 
World Trade Organization. If they win, they could cripple 
American companies' ability to compete abroad by imposing fines 
of their own on U.S. goods. 

The law, passed last year, seeks to level the playing field for 
U.S. companies by giving them money when the federal government 
determines foreign competitors dumped their products in the 
United States at artificially low prices. The first checks are to 
go out later this year. 

Critics warn it could unleash a flood of litigation. 

"It encourages people in the private bar to seek out cases. 
Ambulance-chasing. Not too many lawyers will be able to resist 
what essentially is a bounty," said John Simpson, president of 
the American Association of Exporters and Importers. 

The law was written with the steel industry in mind, and steel 
dominates the list of companies that have won trade complaints. 

Of the 360 punitive duty cases preliminarily qualified for 
payments, 46 percent involved steel. The chemical industry was a 
distant second with about 14 percent, but the list of industries 
benefitting runs the breadth of the economy: pasta, aspirin, 
garlic, tomatoes, uranium, and the humble Fourth of July 
sparkler. 

Diamond Sparkler of Youngstown, Ohio, the only remaining American 
sparkler maker, won an unfair trade complaint against its Chinese 
competitors, resulting in the U.S. government slapping a punitive 
duty on imports. "Even with the 94 percent duty, we're still 
getting killed," said William A. Weimer, Diamond Sparkler's 
general counsel. "We just can't compete with the wages we have to 
pay." 

Under the law, the punitive duty money collected on sparklers 
imported from China can go to Diamond instead of the U.S. 
Treasury, as it did before. American companies must apply to get 
the funds and will have to certify they're putting the money to a 
use allowed by law, such as training, new technology, health 
benefits and pensions. The law also lets unions apply for a share 
of the money. 

Companies that use steel, steel importers and some of America's 
trading partners say the duties alone are punishment enough for 
unfair trade practices, and putting money into the pockets of 
U.S. companies goes too far. The European Union, Australia, 
Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Thailand 
have told the WTO that giving trade-violation fines to competing 
companies violates international agreements. 

Even if the United States prevails with the WTO, a separate 
challenge is threatened on another front. 

The Canadian government has warned that if duties levied against 
Canadian or Mexican products are given to competing American 
companies, Canada will view it as a violation of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. 

Canadian Ambassador Michael Kergin said his country worries the 
law provides an incentive to U.S. companies to file more trade 
complaints and the U.S. government to approve marginal claims. 

It is "a fundamental change in policy direction which could have 
unfortunate consequences for international trade in general and 
the administration of trade remedy law in particular," Kergin 
said. 

The payment program was inserted last year into a farm spending 
bill by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. He used a procedure that made 
it impossible to kill the provision without dooming the entire 
Agriculture Department appropriation for fiscal 2001, which began 
Oct. 1. 

In defending the law, Byrd has said money doesn't change hands if 
foreign trading partners play by the rules. In addition, the 
duties don't last forever; each one is reviewed every five years 
and can be lifted if the government is convinced the aggrieved 
U.S. industry won't be harmed by revocation. 

Companies that buy imported steel and the export-import industry 
have been pressing for a repeal. The Bush administration hasn't 
indicated whether it would support such a move. 

David Phelps, president of the American Institute for 
International Steel, a trade association, predicted an 
international backlash if the law stands. 

"The Byrd Amendment will increase the retaliatory use of the 
trade laws against U.S. exporters," he said. "We are hopeful that 
the Bush administration will take a long, hard look at this 
embarrassment to U.S. trade policy." 

Meanwhile, the Customs Service is struggling to create a system 
for distributing the damages to U.S. industries. In the first six 
months, the agency collected $50 million. 

The Customs Service had expected to have details worked out and 
some proposed rules circulating by now, but its plan still is 
under internal review. By law, no money can be distributed until 
the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. 

On the Net: U.S. Customs Service: http://www.customs.gov
*****************************************************************
 10  DOE &State of Missouri Reach Agreement For Spent Fuel 
Transportation on Interstate 70

energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release

RELEASE DATE: May 25, 2001                                                      [Print Friendly Version]       
 
*Says Nuclear Power is “Clean, Safe, Efficient &Affordable”* ---> 

Washington, DC -- The Department of Energy announced today that 
earlier this week the State of Missouri and the department agreed 
to a series of safety enhancements that will be applied to 
shipments of spent nuclear fuel on Interstate 70 through 
Missouri. Based on the agreement, the Energy Department has also 
set a schedule for shipping spent nuclear fuel by the end of June 
2001 from the University of Missouri’s research reactor to the 
Department’s Savannah River site in South Carolina. 

“We believe the transportation issues surrounding the use of 
Interstate 70 have been resolved and we are pleased with the 
outcome,” said Dr. Carolyn L. Huntoon, Assistant Secretary for 
Environmental Management. “Over the last few months the 
department worked with the Missouri Governor’s office to address 
the safety concerns they raised to the use of Interstate 70 for 
spent fuel shipments.” 

Copies of the letters outlining the DOE’s safety enhancement and 
the letter from Governor Bob Holden’s office addressing the 
safety measures for shipping of spent nuclear fuel are attached. 

The safety measures include vehicle inspection at the 
point-of-entry into the State using enhanced North American 
standards established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, 
training for Missouri inspectors, and the provision of shipment 
escorts by the State Highway Patrol while the shipments are in 
transit through Missouri. The shipments also will be scheduled to 
avoid transit during specified rush hours in St. Louis, Columbia 
and Kansas City; if necessary, shipments will go to designated 
safe parking areas to avoid specified rush hours in these areas. 
The State will be provided access to the DOE’s satellite tracking 
system regulation to monitor the shipments’ progress through 
Missouri. The Department of Energy will include these safety 
measures in its instructions to the carrier providing 
transportation services for the University shipments. 

Media Contact:  Joe Davis, 202/586-4940 Release No. R-01-080 
*****************************************************************
 11  NRC Sends Special Inspection Team to Westinghouse Fuel 
Fabrication Facility in Columbia, S.C. 

 Press Release 2001 - 064 - 


 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs     
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-001     E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA  

  No. 01-064     May 25, 2001  

 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sent a special inspection 
team to Westinghouse's fuel fabrication facility in Columbia, 
South Carolina, to inspect the circumstances surrounding the 
failure of several valves to close to a fail-safe position. The 
valves control the flow of uranium hexifluoride gas and water in 
the process steps which convert this gas into solid uranium 
dioxide, which is used to make fuel pellets. After the failure 
was identified, the system was shut down and corrective action 
initiated. There were no releases of nuclear materials into the 
environment or inside the facility. The facility is currently 
being maintained in a safe condition. 

The agency routinely sends inspectors to facilities that 
experience an unusual failure of safety equipment in order to 
understand the malfunction fully. In this case, the NRC already 
had a safety inspection at the site at the time the event 
occurred. Following the event, as the NRC and the licensee 
learned more about the malfunction, the agency sent a team of 
three additional inspectors with various fields of expertise to 
supplement the ongoing inspection. They will evaluate the efforts 
of Westinghouse to determine the cause of the malfunction and 
will assess the actions to correct the problem. Their inspection 
should last several days.
 
The NRC team will issue a written report, which will be available 
to the public, within 30 days after completion of the inspection. 
*****************************************************************
 12  AECL hid reactor failures from watchdog: Report

  [Thestar.com]     **  

  May. 29, 2001. 12:45 AM  
    
Unproven facility ran unsafely for months
  
Peter Calamai
SCIENCE REPORTER
  
OTTAWA - Canada's nuclear safety watchdog admits in a report to 
be released today that it let an unproven commercial reactor run 
unsafely for months last summer because federal regulators simply 
accepted assurances by the builder that earlier problems were 
remedied.

 But the reactor builder, federal crown corporation Atomic Energy 
of Canada Ltd., concealed several test failures of the reactor 
emergency shut-down system from the watchdog agency, the Canadian 
Nuclear Safety Commission, the report said.

 AECL had also not had the design of the safety system checked 
independently by outside experts, as required under the 
assurances it gave the federal regulators.

 The incident is seen as the most serious breakdown of federal 
nuclear safety regulation since a research reactor accident in 
the 1950s, even though the regulators said there was no danger to 
the public or workers.

 The MAPLE reactor was running at less than 5 per cent of full 
power when problems occurred with its safety shutdown system. 

At those low power levels, commission officials said, the 
operators should have been able to shut the reactor down safety 
in the event of any emergency.

 But if the reactor had been operating at full power with the 
faulty safety system, radiation could have leaked in the building 
and surrounding area, if an emergency shutdown had been 
necessary.

 A damning post-mortem report being considered today and tomorrow 
by the nuclear commission says the agency's own experts should 
have caught the safety problems and made AECL fix them earlier.

 These same commission experts are still not satisfied AECL has 
cleared up all the safety problems with the two new low-power 
MAPLE reactors it is building at a $160 million medical isotope 
facility at Chalk River, Ont., 190 kilometres northwest of 
Ottawa.

 They're urging the commissioners not to approve yet an AECL 
request to restart the reactors, shut down since last July when 
the safety problems became overwhelming.

 ``We're not being so accommodating to AECL now. We're exercising 
far more scrutiny than we did in the past,'' said Ken Pereira, 
the official who heads the section in charge of regulating the 
MAPLE reactors.

 The MAPLE safety system has not been used before in Canada. It 
consists of two separate sets of rods that are supposed to drop 
automatically into the radioactive core to stop a runaway chain 
reaction in the reactor which is fueled by natural uranium and 
cooled by heavy water.

 But the shutdown system didn't work reliably because of a faulty 
design which the federal regulators approved in 1996 after only a 
cursory examination and with no written record.

 Both sets of rods repeatedly jammed in tubes instead of dropping 
because small grit particles from poor workmanship clogged the 
super-fine clearances.

 AECL hid its failures from the public for months by blocking the 
nuclear safety commission from releasing the corporation's report 
about the incidents requested by The Star last August under 
federal access-to-information.

 In December The Star published the key points of AECL's cover-up 
and failings from nuclear safety commission documents.

 Now the federal watchdog has released its own exhaustive study 
of where it fell down, including:

 
+ Overreliance on written assurances from AECL because of its 
``long-term reputation as the founder of the nuclear industry in 
Canada.''

 
+ Too few regulators to handle the workload and too much time 
spent on needless paperwork.

 
+ A fragmented approach which meant that never during two and a 
half years did all the regulatory divisions involved with MAPLE 
meet to discuss their concerns.   
    

*****************************************************************
 13  Leaky pipes at NB nuclear reactor raise concerns about all Candu plants 

National - Ottawa Citizen Online
 
*CHRIS MORRIS

FREDERICTON (CP) - Critics of nuclear power say the latest 
radioactive leaks at the Point Lepreau nuclear power station in 
New Brunswick highlight the risk of trying to keep Canada's aging 
fleet of reactors operational. 

The 19-year-old nuclear power plant on the Bay of Fundy in 
southern New Brunswick is up and running again after a shutdown 
last month to repair cracked and leaking pipes carrying 
radioactive heavy water to and from the reactor core. 

A new report by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which 
licenses nuclear operations in Canada, states that cracks in the 
so-called feeder pipes are a "cause for concern" with potential 
implications for all of Canada's nuclear power stations and for 
Candu reactors sold abroad. 

Owners and operators of other Candu reactors are currently 
assessing whether their nuclear plants also have feeder pipe 
cracks, although so far none has been found. 

"Potentially, it's a very serious problem," David Martin, nuclear 
policy consultant for the Sierra Club of Canada, said Monday. 

"The feeder pipes are directly connected to the reactor core and 
there are a lot of them. They're a fundamental component and 
they're very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to replace, 
if it has to be done on a large scale. It has serious 
implications for the performance and operating costs of the 
reactor, as well as for safety." 

Jim Blyth, the commission's director of safety evaluation, said 
feeder pipe leaks are potentially significant for the industry 
because of the huge costs of fixing the problem. 

"In the final analysis, if it's something that's active in all 
reactors . . . then the economics of repairing or eventually 
replacing these things, we're talking a lot of money," Blyth 
said. 

He said the commission has no reason to believe the problem 
exists in other Candu reactors. 

"But we wouldn't accept anybody coming to us and saying, 'it 
can't happen here'," he said. "As a consequence, they (nuclear 
plant operators) are doing more inspections and they will be for 
some time." 

The safety commission report states that when Lepreau was shut 
down, the leaky feeder pipe was bleeding heavy water at a rate of 
15 kilograms per hour. Two other feeder pipe cracks were 
discovered during the month-long shutdown. "While the discovery 
of these cracks is cause for concern, the risk to the 
environment, the public and workers resulting from the leak . . . 
was negligible," the report states. 

The commission noted that the Lepreau feeder pipe did what it was 
supposed to do when it leaked rather than split apart. 

Environmentalists warn that a break in a reactor feeder pipe 
could be catastrophic. 

"The leaks increase the risk of a loss-of-coolant accident, which 
is one of the most serious accidents you can get," said David 
Coon of the New Brunswick Conservation Council, an environmental 
watchdog that wants Lepreau mothballed. "If that happens, 
everything has to work properly on the emergency system side to 
shut down the reactor. It's something you don't want to risk." 

Coon said the feeder pipe problem, in addition to other headaches 
associated with worn pressure tubes, may hurt Canada's hopes of 
rebuilding its nuclear industry and exporting its technology. 

"Lepreau is the one they've been marketing around the world," he 
said. "It's the demonstrator. These problems can't be good for 
sales." 

In full operation, the 635-megawatt Lepreau station provides up 
to 30 per cent of power produced by NB Power, New Brunswick's 
provincial Crown utility. 

