***************************************************************** 05/30/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.135 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 Berkley bill would divert Yucca funds 2 Plan to ship radioactive waste in construction area criticized 3 WIPP Shipments Through Big I Criticized 4 Biased Process Promotes Exposure to Nuclear Waste; Could Lead to 5 Nuclear cleanup isn't so simple 6 Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid 7 Australian Senate Panel Urges Halt to Lucas Heights Reactor 8 State/Federal Agreement Clears Way for Transport of Spent Fuel 9 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke panel finds errors in DOE plan 10 Watchdog group has scenario for missing fuel rods 11 Hastings urges isotope studies 12 Plant highlights nuclear debate 13 USEC move to reduce emissions 14 Ex-DOE official says mothball Yucca dump 15 Uranium prices at lowest level since 1994 16 Abraham Says Three Mile Island No Longer Relevant 17 Soapbox: Should we revisit nuclear power? 18 UPI News Article: Nuclear plant returns as Calif heats up 19 Dominion Files Applications To Renew Virginia Nuclear Plant Licenses 20 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 Back On Line to Help 21 Greenpeace urges Canada to stay out of Russian plutionium disposal plan 22 Nevada Senate OK's $4 million for fight against nuke waste dump 23 Japan urges support for nuclear power - 24 Norwegian experts enter nuclear waste site 25 Israeli General Recounts Risky '81 Raid on Iraq Nuclear Reactor 26 Regulators find errors in report on Yucca Mountain nuclear dump 27 Senate votes $4 million for fight against nuke waste dump 28 Errors in Yucca calculations found 29 Letter: Yucca Clout NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 Sheen Narrates Anti-Nuke Video 2 Committee Must Safeguard Public Health and Allow More Public Interest Input 3 Radioactive material discovered in pipe 4 W. Jordan Marks Treaty Completion, Says Goodbye to Russian 5 Senators seek to fix omission in Hanford health act 6 Oak Ridge mercury in the news again 7 Labor Department sets policy for compensation plan 8 QUICK ACTION--Chao jump-starts workers' program 9 EPA says Army may have to pay for Starmet cleanup costs 10 Sununu: Honor the Thresher 11 NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council Meeting at the level of 12 Russia, NATO reaffrim commitment to cooperation in Budapest 13 army 'guinea pigs' 14 Pasko case to resume on June 4 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Berkley bill would divert Yucca funds May 30, 2001 By Benjamin Grove LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., plans to introduce a bill next week that would divert all spending on the proposed Yucca Mountain project to alternative waste-management technologies. The bill would immediately funnel this year's proposed $445 million Department of Energy budget for Yucca projects to other studies, which would likely include transmutation and reprocessing. All future spending would be "redirected," too, according to the bill. The total cost of Yucca in the coming years could total $58 billion, officials estimate. The legislation would be a radical departure from Congress' current course. It was not immediately clear today if Berkley's bill would have any support among lawmakers. Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear dump in 1987 and the Department of Energy has invested 14 years and about $7 billion studying it, most of that money from a waste fund fed by ratepayers who used nuclear-generated electricity. Strident Yucca plan supporters say that while transmutation and reprocessing could be supplemental options to Yucca, new technologies will not replace the need for a permanent repository. Still, it's realistic to consider that the bill could get some support, Berkley spokesman Michael O'Donovan said. Researchers are just now beginning to understand the implications of new waste management technologies, which could one day be a full-blown alternative to Yucca, O'Donovan said. "They deserve adequate research and funding to fully understand how these technologies can help us solve the problem in a real and long-term way," O'Donovan said. The bill would allow the Department of Energy to determine where the money would be spent. But options include transmutation, a process that speeds up the break-down of waste, as well as waste reprocessing, or "recycling" waste. President Bush in his National Energy Policy recommended further investigating those technologies as supplements -- not alternatives -- to constructing Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is the proposed site of the nation's permanent burial ground for high-level nuclear waste, eventually 77,000 tons of it. The waste is now stored on-site at the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors, and at U.S. defense sites. Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would be the first permanent waste repository of its kind. Nevada's four-member congressional delegation, strongly opposed to burying waste in the state, has played a part in delaying the project. "Fighting off a bad idea is not enough," Berkley said in a written statement today. "And the stalemate that we've been able to pull off so far is not a solution. "If we're going to come up with long-term solutions that make sense for the future of our country, then we're going to have to show a willingness to work together and come up with some alternatives." Nuclear energy industry officials are luke-warm about reprocessing used nuclear fuel. Several countries, including France, which relies heavily on nuclear power, reprocess spent fuel. But the United States has avoided it because the process separates out plutonium, which officials worry could fall into the wrong hands. Officials with the industry's top lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, have said reprocessing is not economical. They adamantly back the Yucca plan. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Plan to ship radioactive waste in construction area criticized May 30, 2001 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - The Department of Energy's plan to let trucks taking radioactive waste from Nevada to southeast New Mexico go through the Big I construction project in Albuquerque has some state officials worried. Truckloads of transuranic waste from the Nevada Test Site are scheduled to be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, N.M., in November. The route mapped out by the DOE would take the trucks to Barstow, Calif., then along Interstate 40 through California, Arizona and New Mexico. The construction project in Albuquerque is a massive one. It involves the reconstruction of the area where Interstate 40 and Interstate 25 meet and the work on it has been going for 11 months. The project is scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2002. William B. Mackie, group coordinator for the New Mexico Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force, said the task force is studying ways to ensure the safety of shipments through the construction area. "You've got reduced-size lanes. The TRUPACT (shipping containers) are pushing the limit right now," Mackie said. "Any time you go into construction, you know the chances of an accident are going to increase." Mackie said the state likely will escort the trucks carrying the radioactive waste through the Big I project and the shipments probably will be timed to arrive at the construction area when there is less traffic. At least two groups, the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque and Concerns Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe, say the DOE is making a mistake. "It makes common sense that you don't take dangerous material through such a large construction zone," said Joni Arends, a member of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety. Don Hancock, a member of the Southwest Research and Information Center, said the DOE wants to send 33 truckloads of nuclear waste from Nevada to WIPP through the Big I project. He said that will increase the likelihood of accidents and other problems. DOE officials said there are enough safeguards in place to avert public health and safety risks. "Even while the Big I is under construction, it is open to interstate commerce," said DOE spokesman Gregory Sahd. Southwest Research and other advocacy groups said they have asked Sen. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., to intervene and try to delay the shipments. Wilson said she did not plan to take any action, noting that it's up to the DOE and the state to ensure the safety of the shipments. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 WIPP Shipments Through Big I Criticized Wednesday, May 30, 2001 WIPP Shipments Through Big I Criticized Albuquerque Journal--> By Tania Soussan *Journal Staff Writer* The U.S. Department of Energy's plan to ship radioactive waste through the Big I construction zone later this year is a big mistake, critics contend. Truckloads of transuranic waste from the Nevada Test Site are scheduled to hit the road in November, traveling south to Barstow, Calif., and then along Interstate 40 through California, Arizona and New Mexico. The waste will be disposed of at DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. "The Department of Energy in fact wants to have 33 truckloads of nuclear waste from the Nevada Test Site coming through the Big I while it's under construction," said WIPP critic Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque. Hancock and others said sending trucks through the construction zone would increase the likelihood of problems, such as accidents or a truck going off course. "It makes common sense that you don't take dangerous material through such a large construction zone," said Joni Arends of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety in Santa Fe. DOE said there are enough safeguards in place to avert public health and safety risks. "Even while the Big I is under construction, it is open to interstate commerce," said spokesman Gregory Sahd. The Environmental Evaluation Group, a DOE-funded technical oversight organization in Albuquerque, is not worried about the construction creating hazards for WIPP trucks, said deputy director James K. Channell. But state officials do have some concerns. The New Mexico Radioactive Waste Consultation Task Force is studying ways to ensure the safety of shipments through the Big I, group coordinator William B. Mackie said "You've got reduced-size lanes. The TRUPACT (shipping containers) are pushing the limit right now," he said. "Any time you go into construction, you know the chances of an accident are going to increase." He said the state is likely to escort trucks going through Albuquerque. In addition, the shipments probably will be timed to hit the Big I during low-traffic hours. The state also could send the trucks on a different route, Mackie said. Mackie said he is more worried about public fear than about the actual consequences of an accident because the risk of radiation exposure is very low. The state has asked DOE in the past to delay the shipments from Nevada but has not had much luck, Mackie said. Southwest Research and other advocacy groups have asked U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., to step in and try to delay the shipments. Wilson said she was not aware of the request but did not plan to take any action. "I have no intention of intervening, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so," she said, adding that DOE and state officials are responsible for ensuring the safety of shipments. The Nevada Test Site has commitments to the state of Nevada to begin shipments this year, said spokesman Kevin Rohrer. Copyright 2001 Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 4 Biased Process Promotes Exposure to Nuclear Waste; Could Lead to Contamination of Consumer Goods *March 26, 2001* Biased Process Promotes Forced Exposure to Nuclear Waste; Radioactive Materials Could be Released Into Consumer Goods, Building Supplies* 119 Groups and Individuals Protest Lopsided Agenda of NAS Committee Meeting* WASHINGTON, D.C. – The process used by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee to determine how to dispose of radioactive waste is skewed toward reaching one recommendation: use the waste to make common household goods and building materials, according to a "Statement of Concern about Balance and Perspective"issued today by 119 public interest groups and individuals. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee, enlisted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide recommendations for the dispersal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, is biased and designed to lend legitimacy to releasing the waste into regular commerce, the groups said. The NAS committee holds its second meeting today through Wednesday in Washington, D.C. The groups and individuals include singer Bonnie Raitt, the Sierra Club, the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility and the United Steelworkers of America. The groups are concerned that radioactively contaminated materials could be widely distributed throughout the environment and end up in a wide array of consumer goods. Should such releases be allowed to continue and increase, the radioactive legacy of America’s nuclear power and weapons industry could end up in everything from cooking utensils and bicycles to homebuilding materials such as concrete, wood, metal and glass, the groups say. They are also concerned that radioactive soil could be used in landscaping or school playgrounds. In short, our overall environment could see a dramatic increase in radioactive contamination, according to David Ritter, a policy analyst for Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. Radioactive materials have been released from Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons and commercial sites for some time, and they continue to get out. Last year, as a result of pressure from citizen groups, unions and the steel industry, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson placed a moratorium on the release of radioactive metals from DOE sites. However, the moratorium didn’t apply to commercial sites. Also, contaminated materials that aren’t metals still may be released from DOE sites, providing that the DOE believes that releases will result in "authorized doses" of radiation to the population. The NAS is advising the NRC on how to proceed to set a standard for the amount of radiation that the public can be exposed to from products containing recycled materials from the nuclear fuel chain. The NAS committee (called the Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid Materials From Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensed Facilities) was formed in September and has 18 months to issue recommendations about how the NRC should deal with radioactively contaminated waste. The committee has invited "stakeholders" to present their views on the release, reuse or recycling of the materials from NRC-licensed facilities. The statement of concern issued today protests the composition of the speakers and the agenda for the meeting. The groups’ statement reminds the committee that "the public’s right to protection from unnecessary radiation exposure should be the pre-eminent concern" and that the signatories are "disappointed that the stakeholder presentations are so heavily skewed towards the nuclear industry." Not a single public interest organization will have the chance to address the whole committee. "This is blatantly unfair and biased," said Diane D’Arrigo, project director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). "It discredits the supposedly scientific process that should be independent of powerful business interests." The first day of presentations, which will be made to the full committee, has been allotted solely to nuclear industry representatives. On the second day, the committee will split into two sections and hold simultaneous sessions. Only three of the 25 scheduled speakers will represent the general public, and just one organization – representing a nuclear industry – has been given two time slots for presentations. The public interest sector wanted better representation at the meeting. According to D’Arrigo, "numerous others requested the opportunity to present, but were refused, some with unique and comprehensive knowledge of the very issues with which this committee must contend." The nuclear industry stands to reap great benefits from selling radioactive waste to be recycled into consumer goods. Selling, dumping or donating radioactive materials under the green-washed guise of "recycling" would be much more cost-effective for the companies that own and operate nuclear power plants than responsibly isolating and maintaining the waste for the many years they will be hazardous. "What’s good for the bottom line of the nuclear companies is bad news for the public," Ritter said. "The entire country could become a laboratory where people would be the guinea pigs for an experiment to discover the long-term health effects of repeated and unavoidable exposures to radiation." The protest letter urges that "this bias be corrected in all future sessions and that the expertise of this committee focus seriously on practical mechanisms to isolate radioactively contaminated materials from the public and the environment." The impact of any decision by the committee, which will influence the NRC’s rulemaking process, could set a precedent that would affect the release of similarly contaminated materials from nuclear weapons and other fuel chain sites within the Departments of Defense and Energy. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is hoping that the National Academy of Sciences will give them much-needed credibility for letting nuclear power wastes into our daily lives," D’Arrigo said. "We are calling on the NAS Committee to really listen to critics and public sentiment and to reject this dangerous plan." Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 5 Nuclear cleanup isn't so simple Converting weapons plutonium is a risky business, says physicist FRANKLYN GRIFFITHS. Russia must first learn nuclear responsibility FRANKLYN GRIFFITHS Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Tomorrow, cabinet will consider a request from the Bush administration to pay into a $2-billion (U.S.) international security project known as the Russian Plutonium Disposition Program. After some years of behind-the-scenes negotiation, this project has come to the point where it's starting to receive, and also to need, public attention. The underlying nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament purposes are great. They are worthy of Canadian support. But the implementation, which Canada is being asked to pay into, could easily go off the rails before any bills come due. The plan, sponsored by the United States, calls for the G-8 group of industrial countries and the Russian federation to find ways for an impoverished Russia to "disposition" 34 tonnes of its 170-tonne stockpile of weapons plutonium left over from the Cold War. This strange use of the word "disposition" reflects the fact that plutonium cannot be disposed of with today's technologies. Instead, this extremely long-lived, toxic and man-made substance can only be changed from form to form and moved from place to place. Basically, there are two main ways to disposition plutonium once it has been fabricated for use in nuclear warheads. One is to convert the material into oxide form and blend it with uranium oxide to produce mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for use in commercial reactors. Irradiation then serves to embed the plutonium in high-level nuclear waste, which is dangerous to approach. Plutonium can nevertheless be extracted from spent MOX and reprocessed for renewed commercial or weapons use -- that is unless the spent fuel is subjected to deep burial to make recovery still more difficult. Immobilization is the other means of disposition. In this case, weapons plutonium would be corrupted with various radioactive and other substances and fused into very large and unwieldy glass or ceramic forms. These would be held in permanent, secure storage facilities at ground level or deep in rock. Russia is 100 per cent against immobilization, and 1,000 per cent for MOX disposition. It is also fully committed to the reprocessing of spent fuel, including spent weapons MOX and commercial fuel from other countries. Basically, the Russian establishment seeks to use G-8 disposition assistance in building a plutonium-based national electricity sector centred on advanced reactor technology and global nuclear sales. At the same time, it acquiesces in monstrously and perennially inadequate control over its own nuclear materials. Also, the United States, years ago, produced a nuclear explosion with a force equivalent to roughly 20 kilotons of TNT with the use of plutonium refined merely to reactor-grade and not to weapons-grade purity. This means, generally, that the more commercial plutonium that's around, the greater the opportunity for potential proliferators, and for breakout from nuclear-disarmament agreements. So there is a basic problem with G-8 plutonium disposition. The problem is one of achieving nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament goals in a Russia that looks forward to plutonium plenty and shows no great interest in rigorous control of its nuclear materials. If all this were not enough, the G-8's venture into Russian plutonium disposition is becoming so intricate, unwieldy, time-consuming, expensive and detailed that it risks abandonment by key parties. But the fact remains that there's no getting around the details of disposition, if, indeed, it's disposition that we want to do. Accordingly, it has been Canadian policy that no cheques would be written for G-8 plutonium disposition in Russia until a series of preconditions were met. These conditions apply to nuclear safety, liability, environmental protection, verification, accountability, funding, etc. Consider the liability Canada might face if implementation of a G-8 plutonium plan were to be accompanied by a Chernobyl-scale accident in a reactor specifically configured for disposition. There's such devilry in the details of disposition that it could take years to close the deal. Once finalized, something like a decade would be required for the first kilogram of Russian weapons plutonium to be processed. It would take years to accomplish the disposition of 34 tonnes. Decades would be needed to deal with most, if not all, of the balance that's in Russian hands today. And all the while, unless something specific were done about it, Russian control over its nuclear materials would remain astonishingly disheveled and incomplete. The prime source of the danger of nuclear proliferation from Russia would remain unattended, even as G-8 sponsored disposition lumbered on in the name of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. What's needed is a new and more productive understanding of the situation. Also needed are acts of leadership for basic international security purposes, which remain valid. We should be talking less about disposition and more about strengthening a culture and a practice of nuclear responsibility in Russia over the long haul. To have an effect in these matters, Canada should make a financial contribution. Having paid up, Canada will be in a better position to speak up. We should offer new leadership right away. Cabinet should earmark our contribution not to disposition, but to improving Russia's capacity for nuclear control. *Franklyn Griffiths holds the Ignatieff Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto.* -** -** CORRECTIONS Franklyn Griffiths is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. Incorrect information appeared in yesterday's Comment section. Subscribe to The Globe and Mail 2001 Globe Interactive, a division of ***************************************************************** 6 Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities STATEMENT of CONCERN about BALANCE and PERSPECTIVE to the National Academy of Sciences Date: March 26, 2001 RE: Non-industry input on the issue of releasing and dispersing radioactive materials into everyday commerce. This National Academy of Sciences Committee has been formed to assist theNuclear Regulatory Commission in rulemaking regarding the free-release of solid radioactive materials from licensed facilities. The precedent will also impact the release of radioactive materials from DOE, DOD, and other weapons and fuel chain sites. Clearly the nuclear power industry, the creator of large amounts of radioactive waste, stands to benefit, by selling or donating radioactive material or dumping in unlicensed disposal, rather than paying to properly isolate it from the environment and the public. It has a vested economic interest in externalizing its costs of doing business, pushing its waste into commerce and the public, and thus, in the outcome of this Committee's review. The public's right to protection from unnecessary radiation exposure should be the pre-eminent concern. The Committee has scheduled this meeting to hear from "stakeholders." The nuclear industry is a stakeholder, but the public, into whose products, homes and lives the industry proposes to dump its radioactive waste is the key stakeholder. We are disappointed that the stakeholder presentations are so heavily skewed towards the nuclear industry. The first of the two-day meetings is entirely taken up with nuclear industry representatives. Five (5) nuclear power industry representatives, some of whom plan to build new nuclear reactors (thus generate even more radioactive waste that could be released into commerce), have been invited to address the full committee the first afternoon. Not a single critic of the policy, representing the public interests, will address the full committee. The critics will not have the chance to address the whole committee as the second day is split into two simultaneous sessions. This is blatantly unfair and biased. It discredits the supposedly scientific process that should be independent of powerful economic interests. Of the 25 total time slots scheduled, only 2 or 3 represent the general public that will be impacted. Numerous others requested the opportunity to present, but were refused, some with unique and comprehensive knowledge of the very issues with which this Committee must contend. All of the Committee members will be bombarded with arguments for "clearing" radioactive waste from numerous industry and agency representatives. Although several others will present critical perspectives, most likely from directly impacted industries, more nuclear industry proponents will continue to present on the second day including regulators from at least one state that is already permitting the release of radioactive materials into general commerce. The organizations and individuals listed below believe that the decision of the NAS Committee to hear primarily from proponents of radioactive release and dispersal and to have the radioactive waste generators present to the full committee but delegate critics to smaller sessions reflects a bias toward the perspectives of nuclear waste generators and promoters of release and dispersal of radioactive materials. We request that this bias be corrected in all future sessions and that the expertise of this committee focus seriously on practical mechanisms to isolate radioactively contaminated materials from the public and the environment. From: A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD, Sustainability Coaching Adrian Zolkover, Henderson, Nv. Alan Muller, Green Delaware Andy Peri, Social Justice Center of Marin, Ca. Anne Rabe, Citizens' Environmental Coalition Athanasia Gregoriades, NY Barbara Wiedner, Grandmothers for Peace International Bill Linnell, Cheaper, Safer Power Bob Darby, Tom Ferguson, Food Not Bombs/Atlanta Bob Kinsey, Peace& Justice Task Force, Rocky Mountain Conf., United Church of Christ Bonnie Raitt Bonnie Urfer, Nukewatch, Wi. Brent Blackwelder, Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth Bruce A Drew, Prairie Island Coalition, Minneapolis, Mn. Buffalo Bruce, Western Nebraska Resources Council Charlene Johnston, Toledo Coalition for Safe Energy Chris Williams, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana Claire Stadtmueller, Hope, R.I. Clem Wilkes, California Safe Food Coalition Corrine Carey, Don't Waste Michigan Cyndy deBruler, Columbia Riverkeeper, Wa. Dave Kraft, Jennifer Moore, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Il. David DeRosa, Washington, D.C. David N. Pyles, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution David Ozonoff, MD,MPH, Dept Env’tal Health, Boston Univ. School of Public Health Dave Rapaport, Vermont Public Interest Research Group David Ritter, Public Citizen Deborah Bors, Baltimore, Md. Deborah Katz, Citizens Awareness Network, New England Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Don Eichelberger, California State Green Party Douglas Belyeu Dr. Jane E. Nielson (Geologist), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Dr. John Gofman, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility Dr. Judith Johnsrud, Sierra Club Dr. Robert J. Gould, San Francisco Bay Area, Physicians for Social Responsibility E.M.T. O'Nan, Protect All Children's Environment, N.C. Elaine Babian Elisabeth King and Maria Holt, R.N., The Midcoast Health Research Group, Bath, Maine Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Committee, Washington, D.C. Erick Highum, Mn. Ernest Goitein, Californians for Radioactive Safeguards Eulia Mishima, Gresham, Or. Eva Hallvik Frank C. Subjeck, Air, Water, Earth, Org., Az. Fred Golan, L.A., Ca. George Crocker, North American Water Office, Lake Elmo, Mn. Georgiana Podulke, St. Paul, MN Greg Wingard, Waste Action Project, Seattle, Wa. Harvey Wasserman, Citizens Protecting Ohio Henry W. Peters, Radiological Evaluation & Action Project, Great Lakes (REAP GL) Howard Wilshire, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Hyun Lee, Heart of America Northwest J Truman, Downwinders James Warren, NC WARN, Waste Awareness and Reduction Network Jane Magers, Earth Care, Des Moines, Ia. Janet Michel, Oak Ridge Communities Allied Jeanne Koster, South Dakota Peace and Justice Center Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, HOME: Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth Jessica Hiemenz, Taking Responsibility for the Earth and the Environment, Va. Joan and Robert Holt, Truro, Ma. Joani Matranga, Carbondale, Co. John Blair, Valley Watch, Inc., Indiana John J. Furman, Utica Citizens in Action, NY Joni Arends, Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, NM Joyce and Steve Kuschwara, Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch Juanita Mendoza Keesing, Voices Opposed To Environmental Racism (VOTER) Judy Treichel, NV Nuclear Waste Task Force Karen Keith, Friends of Ward County, Tx. Katharine Dodge, Northeast Pa. Audubon Society Kathy Dorn, Irradiation Free Food Hawaii Kathy Stein, BEYOND RECYCLING Keith Gunter, Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two Leonore Lambert, East Aurora, NY Linda S. Ochs, Finger Lakes Citizens for the Environment Lloyd Marbet, Oregon Conservancy Foundation Lou Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Luanne Napton, South Dakota Resources Coalition Lynn Sims, Don't Waste Oregon Maite Diez, The Inner Ear, Hull, Ma. Marc Borbely, Washington, D.C. Maria Mendez, Susan Lee Solar, Grandmothers and Mothers' Alliance for the Future, Tx. Mark Knapp, Health Physicist, Minneapolis, MN Mary Byrd Davis, Yggdrasil Institute, Georgetown, Ky. Mary Lampert, Massachusetts Citizens for Safe Energy Mary Lulu Lamping, ML3, Inc., New Hamburg, NY Mavis Belisle, the Peace Farm, Texas Max Obuszewski, Hiroshima-Nagasaki Commemoration Committee Michael J. Keegan, Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes Michael J. Wright, United Steelworkers of America Michael Welch, Redwood Alliance, REEI Nancy Hirschfeld, Informed Choices, Slidell, La. Norm Rubin, Energy Probe, Canada Paige Knight, Hanford Watch, Oregon Patricia A. Noble, Conference of Social Justice Coordinators of Southern California Paul Hancock, Eastern Sierra Geological Society Peg Ryglisyn, Michael Albrizio, Connecticut Opposed to Waste Peter Montague, Ph.D., Environmental Research Foundation Phil Klasky, Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition Rachel Griffiths, Chicago, Il. Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, Oh. Richard Bramhall, Low Level Radiation Campaign, UK Richard Geary, Citizens Action for Safe Energy, Ok. Richard Wall Rob Sargent, Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) Robin Mills Roger Herried, Abalone Alliance Scott Cullen, Standing for Truth About Radiation-STAR Foundation, NY Sidney and Irma Goodman, NJ Solange Fernex, Ligue Internationale des Femmes pour la Paix et la Liberté (WILPF) Stephen Brittle, Don't Waste Arizona, Inc. Susan Tansky, California Alliance in Defense of Residential Environments (CADRE) Suzanne Kneeland, Jim Laybourn, Jackson, Wy. Suzy T. Kane, Bedford Hills, NY Ted Smith, Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Campaign for Responsible Technology Tom Camara, Mill Valley, Ca. Vina Colley, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security Wells Eddleman, NC Citizens Research Group Inc. Wendy Oser, Nuclear Guardianship Project for Responsible Care of Nuclear Materials Critical Mass Home ***************************************************************** 7 Australian Senate Panel Urges Halt to Lucas Heights Reactor Environment News Service: SYDNEY, Australia, May 29, 2001 (ENS) - Environmentalists are delighted with the finding of a new Senate inquiry that calls for a halt to plans for a controversial new nuclear research reactor in suburban Sydney. The proposed reactor would replace one built in 1958 at Lucas Heights just outside of Sydney. The seven member Select Committee chaired by Senator Michael Forshaw of New South Wales heard detailed evidence at hearings in Sydney, Canberra and Adelaide. It found that "no conclusive or compelling case has been established to support the proposed new reactor and that the proposed new reactor should not proceed." [Forshaw] Senator Michael Forshaw chairs the Senate Select Committee for an Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights (Photo courtesy Parliament of Australia) The Senate committee said that the current government headed by Prime Minister John Howard has continued to pursue its decision, taken in September 1997, to build a new reactor at Lucas Heights "without a full appreciation of Australia's broader scientific and medical needs and without a clear understanding of how best to develop the country's research and development base." Saying the the government continues with its plan to build a new reactor without regard to the findings and recommendations of previous inquiries, this Senate Inquiry found that the government "has failed to establish a conclusive or compelling case for the new reactor, and recommends that before the government proceeds any further it undertake an independent public review into the need for a new nuclear reactor." [Minchin] Industry, Science and Resources Minister, Senator Nick Minchin (Photo courtesy Office of the Senator) The Inquiry highlighted serious flaws in the reactor plan and concerns over the role of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and federal Industry, Science and Resources Minister, Senator Minchin. The committee pointed to unacceptable levels of secrecy over key proposal documents and contracts. The report said the committee was never able to see the actual contract document with the Argentinian company to build the reactor. INVAP is a state owned company of the Province of Río Negro, Argentina that specializes in building nuclear research reactors. "There is concern that the present government may have entered into a contract which seeks to bind future governments to build the reactor despite not having obtained the necessary approvals. The continuing secrecy over the terms of the contract, and in particular the termination provisions appear completely unjustified. The nature of the termination arrangements has nothing to do with INVAP commercial secrets and everything to do with the political convenience of the government," the committee wrote. Its report faulted the government for its failure to adequately consult the scientific and wider community, and failure to address critical issues concerning radioactive waste. There is no proven need for a reactor or examination of alternatives, said the Senate Inquiry, and it warned of inadequate project costings and the threat of a major budget blowout. [protest] The Sutherland Shire Council, Greenpeace and People Against a Nuclear Reactor protest in Lucas Heights. (Photo courtesy ) "This Inquiry reflects the growing opposition to this ill advised and unnecessary reactor plan," Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said. "The government is trying to rush it through before the coming federal election, and this report is further proof that this fast-tracking must end." The Senate committee heard evidence of a wide range of Australian views on the Lucas Heights reactor strong support and equally strong objections. Scientists and engineers, recent post graduates and those with years of research experience; nuclear medicine physicians from scientific and medical associations as well as a number of small and medium-sized enterprises have endorsed the new reactor. They focus on the benefits that nuclear technology brings to the Australian community, the committee reported. With equal conviction, the committee wrote, conservation groups, the Sutherland Shire Council, experts in various fields and a number of concerned Australians from all walks of life across the country have denounced the proposal to build a new reactor. "They question the claims promoting the benefits of a nuclear research reactor, raise concerns about the environmental and health impacts of the reactor, raise concerns about the impact and management of nuclear waste, and some dismiss outright the need for Australia to have such a facility. They regard it as an unnecessary and misguided use of resources that poses serious health and safety problems for the Australian people," the committee said. [application] Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Lucas Heights Research Reactor submitted as part of ANSTO's license application (Photo courtesy ) Last week ANSTO formally applied to the federal nuclear regulator for a license to construct the new reactor. The new findings over problems with the reactor plan and process will be a serious blow to ANSTO's plans. "On day three of their new license assessment process ANSTO have run into a wall," Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan said. "They are in for an increasingly difficult time as the reactor plan is neither needed nor safe and has failed this independent scrutiny." But ANSTO says the license application provides a full technical description of the replacement research reactor and a full assessment of its safety. The application, prepared jointly by INVAP and ANSTO, contains details relating to the purpose, management and design of the facility, construction requirements, plans and schedule, inspection and test processes, and the status of compliance. On receiving the application, Dr. John Loy, chief executive of the (ARPANSA), said that public submissions will be called for in response to the application. In addition, it will be independently reviewed by a group of nuclear safety experts assembled through the International Atomic Energy Agency, who will report their findings to ARPANSA. The complete report of the Select Committee for an Inquiry into the Contract for a New Reactor at Lucas Heights is available by clicking . © 2001. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 State/Federal Agreement Clears Way for Transport of Spent Fuel JEFFERSON CITY, MO, May 29, 2001 - An agreement between the US Department of Energy and the State of Missouri on a series of safety enhancements for shipments of spent nuclear fuel from the University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor (MURR) has avoided the need to shut down the reactor the Energy Department and the state announced. Based on the agreement, shipments of high-level nuclear waste will be allowed on Interstate 70 through Missouri. In addition, the agreement also sets a schedule for shipping spent nuclear fuel by the end of June 2001 from the University 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." The impasse, which rested on safety issues, had prevented the University Reactor from shipping spent nuclear fuel out of their facility for the past year. Without this resolution, University officials noted that legal and practical limitations on storage at the facility would have forced MURR to cease operations in late June, 2001. Such a shut down would have caused the University Reactor to cease research and production of radiopharmaceuticals that are used to treat certain cancer patients. 