It costs NB Power about $650,000 a day to purchase outside power 
when Lepreau is idle. The most recent shutdown cost about $20 
million. 

NB Power spokeswoman Marcella Leblanc said this is the second 
time a cracked feeder pipe has been discovered. The first 
incident was in 1997. 

She said the problem, believed to be stress corrosion, will be 
eliminated if Lepreau is refurbished. 

The utility is currently studying whether it should mothball the 
nuclear plant or fix it up and try to keep it going another 20 or 
25 years. 

"If and when we do our refurbishment, all of those feeder pipes 
will be replaced," she said. 

© The Canadian Press, 2001
*****************************************************************
 14  Japanese Voters Reject Mixed Plutonium Uranium Nuclear Fuel
 
Environment News Service: 

 KARIWA, Niigata Prefecture, Japan, May 28, 2001 (ENS) - For the 
first time, Japan has held an official referendum on the use of 
mixed plutonium and uranium oxide fuel in the country's nuclear 
reactors, and Japanese voters turned down the proposal. 

[plant] Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant (Photos courtesy 
Dr. Sama Bilbao y Leon, Nuclear Safety Research Center, 
University of Wisconsin - Madison) Residents of Kariwa village in 
western Japan voted against the use of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in 
the nearby Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 3 nuclear reactor. Operated by the 
Tokyo Electric Power Company, this is one of seven units that 
make up the world's largest nuclear power plant. 

MOX fuel is made by mixing plutonium dioxide and uranium dioxide. 
The reuse of the plutonium extracted from conventional spent 
nuclear fuel as a component of MOX fuel has been at the center of 
the energy program in fossil fuel dependent Japan. 

In total, 88.14 percent of Kariwa voters took part in the 
referendum, 3,605 voters cast their ballots out of 4,092 voters 
in the village. 

Of this number, 1925 (53.4 percent) voted no to the use of MOX, 
and 1,533 (42.7 percent) voted yes. The rest, 131 people 
representing 3.7 percent, voted to suspend the use of MOX. 

The result of the referendum, though not legally binding, means 
that it will be impossible for Tokyo Electric Power Company to 
proceed with plans to load plutonium MOX fuel currently sitting 
in its storage ponds on the site into the reactor. 

The environmental group Greenpeace, which has campaigned against 
the use and transport of MOX fuel for years says that when MOX 
fuel is loaded into a nuclear reactor it "lowers the safety 
margins for the operator, increasing the chances of a nuclear 
accident, as well as making a future accident more severe in 
terms of health effects and environmental contamination." 

Kazue Suzuki of Greenpeace Japan in Kariwa village, said, 
"Nuclear industry and government propaganda have been ignored by 
the citizens of Kariwa in voting against the use of plutonium MOX 
fuel. Japan's plans for using plutonium were going nowhere before 
today's result, tonight they are in ruins." 

[control room] Control room of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear 
power plant "Rather than being the center of energy production in 
Japan," Suzuki said, "the plutonium program has drained billions 
of dollars from taxpayers. The opposition to the use of this 
dangerous material will now grow even stronger throughout Japan, 
with a real prospect of the program being terminated." 

The result could set back Japanese plans for the use of thousands 
of kilograms of plutonium extracted from the reprocessing of 
spent nuclear fuel from this and other Japanese nuclear reactors 
currently stored in Europe. 

The Tokyo based Citizens' Nuclear Information Center is now 
calling on the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power 
Company to respect the opinion of local residents, and cancel the 
use of MOX fuel at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 3. "The government and the 
utilities should put an end to the dangerous and uneconomical MOX 
fuel program," the group says. 

Japan's original plan was to extract plutonium by reprocessing 
spent nuclear fuel, and use the plutonium as fuel for fast 
breeder reactors. But the development of fast breeder reactors 
came to a standstill following the sodium leak and fire at the 
Monju prototype fast breeder in 1995. Despite this failure and 
nuclear accidents in the late 1990s at Tokai, the center of 
Japan's domestic nuclear research and waste handling operations, 
the reprocessing of Japanese spent fuel in England and in France 
has continued. 

Japan now has a great deal of excess plutonium. The Citizens' 
Nuclear Information Center estimates that as of the end of 1999, 
there were 27.6 tons of Japanese plutonium stored in England and 
France, and 5.3 tons stored domestically. 

The MOX fuel program has been presented by the government as the 
sole option for consuming this plutonium. 

The referendum result could also prove a setback to efforts by 
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) and the French state owned 
reprocessing company, Cogema, to secure commercial contracts for 
the production of MOX fuel from other countries including Japan. 

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa fuel is the third batch of MOX fuel to be 
shipped to Japan and then rejected for use. The 28 assemblies of 
MOX, containing around 220 kilograms of plutonium, arrived on the 
British Nuclear Fuels vessel Pacific Pintail in March after a 
30,000 kilometer voyage protested by environmental groups and 
many countries en route. 

In 1999, a shipment of MOX fuel from British Nuclear Fuels 
arrived in September under suspicion that BNFL workers had 
falsified quality control data. In February 2000, it was proved 
that fuel production standards had been violated by BNFL, and the 
eight assemblies of MOX fuel, intended for the Takahama-4 reactor 
operated by Kansai Electric, will now be returned to the UK at a 
cost of billions of yen. 

[harbor] The BNFL ship Pacific Teal enters Fukushima harbor with 
its cargo of MOX fuel, September 1999. Japanese security forces 
boat is seen at left, the red and white towers of the Fukushima 
power plant in the background. (Photo by Jorge Punzi courtesy ) A 
second cargo of MOX fuel, produced by a French Belgian consortium 
led by Cogema, also arrived in 1999 for use in the Tokyo Electric 
reactor, Fukushima-1-3. It came under suspicion of quality 
control violations and was the focus of a legal battle to prove 
falsification. In March, the regional governor of Fukushima 
Prefecture decided to conduct a one year review of MOX fuel use, 
citing loss of public confidence as one reason for the review. 
The 32 assemblies of plutonium MOX fuel at issue, remain stored 
at the Fukushima-1-3, nearly two years after delivery. 

Japan has 53 operating nuclear reactors, more than any country 
except the United States and France. They provide roughly 30 
percent of the country's electricity. Three nuclear power plants 
are currently under construction. 


*****************************************************************
 15  JAPANESE CITIZENS REJECT PLUTONIUM MOX USE - MAJOR SETBACK FOR 
NUCLEAR PROGRAM, BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS AND COGEMA
                                       
27 May 2001

 Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture, Japan - A major milestone was passed 
tonight by the residents of Kariwa village in western Japan, when 
they voted against the use of plutonium MOX fuel in a nearby 
nuclear reactor. For the first time an official referendum has 
been held on the use of plutonium, which in theory at least is at 
the center of Japan's energy program. The result of the 
referendum, though not legally binding, means that it will be 
impossible now for Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operators of 
the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactor to proceed with its plans to load 
plutonium MOX fuel currently sitting in its storage ponds on 
site. The result will have major repercussions for Japanese plans 
for the use of thousands of kilograms of plutonium currently 
stored in Europe. The result will also set back desperate efforts 
by embattled British Nuclear Fuels, BNFL and Cogema, the 
French-state company, to secure commercial contracts for the 
production of MOX fuel. 

The village of Kariwa, borders the world's largest nuclear power 
plant at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa. In total 88.14% (3605 people in a 
village of 4092 voters in total) of residents took part in the 
referendum. Of this number, 53.6% (total 1925 votes), voted no to 
the use of MOX, and 42.7% (1533 votes) voted yes. 3.7% (131 
votes) voted to suspend the use of MOX. Although Tokyo Electric 
is the largest single employer in the region, the village 
residents have clearly understood that the use of plutonium MOX 
fuel increases the risk of catastrophic nuclear accident, and is 
therefore unsafe to use. "Nuclear industry and government 
propaganda have been ignored by the citizens of Kariwa in voting 
against the use of plutonium MOX fuel. Japan's plans for using 
plutonium were going nowhere before today's result, tonight they 
are in ruins. Rather than being the centre of energy production 
in Japan, the plutonium program has drained billions of dollars 
from taxpayers. The opposition to the use of this dangerous 
material will now grow even stronger throughout Japan, with a 
real prospect of the program being terminated," said Kazue Suzuki 
of Greenpeace Japan in Kariwa village. 

Plutonium MOX fuel when loaded into a nuclear reactor lowers the 
safety margins for the operator, increasing the chances of a 
nuclear accident, as well as making a future accident more severe 
in terms of health effects and environmental contamination. 
Growing evidence of poor production standards and low quality 
control at European MOX fuel manufacturers have contributed to 
concerns that it is unsafe to use. 

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plutonium fuel is the third batch of MOX 
to be shipped to Japan and subsequently rejected for use. The 28 
assemblies of MOX, containing around 220kg of plutonium, arrived 
on the British-flagged Pacific Pintail in March this year after a 
30,000km voyage. In 1999 a shipment of MOX fuel from British 
Nuclear Fuels arrived under suspicion that it contained falsified 
quality control data. It was subsequently proved that fuel 
production standards had been violated by BNFL, and the 8 
assemblies of plutonium MOX fuel, intended for the Takahama-4 
reactor operated by Kansai Electric, will now be returned to the 
UK at a cost of billions of yen. 

A second cargo of MOX fuel, produced by a French/Belgium 
consortium led by Cogema, which also arrived in 1999, came under 
suspicion over quality control violations and was at the centre 
of a legal battle to prove falsification. In March this year, the 
regional governor of Fukushima Prefecture decided to conduct a 
one year review of MOX fuel use, citing loss of public confidence 
as one reason for the review. The 32 assemblies of plutonium MOX 
fuel, intended to be loaded in the Tokyo Electric reactor, 
Fukushima-1-3, remains stored at the site, nearly two years after 
delivery. Its future remains uncertain. 

Japanese utilities have been reluctant to proceed with 
large-scale use of MOX fuel because it is controversial and 
uneconomic. As a result both BNFL and Cogema have failed to 
secure large MOX contracts. Three shipments of MOX fuel, shipped 
nearly 100,000 kilometers around the planet and costing the 
utilities nearly US$200 million, have yet to produce one kilowatt 
of electricity. Large Japanese contracts for the unopened 
Sellafield MOX Plant, SMP, are desperately needed by BNFL. The 
British government is due to make a decision on the license for 
the plant after the upcoming general election. 

"BNFL and Cogema may never admit it, but this is shocking news 
for them. They will claim that government policy in Japan remains 
the same, but when it comes to plutonium, Japan's policy is 
disconnected from Japan's reality. BNFL and the British 
government need to understand that there is no MOX market in 
Japan," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International. 

A legal challenge was launched last week against the British 
government claiming that the hundreds of millions of dollars 
spent on the construction of the BNFL Sellafield MOX Plant could 
not be written-off when considering the economic justification 
for licensing the plant. The lawsuit was brought by Friends of 
the Earth and supported by Greenpeace International. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: For further information: 
Kazue Suzuki - ++81 90 2249 1502 Shaun Burnie - ++ 31 6 2900 1133 
- (dutch mobile) 

Notes to editors: Background details on Japanese MOX can be found 
at: www.greenpeace.org/nuclear/ and on BNFL disastrous plutonium 
business at www.britishnuclearfuels.com
*****************************************************************
 16  Japan Urges Support for Nuclear Power
 
May 28, 2001 

TOKYO- Japan's prime minister on Monday urged the government to 
redouble efforts to win public support for nuclear energy, a day 
after voters in a northern town rejected plans to use recycled 
plutonium in the world's most productive nuclear plant. 

The vote on Sunday in Kariwa, home to the power plant, was a blow 
to resource-poor Japan's efforts to expand its use of nuclear 
energy. It followed recent accidents and cover-ups that have made 
many Japanese uneasy about the government's campaign. 

"The government and utility companies should think about how we 
can gain public support for nuclear energy, and make further 
efforts," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told a parliamentary 
committee on Monday. 

The Japanese government continues to urge the use of recycled 
plutonium, which critics say is a dangerously volatile form of 
nuclear fuel. Japanese energy planners see it as a long-term 
solution to nuclear waste disposal. 

The plebiscite by voters in Kariwa, a town of 5,000 people, was 
not legally binding but could complicate plans to introduce 
plutonium-based mixed oxide, or MOX, in nuclear reactors 
nationwide. MOX is made by mixing uranium with plutonium 
extracted from spent fuel. 

Japan depends on nuclear energy for about a third of its 
electricity needs. "In this resource-poor country, it's crucial 
to establish a nuclear fuel recycling program," said Kazuhiko 
Koshikawa, Koizumi's spokesman. 

Japanese utility companies had to postpone their plan to 
introduce MOX following Japan's worst-ever nuclear accident in 
September 1999, which killed two workers and exposed hundreds of 
people to radiation. 

Japan plans to introduce the recycled fuel in 16 to 18 nuclear 
reactors around the country by 2010. Plutonium is used by 32 
plants in four countries, including France and Germany, according 
to Greenpeace. 

The plant in Kariwa produces 8.2 million kilowatts of electricity 
per year, making it the world's largest nuclear facility in terms 
of power generated. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 17  Tiny village upsets plans for global nuclear industry 

- smh.com.au - World


May 29, 2001     Home  >  World > Article   

By Michael Millett, Herald Correspondent in Tokyo 

*A tiny farming village on Japan's icy west coast has thrown into doubt the
future of a multi-billion-dollar global industry based on the use of recycled
plutonium fuel to generate nuclear power. 

  · It's time that our politicians did mention the war   

In a landmark weekend plebiscite, a majority of voters in sleepy 
Kariwa voted narrowly against a plan to allow the giant nuclear 
plant that dominates the local landscape - the biggest nuclear 
facility in the world - to use the controversial recycled fuel 
known as MOX.
 
The non-binding vote was painfully small: 1,925 voted against the 
plan, 1,533 in favour, in an 88 per cent turnout of villagers. 
However, the outcome poses a huge problem for Japanese 
authorities, heavily reliant on nuclear power to meet the 
resource-poor country's massive energy needs. 

A key element of Japan's nuclear policy is the use of MOX, a 
mixture of uranium compounds and the enriched plutonium recovered 
from spent fuel produced in the reaction process, to drain its 
plutonium stockpile and to set up a "nuclear fuel cycle". 

Japan has sunk huge sums into research and infrastructure in a 
so-far unsuccessful pursuit of a viable reprocessing program. Its 
target is to have plutonium reprocessing in 16 facilities by 
2010. 

This zeal has promoted other countries to invest in pluthermal 
technology. 

France's Cogema and Britain's British Nuclear Fuels have set up 
reprocessing facilities, banking on big Japanese contracts to 
deliver MOX fuel. 

Kariwa's rejection threatens to stymie the entire program, 
already looking shaky after a string of setbacks.
 
Environmental groups, which have long focused on MOX in their 
campaigns against Japan's nuclear power industry, said yesterday 
the vote could kill the reprocessing industry.
 
A spokeswoman for Greenpeace Japan, Ms Kazue Suzuki, pointed out 
that three MOX shipments had been sent almost 100,000 kilometres 
around the globe at a cost to Japanese utilities of almost $385 
million, yet had failed to "produce one kilowatt of electricity".
 
"Japan's plans for using plutonium was going nowhere before the 
result," she said. "Now it is in ruin. The opposition to the use 
of this dangerous material will go even stronger throughout 
Japan, with the real prospect that it will be terminated."
 
Termination would cripple the Sellafield MOX plant operated by 
British Nuclear Fuel. The British Government has indicated it 
will make a decision on an operating licence for the plant after 
next month's election. 

The Japanese Government insisted yesterday it would not drop its 
MOX plan, and would renew its efforts to convince the public of 
the benefits of its nuclear program.
 
But it faces an uphill battle. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, 
owned by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), dominates the 
local economy. One in four households is connected to it in some 
way.
 
Yet even this failed to convince the locals to back the MOX plan.
 
Confidence in Japan's nuclear industry has been severely dented 
by a string of controversies, including the September 1999 
nuclear accident at Tokaimura and the recent revelation that 
British Nuclear Fuel had falsified quality control data on a MOX 
shipment destined for Japan. 

The shipment will be returned to Britain at a cost running into 
millions of dollars.
 
Another MOX cargo lies stalled in transit at a separate Tepco 
reactor site because of local resistance to its usage.
 
*****************************************************************
 18  Premier: Govt must explain MOX use 

Daily Yomiuri On-Line
 
Yomiuri Shimbun 

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Monday that the government 
needs to develop public understanding on a plan to use 
plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in the nation's nuclear 
power plants, following Sunday's plebiscite in Kariwamura, a 
village in Niigata Prefecture, in which a majority of local 
residents rejected the use of the controversial fuel. 

"The result shows that people thought long and hard about the 
possible risks of nuclear power and its importance to the nation 
before making up their minds," Koizumi said at the House of 
Representatives Budget Committee session Monday. "Both the state 
and prospective operators need to make further efforts to develop 
better public understanding on nuclear energy issues." 

On Sunday, a majority of local residents of Kariwamura objected 
to a plan by Tokyo Electric Power Co. to use MOX fuel at the No. 
3 reactor of its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant. 

Under the nation's pluthermal project, the government and power 
companies want to use MOX fuel, made by mixing plutonium 
extracted from spent nuclear fuel and uranium in conventional 
light-water reactors.   

Copyright The Yomiuri Shimbun 
*****************************************************************
 19  MOX fuel policy now in question 

Daily Yomiuri On-Line
 
Yomiuri Shimbun 

A plebiscite Sunday in Kariwamura, Niigata Prefecture, could 
affect the nation's policy on nuclear fuel use, as a majority of 
residents expressed their objection to a plan to use 
plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at a local nuclear power 
plant. 

The government was apparently shocked to hear the result of the 
Kariwamura plebiscite, which was the nation's first referendum on 
the use of the controversial fuel. At issue was whether the fuel 
should be used at the No. 3 reactor at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 
plant of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO). "The government now 
needs to make further efforts to seek understanding from the 
public (about the nation's nuclear power policy)," Economy, Trade 
and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma told reporters Sunday night, 
admitting that the government was too optimistic in pushing ahead 
with the nuclear power program. 

Although the Natural Resources and Energy Agency said that the 
nation's basic policy to promote nuclear power will not change, 
analysts pointed out that the delay in using MOX fuel at the 
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant could not only endanger the nation's 
policy on nuclear power, but also cast shadows over its policies 
on global warming and national energy security. 

Some were critical of the fact that local residents are allowed 
to vote on the use of nuclear power, which they consider a 
national issue. 

Since the village plebiscite was announced on May 17, the 
government eagerly sought the public's understanding of the use 
of MOX fuel at the plant. As part of its efforts, Natural 
Resources and Energy Agency Director General Hirofumi Kono was 
sent to attend an open debate in the village with local 
residents, while Hiranuma and other relevant Cabinet ministers 
issued an emergency statement on the matter. 

However, the referendum's outcome showed the government failed to 
fully convince local residents of the significance of the 
so-called pluthermal project, as well as the importance of other 
nuclear power policies. Pluthermal refers to a system of nuclear 
fuel recycling that uses MOX fuel, made of plutonium and uranium, 
for conventional light-water reactors in existing nuclear power 
plants. Plutonium used in the system is extracted by reprocessing 
used nuclear fuel. 

The nuclear fuel cycle policy is designed to use nuclear fuel 
repeatedly in a continuous cycle of processing, power generation, 
reprocessing and further power generation. 

The government regards the nuclear fuel recycling policy as the 
mainstay of the energy policy of Japan, a nation with few natural 
resources. 

Therefore the government has been focusing its attention on 
finding a suitable site for a reprocessing plant to extract 
plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, as well as repository sites 
for high-level radioactive nuclear waste. 

Plutonium is currently used in conventional nuclear reactors in 
Japan, where the pluthermal project has yet to be put into 
practice. Currently, about 30 percent of the nation's nuclear 
power comes from plutonium fuel. 

Although the amount of plutonium contained in MOX fuel is larger 
than in conventional nuclear fuel, 35 power plants in five 
countries are already using the recycling system. 

"The safety (of the pluthermal process) is practically confirmed 
worldwide," the agency said. 

Therefore, the government did not expect that the Kariwamura 
plebiscite would actually be held, according to sources close to 
the government. 

The pluthermal projects at the No. 1 reactor of TEPCO's Fukushima 
power plant in Fukushima Prefecture and Kansai Electric Power 
Co.'s Takahama power plant in Fukui Prefecture have both been put 
on hold, as local residents called for a freeze on the 
introduction of MOX fuel. 

Observers pointed out that Sunday's Kariwamura plebiscite 
temporarily halted the envisioned nuclear fuel cycle and could 
adversely affect other stages in the cycle, such as MOX 
reprocessing. 

The government, however, is no longer able to back away from the 
use of nuclear power, since more than 30 percent of the nation's 
power now comes from nuclear plants. This percentage may 
increase, as the government also needs to reduce its dependence 
on Middle Eastern oil and to carry out measures against global 
warming. 

Morio Kimura, the Aomori governor who agreed to the construction 
of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the prefectural village 
of Rokkashomura, was invited by the government Wednesday to a 
meeting of a government counsel on the nuclear fuel cycle. 

"The government policy to promote the pluthermal project will not 
change under the new Cabinet of Prime Minister Junichiro 
Koizumi," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda reportedly told 
Kimura. 

However, public distrust of nuclear power remains strong 
following the criticality accident at Tokaimura, Ibaraki 
Prefecture, in September 1999. 

According to analysts, the government must now come up with 
concrete measures to regain the public's trust in nuclear power 
generation and promote its nuclear policy.   

Copyright The Yomiuri Shimbun 
*****************************************************************
 20  Opponents pleased with anti-MOX vote 

[The Japan Times Online]       

May 29, 2001   
  	
GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGNING FAILS 

By ERIKO ARITA 
Staff writer 

Villagers in Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture, opposed to introducing 
plutonium mixed oxide fuel in a local nuclear reactor expressed 
their happiness Monday after a majority of voters turned thumbs 
down on the plan in a plebiscite the day before.
    
  Kariwa residents against a plan to use MOX at the village's 
nuclear power plant celebrate the results of a plebiscite late 
Sunday.  

 Opponents of the MOX fuel plan said they saw a definite momentum 
swing in their favor, even though the vote is not legally binding 
and the plan could still go ahead. "The number of people who 
voted yes on the project was much smaller than the number who 
registered as members of a pro-MOX group in the village," said 
Kazuyuki Takemoto, a member of the anti-MOX group, explaining 
that most of the registered members of the proponents are 
employees of Tokyo Electric Power Co. or its subcontractors. He 
said the pro-MOX group has 1,900 registered members in the 
village, far more than the 1,533 who voted for the plan in the 
plebiscite. In the village of 5,168 people, about 25 percent of 
the households have at least one family member with a job related 
to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant. "Local distrust of 
nuclear power has increased following a series of incidents, 
including the accident at the (Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture) JCO 
fuel processing plant that killed two workers and the falsifying 
of quality data on MOX fuel for the Takahama nuclear plant," 
Takemoto said. "The poll shows that the villagers do not support 
the government-led nuclear power plan," he said. "We are worried 
that we are only trading our health and safety for more 
government subsidies given to the village." However, Yukio 
Irizawa, leader of the pro-MOX project group, said, "I do not 
think the result of the plebiscite means the end of the project. 
I guess the decision (on whether to proceed with the plan) will 
go to the central government, which should make the final 
decision." Masaaki Kasahara, representative of a villagers' group 
that promoted the plebiscite, said the significant point is that 
this was the first local poll on the pluthermal project. "Taking 
it as a first step, I hope people in the village will continue 
expressing their opinions on important issues," he said. Kasahara 
added that, before the plebiscite, public opinion in the village 
had never been solicited in compiling policies on nuclear power. 
Daisuke Yoshida, a member of the Kariwa Municipal Assembly, said, 
"We now know that there is a lack of understanding of the project 
among residents, and the voting rates of 88 percent show that 
they are very much concerned with the issue. "Some people said 
the result of a plebiscite should not directly affect national 
policy. But I wonder for whom the national policy is really 
intended." The result of the plebiscite came after the pro-MOX 
group, together with the national government, campaigned to boost 
support. Sumiko Shimizu, an Upper House member of the Social 
Democratic Party, said pamphlets bearing the signature of 
Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Takeo Hiranuma were passed 
out to every household in Kariwa by about 30 part-time workers 
who were recruited in Tokyo. When Shimizu quizzed Hiranuma during 
an Upper House committee session earlier this month on the 
campaign's budget, the minister said, "Some 3 million yen was 
spent." The pamphlet says that if nuclear waste isn't recycled, 
storage will become problematic, eventually leading to nuclear 
plants having to cease operations, and thus increasing the 
likelihood of a shortage of electricity. The leaflet also says: 
"If the pluthermal project is not carried out, the United Kingdom 
and France, which have signed contracts with Japan on 
nuclear-waste processing, will criticize us, saying 'Japan is a 
country that cannot keep promises.' " Five members of the Diet 
who support the MOX project, including Foreign Minister Makiko 
Tanaka and her husband, Upper House member Naoki Tanaka, sent 
messages to residents stating that the nation is confident that 
the project is safe. The Tanakas were elected from Niigata 
Prefecture.
 
The Japan Times: May 29, 2001 (C) All rights reserved .             
*****************************************************************
 21  Koizumi plans to boost PR after town votes no on MOX 

[The Japan Times Online]       

May 29, 2001   
  	
Government wants to assemble nuclear-power campaign team to 
continue endorsing controversial fuel

 Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Monday the government will 
have to work harder to win public support for a plan to burn 
plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel in Japan's nuclear plants, 
following the rejection in a plebiscite Sunday of the use of MOX 
fuel in Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture.

 "Both the state and the operators need to make further efforts 
in seeking people's understanding on nuclear energy," Koizumi 
told the Lower House Budget Committee.

 Katsusada Hirose, vice minister of economy, trade and industry, 
said later the government will put together a high-ranking team 
to consider how to win public support for its MOX fuel program.

 He said the team will consist of department head-level officials 
from the Cabinet Office and the foreign, general affairs, and 
science and technology ministries, as well as the chief of the 
Natural Resources and Energy Agency under the Ministry of 
Economy, Trade and Industry.

 Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda said at a news conference 
he thinks the plebiscite result shows that the government failed 
to sufficiently explain its energy policy to the public.

 Fukuda said the project is a "very important" part of the 
nations' energy policy, and that the government will strive 
harder to garner support for it.

 "We feel that there is a need to make further efforts to win 
understanding not only from the (village) residents, but from 
people of the nation," Fukuda said.

 A majority of the voters in the Kariwa plebiscite voted against 
the Tokyo Electric Power Co. plan to introduce MOX fuel at its 
local plant as part of the so-called "pluthermal" project. The 
plebiscite's outcome is legally nonbinding.

 The plant in question straddles the village and the neighboring 
city of Kashiwazaki.