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 + A Missouri State Highway Patrol escort of shipments + Shipment scheduling that will avoid transit during specified rush hours in St. Louis, Columbia and Kansas City and, if necessary, the designation of safe parking areas to avoid specified rush hours in these areas + Access by the state to the Energy Department's satellite tracking system to monitor the shipments' progress through MissouriIn addition, the Department of Energy committed to continue to work with the governor's office to address concerns that the state expressed concerning how the Department chooses routes for separate cross-country shipments of foreign high-level spent nuclear fuel. "All we are seeking to accomplish here is to ensure that these shipments occur in the safest manner possible," said Missouri Governor Bob Holden. "I am pleased that the Department of Energy has agreed to incorporate the additional safety measures that we requested for the University Reactor shipments. I also look forward to continuing a dialogue with them to address our concerns about how they select cross-country routes." ***************************************************************** 9 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke panel finds errors in DOE plan Return to the . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas SUN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 30, 2001 Nuke panel finds errors in DOE plan By Mary Manning <> LAS VEGAS SUN The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has identified numerous errors in the Department of Energy's plan for how a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain would perform over thousands of years. Nevada and Clark County officials called the findings significant, but DOE officials said the errors should not affect their predictions on how Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would behave over time. Yucca Mountain is the only site under study as the nation's high-level nuclear repository for burying 77,000 tons of commercial spent fuel and radioactive wastes from developing nuclear weapons. Under eight topics detailed in a May 17 letter, the NRC's high-level nuclear waste branch Chief William Reamer explained the errors discovered by commission staff using DOE's computer models and hand calculations. "NRC has asked DOE to determine the scope of these errors to evaluate the implications for the quality and adequacy of DOE's performance assessment," Reamer said. The DOE is investigating how the errors in calculations and missing information could affect the quality and adequacy of its scientific data, officials said. Further meetings between the NRC and the DOE are scheduled in June. The NRC wrote the letter after two conference calls between the agencies on May 4 and 9. The DOE confirmed the errors on May 9. Reamer said the DOE erred in calculating the chemistry inside the waste packages. If there is higher acid content than the DOE expects inside the buried containers, all waste packages could fail sooner, perhaps within 1,000 years, allowing radiation to escape the site. The NRC staff also noted that radiation doses are underestimated. While Don Kalinich of DOE said the error comes from using the same figures twice, Reamer noted that the radiation exposure numbers were 12 times lower than expected if a volcanic eruption swept through the repository at 500 years. The DOE is checking its calculations and will report to the NRC in the coming months, said Steve Brocoum, the Yucca Mountain Project assistant manager for the Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance. State and county officials who oppose the repository said the DOE's errors are significant. Correcting the errors could delay the licensing hearing before the NRC, which will determine whether a Yucca Mountain repository would open by 2010, said Bob Loux, director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects. "The DOE will have to revise every single calculation, and that could delay the licensing," Loux said. "If this is an example of the sound science that the decision will be based on," County Nuclear Waste Division Director Irene Navis said, "then Nevada residents have every right to object to the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to the . Las Vegas SUN main page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. * All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. * ***************************************************************** 10 Watchdog group has scenario for missing fuel rods TheDay.com: Local and National News By Paul Choiniere Published on 5/30/2001 Waterford — The missing spent nuclear fuel rods at the closed Millstone 1 nuclear plant may have been mistaken for tubes used to monitor reactor activity, cut into pieces and shipped in a container to a low level radioactive waste dump, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The organization monitors activity at the nation's nuclear plants and has been critical of Millstone Nuclear Power Station's failure to keep track of the fuel rods. A spokeswoman for Northeast Utilities confirmed that the scenario described by the Union of Concerned Scientists is one of many that is being looked at as part of an internal investigation into the misplaced fuel rods. The spokeswoman, Deborah Beauchamp, said interviews with current and former Millstone 1 employees began nine days ago. She said it was far too soon to speculate about what happened to the fuel rods. “The scenario outlined is no more or less likely than any of a number of scenarios that are being looked at,” she said. The missing rods are also the subject of a federal investigation that could result in criminal charges. David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the component referred to in the organization's scenario is the one that most resembles a fuel rod. Called an LPRM dry tube — Local Power Range Monitor — it is about the same size and shape as a fuel rod. Nuclear instruments are inserted through the dry tubes into the reactor to calibrate core monitoring systems. There are more than three dozen of the tubes in the reactor and they have to be replaced every several years, he said. Damaged and worn out dry tubes are stored in the plant's waste storage pool to allow them to radioactively cool before disposal. Using remotely-operated equipment, they are chopped up into two- and three-foot sections under the water and placed in disposal canisters for shipment to a low-level radioactive waste dump. It is possible, Lochbaum said, that the missing fuel rods were chopped up in the same manner without the equipment operators ever realizing what they were. The storage container used to shield the radiation would have prevented detection of the rods by radiation monitors when the container was removed from the pool and shipped. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the missing fuel rods contain 101.4 grams of fissile uranium and 40.2 grams of plutonium. They should produce a dose rate of 850 Rem per hour, enough to cause a lethal radiation exposure in about 30 minutes, Lochbaum said. By comparison, a fuel assembly that has just been removed from a reactor produces enough radiation to kill in seconds. Lochbaum said all the evidence suggests that if the fuel pins were shipped and disposed, they were inside a radiation-safe container and pose no threat to public health. Lochbaum said he believes that if the fuel pins were misplaced within the storage pool, they would have been found by now. “The pool is large, but not that large,” he said. “We're not talking about searching the ocean for a needle.” Beauchamp, however, said misplacement of the fuel rods in the pool remains a viable possibility. Though Northeast Utilities sold the Millstone Nuclear Power Station to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut in April for $1.3 billion, NU remains in charge of the missing fuel investigation because the fuel rods were misplaced on its watch. Millstone 1 last operated in November 1995. Millstone 2 and 3 continue to operate at the nuclear station. On Dec. 14, 2000, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was officially notified that the rods could not be accounted for. The rods are 13-feet, 2-inches long and about one-half inch in diameter. The two fuel rods were damaged and removed from a fuel assembly in October 1972. A map dated April 30, 1980, showed the fuel rods located inside a storage canister in the Millstone 1 spent fuel pool. The next spent fuel map, dated Sept. 18, 1980, showed neither the canister nor the fuel rods. By the end of the summer NU expects to complete the internal investigation into what happened to the fuel rods. *© 1998-2001 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 11 Hastings urges isotope studies Search the Tri-City Herald Online This story was published 5/30/2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer The federal government should study how medicines and medical devices using radioactive isotopes could improve health care and cut government costs, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., said Tuesday. "I am concerned that medical isotope technology, which has the potential to dramatically reduce costs and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans, is not being aggressively pursued," Hastings wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services. Supporters of restarting Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility would like the reactor to make isotopes to meet a growing medical demand. The United States imports 90 percent of the medical isotopes it uses. "With FFTF's potential in review, now is a crucial time to examine how medical isotopes can save lives and reduce costs for patients and the federal government," Hastings said. The Bush administration is conducting a 90-day review of the Clinton administration's decision to shut down the reactor permanently. The new administration has asked businesses and agencies interested in using the reactor or buying the isotopes it could produce to submit information to the Department of Energy. FFTF could be used to conduct research and to make isotopes for medical uses and for power sources for deep space missions. "One can safely assume that DOE's solicitation will generate medical and private sector interest in researching and producing isotopes at FFTF," Hastings said. "The government should be prepared with information on how isotopes will revolutionize medical treatment and reduce costs for Medicare and Medicaid." The cost savings to the government would be greater than the cost of operating the reactor, said Bob Schenter of Richland, a board member of Citizens for Medical Isotopes. A DOE study of the reactor last year put the cost of restarting the reactor at $314 million, with annual operating costs of $59 million. The United States already has invested $1.1 billion in the reactor. "The bottom line is cancer costs the nation $110 billion a year," Schenter said. "So the cost savings to Medicare, even if only a tiny fraction of that, are significant." Medical isotopes also can be used in research, early diagnosis or treatment for heart disease, arthritis and neurological disorders, Hastings said. "Aside from the obvious economic and medical benefits of early detection, radioisotopic diagnostic technology has the advantage of avoiding unnecessary invasive tests and exploratory surgeries," Hastings wrote. "For example, new radioisotopic technologies in the emergency room can distinguish which patients complaining of chest pain are having a heart attack." Medical isotopes show promise in treating cancer using a "smart bullet" approach. Radioactive isotopes can be attached to proteins that seek out cancer cells in the body. The proteins latch onto cancer cells, killing malignant cells with their radioactive cargo while doing little damage to nearby healthy cells. In clinical trials lymphoma patients have been successfully treated for less than $10,000. Standard cancer therapy would cost more than $100,000, Hastings said, and include weeks of unpleasant chemotherapy. Citizens for Medical Isotopes maintains a list of nearly 200 medical trials being conducted using medical isotopes for treatments of diseases, including breast, blood and ovarian cancers. Advocates of expanded use of isotopes to treat cancers say research could be advancing more quickly if more isotopes were available to researchers. Some studies have been canceled because isotopes such as copper 67 and rhenium 186 were not available, Hastings said. Back to top stories Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 12 Plant highlights nuclear debate This story was published Sat, May 26, 2001 By Chris Mulick Herald staff writer The biggest obstacle to nuclear power's revival sits in a blue, shimmering pool of water inside the Columbia Generating Station north of Richland. There, every rod of spent nuclear fuel ever pulled from the plant's reactor vessel is stored. From above, their square profiles form a checkerboard of sorts. On the upside, the highly radioactive byproduct of nuclear power generation is entirely contained after a short journey of a few dozen feet from the reactor vessel. "I know exactly where it's at," Vic Parrish, Energy Northwest's chief executive officer, recently told a state Senate panel while making a pitch for nuclear energy. "It's not floating around in the environment." The problem is, there's darn little room left in Columbia's spent fuel pool to store it. And after crews remove 300 more from the reactor during the current week-old refueling outage, the pool will be largely full. With a study under way to determine the viability of finishing the uncompleted Plant No. 1 nearby, Energy Northwest has invited a regional debate on the merits of building new nuclear power plants, something that hasn't been done in two decades. Though endorsed by many politicians, including President Bush, the nuclear industry still must overcome fears about creating additional nuclear waste with no place to store it. "It will be demagogued by opponents," U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., said last week of the waste issue. "It's an education process. We have to try to bring a dose of reality to this debate." Energy Northwest plans to begin moving all its spent fuel from the pool, putting fuel assemblies into dry casks on a storage pad being constructed outside. That will have to suffice until a designated federal repository can be completed at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. The utility hopes to begin moving spent fuel before the next refueling outage two years from now. If it can't meet that deadline, crews would have to remove old control blades also stored in the spent fuel pool to make room for even more assemblies. "We would have to do an awful lot of shuffling," said Rod Webring, Energy Northwest vice president for generation supply, before a media tour of outage activity Friday. Nuclear backers are leaning heavily on Columbia's performance to support their cause. The 1,150-megawatt plant has been running as reliably as it ever has in recent years, which is critical since the cost of replacing it is soaring. Its electricity was worth about $1.6 billion in the past year. Not surprisingly, the plant's value is underscored the most when it's not operating. Already, plant managers have scheduled this outage for 29 days, 22 hours, which would beat the old record by six days. Energy Northwest's John Dabney, who hustled around Friday with the urgency of an outage manager who is behind by a few hours, says failure isn't an option. "We will make 29 days," he said. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. ***************************************************************** 13 USEC move to reduce emissions The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, May 30, 2001 *With the consolidation of USEC. work by shutting down the Ohio plant, the Paducah plant becomes a stand-alone facility and emissions will be cut in half.* From staff, AP reports The Earth’s protective ozone layer stands to gain because the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant is a stand-alone facility. Leaks in hundreds of miles of piping at the Paducah plant and a mothballed sister plant in Ohio are blamed for the emission of a refrigerant that eats the ozone layer. The two plants are by far the country’s largest industrial emitters of that Freon-like chemical, CFC-114, even though the emissions are below regulatory limits. With the consolidation of United States Enrichment Corp. work by shutting down the Ohio plant earlier this month, the Paducah plant becomes the nation’s only nuclear fuel factory for commercial reactors. Company officials said the CFC-114 emissions will be cut in half this year because merging the two plants means roughly half as many miles of piping. More reductions will come as the company plugs leaks with a new kind of sealant and finds a replacement coolant. "This is a legacy issue," said USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle. "We inherited the situation with Freon from earlier days before USEC was formed." The production and importation of 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, and it is still made for medical use. Critics point to USEC’s refrigerant 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. Waste and pollutants from the other aspects of running the Paducah plant 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 told the Courier-Journal of Louisville. ‘‘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 leaking pipes. ‘‘We don’t want those ozone holes getting bigger and bigger, and more skin cancer and whatever else they cause,’’ she told the Louisville paper. ‘‘This is a matter for us to study.’’ Company officials said nuclear power 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. Stuckle said refrigerant emissions are a hazard to the ozone layer but do not pose a direct risk to public health and safety. In fact, the same chemical is used in inhalers for people with breathing problems, she said. ‘‘Yes, you do have this issue with (CFC-114 and) enrichment,’’ she said. ‘‘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 transferring Freon in tanks from the Ohio plant and buying recycled refrigerant will allow the Paducah plant to run until at least 2004 without having to replace coolant. "The possible replacement coolant we've identified has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency," she said. "But it would still have to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so we have a way to go." Cryoseal, a silicon-based material that reacts with moisture to form an epoxy, has been successfully tested at Portsmouth to seal refrigerant leaks, Stuckle said. "It's very expense, though," she said. "We will start to use that on a limited basis at Paducah this year." Freon 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 CFC-114 emissions worldwide. Stuckle said the inventory is for manufacturers and does not include large emissions from agencies such as the federal departments of defense and energy. For example, refrigerants are heavily used by the Navy in cooling ships, she said. ***************************************************************** 14 Ex-DOE official says mothball Yucca dump May 30, 2001 By Mary Manning <> LAS VEGAS SUN The principal author of the policy that identified Yucca Mountain as a potential site for a high-level nuclear waste repository now says the project plans should be scrapped. W. Kenneth Davis, who was the Energy Department's undersecretary from 1981 to 1983 in the Reagan administration, wrote in an unsolicited letter to the Bush White House saying that Yucca will not be approved as a repository by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and that the project should be abandoned. "Yucca Mountain, which is unlikely to be licensed, in any case is not a reasonable solution in view of the shipping required if nothing else, and in my opinion should be put in mothballs," Davis wrote in a three-page memo last week on the Bush-Cheney energy plan. "Most of my friends are going to be mad at me," Davis said in an interview from his California home last week. "A lot of people think Yucca Mountain is going to be licensed. That is baloney." Davis said he sees two reasons Yucca Mountain cannot be licensed. The first reason is Nevada's opposition to storing 77,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at the site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The second involves technical problems -- such as the potential for water and radiation to escape Yucca Mountain -- that keep emerging as DOE scientists study the site. Davis said burying nuclear wastes in a permanent repository was never intended when he authored the policy. Now Yucca Mountain is the only site being studied for permanent storage of highly radioactive commercial and defense waste. "The problems of building a spent fuel repository are enormous, particularly when the state of Nevada is so opposed to it," Davis said. DOE officials in 1982-83 envisioned storage at regional plants, where technicians would reprocess the nuclear fuel, he said. Regional repositories, one in the East and one in the West, would have stored the remaining wastes for up to 300 years. At the time, scientists were studying breeder reactors, a technology that in effect cleans the uranium and plutonium of toxic byproducts and recycles it to produce electricity. "Spent fuel ... lasts for hundreds of thousands of years," Davis said. "Reprocessing would take out the long-living materials and use the plutonium in reactors." That approach was abandoned during the Ford and Carter administrations, partly out of fear that the recycled fuel could be stolen by terrorists or rogue nations to build nuclear weapons. President Reagan sought to rekindle the technology, but officials in the nuclear industry said it was too costly, and reprocessing has remained in limbo. However, scientists have begun research on transmutation, which promises to change the highly radioactive substances to less radioactive waste. That research is being funded by the Energy Department but is not being considered seriously as an alternative to a repository. Daniel Hirsch, technical adviser to the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an environmental watchdog group in California that stopped a new low-level nuclear waste site from opening near Needles, Calif., and the Colorado River, said that reprocessing was too dangerous to pursue. "Reprocessing doesn't remove the need for a repository," Hirsch said. "The process leaves half of the plutonium in the wastes and it doesn't touch other long-living radioactive elements." Reprocessing either increases the volume of the radioactive waste or creates liquid nuclear wastes, Hirsch said. Under the strategy developed by Davis, any U.S. repository would have been temporary, and the stored fuel pellets would have been retrievable for future use. But in April 1986 the former Soviet Union's Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor disaster occurred, bringing a halt to nuclear reactor development in the United States. The following year, the U.S. passed its Yucca Mountain repository strategy. Another problem with a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is public opposition to shipping the wastes across country, Davis said. If the DOE built special sites, called monitored retrievable storage facilities, across the country near the reactors, the costs of shipping would be reduced, he said. "At Yucca Mountain, you are going to run into a hailstorm of protest over shipping," he said. Davis said he left the DOE before a decision was made to turn temporary nuclear waste storage into a permanent solution. He went from the federal agency to Bechtel Inc., a government contractor, from where he retired in 1995. Bechtel is now part of the partnership, Bechtel-SAIC, that holds the main Yucca Mountain contract. "It (Yucca Mountain) was never intended to store spent fuel, and I can't find out who made that decision," Davis said. "For some 20 years I have wondered how that happened." Congress amended the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1987, singling out Yucca Mountain as the only site for the DOE to study as a permanent repository. About 70,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel could be buried starting in 2010, if the project is found scientifically suitable. Another 7,000 tons would come from building the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. "Congress changed the act to get a permanent repository built before monitored retrievable storage sites," Davis said. The Bush-Cheney energy plan signaled a revived interest in nuclear power. Nuclear industry executives have set a goal to build up to 50 new nuclear reactors in the next two decades. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Steve Kerekes noted that Yucca Mountain was singled out in 1987 by Congress as the sole U.S. site for the DOE to study. "It has been scientific opinion for many years that the safest way to dispose of the nuclear wastes is a deep geological repository," Kerekes said. "If Davis wants to change the policy, maybe he should take it up with Congress," Kerekes said. Only Russia, France and Britain reprocess fuel for civilian reactor operations. In 30 or 40 years, if scientists turned their attention and funding to research and development, breeder reactors could be ready to produce power, Davis said. "The need for a Yucca Mountain repository is a psychological thing," he said. "In the real world, that's not the way to go." All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 Uranium prices at lowest level since 1994 Casper Star-Tribune Casper, Wyoming May 30, 2001 LARAMIE, Wyo. (AP) - Uranium prices remain at a seven-year low, the Wyoming State Geological Survey said. The spot market price for yellowcake uranium, which is mined in Wyoming, at the start of the year was at its lowest level since 1994, $7.10 per pound. Since then the price has risen slightly, and was $7.60 last week. In the last seven years, the price for yellowcake peaked around $16 late in 1996 and has been on a steady decline since. Yellowcake does not emit radioactive particles but is used to enrich nuclear fuel. Wyoming's only two uranium mines are in Converse County: the Highland and Morton Ranch mine owned by Cameco, and the Smith Ranch mine operated by Rio Algom, both Canadian companies. Wyoming's uranium production may have peaked in 1999 at 2.7 million pounds of yellowcake, the Geological Survey reported in its latest edition of "Wyoming Geo-notes." Cogema, a French state-owned nuclear group, closed its Christiansen Ranch operation in Wyoming in early 2000, and less yellowcake is anticipated to be produced by the remaining mines, the survey said. Currently, all Wyoming yellowcake is shipped to France. ***************************************************************** 16 Abraham Says Three Mile Island No Longer Relevant + LCG, May 29, 2001—Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Friday that the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 was irrelevant and should not be allowed to deter development of new nuclear power plants in the United States. + Abraham spoke to reporters following a tour of the Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility in southern Maryland, where he said "In my view we need to stop living in the past." Calvert Cliffs, owned by the holding company for Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., is the first U.S. nuclear plant to have been granted a 20-year extension to its original 40-year operating license. + "We need to stop thinking of this (nuclear) industry in terms exclusively dictated by Three Mile Island," Abraham said. + The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 plant near Middletown, Pa., on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. + Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the Nuclear Regulator Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania, and found that radioactive exposure was inconsequential. + Several independent studies concluded that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was about only about 1 millirem. The average dose of radioactivity from a chest x-ray is about 6 millirem. + Abraham pointed out that nuclear power plant designs have been upgraded in the past 20 years and the plants are better run. "We need to look at nuclear energy as a source of electricity generation in today's context, not as if the clock stopped in 1979," he said. + In its energy plan, the administration called on the NRC to relicense nuclear power plants that have good safety records and speed up the process for licensing new power plants. Abraham also said additional reactors could be built on the sites of existing plants. + "We need to recognize that the improvements in safety and technology in the last 20 plus years have brought us to the point where nuclear energy clearly can provide electricity...in a safe fashion for more Americans," he said. + Abraham also noted that nuclear generation provides the cleanest form of electricity known and that more use of nuclear power plants would be beneficial to the environment. Copyright © 2001 LCG ***************************************************************** 17 Soapbox: Should we revisit nuclear power? Evansville Courier &Press - Sunday May 29, 2001 A particularly thought-provoking and controversial part of President George W. Bush’s recently proposed energy policy is a proposed revival of the nation’s nuclear power business. Indeed, since March, Vice President Dick Cheney has urged an increase in the nation’s nuclear generating capacity. A ferocious debate is at hand. Once, nuclear power held great promise for America. But safety concerns short-circuited that initiative. The best-known problem was at Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which in 1979 underwent a partial meltdown. Even in our area, people still remember Marble Hill, the failed proposal for a nuclear energy plant in Southeastern Indiana. Now, critics of nuclear power say America should not again visit that dangerous, expensive energy alternative. In fact, no new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1980, and the last one was completed in 1996. On the other hand, supporters argue that nuclear energy is cleaner than the burning of fossil fuels. It greatly reduces air pollution. And they point out that no one has ever been killed by radiation exposure in an American plant. So what do you think? Should America take another look at nuclear energy, or should it leave that one alone? Tell us what you think. You will have the best opportunity of having your letter selected if you keep it short, no more than 250 words. Please send us your letter by June 5. Those selected will be published on June 10. Sign your letter and please include your daytime phone number. Send it by mail to Letters, the Evansville Courier &Press, P.O Box 268, Evansville, Ind. 47702. Send it by e-mail to letters@evansville.net or by fax to 422-8196. ***************************************************************** 18 UPI News Article: Nuclear plant returns as Calif heats up Tuesday, 29 May 2001 19:43 (ET) By HIL ANDERSON UPI Chief Energy Correspondent LOS ANGELES, May 29 (UPI) -- A major component of California's electricity production returned to service Tuesday in time for a warming trend that will heat up much of the West and possibly increase the likelihood of rolling blackouts in the state. Pacific Gas & Electric said the Unit 2 reactor at its Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo was re-started Monday after being shut down for 29 days for refueling and maintenance. The unit was expected to reach its full capacity of 1,150 megawatts, enough power to supply more than 1 million homes, by June 2. PG said the refueling period that began April 29 had been scheduled to last 35 days, however the work was completed ahead of schedule and the maintenance process was "the plant's safest and shortest ever." Diablo Canyon returns at a fortuitous time for the state. The entire West is expected to heat up this week as a high-pressure system prevents cooler ocean air from moving ashore. The higher temperatures tend to increase demand for electricity to run air conditioners. Temperatures were expected to reach into the 80s in Los Angeles and San Francisco and into the 90s in the state's inland regions. There were also predictions of hot weather in neighboring states, which would likely cut into the amount of power available for shipment to California from Arizona and the Pacific Northwest. Portland, Ore., expected to reach the mid 70s, while Las Vegas and Phoenix were both expected to top 100. -- Copyright 2001 by United Press International. ***************************************************************** 19 Dominion Files Applications To Renew Virginia Nuclear Plant Licenses May 30, 9:38 am Eastern Time Press Release *SOURCE: Dominion* RICHMOND, Va., May 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Dominion (NYSE: D- news), one of the nation's largest energy producers, filed an application Tuesday with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the operating licenses of the company's two Virginia nuclear power stations, North Anna and Surry, for an additional 20 years. + (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20000831/DLOGO) ``North Anna and Surry stations have provided safe, reliable electricity to our customers for about 25 years,'' said Thos. E. Capps, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Dominion. ``Our stations have consistently received high marks from the NRC and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations for safety and efficiency, and are the least-cost sources of electricity in our system. Relicensing our nuclear stations will assure that Virginians will continue to have plentiful supplies of safe, reliable and economic electricity well into the 21st century. ``The California experience has demonstrated that plentiful supplies of electricity must be available in the future if our state and nation are to prosper. -- North Anna and Surry represent about 3,500 megawatts of generation capacity. They were economical to build, are maintained at the highest levels of safety, and it makes sense that they should be available to meet the growing demand for energy well into the future.'' The NRC issued 40-year initial operating licenses for commercial nuclear power units. In applying for 20-year renewals, owners must demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact to public safety or the environment by continued operation of the units. The NRC has approved the renewal applications of five units and owners of approximately one-third of U.S. nuclear stations have notified the NRC of their intention to apply for renewals. ``Maintaining a diversity of fuel supply is critical for our nation's electric supply,'' Capps said, noting that Virginia gets about one-third and the United States about 20 percent of its electrical energy from nuclear power. ``If we care about having stable, reliable, clean and affordable electric supply in the future, we must include nuclear in the mix.'' North Anna, which is about 60 miles northwest of Richmond in Louisa County, has two Westinghouse 900-megawatt (net), three-loop pressurized water reactors. North Anna Units 1 and 2 may operate to 2018 and 2020, respectively. With renewed licenses, the units would be allowed to operate until 2038 and 2040, respectively. Surry, which is in Surry County on the James River across from historic Jamestown, has two Westinghouse 800-megawatt (net), three-loop pressurized water reactors. Under their existing licenses, Surry Units 1 and 2 may operate until 2012 and 2013, respectively. With renewed licenses, the units would be authorized to operate to 2032 and 2033, respectively. For eight consecutive years the two facilities have been recognized as leaders among the lowest-cost producers of nuclear-generated electricity in the United States, according to Nucleonics Week, a news and information database. North Anna and Surry generated a company-record 28.3 million net megawatt-hours of electricity last year. North Anna and Surry provide significant tax revenue to their host counties. Since 1966, Dominion has paid property taxes of more than $160 million to Louisa County and about $130 million to Surry County. Each station provides employment for about 860 people, many of whom contribute in meaningful ways to help make their communities better places to live. Dominion is evaluating license renewal for its other nuclear station, Millstone, in Waterford, Conn. Millstone, which Dominion purchased from Northeast Utilities in March, has two operating pressurized water reactors capable of generating 2,020 megawatts of electricity. Dominion, headquartered in Richmond, Va., is one of the nation's largest producers of energy, with a production capability of 2.7 trillion British Thermal Units of energy per day. The company has a power generation portfolio of more than 21,000 megawatts, which is expected to grow to approximately 28,000 megawatts by 2005. Dominion is one of the largest independent oil and natural gas exploration and production companies in North America, with 2.8 trillion cubic feet of equivalent reserves. The company has 7,600 miles of interstate natural gas pipeline and a delivery capability of 6.3 billion cubic feet per day. In addition, the company operates the nation's largest underground natural gas storage system, with over 950 billion cubic feet of storage capacity. Dominion serves nearly 4 million retail natural gas and electric customers. Dominion also has a managing equity interest in Dominion Fiber Ventures LLC, owner of Dominion Telecom. Dominion Telecom is expanding its fiber-optic network from 35,000 fiber miles (3,600 route miles) to more than 800,000 fiber miles (9,000 route miles). For more information about Dominion, visit the company's Web site at http://www.dom.com. CONTACT: Analysts: Suzette Mata of Dominion, 804-819-2154, Suzette_Mata@dom.com. *SOURCE: Dominion* Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 20 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 Back On Line to Help Ease Energy Shortage Tuesday May 29, 2:35 pm Eastern Time Press Release SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 29, 2001--Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 began delivering electricity to the California grid Monday, May 28 as temperatures and electricity demand around the state began to increase. The unit has completed a successful 29-day refueling and maintenance outage, the plant's safest and shortest ever. Unit 2 is expected to reach 50 percent power by the end of the day, and gradually return to full power by Saturday, June 2. At full power, Unit 2 generates enough electricity to power more than one million California homes, doing its part to ease the state's energy shortage during the hot summer months of high electricity demand. The unit was shutdown on April 29 for a planned refueling and maintenance outage that was scheduled to last 35 days. With the refueling maintenance work completed, the unit is capable of operating uninterrupted for the next 19 months, delivering 1,150 megawatts of emission free electricity to the state. Unit 1 has remained at full power during the Unit 2 outage. Together the two units provide enough electricity for more than two million northern and central California homes. The next scheduled outage for refueling and maintenance is for Unit 1, and will take place in the Spring of 2002. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant is located on the central coast of California about 200 miles South of San Francisco, near San Luis Obispo. Diablo Canyon is one of the most reliable and efficient nuclear-fueled power plants in the United States. For more information about Pacific Gas and Electric Company, please visit us at www.pge.com *Contact:* Pacific Gas and Electric Company Jeff Lewis, 805/545-4708 News Department, 415/973-5930 ***************************************************************** 21 Greenpeace urges Canada to stay out of Russian plutionium disposal plan *DENNIS BUECKERT OTTAWA (CP) - Greenpeace is urging Canada to stay out of an international program that would help Russia dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear warheads by converting it into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The group says the $2-billion plan would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation because MOX fuel can be used to produce weapons. The proposal, by the G-8 group of major industrialized countries, would involve the construction of a MOX plant in Russia at international expense, Greenpeace nuclear expert Tobias Munchmeyer said Tuesday. It would be better to immobilize the plutonium in glass, a process known as vitrification, he said. The G-8 proposal is supported by the United States, Britain, France and Japan, Munchmeyer said, but opposed by Germany. Canada and Italy have not made a decision, he added. Michael O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Department, confirmed the government has not taken a position on whether to support the program, but it is on the agenda of the next G-8 meeting in Genoa. "If the government decided to support the program it would be on the condition that the program is safe, environmentally sound, and would not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation," said O'Shauhgnessy. "We have met with representatives of Greenpeace on several occasions, are aware of their concerns and indeed share many of them." Donna Roach, a spokeswoman for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., said she was not aware of the G-8 proposal. But she disputed the claim that MOX fuel can be easily converted into weapons-usable material, saying sophisticated industrial facilities would be required to convert the fuel. However, Damon Moglan, an activist with Greenpeace U.S.A., cited a document of the International Atomic Energy Agency describing MOX as "a material that can be used for the manufacture of nuclear explosives components without transmutation or further enrichment." Atomic Energy of Canada is currently carrying out tests to determine how well MOX fuel from Russian performs in Candu reactors. Jo Du Fay of Greenpeace Canada said Canada has already spent $90 million on failed attempts to clean up environmental disasters or close dangerous plants. Most of that money has wound up in the pockets of Western nuclear consultants and the Russian mafia, she charged. © The Canadian Press, 2001 contact P. Beaulieu in writing at The Gazette, 250 St. Antoine W., Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 3R7. ***************************************************************** 22 Nevada Senate OK's $4 million for fight against nuke waste dump May 30, 2001 Nev. (AP) - A bill appropriating $4 million for Nevada's multistate campaign against a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain has won approval in the state Senate. SB494, proposed by Gov. Kenny Guinn, provides funds for the campaign and also for legal defense if the U.S. Energy Department recommends construction of the high-level nuclear waste dump. Approved Tuesday in the Senate, SB494 now goes to the Assembly for final action. The bill originally appropriated $5 million for the anti-dump efforts, but was reduced because of budget concerns. There was no discussion or debate before the Senate voted for the bill. Bob Loux, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the original plan was to put about $1 million into the public information campaign and $4 million into legal defense. The funding distribution is flexible, however, and will now be re-evaluated based on the smaller appropriation, he said. Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied to entomb the nation's highly radioactive waste. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Japan urges support for nuclear power - 5/29/2001 - ENN.com Tuesday, May 29, 2001 By Associated Press TOKYO — Japan's prime minister urged the government Monday 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. Copyright 2001, Associated Press ENN is a registered trademark of the Environmental News ***************************************************************** 24 Norwegian experts enter nuclear waste site Storage practises for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel that derive from the nuclear powered submarines in operation. Jump to section [Nuclear Chronicle] Vladislav Nikiforov , 2001-05-29 18:57 Russia's Northern Fleet opened a secret nuclear waste dump in the Arctic to the Western officials for the first time. After Norway had promised decent investments in clean-up operation, Russians allowed access to the closed military site. If other Western countries want to make contributions, they are welcome to visit Andreyeva bay, promised Russian nuclear deputy minister, Valery Lebedev. A Norwegian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide was allowed into the Andreeva Bay base, where tons of highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear are stored roughly 55 kilometres from the Russian-Norwegian boarder. 2. Quay facility, Building 32. 4. Purification facility for liquid radioactive waste (never taken into use). Used today for other purposes. 6. Three large, partially buried concrete containers for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel. 7. Crane for transfer operations of spent nuclear fuel. 8. An enclosed area in which containers of spent nuclear fuel are stored. 9. Concrete bunker divided into compartments and an open area in which solid radioactive waste is stored. "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 network NRK. This year Norway plans to allocate more than $1 million to solve nuclear waste problems in Andreeva bay, more money to come later, Norwegian daily Aftenposten reports. Total Norwegian investment into Russian nuclear safety equals nearly $15 million by this year. The work will be done by the Russian civilian company SevRAO under the management of the Russian Ministry for Nuclear Energy (Minatom). The nuclear waste site will be handed over from the Northern Fleet to the authority of Minatom, represented by SevRAO. By the end of 2000, fuel from 118 reactor cores were being stored at onshore bases and nuclear service ships of the Northern Fleet, and a further 130 reactor cores still remained in the retired submarines. A total of 248 reactor cores are stored at the Northern Fleet, corresponding to 99 tons of spent nuclear fuel with radioactivity of 74.5 million Ci. The largest storage for spent nuclear fuel is located in Andreeva Bay, which is situated on the north-western side of the Kola Peninsula. 21,640 spent nuclear fuel assemblies (93 reactor cores) containing 35 tons of fuel materials are stored in Andreeva Bay with a total radioactivity of 26,8 million Ci. Spent nuclear fuel assemblies are stored in three dry concrete tanks and in containers placed in the open on a storage pad. Bellona Foundation researchers estimate that at least 40-50% of total number of assemblies are is damaged. There is also a number of storage sites for solid and liquid radioactive waste. The rain and snow wash radioactivity out from spent fuel storage tanks into the Litsa Fjord. To prevent that one of the projects Norwegian Foreign Ministry intends to fund is building a roof over the tanks. The whole area in Andreeva Bay is radioactively contaminated and in the long-term perspective the remediation of the whole site is required. The most modest estimates say that as much as $10 million must be cashed in to secure the site and recover the area. The opening up of the site for the Western contributors may let the funding coming in and boost the international cooperation to clean up the most nightmarish nuclear storage site of the Northern Fleet. Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 25 Israeli General Recounts Risky '81 Raid on Iraq Nuclear Reactor Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Mideast: Planners overcame many political and technical challenges, commander says. Even esteemed spy chiefs were opposed to the attack. By NORMAN KEMPSTER, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON--Two decades after Israeli warplanes destroyed Iraq's only nuclear reactor, the air force general who commanded the raid has disclosed that Israel's intelligence community had fought the mission, arguing that it was too risky. In a rare interview marking the 20th anniversary of the June 1981 precision bombing, David Ivry said the intelligence chiefs believed that the raid was unlikely to succeed--and that even if it did, it would retard Iraq's nuclear weapons program by no more than five years. But, according to Ivry's account, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin overrode the objections of the intelligence agencies--an unusual step in a country where spies enjoy tremendous prestige--because he had concluded that Iraq was poised to produce a nuclear bomb and that no other country would stop it. Most of the details of the raid's planning and execution were classified as state secrets by the Israeli government. But Ivry, currently Israel's ambassador to the United States, said he now feels free to address some of those matters, including the political and technological obstacles that had to be overcome. Coming less than five years after the daring Israeli rescue of more than 100 hostages aboard a hijacked plane at Uganda's Entebbe Airport and the Carter administration's failed attempt to rescue 52 hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, the Baghdad raid inflated the near-mythical reputation of the Israeli military. But lately, with Israel's F-16 bombing raids on Palestinian cities, the heroic atmosphere has been fading. Reverberations Felt in Persian Gulf War Ivry said the 1981 attack contributed to the restraint that Israel showed during the 1991 Persian Gulf War when it came under attack by Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles. The United States, fearing that Israeli participation would destroy the precarious U.S.-Arab coalition fighting Iraq, pleaded with Israel to stay on the sidelines. The decision to forgo retaliation was not popular in Israel. But Ivry said the restraint was possible only because the country had demonstrated a decade earlier that it could attack Baghdad if it wished. "Once we did it, it wasn't a question of whether the Israeli air force could do it," he said. "We knew we could. It was just a political question of yes or no." Ivry said the 1981 raid faced a daunting array of challenges: Internal Israeli politics. Certain international condemnation. Concern about the fuel capacity of the F-16 jets--so limited, it seemed to put the Baghdad plant out of range. In the immediate aftermath of the raid, Begin and other Israeli officials focused on the successful destruction of the nuclear facility and sought to deflect charges that the raid violated international law. Planning for the attack began in 1978, shortly after Begin took office, Ivry said. Information was extremely closely held. Begin briefed members of his Cabinet and the top military leadership. In the air force, only Ivry, the pilots and support personnel involved in the attack were told. Even so, Shimon Peres, now Israel's foreign minister but then leader of the parliamentary opposition, found out about the plan. Ivry said Peres objected strongly in a private meeting with Begin, delaying the operation for almost a month. On May 10, with the aircraft already loaded with fuel and bombs, Peres protested again to Begin's office--demanding that the raid be called off. "We stopped them on the runway," Ivry said of the warplanes. Eventually, Peres was persuaded to keep the government's secret and issue no public protest. That allowed the raid to proceed. Begin had insisted on unanimous support from his coalition Cabinet before he would go ahead, and Ivry said it took several months to get all of the Cabinet officials on board. Some, such as retired general and Housing Minister Ariel Sharon, now Israel's hard-line prime minister, signed on at once. But others held out. Yigael Yadin, then deputy prime minister, was the last to be convinced. Yadin, an internationally renowned archeologist, was the commander of the Haganah militia that fought Israel's War of Independence and was the second army chief of staff of the Israeli state. But the political problems were mild compared with the technological difficulties, Ivry said. Most daunting was the distance to the target: about 560 miles, almost all of it over hostile Arab territory. Theoretically, the U.S.-made F-16 has a combat radius of about 575 miles, meaning the distance it can travel to the target and back on one load of fuel. There would be virtually no margin for an emergency and no reserves to permit the planes to linger over the target. Aerial refueling was out of the question, Ivry said, because tanker planes could not be expected to operate over hostile territory. Ivry said his pilots rehearsed the raid for months, flying over the Mediterranean to determine the maximum range of each plane when it was loaded with bombs. He said the tests indicated that the planes could be sure of making it to Baghdad and back only if they used external fuel tanks that could be discarded when empty, carried only two bombs each and did without electronic jamming gear intended to combat the radar of enemy antiaircraft batteries. To save a few additional drops of fuel, Ivry said, the tanks were topped off after the planes had reached their positions for takeoff, to replace the fuel used in taxiing. The air force had enough external fuel tanks for eight planes, he said. With two gravity bombs per plane, the raid could muster just 16 free-fall bombs, without the radar or laser-guidance systems routinely used by the United States and its NATO allies. Nevertheless, all but three of the bombs hit the French-built nuclear plant, Ivry said, destroying it. The raid was conducted at sunset on a Sunday. Israeli officials said at the time that Sunday was picked because it was the scheduled day off for the French technicians assigned to the facility. International Criticism Later Turns to Praise But Ivry said there was another reason behind the timing: There was enough light to find the target, but if any of the planes were shot down, there would be hours of darkness to cover a rescue operation. He said helicopters were deployed along Israel's eastern border, ready to be called upon to pick up a downed pilot. The helicopter crews were told to be poised for a dangerous mission but were not told about the raid. As it turned out, all the planes returned safely. On one matter, the warnings of Israeli intelligence officials proved valid. The international criticism of the raid was sharp and immediate--with complaints coming from Washington, Moscow, Paris and throughout the Arab world. The U.N. Security Council voted to "strongly condemn" the raid. Unlike with most U.N. resolutions critical of Israel over the years, the United States did not use its veto to thwart this one. The Pentagon halted delivery of F-16s for a while, then quietly resumed the shipments. Then-President Reagan was ambivalent. A little more than a week after the attack, he said Israel apparently violated its arms contract with the United States, which limited Israel's use of U.S. weapons to "defensive" operations. But the president said that perhaps the Israelis genuinely believed that the raid was defensive. These days, there are no more doubts in Washington. Ivry said he met President Bush at a recent White House ceremony. The president greeted him as "the general who did that attack on that nuclear reactor," Ivry said. In his office in the Israeli Embassy, Ivry has a wall full of trophies from his days in the air force. Prominent is a grainy black-and-white photograph, taken by a satellite in 1991, of the wreckage of the Iraqi reactor. The photo is signed by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney "with thanks and appreciation" for Israel's bombing of the plant, "which made our job much easier in Desert Storm." Copyright © 2001 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 26 Regulators find errors in report on Yucca Mountain nuclear dump May 30, 2001 LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants Department of Energy scientists to recalculate how a proposed nuclear waste repository would endure inside Yucca Mountain in Nevada. William Reamer, the commission's high-level waste branch chief, called for Yucca Mountain Project managers to address eight "technical errors" or "inconsistencies" in the repository's Total System Performance Assessment. The document will be one of many used to determine whether the site is suitable and can safely contain the nation's highly radioactive waste for at least 10,000 years. In a May 17 letter, Reamer refers to errors in calculations on the chemistry of waste containment packages and when they would fail; how fast some of the materials surrounding the waste would degrade over thousands of years; and the amount of radioactivity that could escape from a potential volcanic release. Energy Department officials said Tuesday that the errors found in the report would have a minimal effect on performance projections. But a top Nevada official heading state efforts to fight the proposed waste dump said the discovery of errors undermines the credibility of the performance report. "I think they've got a real big problem on their hands," said Bob Loux, Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency. Yucca Mountain Project scientists said they're confident that engineered barriers and the geology of the mountain will meet requirements for entombing 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. The site is at the western edge of the Nevada Test Site, 90 miles from Las Vegas and 20 miles from the California state line. It is the only site in the nation under study for storing the nation's commercial and military nuclear waste. Steve Brocoum, assistant manager for the project's Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance, and Bob Clark, the project's quality assurance manager, said all the calculations in question would be analyzed and corrected. The Energy Department is expected to forward its recommendation on the Yucca Mountain site next year to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. He'll follow with a recommendation to President Bush. The earliest the first load of nuclear waste could arrive is 2010. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Senate votes $4 million for fight against nuke waste dump [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By SEAN WHALEY DONREY CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- A bill appropriating $4 million in part to take Nevada's fight against the construction of a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain to residents of other cities and states passed the Senate on a unanimous vote Tuesday. Senate Bill 494, proposed by Gov. Kenny Guinn to also provide money for legal defense if the U.S. Energy Department recommends construction of a high-level nuclear waste dump in Nevada, will now be considered by the Assembly. The bill originally appropriated $5 million for the anti-dump efforts, but was reduced because of budget concerns. There was no discussion or debate before the Senate voted for the bill. Marybel Batjer, Guinn's chief of staff, testified for the measure earlier in the session. "The governor feels very strongly that protecting Nevada from nuclear waste is the most important issue facing Nevada now and into the future," she said. The Nevada Protection Account is also supported by Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa and Brian McKay, a former state attorney general who is chairman of the Commission on Nuclear Projects. Bob Loux, executive director of the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the original plan was to put about $1 million into the public information campaign and $4 million into legal defense. The funding distribution is flexible, however, and will now be re-evaluated based on the smaller appropriation, he said. Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the only site being studied to entomb the nation's highly radioactive waste. This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-30-Wed-2001/news/16207248.html ***************************************************************** 28 Errors in Yucca calculations found [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Documents predict how dump would handle elements By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff want Department of Energy scientists to correct some calculations related to how a proposed nuclear waste repository would endure inside Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Eight "technical errors and/or inconsistencies" in the repository's Total System Performance Assessment were pointed out to Yucca Mountain Project officials in a May 17 letter from the NRC's high-level waste branch chief, William Reamer. "DOE needs to document the preliminary results of its follow-up actions, provide formal documentation of the technical errors and/or inconsistencies corrections, and provide its final plans for the continued response to this matter," Reamer's letter says. His letter refers to errors in calculations on the chemistry of the waste packages and when they would fail; how fast some of the materials surrounding the waste would degrade over thousands of years; and doses that could result from a potential future volcanic release. Energy Department officials on Tuesday said the errors found by the NRC would have only a minimal effect on projections of how the repository would perform. But Bob Loux, Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency chief, said finding calculational errors "doesn't speak very well to DOE's accuracy to its performance assessment and its use as a tool for site suitability." "I think they've got a real big problem on their hands. They are going to have to go through and test every single assumption," Loux said. Yucca Mountain Project scientists said they are taking the NRC's concerns seriously, but they are still confident the proposed disposal site, with its engineered barriers, will meet the requirements for entombing 77,000 tons of the nation's most lethal radioactive waste. "I would say, based on how they look so far, it doesn't make a big difference in the end result. However, you don't want them to slip through the system," said Steve Brocoum, the Yucca Mountain Project's assistant manager for the Office of Licensing and Regulatory Compliance. Brocoum and the project's quality assurance manager, Bob Clark, said all the calculations in question would be analyzed and corrected. Ultimately, the performance assessment, along with other documents, will be used by decision-makers to determine whether the site is suitable and can safely contain highly radioactive wastes -- mostly spent fuel pellets encased in metal rods -- for at least 10,000 years. "All those calculations will be checked to make sure we're not underestimating peak doses," Brocoum said in a telephone interview. He said the issues would be discussed at a meeting in Washington next month with NRC staff members. Loux noted the methods used by the Department of Energy mask deficiencies with the Yucca Mountain Project in forecasting when nuclear materials could escape into the environment and how that would translate to radiation exposure to the public. "It could be 25 millirems. Or, it could be 25,000 millirems. That's a hell of a boost in uncertainty," he said, referring to a possible margin of error if one radiation standard proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is finally adopted. "DOE says there are no show-stoppers, but they don't know because the Total System Performance Assessment doesn't allow you to see them," Loux said. ***************************************************************** 29 Letter: Yucca Clout [Las Vegas Review-Journal] Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal To the editor: Sen. Harry Reid has just notified us that the fix is in. He is not going to attempt to drastically reduce funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository ("Reid intends caution with clout on Yucca," May 25). He does not believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will approve the site. Really? He has to know better. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the Senate, everyone who held their noses and voted for Bush/Cheney had to believe that at least Nevada had a chance of escaping the label of nuclear waste dump. Apparently not. Can't be done, according to Sen. Reid and the "experts." Then how did current minority Republican Sen. Pete Domenici keep the dump from going to the most geologically suitable site? That would be Sen. Domenici's New Mexico. I guess being in the Democratic leadership must be different than being in the Republican leadership. Slightly less interesting is retired lawyer/columnist Barbara Robinson's take on this. It is still the Republicans' fault. Get real. There is plenty of blame for both political monopolies/parties. And, Ms. Robinson, having been a lawyer, I had assumed you might have read the Nevada state constitution. It specifically states that we cannot secede from the United States. However, if you want to lead a fight to restore the right of secession to the citizens of Nevada, I am with you. Just tell me where to send the letters begging for our freedom. BRIAN KOMINSKY LAS VEGAS This story is located at: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2001/May-30-Wed-2001/opinion/16187017.html ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 Sheen Narrates Anti-Nuke Video May 30, 2001 OAK RIDGE, Tenn.- Martin Sheen, a veteran anti-nuke activist, has narrated a video that encourages demonstrations against nuclear warhead production at the Y-12 Plant. "Coming to the gates of Y-12 makes a stand for peace," Sheen says in "Stop The Bombs," a video produced by the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance. "It helps to spread the word and create pressure to convert from nuclear weapons work to cleanup and restoration. Everyone has an important role. We can stop the bombs, but we cannot do it without you." Ralph Hutchison, group coordinator, said the 24-minute video was produced last year and has become popular with activists. "People around the country are having video parties," he said, noting more than 130 copies have been distributed. The Y-12 Plant makes parts for the MX missile system and stores highly enriched uranium used in warheads. Sheen, the 60-year-old actor who plays President Josiah Bartlet on the NBC drama "The West Wing," gave his services for free. He may attend a future protest against Y-12, organizer Paloma Galindo said. The U.S. Department of Energy facility has been targeted by protests since 1998. About 300 people marched to the plant gates in April, with about 30 arrested for trespassing. Another protest is planned Aug. 6, the anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan. The bomb was developed in part at Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance: www.stopthebombs.org Department of Energy: http://www.energy.gov All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Committee Must Safeguard Public Health and Allow More Public Interest Input Statement of David Ritter Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program To the Committee on Alternatives for Controlling the Release of Solid Materials from Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Licensed Facilities, National Academy of Sciences* Thank you for the opportunity to present to this committee a public interest viewpoint that values public health and the integrity of the environment first and foremost among all considerations. Public Citizen, founded in 1971 by Ralph Nader, is an advocacy organization that exposes threats to health and safety and gives citizens a voice in Washington. Since 1974, Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy & Environment Program has worked on issues related to nuclear power, radioactive waste and energy production. We are quite concerned at the possibility that the committee might recommend to the NRC that radioactively contaminated solid materials be released from NRC-licensed facilities. Whether these releases would come under the guise of "restricted" or "unrestricted" release, or in the faux-green form of "recycling" or "beneficial reuse", Public Citizen stands adamantly opposed to any policy that facilitates such releases, and we are confident that such a stance is in line with that of our members and the vast majority of concerned Americans. Compounding our concern is the unbalanced agenda and skewed composition of the panel chosen to make presentations before the Committee. We believe that exposures to radiation should be prevented and reduced, not legally increased. Should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission make a rule that allows radioactively contaminated materials to be released into the marketplace or environment, this will impose multiple -and likely untraceable- forced exposures to radiation upon a public that has neither asked for nor consented to such. This action would clearly violate the principle of "informed consent", and not only for consumers in the marketplace; even those acting to avoid certain products could be exposed to radiation if materials in the public sphere were contaminated. The range of materials that could be released is broad: metals, concrete, wood, soil, plastics, paper, etc. The potential for widespread distribution of harmful radiation is nearly unlimited. Should radioactively contaminated materials be released, a person could prepare breakfast in a contaminated skillet, eat breakfast with contaminated utensils, retrieve the morning paper from a contaminated concrete porch, ride to work in a contaminated car, bus, or train, cross over a contaminated bridge, carry contaminated coins in a pocket close to the reproductive organs, speak all day on a contaminated phone, and relax in a park tainted with contaminated soil, all while breathing contaminated air from the emissions of a contaminated materials recycler. How would anyone know what is safe to use, own, or touch, and what is not? How would anyone realize when they might have exceeded the typical radiation dose estimated by health physicists? While cynical assumptions might be made that these exposures are "negligible", the truth is that each and every exposure increases one’s risk of developing cancer and a variety of health problems, and that forcing an accumulation of multiple exposures upon a non-consenting public shows a callous disregard for human life. Unfortunately, many releases have already occurred in the U.S., and still do occur. When these releases later contaminate other materials or are later detected, it can be difficult or impossible to determine their originating source. As of June 1997, a database maintained by the NRC showed over 2300 reports of radioactive materials found in recycled metal scrap. The pressure is on for the US to follow international standards in setting limits on how much radiation a person ought to receive within a year. Before considering such "harmonization" with global standards, it might be instructive to consider the degrees of radioactive contamination in some other nations, and incidents that indicate radioactive materials are not tightly monitored: + In January 1999 two Turkish scrap dealers were exposed to radiation (Cobalt 60) on the outskirts of Istanbul and were hospitalized. They were attempting to break up a two-ton block of iron and lead they had bought weeks before. + In April 2000, Uzbek State customs committee reported the interception of radioactive scrap traveling to Pakistan from Kazakhstan. An official statement said "…gamma rays emanating from the load had radiation levels which exceeded the safety level by over 100 times." + In March 2000, at a metal alloys plant in Tamworth, UK, a uranium metal bar was discovered "of a type used in the nuclear generating industry." + In Taiwan, radioactively contaminated steel in pipes and fittings were identified in buildings containing 1,600 apartments that were constructed between 1982-83. The apartments showed background radiation levels at more than 1,000 times that of most buildings in Taiwan. In mid-1998, 6,400 people had been identified as living in this radioactive environment for up to 16 years. The British medical journal The Lancet reported raised levels of cancer in occupants and also congenital disorders, unusual chromosomal and genetic damage. While American control over its own nuclear materials is not at all exemplary, it seems ill-advised to consider international harmonization. Certainly, the US needs to be a leader in setting the strictest regulations to protect the public health and environment. The motivations for such releases are clear enough. When it is cheaper to release the materials -and have them mix into a largely unregulated, uncontaminated product stream- than it is to store them in a properly monitored waste site, what NRC licensees euphemistically refer to as "radioactive recycling" is simply a cost-cutting tactic to improve the "bottom line." To knowingly expose the public to the radiation in these materials with the goal of saving money for the generators of those very same materials is the worst kind of cost-benefit analysis – precisely the kind which regulatory structures should guard against. Dealing responsibly with these materials can be an expensive activity, but it is unacceptable to transfer this liability to the public, in the form of unquantifiable health risks. The materials being discussed need to be isolated and tightly monitored. The NRC should require the permanent disposition of all such material in licensed waste disposal facilities equipped to handle them. There is absolutely no necessity whatsoever for releasing, reusing, or recycling these materials. Furthermore, the public does not want such releases. The public has an intuitive and intelligent objection to radiation exposures. Therefore, to make estimates of increased cancer risks, and describe such risks as "reasonable" or "acceptable", is an abuse of science. Neither economics nor science exist in a vacuum. Public health should always come first, and never be subordinate to financial considerations. The benefits of the free release of these materials all go to the nuclear industry. There are no benefits to people; we are just asked to accept an increase in our exposures to radiation. In this case, where much still remains unknown about the precise cumulative effects of low-level radiation exposure, a precautionary principle must apply and conservative regulations must be adopted to be sure that mistakes made are more likely to harm a corporate bank account than a human being. If the nuclear industries can’t afford to deal responsibly with their own by-products, this is only further evidence that the industry is not economically viable. There may be some here today who disagree with the assessment of Dr. John Gofman, nuclear physicist and former director of the Livermore National Laboratory, who said: "There is no safe dose or dose rate below which dangers disappear. No threshold-dose. Serious, lethal effects from *minimal* radiation doses are not ‘hypothetical,’ ‘just theoretical,’ or ‘imaginary.’ They are real." Still, responsible decisions made by this committee should seriously consider his assessment. Frequently, we are told that "the world is a radioactive place" and that we are always exposed to some naturally occurring background levels of radiation. First, it should be remembered that mankind has, in many areas, increased background levels by his nuclear activities. Secondly, the implied logical error should be rejected by any thinking person. Just because some level of background radiation exists, this does not justify adding more radiation to the environment. Since I have just addressed one logical fallacy, I would like to address another fallacy that we were offered yesterday, in which airport security was compared to the nuclear power plant decontamination & decommissioning (d&d) process. It was suggested that, just in the same way that it is completely impractical and excessively burdensome for airport security to go through every bag of each passenger individually, so too is it impractical and excessively burdensome for the industry to crush all of their concrete (and all materials) and perform rigorous detection on it. The comparison is a poor one. The airlines and the public both benefit by some compromise being struck between expediency in lines and safety on the planes. Few would travel by plane if it meant waiting for 8 hours in line to get a bag checked. Yet, for nuclear plant decontamination & decommissioning (d&d), the public does NOT benefit from the industry doing things quickly and cutting corners on safety to save money. The public only needs a decommissioned reactor, and does not need it quickly, with the least expense to the industry. Only the industry benefits from cost-cuttting in d&d. This is not the first time that the NRC has attempted to give the nuclear industry a break at public expense. In 1986, and again in 1990, the NRC adopted two "below regulatory concern" (BRC) policies, which would have released radioactive waste and materials from regulatory control. The material could have been used in everyday consumer products, manufacturing practices, or unloaded in household garbage dumps, sewers, and incinerators--all without notifying the public or labeling the products. The outcry resulting from these policies was loud and clear. Grassroots efforts led to passage of local and state ordinances and resolutions that required ongoing regulatory control of such BRC waste. As a result, Congress wisely revoked the NRC’s BRC policies in 1992. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry’s influence over the agencies regulating them has persisted. Although we are spared the irresponsible phrase "below regulatory concern," we are now barraged with technical minutiae regarding dose assessments and probabilistic analyses all designed to convince us that (in their terms) "a marginal risk to safety" is acceptable if it saves the industry money. Public Citizen fought hard against BRC, and we intend to challenge any decision that would result in radioactively contaminated materials being released into the marketplace or the environment generally. Public Citizen finds it highly objectionable that initiatives for regulatory retreats should come from the regulated community itself. For the NRC to appease the nuclear industry by considering a reduction in its regulatory role is indicative of the weakness of the agency. This overly friendly state of affairs should not surprise anyone. Two months before Congress struck down BRC in 1992, the NRC began a contractual relationship with a private contractor called Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and renewed this contract in 1999. SAIC prepared NUREG 1640 -entitled "Radiological Assessments for Clearance of Equipment and Materials from Nuclear Facilities"- which provided the technical basis for a process that pursued release, reuse, and recycling of radioactive materials. The strategy to pursue release was essentially indistinguishable from BRC, in that the entire process was predicated on the belief that radioactive recycling WOULD take place. SAIC also maintained a business relationship with British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. (BNFL) as a teaming partner in the quarter billion dollar contract at the DOE’s Oak Ridge, Tennessee facility, to release 127,000 tons of radioactive metals, including volumetrically contaminated nickel. Clearly, use of the phrase "conflict of interest" in this instance would be a gross understatement. Such scenarios beg the question: Who is regulating whom? While a rule allowing the release of these materials would likely have a negative effect on the NRC’s image and the public’s confidence in the agency, their record thus far in regulating radioactive materials is hardly laudable. In November of last year Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1) in Connecticut filed a licensee event report (LER) in which the whereabouts of two full-length irradiated fuel rods could not be determined, and was not properly tracked in the Special Nuclear Material (SNM) records. According to the LER, the rods have not been seen since 1980. These rods, which together contain over 7000 grams of uranium and 40 grams of plutonium, are high-level waste. One might reasonably think that the industry and the NRC would maintain absolute control over these materials – materials that even they concede to be dangerous. Apparently, that is an unreasonable assumption. One hates to fathom how the NRC assesses and regulates innumerable bits and pieces of contaminated rubble. The National Academy of Sciences should also be concerned that if the Committee should choose to recommend release, reuse, or recycling of these materials, this could cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the Academy as a body that provides "independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine" and make "efforts to improve the health, education, and welfare of the population." To recommend radioactive release of these materials rather than their continued isolation and regulation for their dangerous lifetime would be to prioritize the interests of the nuclear industry and its so-called regulators over the interests of the public. It would essentially be using the entire nation as a laboratory, wherein the experiment would be to determine the cumulative, long-term effects of repeated forced exposures to radiation. There would be no control group, as we would all be susceptible. Certainly, this could not be an effort to improve the health or welfare of the population. Public Citizen is concerned about the bias of this committee. It appears that the committee has chosen to give the nuclear industry more of its time and undivided attention during this meeting than it has given to the public interest community. We hope that this bias can be corrected in all future meetings. Lastly, we ask that this NAS committee recommend to the NRC that any and all materials that have been radioactively contaminated be isolated and contained from humans and the environment generally for their entire dangerous lifespan. Such a recommendation by the NAS committee, and a stringent rule by the NRC reflecting that protective stance, would set both agencies on course to fulfilling their prescribed missions. May independent, sound science and ethical principles be your guiding motivations. Thank you. ***************************************************************** 3 Radioactive material discovered in pipe Inland Empire Online - News Thursday, May 31, 2001 *THE ASSOCIATED PRESS* SAN BERNARDINO Officials have found radioactive leftovers from the Cold War in an industrial waste pipeline that is due to be cleaned up in the next few months at San Bernardino International Airport. There is no evidence the material has contaminated groundwater, and there does not appear to be any threat to the public, officials said. "It was a big surprise," said Adela Weinstein, project manager for the state Department of Toxic Substances Control. "The levels in the waste line are very, very low." The contamination did not originate on the former Norton Air Force Base, which used to sit where the airport is now, officials said. The only explanation they can find is that rain carried the material out of the air during the 1950s and early 1960s, when nuclear bombs were still being tested in the atmosphere. The clean-up plan calls for another internal video inspection of the pipe, sampling of material still inside, soil sampling around weak or broken parts of the pipe, and another flushing, which will be tested for radiation and other contamination. Finally, the pipe will be sealed with concrete. *Published 5/30/2001* Press-Enterprise ***************************************************************** 4 W. Jordan Marks Treaty Completion, Says Goodbye to Russian Inspectors The Salt Lake Tribune -- Col. Andrey Fedorchenko, head of the Russian inspection team, pours soil brought from Votkinsk, Russia, onto a tree being planted Tuesday at the West Jordan International Peace Center to commemorate the end of the monitoring phase of the U.S.-Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty of 1987. Votkinsk, West Jordan's sister city, was where the U.S. inspection team worked. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune) BY DAWN HOUSE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE WEST JORDAN -- World ceremonies marking the end of a treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons culminated Tuesday in songs and speeches at the city's peace park. "It's historic,'' said Andy Hind, a West Jordan High School senior and choir member who participated in the ceremonies. "I'll remember this." Russian dignitaries presented the high school and city with books, flowers and thanks for the 13 years inspectors lived in West Jordan under terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The agreement called for full-time inspectors to live and work in the United States and Russia to ensure that no more banned missiles were being manufactured. Russian inspectors monitored Alliant TechSystems and lived in a housing compound in West Jordan, while their American counterparts monitored a missile plant in Votkinsk, Russia. During the duration of the treaty, all ground-launched missile systems with ranges of about 300 miles to 3,000 miles were destroyed. Today, Russian technicians will return home. The two nations will continue to refrain from producing the outlawed weapons, but the Russians will no longer be monitoring. A small building used as the Russians' data control center, as well as monitoring equipment, photographs and unclassified documents, will be turned over to the U.S. government, which will donate the items to the Utah Historical Society, U.S. Air Force historian Sgt. Kirk Clear said. Valery Ledvanov, assistant director of the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant, presented West Jordan Mayor Donna Evans with a fragment of the hull of a banned SS20 missile that Ledvanov's plant once produced. "It's kind of fun to do the impossible,'' said Matthew Fernandez, vice chairman of the West Jordan Sister City Committee, quoting "that great American, Walt Disney." "And gentlemen," he told the two dozen Russian inspectors and dignitaries, "you have done that.'' "We are leaving behind many friends,'' Russian Maj. Gen. Sergey Burutin said. This "noble cause has brought our nations together." During the past several weeks, ceremonies were conducted in Washington, D.C., Moscow and Votkinsk to mark the expiration of the treaty, which called for the destruction of nearly 2,700 nuclear weapons. In Utah, the last inspection was conducted Monday, when Russian technicians patrolled the plant's perimeter gates. American inspectors in Votkinsk will remain, however, under terms of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, an agreement that is modeled after the old INF Treaty. West Jordan and Votkinsk will remain sister cities. ***************************************************************** 5 Senators seek to fix omission in Hanford health act This story was published Sat, May 26, 2001 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Both Washington senators said Friday they are concerned about a provision that would deny most surviving children of Hanford workers benefits from a program set up to compensate those made ill by working at the nuclear site. On Friday the federal Labor Department published proposed regulations for the program based on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Workers at Hanford and other sites who fell sick because of exposure to radiation or the metal beryllium while doing nuclear work for the Department of Energy would be eligible for $150,000 and coverage of related future medical bills. The widows, widowers and parents of those who have already died would be eligible to collect the $150,000. However, if Hanford workers left only children, they cannot collect the compensation unless they were 18 or younger when their parent died. "I think we need to keep our promise to compensate all victims of nuclear programs and that includes the adult children," said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. The exclusion of adult children was apparently an unintended consequence of the act, and she will work with colleagues to see if the law can be changed. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said through a spokesman she appreciates the sacrifices made by nuclear workers during World War II and the Cold War and the compensation program was designed to recognize that sacrifice. She "will work with her colleagues in Congress to address the shortcomings in the legislation if the beneficiaries were accidentally omitted from coverage," said her spokesman, Todd Webster. Because cancer develops slowly, many of those who could have fallen ill and died from their exposure to radiation were in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Ken Staley of Richland, who did nuclear work at Hanford and in Alaska for more than three decades starting in 1946, said he's seen three co-workers die from cancer in the last nine months as the legislation was enacted. One, an electrical maintenance supervisor, left only a son and sister. Neither is likely to be eligible for the compensation as the legislation currently is written. "The families should be compensated for what (workers) endured -- you bet they should," Staley said. The proposed regulations published Friday in the Federal Register give a more detailed look at qualifications for the program. Public meetings to further explain the regulations will be scheduled, including one in Richland. It's tentatively set for June 12, although the time and place have not been announced. "This is the first step of many toward implementing a very complicated compensation program," said Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. "As part of our commitment to helping those workers who were harmed in service to our country, we want to make sure this program is launched correctly and on time." The Associated Press reported workers with cancer at Hanford and other DOE sites must meet the following criteria to be eligible: n They were not sick before they began doing work at a nuclear complex. n They developed leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic), multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkins lymphoma or cancer of the bone, thyroid, breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile duct, gall bladder, salivary gland, bladder, brain, colon or ovary. Lung and liver cancer also are covered with some exceptions. n The government rules that harm was sustained "in the performance of duty" and the cancer "was at least as likely as not" related to their work, based on radiation dose levels and other factors. n Researchers would face slightly different rules, including working for DOE for at least two years. Those who developed chronic beryllium disease also would be eligible for compensation. However, those who show a sensitivity to beryllium, which indicates they have been exposed and may later develop the respiratory ailment, will have medical screening covered but will not receive the full compensation package. The Labor Department and DOE plan to open a resource center in the Tri-Cities to administer the program. Although no opening has been scheduled, Labor is working to open it well before the end of July. Starting Thursday, Labor will have a toll-free number, 866-888-3322, to answer questions about the compensation program. Updated information also will be posted at www.dol.gov on the Internet. Those who want to comment on the proposed regulations for the program may write to Office of Workers Compensation Program, c/o Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20210. Copyright 2001 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 6 Oak Ridge mercury in the news again May 26, 2001 Mercury and Oak Ridge will be linked forever or so it seems. During the Cold War 1950s, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant stockpiled much of the world's supply of mercury. It was needed to produce lithium compounds for use in the new and mighty H-bombs. Years later the environmental legacy of that program became a concern, and the government subsequently admitted - with the release of declassified documents in 1983 - that hundreds of tons of mercury had been spilled into local creeks or could not be accounted for otherwise. Thus, a scandal was born, prompting a megabucks cleanup program in Oak Ridge that continues today. Y-12, meanwhile, still houses a substantial quantity of mercury (about 3.8 million pounds), and that has become a topic of discussion once again. Interestingly, only about 60 percent of the Y-12 mercury inventory belongs to the U.S. Department of Energy. The rest is owned by the Defense National Stockpile Center, the federal unit historically responsible for maintaining strategic supplies of dozens of commodities with potential national security ramifications. The DNSC, a part of the Defense Logistics Agency, is systematically divesting these materials. In fact, the agency sold quantities of its mercury stockpile up until 1994, when concerns about the metal's accumulation in the global environment brought those sales to a halt. The National Stockpile Center currently is preparing an environmental impact statement to evaluate its mercury management and to look at long-term options. Besides the 637 tons of mercury the DNFC stores at Y-12 (paying DOE $64,200 a year in rent), the agency maintains additional quantities at three of its own storage depots in Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey. Among the options under consideration: consolidate the entire mercury stockpile (more than 4,000 tons) at one site; sell the stuff; leave things as they are; chemically treat the toxic metal for possible disposal (there are no approved methods for disposal of elemental mercury). Defense officials hosted a meeting in Oak Ridge earlier this month to gather public comment on the mercury plans, although there were probably more folks in the DNSC's traveling entourage (about 15) than there were local participants. Oddly enough, there appeared to some confusion - or at least different stories - about the mercury stockpile in Oak Ridge and its history. According to a DNSC representative, the defense unit purchased its portion of the Y-12 mercury inventory from outside sources in the 1960s and brought it to Oak Ridge. Defense officials also went to some pain to note the mercury belonging to them had never been used in production of nuclear weapons and was not contaminated - suggesting that the other mercury housed at Y-12 may have been tainted by processing done years ago to separate lithium isotopes. The Department of Energy disputes that account, saying that all of the mercury stored at Y-12 was previously associated with the weapons program - including the mercury that now belongs to the Defense National Stockpile Center. Randy Riggs, DOE's property management officer in Oak Ridge, said he's not aware of any contamination in the mercury. But, before any of the material is sold or relocated, there probably would be a laboratory analysis to evaluate the condition, he said. DOE does periodically sell small quantities of mercury from its stockpile to other federal agencies. And, in recent times, some flasks of mercury were transferred to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for eventual use in the Spallation Neutron Source. All of the mercury - DOE's and the National Stockpile Center's - is stored in a warehouse (No. 9720-26) at the Y-12 weapons plant. Although Y-12 has a history of mercury spills and leaks, Riggs said the mercury inventory currently is in good shape. All of the mercury was transferred into new flasks in the 1970s. But DOE acknowledged there have been some safety-related problems at the site. "The mercury storage facility has experienced problems with roof leaks and compensatory measures have been required to prevent water leaks from causing the deterioration and possible failure of wooden pallets," DOE said in a statement. "These measures included construction of a diked area to catch water from roof leaks until roof repairs were made. Maintenance projects to patch the warehouse roof have been completed; however, replacement of the warehouse roof is needed." The National Stockpile Center is accepting public comments on the environmental impact statement until June 30. For more information on the mercury project, people may visit the Web site at: www.mercuryeis.com. It's also possible to provide verbal comments using this toll-free telephone number: 1-888-306-6682. [E.W. Scripps] Copyright © 1999-2001, The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. * ***************************************************************** 7 Labor Department sets policy for compensation plan Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:28 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 by Paul Parson Oak Ridger staff The Department of Labor has beat its May 31 deadline for releasing regulations governing a plan to provide compensation to workers suffering from illnesses related to their work at federal nuclear facilities. Regulations pertaining to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act appeared in Friday's Federal Register. The compensation plan offers $150,000 plus lifetime medical benefits to workers whose health was ruined by Cold War-era exposure to radiation, silica or beryllium The regulations, which go into effect July 24, establish procedures for filing applications and determining compensation eligibility. The Labor Department will begin processing compensation and medical benefit claims on July 31. Although the Department of Labor will administer compensation and medical benefits, three other departments share some responsibilities under the plan, including: + The Department of Energy's Office of Worker Advocacy will help workers file state workers' compensation claims and list facilities where covered workers were employed. + The Department of Health and Human Services will establish guidelines for estimating radiation doses and the likelihood that they caused a worker's cancer. + The Justice Department is obligated to notify uranium workers eligible for benefits under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that they may also receive compensation under the energy workers' program. Additionally, on Thursday, the Department of Labor will launch a toll-free number, 1-866-888-3322, that affected workers can call with questions about the compensation program. The toll-free number can also be used to request application forms. More information on the regulations is available at the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy Web site at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/laws/laws.html. All Contents ©Copyright* The Oak Ridger * ***************************************************************** 8 QUICK ACTION--Chao jump-starts workers' program The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Wednesday, May 30, 2001 *Chao jump-starts workers' program* Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is proving to be an energetic and able advocate for ailing nuclear weapons plant workers and their families. Chao got off to a rocky start with supporters of a program Congress created last year to compensate workers, former workers and their surviving family members for illnesses the workers contracted as a result of exposure to hazardous materials in federal nuclear facilities. Workers at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Ill., are included in the compensation program. The labor secretary initially feared that her agency could not get the entitlement program, which is expected to process at least 70,000 claims a year, up and running by the July 31 deadline set by Congress. For a time, she lobbied to have the program transferred to the U.S. Department of Justice or another federal agency. This caused concern among congressional supporters of the program, including 1st District U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, who, along with Chao's husband, U.S. Sen. Mitch Connell, led the fight for the compensation legislation. Congress and the Clinton administration agreed last year that the Labor Department should handle the sick workers' claims. In mid-April, with the clock clicking down toward the July 31 deadline for the Labor Department to begin accepting applications for benefits, Chao set aside her reservations and began working hard to get the program on track. The results so far have been impressive. The Labor Department completed the final draft of the proposed regulations for the program and submitted it last week for publication in the Federal Register. By making this early deadline, Chao ensured that the Labor Department will be able to accept applications from workers and their families by July 31. It's easy to see why Chao hesitated in the face of the task of administering the compensation program. To prepare for the July 31 deadline, Labor Department officials will have to hire 300 claims adjusters and clerical employees. The agency will establish resource centers in Paducah and eight other cities nationwide. The U.S. Department of Energy has identified 317 sites in 37 states where workers exposed to contamination might qualify for benefits. Over the next four years the program is expected to pay out $1.8 billion in benefits. Clearly, the Labor Department has its work cut out for it. But the good news is that the agency has considerable experience administering large workers' compensation programs. Officials with the labor union that represents more than half the workers at Paducah's uranium enrichment plant and the architects of the compensation legislation are convinced the department is capable of processing claims in a timely manner. Workers and the families of deceased workers in Paducah generally have been impressed with Chao's response to the challenge of administering the program. The labor secretary received high marks for attentiveness and sincerity when she visited the Paducah facility last month. Word that she apparently will clear