 On Monday evening, Kariwa Mayor Hiroo Shinada told a news 
conference that an atomic power council will be created to 
further consider whether the village will oppose the use of MOX 
fuel.

 "An extremely serious judgment seems to have been made," Shinada 
said. "If we simply look at the results, the village opposes the 
plan. However, we must make a final judgment in light of social 
responsibility and the public stance of the village, which 
accepted the project in advance."

 The Social Democratic Party asked the Natural Resources and 
Energy Agency on Monday to abandon its plan to use recycled 
nuclear fuel containing plutonium at the nuclear power plant 
after the local plebiscite rejected use of the fuel Sunday, party 
officials said.

 The SDP called on agency chief Hirofumi Kawano to respect the 
result of the plebiscite, the officials said.

 Tepco President Nobuya Minami earlier called the results of the 
poll "regrettable."

 "The need to introduce the pluthermal project has not changed, 
and we would like to proceed with the plan," he said, though 
Tepco officials were quick to point out that the utility would 
not forcibly introduce the MOX plan.

 The plant in question is the world's largest in terms of nuclear 
power generation, producing 8.21 million kw a year and meeting 20 
percent of Tepco's total electricity demand. The utility serves 
the greater Tokyo area.

 A village ordinance stipulates that the mayor and assembly must 
respect the poll's outcome.

 The government and power companies want to introduce MOX fuel in 
commonly used light-water reactors. The fuel is made by mixing 
uranium with plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel.

 The method has been the key focus of Japan's plutonium-recycling 
policy since a December 1995 sodium coolant leak led to a fire -- 
and an official coverup attempt -- at the Monju prototype 
fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture. The reactor, 
which has not been restarted, was to have used MOX fuel.

 Japan hopes to dispose of plutonium, produced as a byproduct 
from uranium in nuclear plants, to allay international concerns 
about the possibility of the country building nuclear weapons, 
because plutonium can be used to create such arms.

 Utilities including Tepco and Osaka-based Kansai Electric Power 
Co. want to start using MOX fuel by 2010 at 16 to 18 reactors.

 MOX fuel, however, has so far not been used at any of Japan's 
nuclear plants as a result of the discovery in 1999 that British 
Nuclear Fuels PLC falsified data on MOX fuel for shipment to 
Japan.

 Tepco wanted to introduce MOX fuel at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 
plant in mid-June, Tepco officials said.
 
The Japan Times: May 29, 2001
*****************************************************************
 22  re letter to editor on hearing for SJR4 
 		 		 		 		 		 	 		
[tahoe.com]                                     
VIEWS Tuesday, May 29, 2001             
 		
Senate Joint Resolution 4 and Senate Joint Resolution10, if 
passed, will show that Nevada is not united against the proposed 
Yucca Mountain site. Vice President Dick Cheney has attempted to 
play down the waste problem by toting the French solution as 
being environmentally sound. 

This statement was shown to be incorrect by scientists who 
understand the French problem. The committee should remain silent 
about solutions that will send the wrong message to Washington. 

The most recent DOE publication describes a new possible 
solution. They claim that they now will require a "blending pool" 
near the entrance of the proposed site so they can mix and 
package various ages of materials. This above ground storage can 
turn into an above ground long term storage if DOE determines 
that the underground area is not suitable. This will circumvent 
the congressional edict that there shall not be any temporary 
above ground storage. 

The Senate Transportation Committee must make it clear that 
Nevada will not compromise on the plan to make Yucca Mountain a 
safe and credible site. We should make sure that the scientists 
have their day and then we can challenge the results. There is 
plenty of time to set routes after the EIS process is complete. 

        LOU deBOTTARI Carson City 
		 		
*Copyright tahoe.com. Materials contained within this site may
*****************************************************************
 23  U.S. think tank praises village for standing against fuel plan 

[The Japan Times Online]       

May 29, 2001   
  	
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) A U.S. antinuclear-proliferation think tank 
praised Kariwa, Niigata Prefecture, on Sunday for its opposition 
in a plebiscite to a plan to use plutonium-uranium mixed oxide 
fuel at a local reactor.

 Paul Leventhal, president of the Washington-based Nuclear 
Control Institute, said in a news release, "The vote represents a 
major setback for the Japanese nuclear industry . . . (and) 
should be the turning point for the demise of the Japanese and 
European plutonium industries."

 The result of the Sunday plebiscite is not binding.

 Tokyo Electric Power Co. plans to use MOX fuel, made with 
uranium and plutonium from used nuclear fuel, in one of its seven 
power reactors in Kariwa and the neighboring city of Kashiwazaki.

 In the plebiscite, 1,925 out of 4,090 eligible voters cast 
ballots against the plan, outnumbering supporters by 392.

 Leventhal said, "The Kariwa referendum is but the latest 
evidence that the plutonium industries in Japan and Europe are 
being rejected because they make no economic sense, (and) 
increase the consequences of a nuclear accident."

 Leventhal also said the administration of U.S. President George 
W. Bush "would be wise to pay attention to the villagers of 
Kariwa." He said nuclear industry lobbyists are pressing Bush to 
reverse decisions against the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel.
 
The Japan Times: May 29, 2001
*****************************************************************
 24  Japan offensive on nuclear power

BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | 

Monday, 28 May, 2001, 

[Anti-nuclear demonstrators march outside the Tokyo Electric 
Power Company's plant in Iwaki, northeast of Tokyo] 

Protests against the use of MOX and pluthermal facilities 

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has said his government 
will make more strenuous efforts to win the public's 
understanding of the need for nuclear energy. 

Mr Koizumi was speaking after residents of the village of 
Kariwamura in north-western Japan voted in a referendum to reject 
plans by the giant Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) to use 
recycled plutonium fuel at a local plant. 

Both the state and the operators need to make further efforts in 
seeking the public's understanding on nuclear energy
   	 		
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi                         

Critics have said the proposed use of the controversial fuel, 
known as MOX, is dangerous and more expensive than conventional 
nuclear fuel. 

Correspondents have said the vote in Kariwamura - although not 
legally binding - has put the Japanese Government in a dilemma 
because it wants to make the use of MOX a cornerstone of its 
energy policy. 

Mr Koizumi told the country's lower house of parliament: "Both 
the state and the operators need to make further efforts in 
seeking the public's understanding on nuclear energy." 
	 		 			
[Police officers wear protection suits against radiation in 1999 
after a leak at a uranium processing facility in Tokaimura] 

Previous nuclear accidents are one reason the Japanese are 
sceptical about government nuclear power 
		 		 		  
Tepco's plan was to convert what is an existing nuclear reactor 
to a pluthermal (plutonium thermal) plant. 

Pluthermal facilities are power plants that use plutonium-uranium 
mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in light-water reactors. 

Of the 3,605 votes cast in Kariwamura, 1,925, or 53.6%, rejected 
the use of MOX fuel. 

Japanese newspapers said the vote dealt a severe blow to the 
government's plan to promote the method of power generation as an 
answer to the needs of the resource-poor nation. 

The decision (to accept such a plan) is up to the local 
community. But we will continue to seek understanding about the 
necessity of pluthermal facilities
   	 		
Tepco spokesman Takashi Kurita                            

Japan relies on 51 nuclear reactors to provide about one-third of 
its electricity. 

A spokesman for Tepco, Takashi Kurita, said the company would not 
continue with its plan to introduce MOX fuel against local 
residents' wishes. But Tepco would keep trying to win them round 
he said. 

Perhaps the government needed to explain more about the plan, 
although it had taken considerable pains to do so
   	 		
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda                      

"The decision (to accept such a plan) is up to the local 
community. But we will continue to seek understanding about the 
necessity of pluthermal facilities," he said. 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda gave no hint that the 
government would be swayed from its nuclear power plans. 

"Perhaps the government needed to explain more about the plan, 
although it had taken considerable pains to do so," he told a 
news conference. 

"(Plans for new pluthermal plants) are a very important part of 
Japan's energy policy. 

"Considering the future energy needs, I feel we must seek better 
understanding not just from the residents (in Kariwamura), but 
also the entire Japanese public."                 

*****************************************************************
 25  Friends of the Earth UK Asks Court Inquiry into MOX Nuclear Plant

 Environment News Service: 

 LONDON, United Kingdom, May 28, 2001 (ENS) - The UK government 
may have to defend itself in court over how it is handling the 
controversial question of whether to allow to open a new nuclear 
fuel fabrication plant at its Sellafield site in Cumbria. 

On Thursday, announced that it has requested a judicial inquiry 
over the issue. In a legal challenge supported by Greenpeace, FoE 
claims that the government has contravened European Union law in 
its ongoing assessment of the economic viability of the mixed 
oxide (MOX) plant at Sellafield. 

[Sellafield] British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield facility 
(Photos courtesy BNFL) Sellafield manufactures nuclear fuel rods, 
reprocesses spent nuclear fuel from nine countries and treats and 
stores radioactive wastes. The Sellafield MOX plant has been 
designed to fabricate this new fuel with plutonium which is 
recovered from used nuclear fuel when it is reprocessed. Friends 
of the Earth says that the Deputy Prime Minister and the 
Secretary of State for Health have acted unlawfully, by 
deliberately restricting the scope of the final public 
consultation exercise. 

The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions 
commissioned Arthur D. Little Consultants to undertake an 
independent evaluation of the economic case for the Sellafield 
MOX plant last month. This work ran parallel with the eight week 
public consultation exercise which ended May 23. Ministers have 
said they will not be subjecting the Little report to public 
scrutiny before they take their decision on the Sellafield plant. 
These reports are usually made public, FoE's legal advisor Peter 
Roderick told reporters. 

The Sellafield MOX plant will mix plutonium dioxide and uranium 
dioxide to manufacture Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel for conventional 
nuclear power stations. Around 10 percent of MOX fuel is 
plutonium, and there are fears that it could be used for making 
nuclear weapons. 

The Friends of the Earth UK believes that the government is close 
to granting approval for the MOX plant to begin operations and 
that the scope of the final consultants' report has been 
manipulated to support such a decision. 

[MOX] Roundness measurement being performed on an experimental 
fuel pellet in a BNFL lab. FoE says that the UK£462m (US$657 
million) that was spent constructing the plant must be included 
in any economic assessment, but that the government has asked 
consultants to judge the plant's economic viability on its future 
operating costs alone. 

The MOX plant was completed in 1996, but its opening was delayed 
after safety breaches were discovered at a smaller demonstration 
facility in September 1999. A UK government report in February 
2000 faulted management for the falsification of data about the 
fabrication of MOX pellets sold to Japan, Germany and other 
European countries. 

FoE says that despite BNFL's enthusiasm to start the new plant, 
"the order book remains almost empty, with contracts having been 
secured for less than 10 percent of capacity." British Energy, 
the UK's privatised nuclear generator, has refused to use MOX. 

But on May 8, BNFL signed a contract for the supply of MOX fuel 
manufactured at the Sellafield MOX Plant with Framatome ANP for 
the Swedish utility OKG's Oskarshamn reactor site. 

The contract brings "contracted/reserved business" lined up for 
the Sellafield plant to 40 percent of what it needs to justify 
the plant economically, the company says. 

Mark Johnston, nuclear campaigner at Friends of the Earth said, 
"The growing stockpile of separated plutonium is a worldwide 
embarrassment for the nuclear industry. It only exists because of 
the continuing yet necessary reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. 
The MOX option for plutonium is both expensive and misguided." 

"The fact that government is the sole owner of the company does 
not permit it to disregard the law in order to allow BNFL to 
start making MOX," Johnston said. 

A government spokesperson said that FoE's request for a judicial 
review was "premature and misguided." 

{ENDS Environment Daily contributed to this report. } 
*****************************************************************
 26  Production stoppage at Studsvik's Erwin facility

BIT: 

On Friday 12 May there was a minor leakage in one of the process 
systems at Studsvik’s facility in Erwin, USA. All the safety 
systems at the facility functioned as planned when this occurred. 
No-one was harmed as a result of the leakage and there was no 
radioactive release to the environment.
 
The facility will be shut down for about four weeks for repairs 
before production can be resumed. During this period other 
maintenance work that was planned for later will also be carried 
out.
 
The Erwin facility is designed to use volume reduction to enable 
safer and more economical final disposal of radioactive ion 
exchange resins from the American nuclear power industry. The 
facility is based on unique technology developed by Studsvik and 
is the only one of its kind in the world.
 
The incident has been reported to the American regulatory agency, 
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC.
 
For further information please contact: Carsten Olsson, President 
and Chief Executive Officer of Studsvik AB, tel 0155-22 10 20 or 
mobile 0709-677 020 Thomas Backteman, Senior Vice President for 
Communications and Investor Relations of Studsvik AB 0155-22 10 
66 or mobile 0709-677 066
 

Facts about Studsvik Studsvik is a high-tech company, focusing on 
the nuclear power industry and nuclear medicine. Business is 
conducted through four Strategic Business Units (SBUs): Nuclear 
Technology, Waste & Decommissioning, Industrial Services and 
Nuclear Medicine.
 
Nuclear Technology offers products and services related to 
nuclear power plant operation. These include the testing and 
analysis of nuclear fuel and materials, computer codes for 
reactor operation, consulting and instrumentation for the 
measurement of radiation. Activities are dependent on Studsvik’s 
nuclear reactors and specilist laboratories, located outside 
Nyköping.
 
Waste & Decommissioning Waste & Decommissioning treats low and 
intermediate level waste from nuclear reactors and provides 
services for the dismantling of nuclear facilities. European 
operations focus on the treatment of low level waste in 
Studsvik’s incineration and melting facilities located outside 
Nyköping. US operations, conducted at Studsvik’s facilities in 
Erwin, Tennessee, include volume and weight reduction of 
ion-exchange resins from commercial nuclear power plants in the 
USA.
 
Industrial Services Industrial Services mainly provides services 
to the nuclear power industry and also offers services to other 
industries. Operations include decontamination, health physics, 
dosimetry services for hospitals, dentists and veterineries, 
chemical cleaning and dismantling of nuclear facilities as well 
as process cleaning. Activities have historically been 
concentrated to Sweden. However, since the German company, SINA, 
was aquired in 1998, the German business accounts for more than a 
half of the SBU’s income.
 
Nuclear Medicine Nuclear Medicine provides a number of 
nuclear-related products and methods for medical use. The range 
includes a method for the treatment of brain tumors and a number 
of radioisotopes.
 
This information was brought to you by BIT http://www.bit.se
*****************************************************************
 27  BNFL says Japanese vote against Mox is no 'setback'

FT.com | News and Analysis | World Article

utilities 

 By Matthew Jones in London and Ken Hijino in Tokyo

May 28 2001 15:19GMT

[bnfl / japan] 

British Nuclear Fuels on Monday played down a Japanese local 
referendum that has rejected the use of recycled mixed-oxide 
(Mox) fuel, saying the group's £460m ($644m) Sellafield Mox plant 
should still be allowed to open. 

Almost 54 per cent of the residents of Kariwa, a village 300km 
north of Tokyo, voted on Sunday against plans by Tokyo Electric 
Power Company to load Mox fuel into reactors at its 
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant. 

Although the vote is not legally binding, local opposition to Mox 
threatens to derail Japan's nuclear fuel recycling programme, 
which BNFL had hoped would form the mainstay of its orders for 
the SMP. 

A BNFL official acknowledged that Japan was the group's most 
important Mox customer but said the Kariwa vote should not 
endanger the SMP. 

"We don't believe this is a setback. Both the Japanese government 
and the federation of electricity companies have said they intend 
to continue with the Mox programme," he added. 

Main building work on the SMP was completed five years ago but 
the plant is still awaiting clearance from the environment 
minister to begin operations. The decision, expected after the UK 
election on June 7, hinges on the government being convinced that 
the plant will be economically viable, taking into account the 
cost of cleaning up nuclear waste once production ceases. 

The Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions 
confirmed it would take the Kariwa vote into consideration when 
deciding on whether to open the SMP. But an official said it was 
still "too early to comment" on the likely impact of the vote 
until more details were known. 

Japanese public confidence in Mox fuel has been low since a data 
falsification scandal in September 1999 in which BNFL employees 
falsified quality control records for Mox shipped to Kansai 
Electric Power Company. 

Since then BNFL and the Department of Trade and Industry have 
attempted to win back Japanese support by stressing the extensive 
management and operational changes that the company has made. 

Anti-nuclear organisations were triumphant over the news, saying 
the vote was expected to influence Fukushima and Fukui 
prefectures, where Mox plans have already been stalled due to 
local opposition. 

"It is now unthinkable that Japan will ever use Mox fuel 
fabricated by BNFL" said Aileen Mioko Smith, director of Green 
Action, an anti-nuclear citizens group. 

However, Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, on Monday 
called for "further efforts in seeking people's understanding on 
nuclear energy" and said the Mox fuel program would continue. 

Tokyo Electric president Nobuya Minami called the Kariwa 
villagers' decision "regrettable" and said the need for nuclear 
fuel recycling remained unchanged. 

He added that the company was waiting for further discussions on 
the prefectural and national level as well as "deepening local 
understanding" before proceeding with Mox loading. 

Japan relies on nuclear energy for more than one-third of its 
energy use and the government has actively supported the use of 
Mox as part of its fuel cycle. 

Mox was developed as a way of recycling spent fuel, which 
otherwise has to be stored as waste. Critics argue, however, that 
Mox is more expensive than conventional fuel and presents an 
unacceptable risk of nuclear weapons proliferation because it 
contains plutonium, the material used to make nuclear warheads. 

UK: Financial Times
*****************************************************************
 28   Russia Allows Nuke Dump Inspection
 
May 28, 2001 
 
OSLO, Norway (AP) - Russia's Northern Fleet opened a secret 
nuclear waste dump in the Arctic to outside inspection for the 
first time Monday, after years of pressure from its smaller 
neighbor Norway. 

A Norwegian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth 
Eide was allowed into the Andreeva Bay base, where tons of highly 
radioactive waste are stored roughly 30 miles from the 
Russian-Norwegian frontier. 

"This really is an area we must do something about. Very large 
amounts of radioactive waste are stored here under very 
unfavorable conditions, and we have seen a facility marked by 
such decay that there is reason to take action as soon as 
possible," Eide said from Russia in an interview broadcast by the 
Norwegian state radio network NRK. 

Andreeva Bay is considered one of the world's most radioactively 
dangerous places. There are more than 100 nuclear submarines at 
Russian's Northern Fleet bases on the Kola Peninsula, where 
northwestern Russia borders Norway. 

Most are rusted hulks, often with nuclear fuel on board, 
according to Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group that 
specializes in the issue. 

The waste at Andreeva includes spent nuclear fuel cores from 
atomic submarines. A 1996 report by Bellona said about 21,000 
spent nuclear fuel assemblies are stored here and many of the 
containers are leaking. 

NATO-member Norway does not allow nuclear weapons or power on its 
own soil in peacetime and has been deeply concerned about the 
nuclear waste on the Kola. Eide said radiation detectors showed 
significantly elevated levels, without giving the exact readings. 

Wealthy Norway, the world's second-largest oil exporter, for 
years held $2.2 million ready help clean up Andreeva Bay. 

However, in six years of negotiations that led to Monday's visit, 
Norway has insisted on being allowed to inspect the bay, which 
was off-limits because it is near a top-secret submarine base. 

Norwegian nuclear, defense and environmental experts were allowed 
to inspect the site with Eide. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 29  Russia allows Norway into waste base

Updated 28.05.01, 17:55 (GMT +01:00)   
    
Norwegian officials were allowed to inspect a secret nuclear 
waste dump in the Arctic on Monday, after years of pressure on 
the Russian authorities. The Andreeva Bay base lies only 45 
kilometres from the Russian-Norwegian frontier. 

Russia's Northern Fleet opened the base where tons of highly 
radioactive waste are stored to a Norwegian delegation led by 
Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide. 

Andreeva Bay is considered one of the world's most radioactively 
dangerous places. There are more than 100 nuclear submarines at 
Russian's Northern Fleet bases on the Kola Peninsula, where 
northwestern Russia borders Norway. 

Most are rusted hulks, often with nuclear fuel on board, 
according to Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group that 
specialises in the issue. 

"This really is an area we must do something about. Very large 
amounts of radioactive waste are stored here under very 
unfavourable conditions, and we have seen a facility marked by 
such decay that there is reason to take action as soon as 
possible," Eide said from Russia in an interview broadcast by the 
Norwegian state radio NRK. 

(PA) 

  Utgiver: Aftenposten A/S, Oslo, Norge. Telefon +47 22 86 30 00. 
Alt innhold er opphavsrettslig beskyttet. © Aftenposten.   

*****************************************************************
 30  Waste Dump Opened 

May. 29, 2001. Page 4 

The Associated Press
 
OSLO, Norway — Russia's Northern Fleet opened a secret nuclear 
waste dump in the Arctic to outside inspection for the first time 
Monday, after years of pressure from its smaller neighbor Norway. 

A Norwegian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth 
Eide was allowed into the Andreyeva Bay base, where tons of 
highly radioactive waste are stored roughly 45 kilometers from 
the Russian-Norwegian frontier. 

"This really is an area we must do something about. Very large 
amounts of radioactive waste are stored here under very 
unfavorable conditions, and we have seen a facility marked by 
such decay that there is reason to take action as soon as 
possible," Eide said from Russia in an interview broadcast by the 
Norwegian state radio network NRK. 

Andreyeva Bay is considered one of the world's most radioactively 
dangerous places. There are more than 100 nuclear submarines at 
Russia's Northern Fleet bases on the Kola Peninsula, where 
northwestern Russia borders Norway. 

*****************************************************************
 31    Burial of nuclear waste back on political agenda   

The Times

MAY 29 2001   
    
  BY CARL MORTISHED, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EDITOR   
    
  NUCLEAR WASTE will return to the Government’s political agenda 
in the autumn, when a controversial proposal to seek a permanent 
burial site for waste from Britain’s nuclear industry is placed 
in the in-tray of a new Environment Minister. 

A consultation paper on disposal of nuclear waste has been in 
preparation in the Department of the Environment, Transport and 
the Regions for more than a year. The Government has been loath 
to reopen the highly sensitive subject of nuclear power before an 
election, but growing anxiety over energy security will push the 
nuclear issue up the agenda. 

Sources within the DETR suggest that publication of the 
consultation document could quickly follow the widely expected 
formation of a new Labour administration. “Nothing will be 
published before the general election, but work has been going 
on,’’ one source said. “A consultation paper could come out later 
this year.’’ 

Signs that the Government is willing to grasp the nettle will 
arouse fierce opposition from environmental groups, such as 
Friends of the Earth, which are opposed to permanent burial. 
However, the political climate on nuclear power is beginning to 
shift. The US Administration is backing further research into 
waste disposal at its Yucca Mountain site in Nevada and, earlier 
this month, the Finnish Parliament approved by a big majority a 
scheme to bury spent nuclear fuel from Finland’s nuclear stations 
in an underground depository at Olkiluoto. 

Political fright over nuclear waste scuppered an attempt by the 
former Conservative Government to conduct research into 
underground disposal of intermediate-level waste at Sellafield in 
Cumbria. On the day John Major called the general election, John 
Gummer, then Environment Secretary, scrapped proposals by Nirex, 
a nuclear industry-owned body, to do a “rock-characterisation 
study” at Sellafield to determine its suitability for a permanent 
depository. 

A parliamentary select committee in March 1999 argued that phased 
disposal in a deep depository “is feasible and desirable”. The 
committee recommended widespread public consultation and 
delivered an implicit rebuke to the procrastination of successive 
governments. It said: “The problem exists and has to be solved. 
It could not be avoided by a decision today to discontinue 
nuclear power production.” 

Currently, intermediate-level waste is encased in concrete and 
stored at Sellafield, while high-level waste, mainly residual 
fuel, is encased in glass blocks, also stored at Sellafield. 
British Nuclear Fuels insists that there is no problem with the 
storage, but is pressing for a solution. It said: “The Government 
needs to address this so people know there is an end-game.’’
   
    
  Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided 
*****************************************************************
 32  Reid’s promotion a coup for Nevada

RGJ.com - 

Reno Gazette-Journal
 Tuesday May 29th, 2001
 

Thank you from Nevada, Sen. Jeffords. Republicans may be mourning 
the defection of the junior senator from Vermont, which ended 
their tenuous hold on the U.S. Senate. But there is reason for 
joy in Nevada. With the Senate under the control of the 
Democratic Party again, the Silver State will enjoy its highest 
profile ever as Sen. Harry Reid is elevated to the position of 
majority whip, the second highest position in the party and a key 
gatekeeper of the legislative process. Though there are no 
guarantees, the new position gives Reid added muscle in his 
battle to prevent the federal government from approving a nuclear 
waste dump at Yucca Mountain and banning gambling on college 
sports.
 
The sudden reversal of fortunes was quite a coup for the senior 
senator from Nevada, who is credited with playing a key role in 
convincing Jeffords to quit the Republican Party and become an 
independent, giving the Democratic Party a 50-49-1 plurality and 
control of the Senate. Just three years after he only narrowly 
won his bid for re-election, Reid has shown himself to be an 
effective national leader. In the words of his colleague from 
Nevada, Republican Sen. John Ensign, Reid “knows how to get 
things done.”
 
That’s important for Nevada, where a relatively small population 
and an enormous amount of government-owned land have resulted in 
little national clout in the past few decades. Reid firmly 
believes that if the federal government does a true scientific 
evaluation, Yucca Mountain cannot pass muster as a permanent 
repository for high-level nuclear waste. In his new position, he 
should be able to ensure that the government does a real 
evaluation.
 
That won’t be sufficient consolation for some Republicans, of 
course. They were rather enjoying having control of the White 
House and both houses of Congress for the first time in several 
generations. And they already have been taking out their wrath on 
Jeffords. He’s been compared to everyone from Benedict Arnold to 
RuPaul, and for some Republicans it’s good riddance to a liberal 
in sheep’s clothing.
 
It is a good time, therefore, to remind both Republicans and 
Democrats of a couple of wise, old sayings.
 
The first: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Those who 
celebrated the switch of such Democratic luminaries as Sen. Ben 
Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado to the Republican Party and a 
host of others in recent years — the Republican Party even 
published a newsletter touting the latest defections among 
Democrats — now are paying a high price for their hubris.
 
Second: You meet the same people on the way down as you met on 
the way up. Democrats who opposed the elevation of the Robert 
Bork, successfully, and Clarence Thomas, unsuccessfully, to the 
U.S. Supreme Court, were repaid in kind when the GOP took charge 
of the Senate and stymied President Bill Clinton’s judicial 
nominations. It now appears to be the Democrats’ turn again.
 
So, this is the perfect time to restore some civility to the 
national debate, to stop calling people names and return to 
discussion of real issues. As No. 2 in the Senate, the 
gentlemanly Reid may be just the man to lead the charge.
 
©2001 Reno Gazette-Journal
*****************************************************************
 33  Action Alert! SDEIS Hearings
 
  [Citizen Alert] 
ACTION ALERT!