the most difficult hurdle — getting the machinery of the program in place by the end of July — undoubtedly will bolster her credibility with the workers. That's a significant achievement, given the federal government's record of broken promises in Paducah. A hope is that Chao will be able to restore some of the credibility the government lost by keeping nuclear weapons plant workers in the dark about their hazardous working conditions and then spending years denying responsibility for any illnesses they suffered. ***************************************************************** 9 EPA says Army may have to pay for Starmet cleanup costs By Associated Press, 5/29/2001 18:08 BOSTON (AP) The U.S. Army may have to pay for part of the cleanup of Starmet Corp.'s Concord facility, the former munitions manufacturing site where toxic drums may be buried, the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday. Starmet made depleted uranium armor-piercing bullets at the site until 1999, and the EPA will have to determine how to clean up the site and who is responsible for the costs. Starmet, formerly known as Nuclear Metals Inc., estimates the cleanup will cost between $18 million and $50 million. The EPA does not yet have an estimate, spokeswoman Alice Kaufman said. The EPA notified the Army in a May 25 letter. Starmet had been notified of its potential responsibility earlier this month. The EPA is also trying to determine whether other companies bear some responsibility, Kaufman said. Besides being a major Starmet contractor, the Army also owned some of Starmet's manufacturing equipment, Kaufman said. It now has 45 days to respond to the agency's notice and explain why it should not be held responsible for the cleanup costs. Financially strapped Starmet has so far failed in its attempts to get the Army to pay for the cleanup. Boston Globe Online: ***************************************************************** 10 Sununu: Honor the Thresher [The Concord Monitor online edition] 129 men died on submarine in 1963 Wednesday, May 30, 2001 By STEPHEN FROTHINGHAM Portsmouth PORTSMOUTH - Cold War secrecy is one reason the country has never erected a monument for the 129 men who died on the USS Thresher in 1963. At a ceremony yesterday in a park across Portsmouth Harbor from where the Thresher was built at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Rep. John E. Sununu and families of the men who died said it's time to build such a memorial. The monument "recognizes the sacrifice of those lost on the Thresher and ... recognizes those submariners lost in the line of duty for the United States," Sununu said. The Thresher, commissioned in 1961, sank in 5,500 feet 220 miles east of Boston two years later. Its crew of 16 officers, 96 enlisted men and 17 civilian technicians died. "Because the Thresher was a cutting edge nuclear submarine built at the height of the Cold War, information about its sinking was classified," Sununu said. "However, nearly 40 years have passed and still no memorial exists to honor the men who gave their lives. It's time to honor their sacrifice," Sununu said. Shipyard Commander Vernon Williams said that "out of the tragedy of the Thresher came almost 40 years of safe submarine operations." The accident caused the Navy to reassess all safety policies for submarines, Williams said. Michael Di Nola Jr. was 9, the oldest of five children, when his father died on the Thresher. "Even though this made worldwide news, this was a really sensitive time," said Di Nola, who lives in Rye, adding that for years the military wouldn't release details about exactly where and why the submarine sank. "This was the world's first nuclear fast-attack submarine. There were rumors of Russian submarines sinking the Thresher," he said. In the last five to eight years the military has released more information about the sinking, although some sections of the released documents remain blacked out, he said. Most experts now believe faulty brazing on pipe fittings caused the Thresher to sink. Di Nola's father, a lieutenant commander on the Thresher, has had a marker in Arlington Cemetery for about 15 years. The families of some of the other men who died on the Thresher have never put up markers because military officials told them a monument would be built someday. "There is no place for families to go. And it's not just the kids now, it's grandchildren," Di Nola said. In a House resolution, Sununu has asked the Secretary of the Army to erect a monument in Arlington National Cemetery to honor the Thresher's victims and to all U.S. submariners who have died in the line of duty. The resolution was cosponsored by Reps. , a New Hampshire Republican and Thomas Allen and John Baldacci, both Maine Democrats. The Thresher was one of three U.S. submarines lost during the Cold War. Ninety-nine sailors died when the USS Scorpion sank in 1968. Seven died when the USS Cochino sank in 1949. During World War II, 52 American submarines were lost. © and New Hampshire Patriot P.O. Box 1177, Concord NH 03302 603-224-5301 ***************************************************************** 11 NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council Meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers held in Budapest on 29 May 2001 Story Filed: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 4:44 AM EST May 30, 2001 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- The NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC) met at the level of Foreign Ministers on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 in Budapest. Ministers noted with satisfaction progress achieved since their last meeting in December 2000. They examined future priorities of the PJC Work Programme for 2001 and reaffirmed their commitment to build, within the framework of the PJC, a more solid partnership in the interest of security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, as enshrined in the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Building on the useful exchanges held at PJC meetings at Ambassadorial level, Ministers reviewed the situation in the Balkans. They noted the high degree of common ground achieved through intensive dialogue and cooperation. Ministers reiterated their full commitment to the security, stability and territorial integrity of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia . They welcomed Skopje's efforts in isolating the extremist elements and preventing a further escalation of the crisis. They urged all ethnic groups to unite in solidarity against extremists and violence. Ministers welcomed the contributions made by the democratic government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to enhancing prospects for long-term stability across the region. They encouraged the continuation of efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problems in southern Serbia, taking into account the peace plan of the FRY/Serbia authorities which seeks to normalise inter-ethnic relations in this area. Ministers expressed their support for a democratic Montenegro within a democratic Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. They noted the danger of unilateral action and called for an early resumption of a constructive dialogue between the authorities in Belgrade and Podgorica, aiming at an agreed re-definition of federal relations. With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, they noted the good cooperation between the contingents of NATO and Russia in theatre. They reconfirmed their determination to implement the Dayton Peace Accords and UNSCR 1244 in all their aspects. In this context, they expressed deep concern about the recent challenges to the Dayton Peace Accords and strongly condemned the continued incidents of political and ethnic violence in and around Kosovo as well as extremist and terrorist activities. Ministers noted a Progress Report on the implementation of the PJC Work Programme for 2001 and expressed their satisfaction with the broad range of issues addressed in the PJC since their last meeting. These included, inter alia, Russian proposals for non-strategic missile defence, nuclear weapons issues, including inter alia NATO proposals for Confidence and Security Building Measures in the nuclear field, defence reforms, arms control, problems of proliferation, the retraining of discharged military personnel, combating international terrorism as well as dialogue on ways and means to improve cooperation in the EAPC and PfP. Ministers in particular welcomed the progress achieved in NATO-Russia cooperation on search and rescue at sea. Ministers welcomed the inauguration of the NATO Information Office in Moscow in February and looked forward to the contribution it will make to improve public understanding of evolving relations between NATO and Russia. NATO and Russia emphasised the importance they attach to the further development of military-to-military cooperation. In this context, Ministers welcomed the ongoing consultations on the establishment of a NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow (MLM). Ministers expressed their determination to take the NATO-Russia partnership further forward, making good use of the full potential of the Founding Act. They agreed to meet again at Ministerial level in Brussels on 6 December 2001. M2 Communications Ltd disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties. Further information on M2 PressWIRE can be obtained at http://www.presswire.neton the world wide web. Inquiries to info@m2.com. Copyright 1994-2001 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD ***************************************************************** 12 Russia, NATO reaffrim commitment to cooperation in Budapest Story Filed: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 2:34 AM EST MOSCOW, May 30, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) -- Russia and NATO reaffirmed commitment to further military co-operation at a session of the joint permanent council at a level of foreign ministers on Tuesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement circulated on Wednesday. According to the statement, the sides welcomed the opening of a NATO information office in the Russian capital last February, which is to promote awareness of progress in the bilateral ties, and the current talks on setting up the alliance's military communication mission in Moscow. The ministers highlighted the progress achieved since they met last December, considered the council's agenda for this year, and confirmed commitment to promoting security and stability in Europe and the North Atlantic region in line with the Russia-NATO Founding Act. The session also focused on the Balkans developments and stressed the value of an intensive dialogue and co-operation in achieving mutual understanding, the statement said. The sides appreciated a dialogue pursued within the council over the past year on non-strategic anti-missile defence proposed by Russia, NATO-drafted measures to promote trust and confidence in nuclear matters, the issues of armaments control, combatting terrorism, non-proliferation, retired servicemen retraining, and joint sea rescue operations. Next NATO-Russian meeting is to be held on December 6 this year in Brussels. (c) 1996-2001 ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 army 'guinea pigs' New Zealand Herald Online - Newspaper - Latest News New Zealand, Australian and British servicemen may have been exposed to depleted uranium, which has been blamed for higher cancer rates in Gulf War veterans, during British nuclear tests in Australia and the Pacific in the 1950s. The Australian government has confirmed that more than eight tonnes of depleted uranium were blasted into the air during weapons tests in the South Australian desert. The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that the material was also dispersed during explosions at Christmas Island in the Pacific. The confirmation followed revelations earlier this month that 24 soldiers tested protective clothing by crawling, marching or driving through a fall-out zone three days after a nuclear test in Australia in 1956. It had been thought that depleted uranium ­a radioactive heavy metal that is used in shells and can pierce the armour of a tank ­ was first used during the Gulf War in 1991. The British and Australian governments offered urine tests to soldiers exposed to it there and in the Balkans, after scientific studies linked it with a slightly higher rate of lung cancer among veterans. No such investigations have been carried out among the thousands of servicemen who took part in the nuclear weapons tests. The Australian Veteran Affairs Minister, Bruce Scott, yesterday said that a health study is to be conducted among surviving Australian test veterans, and causes of death of those who have died will also be established. Twelve atomic bombs were detonated on Australian territory between 1952 and 1957 ­ nine at Maralinga and three on the Monte Bello islands, off Western Australia. Geoff Williams, head of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, in an email to an Australian test veteran, Major Alan Batchelor, made the disclosure about depleted uranium, which on impact vaporises into a gas that can be inhaled or ingested. Mr Batchelor said that it was "capable of causing cancer in the lung, liver, kidney or blood-forming bone barrow". He said that if depleted uranium had harmed soldiers in the Gulf, "this could have been worse for servicemen working in areas close to ground zeros [the site of nuclear explosions], and with no follow-up action would have gone unnoticed". The MoD says material used in the 1950s was different to later versions and posed no significant threat to human health, except in extreme cases. Some scientists disagree. - INDEPENDENT ©Copyright 2001, NZ Herald ***************************************************************** 14 Pasko case to resume on June 4 Gregory Pasko, an investigative journalist who worked for the Pacific Fleet's newspaper, was arrested on 20 November 1997 by the FSB and charged with high treason for his writing about the nuclear safety issues in the Russian Pacific Fleet. Jump to section [Nuclear Chronicle] The "Nikitin-case of the Far East" will resume at the Court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok on June 4. Like the charges against Aleksandr Nikitin, the charges against Grigory Pasko do not endure a critical light. Jon Gauslaa, 2001-05-29 19:51 The Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court's acquittal of Aleksandr Nikitin on September 13, 2000 was considered as a victory for the rule of law. However, the case against Grigory Pasko, which contains more or less all the features of the Nikitin-case, shows that the rule of law is still under pressure in Russia. Pasko's trial will resume at the Court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok on June 4. Pasko worked for the newspaper of the Russian Pacific Fleet as an investigative journalist when he was arrested in Vladivostok on November 20, 1997. The FSB accused him of treason through espionage under Article 275 of the Russian Penal Code, claiming that he had handed over to the Japanese TV-channel NHK "secret" information on nuclear safety issues in the Pacific Fleet. Amnesty International adopted Pasko as a prisoner of conscience in February 1999 (AI Index EUR 46/07/99). In July the same year, the Court of the Pacific Fleet acquitted him of treason through espionage, but found him guilty of 'abuse of official authority' under Article 285 of the Penal Code, although he never had been charged with that crime. Pasko was sentenced to three years, but released since he had served 20 months in pre-trial detention. The Military Collegium of the Russian Supreme Court cancelled the verdict on November 21, 2000, and returned the case to the Vladivostok Court, for a new evaluation of the charges of treason through espionage. Observers have considered the decision as a negative signal regarding the legal development in Russia. "The Nikitin-case of the Far East" There are a huge number of similarities between the two cases. Thus, it is no overstatement to denote the Pasko-case as "the Nikitin-case of the Far East". While Nikitin was accused of having revealed information on radioactive safety issues in the Russian Northern Fleet, Pasko is accused of having revealed similar information regarding the Pacific Fleet. In both cases the disputed information is related to the condition of the environment and can thus, according to Article 7 of the Federal Law on State Secrets and Article 42 of the Russian Constitution, not be classified as state secrets. Besides, the information Pasko is accused of having "revealed" was in all essentials already available in the public domain. The charges against Pasko are - like the charges against Nikitin - based on the conclusions of the experts of the 8th Department of the Russian General Staff. The conclusions are even drawn by the same individuals, and based on the secret decrees of the Ministry of Defence and not on the officially published legislation on state secrets. When one of the experts was confronted with their use of secret decrees at the trial against Nikitin in St. Petersburg in December 1999, he said that they considered any other legal acts than the decrees of the Ministry of Defence as irrelevant. Thus, also the charges against Pasko lack a valid legal foundation and violate Articles 15 (3) and 54 of the Constitution. A closer analysis of the case materials, also leaves a highly unclear picture of what actions Pasko actually are accused of, and of why his actions are considered as punishable. Most of what the prosecution seems to try to "prove" has little significance for the charges. Thus, in conformity with the Nikitin-case, the case also lacks a proper factual foundation. Moreover, the case is characterised by several other violations. The investigation is mostly carried out by persons without authorisation. A number of investigative steps have been taken without necessary Court orders. Consequently, most of the material that the prosecution refers to as "evidence" (although its content is absolutely innocent) is illegally obtained and should be excluded from the case according to the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. Some evidence is even directly falsified. The Vladivostok Court addressed the latter in a separate ruling on July 20, 1999. Nevertheless, the charges are still based on illegally obtained and falsified evidence. The last acquittal? While Nikitin obtained full redress, the outcome of the Pasko-case is highly uncertain. In a country truly ruled by law, the Nikitin-acquittal would have formed a precedent that also would have determined the Pasko-case. However, it takes more than one decision to establish a precedent and particularly in a legal system where traditionally little or no importance has been attached to previous court decisions. In its edition of September 14, 2000, the leading Russian daily "Sevodnya" stressed that the acquittal of Nikitin is no guarantee against a negative legal development. Under the headline "the first and the last acquittal" it pointed out that the legal basis for the acquittal had been developed in the liberal political climate that ruled Russia in the early 1990'ies. However, now this climate was gone and thus, one would see no more acquittals. Whether Sevodnya's gloomy predictions will come true or not, remains to be seen, but several features in the Russian society may seem to lead towards totalitarianism. In particular, the independent parts of the media have been put under strong pressure. Since Pasko is a journalist also the process against him could be seen as a part of this pattern. It is also noteworthy that an increasing number of persons with tight connections to the KGB/FSB have obtained leading positions in the society. It may still be too early to draw bombastic conclusions on whether this tendency also will reflect itself in the form of designs against the independence of the Courts. The decision of the Supreme Court to cancel the acquittal of Pasko is, however, not a positive signal. The new trial in Vladivostok is expected to continue for at least two months. Whatever the decision will be, it will likely be appealed to the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court. Thus, the final outcome of the case - which might be even more significant for the development of the rule of law in Russia than the Nikitin-case - lies well into the future. Publisher: , President: Frederic Hauge Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************