 HEARINGS ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 
STATEMENT AND CITIZEN ALERT MEETINGS FOR TALKING POINTS
 
The Department of Energy has issued a Supplement to the Draft EIS 
(SDEIS) and will be holding hearings on it. At this point, the 
end of the comment period on this document is June 25, 2001. The 
State of Nevada, and organizations such as Citizen Alert are 
formally asking for more hearings and for a longer comment 
period. The schedule for these hearings are below.

 Hearing Dates, Times and Locations
 
Amargosa Valley, Nevada May 31, 2001 Amargosa, NV Longstreet Inn 
, Highway 373
 
Las Vegas, Nevada June 5, 2001 Las Vegas, NV Suncoast Casino, 
9090 Alta Drive
 
Pahrump, Nevada June 7, 2001 Pahrump, NV Bob Ruud Community Ctr., 
150 N. Highway, #160
 
Hearings are scheduled from 5-9 p.m. (Comments taken from 7-9 
p.m.)
 
Your comments at these hearings WILL NOT be considered if they 
are not "within scope".
 
Citizen Alert will be holding two meetings to go over what IS 
"within scope" and talking points as well as other pertinent info 
for these hearings. The Citizen Alert meetings will be held Tues. 
5/29/01 6pm-8pm and Mon. 6/4/01 6pm-8pm at the Las Vegas office. 
1700 E. Desert Inn Rd. Suite 113. Call (702)-796-5662 for more 
info. Copies of the SDEIS will be available from Citizen Alert at 
the meeting. Or you can have them sent to you from the DOE by 
calling (800)-967-3477.
 
It is my understanding that Shundahai Network in Pahrump will 
also hold meetings before the hearings as well. Their number is 
(775)-537-6088 or e-mail them at Shundahai@shundahai.org
 
You are receiving this alert because you have expressed interest 
in this type of material. If you do not wish to receive future 
alerts or updates, please reply to this with the word 
"unsubscribe" in the body of the message.
 
Thank you. -- Kalynda Tilges Nuclear Issues Coordinator Citizen 
Alert - Las Vegas P.O.Box 17173 Las Vegas, NV 89114 702-796-5662 
702-796-4886 fax <Kalynda@LVCM.com> <http://www.citizenalert.org>
 
Citizen Alert "A Voice For The Land And People Of Nevada"
*****************************************************************
 34  Ground zero in nuclear-power battle
 
  Monitor Site Map @csmonitor.com About Us/Help Advertising 
Christian Science Article Archive AP's The WIRE Crossword puzzle 
Forums (join in!) Home International News Links Library News In 
Brief Subscriptions US News Weekly News Quiz     *  

MAY 29, 2001 

+ Despite $7 billion in studies, debate rises over safety of 
Yucca Mt. as a radioactive storage site. 


By Daniel B. Wood (woodd@csps.com) Staff writer of The Christian 
Science Monitor 


YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEV. 

No public roads cross these jagged escarpments, where rubble and 
sagebrush carpet dusty desert peaks. No sound intrudes upon the 
serene flight of hawks gliding the updrafts generated by 
scorching heat.
 
The remote panorama comes from atop Yucca Mountain, a hump of ash 
dumped by an erupting volcano some 12 million years ago.
 
The height, depth, and geological makeup of this Nevada mountain 
- what one engineer calls the "most studied piece of real estate 
in the history of mankind" - is reentering the national spotlight 
in the wake of calls by President Bush to revive the nuclear 
power industry.
 


          
  TUNNEL VISION: A tram wisks passengers through a test tunnel 
beneath Yucca Mountain. The Bush administration is mulling 
whether to use the site as a permanent nuclear waste dump. PHOTOS 
BY ROBERT HARBISON — STAFF   
    


Despite the White House push, the key to the industry's 
turnaround may ultimately hinge on the rabbit warrens beneath 
this windswept ridge.
 
It's here that the US wants to establish a repository to store 
radioactive waste for the next 10,000 years. But even after 22 
years of study and debate, the politics of where to put the 
detritus from the nation's nuclear plants remains as hard as lava 
rock. "This is about to get very interesting," says a Department 
of Energy (DOE) official at the site. "Those who oppose this are 
beginning to get involved, and we expect litigation for some time 
to come."
 
As part of his national energy plan, Mr. Bush called for 
licensing new nuclear reactors as well speeding up the 
relicensing of existing plants to ease the nation's power 
problems. He also endorsed the idea of a national waste dump, 
without specifying the site
 
At present, the nation's 103 nuclear plants each generate an 
average of 3 to 6 tons of waste per year. That is in addition to 
the 77,000 tons now stored at some 70 sites around the country, 
including the grounds of existing reactors. But these temporary 
storage sites, where spent fuel is held in metal canisters 
surrounded by water or cement, are running out of space. Energy 
officials at each site must find more or, by law, shut down 
further production.
 


          
  ILLUSTRATION BY TOM BROWN — STAFF   
    


The US has studied different sites for such a repository, but 
since 1987 has stopped all serious consideration other than Yucca 
Mountain. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding 
meetings this week in Nevada to consider construction permits for 
the site.
 
Already a five-mile tunnel and several test "alcoves" exist in 
which scientists have been analyzing the geologic features of the 
mountain. They have been trying to determine how to safely keep 
radioactive waste away from humans - and without leaking into the 
environment or water table - until such waste chemically 
"degrades" and becomes safe, about 10,000 years by federal 
statute.
 
DOE is also taking public comments in coming months before 
forwarding recommendations to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, 
who will advise the Bush administration.
 


          
  ON SITE : The Nevada Test Site, which contains a five-mile 
tunnel, is being studied as a possible repository for nuclear 
waste. Bush's energy plan calls for new nuclear reactors.   
    


But Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn (R), the state's congressional 
delegation, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman - whose city sits just 
90 miles south - and most voters all oppose the project. So do a 
chorus of environmental, native American, and citizen lobbying 
groups. All are mounting campaigns within and without the state 
to generate opposition.
 
Yet many lawmakers from other parts of the country, not wanting a 
nuclear graveyard in their states, have supported the Nevada 
site.
 
While the politics of the issue swirls in Washington and 
elsewhere, the work of the engineers beneath the lava rock here 
is receiving more attention as pressure builds to open a 
repository. Already, more than $7 billion worth of study and 
testing have taken place. This has included probing earthquake 
movement, sediment layers, chemical content, volcanic activity, 
and water flow.
 
The proposed repository would be built at the end of a two-mile 
tunnel, 1,000 feet below the surface of the mountain and 1,000 
feet above the water table. Government experts say no information 
has been yet found to disqualify the site as unsafe.
 


Surface water would have to descend 1,000 feet through volcanic 
rock, degrade the steel and ceramic cladding that surrounds the 
spent uranium fuel, descend another 1,000 feet to a water table, 
and then move horizontally 13 miles to the nearest exposure 
point. Tests show such a scenario would take far more than 10,000 
years.
 


          
  REMOTE PANORAMA: The view from Yucca Mountain in Beatty, Nev.   
    


"Touring this site and seeing what tests they have performed and 
what protection exists should be very reassuring to even the 
biggest cynic," said Danny Keuter, vice president for Entergy 
Nuclear Inc., a nuclear firm.
 
While critics dispute these assertions, they note that storage 
isn't the only issue. Getting the waste to and from the facility 
is problematic, too. "The shipping campaign required to move 
waste to a repository would be the largest nuclear materials 
transport in history, involving more than 100,000 shipments and 
lasting more than 30 years," says Mr. Goodman.
 
His and other politicians' biggest fear: an accident or terrorism 
incident that ruins the state's tourist industry. DOE's own 
analyses estimate the cleanup of a severe accident in a rural 
area at $620 million and in an urban area at $2 billion, says 
Goodman. "If Washington makes the decision that this is where 
they want to bury it, you will see more than a little uprising 
all across this state," says Goodman aide Eric Pappa.
 
Still, in the end, if not Yucca Mountain, where? "As long as we 
have nuclear power, there is the necessity of putting this waste 
somewhere safe," says Dennis O'Brien, an energy expert at the 
University of Oklahoma. "We are about to witness a battle not 
over the scientific questions raised, but about the politics 
surrounding that science."
 
[bullet] For further information:
 

  + Yucca Mountain Project Home Page + Radiation Protection at 
Yucca MountainEPA + Yucca Mountain EISNevada Nuclear Waste 
Project + YuccaMountainFacts.org + Eureka County, Nevada, Nuclear 
Waste Page + Babbitt backs plan for Yucca repositoryLas Vegas Sun 
Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these 
links. We offer them for your additional research. 

. Copyright 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights 
*****************************************************************
 35  Energy study gives black marks to coal, boost to nukes
 
  Monitor Site Map @csmonitor.com About Us/Help Advertising 
Christian Science Article Archive AP's The WIRE Crossword puzzle 
Forums (join in!) Home International News Links Library News In 
Brief Subscriptions US News Weekly News Quiz     *  

MAY 29, 2001 

By David R. Francis 
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 

All energy sources have their environmental drawbacks.
 
"There is no human activity that is pollution-free," says Denis 
Beller, a visiting scientist at the center for environmental 
studies at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.
 
The Bush administration's energy plan, combined with the 
California power shortage and concerns about global warming, has 
revived discussion of the pros and cons of various energy 
sources.
 
Mr. Beller and author Richard Rhodes have looked at the 
environmental impact of major energy sources. Like the authors of 
the Bush plan, Beller and Mr. Rhodes end up as fans of nuclear 
power.
 
Their findings are intriguing, maybe surprising.
 
Coal, used to generate electricity, is the worst environmental 
offender. For instance, the Harvard School of Public Health 
maintains that particulates from coal burning are responsible for 
about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States.
 
By comparison, 4,000 people who took part in the cleanup attempt 
after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the 
Soviet Ukraine have died so far. Another 40,000 involved became 
ill or were disabled.
 
Coal plants are the major source of the acid rain that troubles 
the eastern US and Canada.
 
Less well-known is the fact that coal-fired power plants are the 
major source of radioactive releases into the environment.
 
When coal is burned, mildly radioactive uranium and thorium in it 
are released into the air. So is radioactive radon gas, a decay 
product of crustal uranium normally confined underground.
 
A 1,000-megawatt (MW) coal plant releases 100 times more 
radioactivity than a comparable nuclear plant. Of course, critics 
of nuclear plants worry about an accident releasing a huge plume 
of radioactivity. But none of the 420 operating power reactors 
worldwide have had an accident nearly as serious as that at the 
Chernobyl plant, which lacked a containment vessel.
 
A coal plant releases about 74 pounds of uranium-235 each year, 
enough for two or more nuclear bombs.
 
This material could be collected and processed from coal ash, 
perhaps without attracting much attention.
 
More radioactive heavy metal is released into the environment 
every two years by coal burning than the total spent fuel waiting 
to be buried from all US nuclear power production and most US 
nuclear-weapons production.
 
Coal supplies about 24 percent of world's energy needs. Natural 
gas provides 22.1 percent, and this percentage is expected to 
grow in coming years.
 
Natural gas is relatively clean burning. A 1,000 MW plant, for 
example, releases per day into the air "only" 5.5 metric tons of 
sulfur oxides, 21 tons of nitrogen oxides, 1.6 tons of carbon 
monoxide, and 0.9 tons of "particulates."
 
Natural-gas fires and explosions offer significant risks. 
Newspapers sometimes record houses and pipelines blowing up. A 
single mile of three-feet-diameter gas pipeline at 1,000 pounds 
per square inch pressure contains the equivalent of 1.32 million 
pounds of TNT - a lot of explosive energy.
 
A million miles of such gas pipelines lace the earth. The Bush 
plan calls for many more miles to take gas to market.
 
In an essay that appeared in an edited form in Foreign Affairs, 
Messrs. Beller and Rhodes also note that renewable energy sources 
have problems.
 
Hydropower submerges large areas of land, often displaces rural 
population, kills fish, and raises a risk of catastrophic 
failure. Dams, costly to build, also eventually silt up.
 
The making of photovoltaic cells produces a highly toxic waste 
stream of metals and solvents that requires special disposal 
technology. A 1,000-megawatt solar plant would generate 6,850 
metric tons of hazardous waste over a 30-year lifetime from 
metals finishing alone.
 
A global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of 
world iron resources. A huge volcanic eruption, such as the 
Krakatoa event of 1883, would temporarily put solar power out of 
business.
 
Wind farms need millions of pounds of concrete and steel, cause 
noise pollution, and slay many birds.
 
Beller approves of efforts to improve efficiency in producing and 
using electricity. But he says efficiency won't fully meet the 
needs for more energy. Nor will conservation. The power saved by 
conservation, often heavily subsidized, is twice as expensive in 
the US as generated power.
 
Nuclear power releases no noxious gases. A ton of nuclear fuel 
produces energy equivalent to 2 million to 3 million tons of 
fossil fuel. Generating 1,000 MW of electricity for a year 
requires 2,000 train cars of coal or 10 supertankers of oil, but 
only one 10-cubic-meter fuel assembly of uranium. A nuclear plant 
releases less radioactivity per person than a television set.
 
. Copyright 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                     NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES
*****************************************************************
 1 Goals outlined for Y-12 weapons plant 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 10:42 a.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2001

by Paul Parson 
Oak Ridger staff 

In an updated version of the Y-12 National Security Complex's 
strategic plan, BWXT Y-12 outlines specific goals for the 
facility for the next 14 years, including consolidating 
"redundant" security duties and reevaluating workforce 
requirements.

 BWXT Y-12's management team recently developed the document with 
assistance from the Atomic Trades and Labor Council, which 
represents hourly workers at the weapons plant, and the National 
Nuclear Security Administration, the quasi-independent agency 
within DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons complex.

 John Mitchell, president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, said 
the strategic plan is being sent to workers' homes along with a 
book called "Did You Know?" which he said details some of the 
"good" things that occur at the plant.

 The strategic plan outlines specific goals to accomplish at the 
weapons plant from 2001 to 2015, including:
 
  + Consolidating redundant security duties between BWXT Y-12 and 
Wackenhut Services Inc. by 2002
 
  + Reevaluating workforce requirements and making restructuring 
recommendations by September 2002.
 
  + Reducing the plant's footprint by 500,000 square feet by 
September 2002. This includes the demolition of at least five 
buildings.
 
  + Defining the minimum acceptable manning level for each 
production and production support organization by June 2003.
 
  + Implementing a life-cycle replacement program to support 
security systems by 2004.
 
  + Implementing an automated need-to-know process to support 
product definition and product qualification data by September 
2004.
 
  + Reducing the amount of floor space needed to store 
non-weapons-related material by 50 percent to reduce operating 
costs by September 2005.
 
  + Eliminating 20 percent of the current backlog of enriched 
uranium residues awaiting uranium recovery processing by 
September 2005.
 
  + Designing, building and operating a storage facility for 
highly enriched uranium by September 2006.
 
  + Rendering Alpha 5 and Beta 4 -- manufacturing, storage and 
testing facilities -- non-operational, in a safe shutdown state, 
and awaiting transfer, reuse or demolition by 2007.
 
  + Consolidating administrative, technical and support functions 
on the site into more functional structures by 2008.
 
  + Reducing the size of the Y-12 Plant by 50 percent and the 
proportion of floor space older than 30 years to less than 30 
percent by 2015.

 The timing for the development of the strategic plan 
corresponded with two important events in the Y-12 timeline -- 
the creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration and 
the changeover in management contractors. On Aug. 31, 2000, BWXT 
Y-12 won the contract to run the facility over Lockheed Martin 
Energy Systems, the plant's former manager, and several other 
companies.

 Recently, Mitchell announced an internal reorganization that 
could affect as many as 200 jobs at Y-12. He said the layoffs 
would occur gradually over the coming months.

All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger *
*****************************************************************
 2  Opinion - In Oak Ridge, a fervor for science told well

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:09 a.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Editor's License Dick Smyser
 
Not surprisingly, said Jane Maienschein in her Community Lecture 
Wednesday night of last week, growing up in Oak Ridge gave her a 
rich appreciation of science. There were, she said, this city's 
"shockingly good" schools. There were also her parents, her 
father a physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, her mother a 
pillar of the Girl Scouts.

 When the family took a vacation trip, she said, there wasn't a 
lot of "Are we there yet?" nagging from her brother and her in 
the back seat. Her father had briefed them on the route and the 
car's likely average speed and suggested that they calculate 
mileage and time to reach a good place for lunch. Also, to 
further assure that their trip would be a science learning 
experience, a telescope and bird book were packed along with 
their hiking shoes and swim suits.

 Maienschein is professor of philosophy and director of the 
Interdisciplinary Biology and Society Program at Arizona State 
University. She spoke at the American Museum of Science and 
Energy as the third speaker in this year's series sponsored by 
Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, all speakers of which 
are graduates of Oak Ridge High School.
 
 There were "science stories" aplenty for her as a child and 
young adult, she said, but she is concerned that there are not 
enough stories about science being told today. She's even more 
concerned that the "science stories" that are being told are too 
often distorted, especially in their initial telling.

 So important to communicating about science, she feels, is WHO 
tells the story. Who, because they are the initial source for the 
breaking news in the media, becomes the "certified expert" on a 
given new science development? And, of equal concern, what is the 
emphasis in this first telling of the story?

 Some of the biggest recent science stories have been dropped on 
the public with disturbing emphases, she feels. For example, the 
first reports of the cloning of "Dolly" the sheep referred up 
front to the cloning of "an adult mammal." Immediately there was 
alarm that this "Frankenstein-type act" could lead to human 
cloning, this alarm resulting in the introduction of restrictive 
legislation that could have seriously inhibited further research. 
Fortunately, eventually these bills were thrown out, but the 
initial "knee jerk reaction" left scars.

 The first reports of success with implantation of stem cells for 
organ replacement provoked a similar overreaction from "right to 
life" activists who protested the use of aborted fetuses as a 
source of these cells. Again, bills were introduced in Congress 
to ban such use. "These are non-scientific reasons for opposing 
this research. We can decide what good science is, but who do we 
allow to make decisions on what good science will be done and not 
done?" she asked.

 Initial reports of the Human Genome Project estimated the number 
of genes within an individual at 130,000, only to have the 
estimate later scaled down drastically to 30,000. And while that 
lower figure, she said, is still a lot of genes, in the context 
of the initial report it left a public impression of being not 
all that many.
 
 The "who" of communicating science is crucial, she believes. 
Thus, to assure that those who become the "certified experts" on 
given "science stories" are truly experts, why not, she 
suggested, more "science stories" told initially by the 
scientists themselves? However, her experience as scientific 
adviser to an Arizona congressman convinces her that, for this to 
happen, scientists need to become better science story tellers.

 During her Washington stint, she said, there was a move to kill 
all the national laboratories. Congress members asked: What are 
the labs here for? Why can't universities do, and do better, what 
the national labs are doing?

 "What a bad job ORNL and the other national labs did at 
explaining what they do," she said. A "glitzy, self righteous 
report would come out" which congressional people would see as 
"reeking of entitlement claims." The basic message of such 
documents, she said, was "'We are great and we are good and we 
deserve more.' It looked just like what universities were 
producing and not as glitzy. So the question went unanswered, why 
do we need the national labs?"

 Fortunately for ORNL and the other labs, the movement to abolish 
died out. But, Maienschein said, "The message isn't getting out 
there. It has to get out there constantly." And then she 
"presumptuously" offered four specific suggestions:
 
  + Why not have every research team at the lab make a nice 
one-pager summarizing and explaining what they are doing -- how 
it fits the lab mission. Explain the significance of the work. 
Use little words. The lab could then take these summaries and 
market them instead of the long annual report.
 
  + How about a workshop on what goes on in Washington? Get a few 
information professionals together to talk about how Washington 
works.
 
  + How about a program to cultivate scientist communicators? Get 
a few students from Oak Ridge High School as interns at the lab 
and get them writing up stories to get published in The Oak 
Ridger or whatever.
 
  + Electronic "billboards" for computers. Instead of don't tell 
the secrets of science, talk about science education, the path to 
the future.
 
 Early in her talk while describing how the very nature of Oak 
Ridge imbued her with an appreciation of science, she told of 
being confused by security billboards around town which seemed to 
say, "Shhh! Don't talk about science." But these billboards with 
their negative admonitions notwithstanding, she and her young 
friends did talk about -- did "do" -- science. Like using laundry 
bags and candles to simulate hot air balloons which they would 
"launch" at night and hope they'd be reported as UFOs, which, to 
the delight of these young Oak Ridge "scientists," they several 
times were. -- RDS
 
*Richard D. Smyser is founding editor of The Oak Ridger. You can 
reach him by e-mail at rdsandmps@aol.com*

All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger *
*****************************************************************
 3  The right formula: UT-Battelle funds high school science labs
 
May 28, 2001
 
A lot of feel-good news announcements come my way, many of them 
elusive to grasp or illusory in nature. 

For instance, there are research partnerships that never produce 
anything but handshakes; high-flying institutes and centers of 
excellence that exist only on paper or in the minds of the 
creators; and collaborations and memoranda of understanding that 
are symbols of good will, nothing more. 

OK, that may be overly cynical, but there seems to be a dearth of 
things that make a difference -- meaningful and measurable -- 
even on a small scale. That's why I applaud UT-Battelle, the 
manager of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for its program that 
funds new science labs at schools in the region. 

At $50,000 a year, this isn't a huge effort by any stretch, but 
it's important and it's real. 

The latest recipient was Oak Ridge High School, and UT-Battelle 
officials toured the new facilities there last week. 

"We want to make this ... one of the best equipped science labs 
in the nation," UT-Battelle spokesman Billy Stair said. 

Four other area schools are receiving science-lab grants in 2001: 
Clinton Middle School in Anderson County, Coalfield School in 
Morgan County, Midway High School in Roane County, and Vine 
Middle Performing Arts and Sciences Magnet School in Knox County. 

UT-Battelle's future goal is to provide funds for six science 
labs per year, Stair said. 

What a great way to support science at the grassroots level. 

Bob Van Hook, former deputy director at ORNL and former president 
of Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (when the contractor managed 
the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant), has been hired as a consultant 
by UT-Battelle. 

Van Hook said his principal task will be to provide advice on the 
working relationship between ORNL and Y-12. 

Because he previously held executive posts at each of the federal 
institutions in Oak Ridge, Van Hook brings an unusual 
perspective. 

In years past, of course, the same company -- if not the same 
contractor team -- managed both the research lab and the nuclear 
production facility. Now, with separate contractors (UT-Battelle 
at ORNL and BWXT at Y-12) that working relationship may become 
even more complex, although the Department of Energy insists the 
cooperative arrangements won't deteriorate. 

The science community at large is keenly watching developments at 
the Spallation Neutron Source and not just because the $1.4 
billion research complex is a big deal. 

No, observers also want to evaluate the effectiveness of the 
six-laboratory partnership working on the project. It could have 
an impact on how future science projects are organized. 

Besides ORNL, other national labs sharing the SNS 
responsibilities are Argonne in Illinois, Brookhaven in New York, 
Thomas Jefferson in Virginia, Lawrence Berkeley in California and 
Los Alamos in New Mexico. 

Early on, Los Alamos National Laboratory -- given the key task of 
developing the linear accelerator -- was criticized for falling 
behind schedule and unfocused management. 

According to Thom Mason, the SNS chief, the negative issues 
appears to be resolved at Los Alamos. 

"The situation there is much better," Mason said recently. "Los 
Alamos has restructured the way that their effort is organized, 
and that's had a huge impact on their performance. 

"In fact, we're very pleased with the output there now. They have 
done a tremendous job of awarding a lot of procurements." 

Because there was a continuing budget resolution in effect at the 
start of fiscal year 2001, this year's SNS funding arrived 
somewhat late. 

"But between the time the money arrived -- which was around the 
end of November -- and now, Los Alamos has awarded something like 
$44 million worth of procurements on the linac (linear 
accelerator)," Mason said. "And it's done that without using all 
of the contingency that has been allocated for those areas. So 
that's terrific. We're very pleased." 

Senior writer Frank Munger can be reached at 482-9213 or by 
e-mail at twig1@knoxnews.infi.net. This weekly column on science 
and technology also is available on our Web site at 
http://www.knoxnews.com/science/munger/.   


  [E.W. Scripps]     Copyright © 1999-2001, The Knoxville 
y
*****************************************************************
 4    Uranium plants harm ozone layer 

Daily news from Louisville, Kentucky and Southern Indiana from
courier-journal.com
 
May 29, 2001     
  
Kentucky, Ohio facilities top list of polluters 

By James Bruggers, The Courier-Journal 

The uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Ky., and its sister 
facility in Ohio have been by far the country's largest 
industrial emitters of a chemical that eats the Earth's 
protective ozone layer. 

The emissions of the chemical coolant, which are legal, are 
blamed on hundreds of miles of leaky pipes at the plants operated 
by the United States Enrichment Corp. This year the company 
consolidated its enrichment operation in Paducah, making the 
Kentucky plant the nation's only nuclear fuel factory for 
commercial reactors. 

The production and importation of the refrigerant CFC-114, along 
with many other ozone destroyers, was largely banned years ago as 
part of a global treaty known as the Montreal Protocol and the 
Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. But the chemical can still be 
used in industry until supplies run out. Critics point to USEC's 
CFC emissions -- more than 800,000 pounds in 1999, the most 
recent year available -- as another example of the hidden costs 
of nuclear power. 

These include environmental damage during uranium mining; the 
difficulty of handling radioactive waste generated during 
enrichment and by reactors; the potential for devastating 
radiation leaks at power plants; and other kinds of waste from 
the Paducah plant. 

Other waste and pollutants from the manufacture of nuclear 
reactor fuel include mercury, arsenic and cadmium, which are 
disposed of on and off site, and hydrochloric acid aerosols and 
chlorine gas, which are released into the air. 

Merryman Kemp, a member of the Paducah plant's citizens advisory 
board, said she gets infuriated when she hears nuclear power 
described as environmentally clean. 

''I can cuss real well, and I usually do,'' she said. ''It really 
angers me when they (nuclear power advocates) are not challenged 
on that.'' 

Kemp said she was alarmed to learn that the plant was a 
significant emitter of the ozone-eating chemical, and that most 
of it is from leaky pipes. 

''We don't want those ozone holes getting bigger and bigger, and 
more skin cancer and whatever else they cause,'' she said. ''This 
is a matter for us to study.'' 

Company officials said the CFC-114 emissions will be cut in half 
this year, because the consolidation of the two plants means 
roughly half as many miles of leaky pipes. Further reductions 
will come in the future as the company plugs leaks with a new 
kind of sealant and finds a replacement coolant. 

Nuclear power, they said, remains a clean source when compared to 
coal-fired power plants with their emissions of smog-causing 
chemicals and greenhouse gases linked to global warming. 

''Yes, you do have this issue with (CFC-114 and) enrichment,'' 
said Elizabeth Stuckle, spokeswoman for the company. ''But we are 
also looking to replace this technology with a new technology 
toward the end of this decade.

Unfortunately this is a necessary thing, because these are the 
only enrichment facilities that this country had. We don't want 
to become dependant on foreign enrichment.'' 

Stuckle said the plant produces a ''potpourri'' of emissions and 
discharges but operates within regulatory limits. In an 
investigation last year, The Courier-Journal found that the plant 
had been cited three times in 2000 by the state for exceeding 
toxicity levels at three locations. 

''Everyone regulated . . . gets violations,'' Stuckle said. 
''These were minor. We have an excellent record.'' 

In the enrichment process, CFC-114 is used to cool equipment, 
such as fans, as well as hot uranium hexafluoride gas that moves 
through the pipes, USEC officials said. 

The CFC emission numbers are found within the EPA's toxic release 
inventory, a giant public database of self-reported pollution 
totals. In all, the Paducah and Ohio plants released 818,000 
pounds of CFC-114 in 1999. It amounted to 88 percent of the 
national total of industrial sources, and 14 percent of an 
international industry estimate of all CFC114 emissions 
worldwide. 

Global emissions of CFC-114 for 1999 are estimated at 5.7 million 
pounds, said Jim Elkins, a physicist with the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration's climate monitoring laboratory in 
Boulder, Colo. However, some developing nations do not 
participate in the larger, international report, he said. 

Companies are still allowed to produce CFC-114 for some medical 
purposes, such as propellent for asthma inhalers. 

While CFC-114 is not as prevalent in the stratosphere as some of 
the other CFC's, such as those that were used in air conditioners 
and refrigerators before alternatives were found in the 1990s, it 
still damages the Earth's natural filter for ultraviolet 
radiation, Elkins said. 

''Once you release this thing, it is around for 300 years. It's 
not only going to affect your kids, but several generations.'' 

Last fall the ozone hole over Antarctica was about 11 million 
square miles -- more than three times the size of the United 
States. Scientists are monitoring the size of the hole out of 
concern that too much ultraviolet radiation can cause skin cancer 
in humans and harm plants and animals. 

''We expect the ozone to recover to pre-ozone-hole levels in 50 
to 75 years,'' Elkins said. ''But there's a catch, which we are 
trying to get a better handle on.'' 

There is a concern that global warming may alter chemical 
reactions in the stratosphere to the extent that it may extend 
the hole for an additional decade or two, he added. 

Supporters of nuclear energy, which supplies 20 percent of 
America's electricity, say it is clean because power plants do 
not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected of 
causing global warming. They also do not emit nitrogen oxides or 
sulfur dioxide that produce ground-level ozone pollution and acid 
rain, said Thelma Wiggins, spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, an industry group. 

''It's unfair to go back to the fuel, and pick out one single 
(negative) element (such as CFC-114 emissions),'' Wiggins said. 

''When we say nuclear energy is basically a clean, safe, reliable 
source of electricity, that is in fact what it is. The plants are 
clean, safe non-emitting sources of electricity.'' 

Copyright 2001 The Courier-Journal.
*****************************************************************
 5  Student representatives appointed to DOE SSAB 

Oak Ridger Online --> 

Story last updated at 11:25 a.m. on Monday, May 28, 2001

The Department of Energy has announced the appointment of two 
area students to the Oak Ridge Site-Specific Advisory Board.

 Alix King of Oak Ridge High School and Ryan Burton of Roane 
County High School were appointed to replace student 
representatives whose terms on the SSAB expired in May.

 The SSAB is a federally chartered citizens' panel that provides 
recommendations to the DOE Oak Ridge Operations office's 
Environmental Management Program.

 Rod Nelson, assistant manager for Environmental Management in 
Oak Ridge, welcomed the students at the May 9 SSAB meeting and 
praised those students retiring from the board.

 ORSSAB student representatives are selected by their schools' 
administration. One representative is selected each year from Oak 
Ridge High School, and the other is chosen on a rotating basis 
from one of the high schools surrounding Oak Ridge.

 Both King and Burton are rising seniors.

 Retiring student representatives are Avalon Mansfield of Oak 
Ridge High School and Shane Bellis of Clinton High School.
         

All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger *
*****************************************************************
 6  Gov't Holds Back Scientist's Book
 
May 28, 2001 
 
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.- A retired Los Alamos scientist who spent the 
past decade gathering firsthand information on China's nuclear 
weapons programs is fighting U.S. efforts to block publication of 
his book. 

Dan Stillman's book, based on meetings with Chinese scientists 
and visits to their secret facilities, has been under review for 
1 1/2 years at the Energy Department, Defense Department and CIA, 
said his attorney, Mark Zaid. Pentagon and Energy Department 
spokeswomen confirmed that the review continues. 

Zaid and fellow scientists say the government's opposition 
amounts to an abuse of Stillman's First Amendment rights. Zaid 
expects to file a lawsuit by mid-June. 

"The government's attempt to suppress an entire 500-page 
manuscript is intolerable to anyone who cares about the First 
Amendment," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of 
American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "He has every 
right to tell his story." 

Air Force Lt. Col. Willette Carter said the Pentagon declines to 
comment since a lawsuit hasn't been filed. 

Stillman, 67, retired at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1993, 
but has made 10 visits to China since 1990. He said he is among 
only five Americans allowed to visit both the Chinese nuclear 
test site and nuclear weapons lab. 

"I simply asked questions, and they seemed happy to answer," 
Stillman said in an interview last week. 

"Everything I brought back in my notes was unclassified," he 
said, suggesting the U.S. intelligence community later imposed "a 
very high classification level in order to control the 
information." 

Asked why the government was blocking publication of "Inside 
China's Nuclear Weapons Program," former Los Alamos National 
Laboratory director Harold Agnew said: "It may well be they're 
just embarrassed." 

The government has been the focus of criticism over the Wen Ho 
Lee spy case. The Taiwan-born Los Alamos scientist was indicted 
on 59 counts of mishandling nuclear weapons secrets and spent 
nine months in solitary confinement, but was released after the 
government dropped all but one of the charges. 

The FBI had said one reason for keeping Lee jailed without bail 
was his acquaintance with Hu Side, a former head of China's 
nuclear weapons program who during one of Stillman's visits tried 
to convey a message to Americans who accused China of espionage. 

"I wish I could testify before your U.S. Congress to tell them 
how much damage has been done," Hu said in a 1999 speech attended 
by Stillman. "I could tell them the truth, that we never found it 
necessary to steal any U.S. nuclear weapon secrets." 

He added that Lee "is a scapegoat." 

Stillman said it is possible China never stole U.S. secrets. "Out 
of 1.3 billion people, it's certainly possible to find some 
really brilliant scientists that can develop their own nuclear 
weapons program without having to steal it from the U.S," he 
said. "I've never understood why some people in the U.S. think 
that we are the only intelligent people in the world." 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 7  Intent to form a National Nuclear Security Committee

[Federal Register: May 29, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 103)] 

[Notices] [Page 29097] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr29my01-38]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
 
National Nuclear Security Administration; Notice of Intent To 
Establish the National Nuclear Security Administration Advisory 
Committee (NNSA AC)

    In accordance with section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 
41 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 101-6.1015(a), 
this notice of intent to establish the National Nuclear Security 
Administration Advisory Committee. This intent is to establish 
follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretary of 
the General Services Administration, pursuant to 41 CFR Subpart 
101-6.10.

    The purpose of the Committee is to provide the Administrator 
for Nuclear Security with advice, information, and 
recommendations on NNSA mission performance, needs, and 
priorities. The Committee will provide an organized forum for the 
community to provide advice and input to programs concerning 
nonproliferation, stockpile stewardship and naval reactor issues, 
and their related technology, research and development.

    Committee members have been identified; they were selected to 
ensure an appropriately-balanced membership to bring into account 
a diversity of viewpoints, including representatives from 
universities, industry, and others who may significantly 
contribute to the deliberations of the Committee. Advance notice 
of all meetings of this Committee will be published in the 
Federal Register.

    The establishment of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration Advisory Committee has been determined to be 
compelled by consideration of national security, essential to the 
conduct of Department of Energy business, and in the public 
interest.

    Further information regarding this Committee may be obtained 
from Dr. Maureen McCarthy, Chief Scientist, National Nuclear 
Security Administration, Washington, DC 20585, phone (202) 
586-5555.

    Issued in Washington, DC, May 23, 2001. James N. Solit, 
Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 01-13495 Filed 
5-25-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
 
*****************************************************************
 8  Deadly uranium details prompt health study

The federal government will conduct a health study of Australian 
volunteers in the 1950s British nuclear tests after confirming up 
to eight tonnes of deadly depleted uranium (DU) was blasted into 
the air during the trials.

Federal Veterans' Affairs Minister Bruce Scott said use of the 
deadly DU during the Maralinga nuclear tests was identified by a 
royal commission 14 years ago, but the then Labor government 
failed to act on the information.

"I can confirm that (DU) was used in part of the atomic tests at 
Maralinga," Mr Scott said. "That information was also available 
to the ... royal commission that was conducted while the Labor 
Party was in government."

DU is an extremely dense metal used in shells which can pierce 
the armour of a tank. On impact, it vaporises into a gas which 
scientists fear can be inhaled or ingested by people nearby.

The toxic radioactive metal has been blamed for higher rates of 
leukaemia among Italian peacekeepers in Kosovo, and was 
previously thought to have been first used in the Gulf War in 
1991.

Mr Scott today said the government would next month release a 
nominal roll detailing all Australians involved in the 1950s 
British nuclear tests, with the numbers expected to be in the 
thousands.

As well as soldiers, the list would also include Aboriginal and 
other civilian populations in the testing area at the time.

The government would then undertake a health study of all 
participants, including the causes of death of those who had 
since died, he said.

"You've got to have the nominal roll of the people who were there 
so that then you can establish the cancer incidence rate or any 
other element that might come to light during the health study," 
he told reporters in Melbourne.

The study could include blood and urine testing of all 
participants, and those found affected would all be eligible for 
compensation under military or safety stipulations.

Mr Scott said federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley should have 
ordered the roll and the health study when he was a senior Labor 
minister.

"We have got to condemn the Labor Party for their lack of action 
in relation to royal commission findings ... " he said. "This 
should have happened 14 years ago."

The health study would follow the same path as similar surveys of 
Vietnam War veterans.

The news follows revelations that the British government planned 
to put hundreds of British and Australian troops as close as 
possible to nuclear explosions at Maralinga in 1959, and that two 
dozen soldiers tested protective clothing by crawling, marching 
or driving through a fallout zone three days after a nuclear test 
at Maralinga in 1956.

Mr Scott was in Melbourne inspecting progress on a new memorial 
to Australians and Greeks who fought during World War II.

The Australian Hellenic Memorial, being built in the city's 
Domain gardens area, is due for completion in September.
	
      ©AAP 2001  

ninemsn.com.au

*****************************************************************
 9  Nuclear scientist, former NTS official Perez dies at 73
 
May 29, 2001 
 
By Ed Koch 
<koch@lasvegassun.com>
 LAS VEGAS SUN

 Lino Perez may have been a high-ranking nuclear scientist 
through the heyday of underground weapons testing at the Nevada 
Test Site, but he also was a studious intellectual who treasured 
peace and championed liberal thought.

 "He never had any problem balancing his work with weapons and 
his desire for peace," said Las Vegas attorney Ralph Denton, a 
longtime friend and bridge partner. "Yes, Lino was a man of 
peace, but he believed a strong defense was the answer for the 
safety and security of society and peace and freedom for the 
country he adopted as his own."

 The Spanish-born Perez knew all too well the horrors of war, 
having graduated from his country's top military academy and 
serving with distinction in the Spanish Foreign Legion in Spanish 
Morocco, where he was promoted to major. Lino Martinez Perez, a 
scientist who worked his way up to top management at the Test 
Site during a career from 1961 to 1989, died May 17 in his sleep 
at his Las Vegas home. He was 73.

 Services for the Las Vegas resident of 40 years and American 
citizen since 1956 will be 5:30 p.m. today at St. Anne Catholic 
Church, St. Louis Avenue and Maryland Parkway. Palm Mortuary is 
handling the arrangements.

 "Lino was an absolute intellectual and very liberal in his 
political views," Denton said. "He read practically everything, 
including the early Greek philosophers, and his personal library 
must have consisted of 5,000 books. He loved opera and was a whiz 
with computers."

 Denton said he was most impressed with Perez's forthrightness. 
Despite working in the nuclear industry, Perez was openly 
critical of what he felt was the mismanagement of nuclear power 
plants, often telling friends that nuclear energy is a safe form 
of energy only if properly managed.

 Born Jan. 13, 1928, in Madrid, Perez was raised in La Coruna. He 
graduated from the Spanish Army Academy, the West Point of Spain.

 In 1956 Perez came to the United States with his mother during 
the rule of Francisco Franco. They settled in Albuquerque, N.M., 
where Perez earned degrees in physics and chemistry and a 
master's in mathematics, all from the University of New Mexico.

 In 1961 he came to Las Vegas to work for the Atomic Energy 
Commission, the predecessor of the Energy Department.

 In 1965 Perez was hired by Edgerton, Germeshausen &Grier -- more 
commonly called EG -- a Boston-based firm that conducted 
high-tech monitoring of nuclear weapons tests. Over the years he 
served in various high-level management positions with the firm.

 Perez retired in 1989 after serving briefly in management at 
EG's Idaho Falls operation before returning to Las Vegas.

 Perez was a member of Kappa Mu Epsilon and Sigma Xi.

 He leaves no survivors.

 Friends request donations to the Southern Nevada Opera 
Association, P.O. Box 230658, Las Vegas NV 89123. 

All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************