***************************************************************** 07/03/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.169 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Group criticizes Bush air plan 2 US hampering construction of nuke plant in Iran 3 Firm pitched plan for plutonium to be sent to Canada, letter shows 4 Secret plan to revive UK nuclear power industry* NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 Control Yuan faults government over nuclear plant fiasco 6 US: Feds missed Davis-Besse safety mess 7 US: Chances to identify corrosion 8 Ling'ao Nuclear Power Station Begins Commercial Operation 9 US: Congressmen hear Nebraska's preparation for attacks 10 Nuclear expert gives Plymouth his accident worst case scenario NUCLEAR SAFETY 11 US: [radiation-survivors] NEW STUDY SHEDS LIGHT ON FROG 12 Moscow’s drawbacks: The capital is like another Chernobyl 13 US: S.C. judge overturns order closing plant 14 US: Progress seen on state's potassium iodide policy 15 Was depleted uranium used in Afghanistan? 16 Georgia to search for nuclear material near Abkhazia 17 US: On compensation for sick defense workers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 18 US: Yucca: Disposing of danger 19 US: County joins city and state in Yucca Mountain lawsuit 20 US: U.S. chamber joins pro-Yucca chorus 21 US: OP: It’s time to move into nuclear age 22 US: Chamber of Commerce runs pro-Yucca ads 23 US: Yucca: More than another NIMBY case - 24 US: Yucca: Public Citizen Requests Documents Used by DOE to Assess 25 US: Guinn says Nevadans don't blame Bush for Yucca Mountain 26 US: Michigan senator comes out against Yucca Mountain project 27 US: Waste foes press issue 28 Sellafield waste tanks 'pose an undue risk' NUCLEAR WEAPONS 29 US: The US nuclear attack on Hiroshima paved the way for September 30 US: Nuke weapons project may move to NTS 31 Iraq Promises Progress in U.N. Talks 32 China Reportedly Buying Russia Subs US DEPT. OF ENERGY 33 Nuclear lab moving from Los Alamos to test site 34 Accelerating Cleanup OTHER NUCLEAR 35 Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid says he was aware of the historic ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Group criticizes Bush air plan Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal White House calls report inaccurate By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL A government watchdog group attacked the Bush administration's environmental policies Tuesday, claiming in a report that residents of Nevada and other states risk health impacts from power companies that pollute air and water supplies. But a White House spokesman quickly questioned the report's accuracy, saying the president's policy on air quality aims to reduce power plant emissions. The report, "America's Environment at Risk," by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, says the administration's clean air plan "actually increases power plant emissions relative to current Clean Air Act standards and guts the New Source Review Program, the `teeth' of the Clean Air Act." With a weakened program to review new sources of pollution, some 60 oil refineries, power plants and other facilities in Nevada are allowed to increase emissions of soot, smog and toxic mercury, according to the report by the group based in Washington, D.C. The report cites the Mohave Generating Station and the Reid Gardner power plant in Clark County, and the Valmy power plant in Humboldt County as examples of facilities allowed to increase emissions under Bush administration policies. "What we're asking citizens to do is let the Bush administration know not to let big corporations trample environmental laws," said David Allen, the group's field organizer for Nevada. White House spokesman Ken Lisaius said the group's report is incorrect. Instead, he said the president's Clear Skies Initiative calls for modernization of energy efficiency programs while reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury from electric power generation at levels significantly below current requirements. The report estimates that power plants in Nevada released 565 pounds of mercury in 2000, tainting air, land and water with the neurotoxin. A couple drops of mercury in a 25-acre lake is enough to contaminate it to the point that fish living in it would be unsafe to eat, Allen said. The report comes a week after U.S. PIRG released a 63-page report,"Radioactive Roads and Rails," which shows possible routes where trucks and trains could haul spent nuclear fuel across the nation to reach the government's proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 2 US hampering construction of nuke plant in Iran ©The Frontier Publications (Pvt) Updated on 7/3/2002 12:28:39 PM F.P. Report Islamabad: USA in pursuance of Israel’s policy of not letting any Muslim country to acquire nuclear weapons has been pressurizing Russia not to go ahead with the construction of the $800 million Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran. Stratfor, the global intelligence company, has reported that Russian government is under pressure from the United States, due to concerns that Iran may be trying to acquire nuclear weapons, may be too much for the increasingly pro-West Russian president toignore. Iran will try to keep Russia engaged as long as possible, but in the meantime will be looking for Moscow’s replacement. Stratfor claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to gradually end Moscow’s involvement in building a 1,000-maegawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr, 500 miles south of Tehran. In bending to enormous U.S. government pressure, and yet not wanting to appear subservient, Putin will act quietly but surely. Stratfor’s report said that the strategy is already evident in the deliberate leaking of recent internal government documents, including those detailing the failure of Russia to secure a guarantee that Iran will return spent nuclear fuel from the reactor - which could be converted into weapons-grade plutonium - to Moscow, the Guardian reported June 24. The Middle East Newsline also reports that Tehran is opposing a Moscow proposal to institute a stronger inspection regime for the Bushehr plant. The future of the reactor has become a critical geopolitical issue for the United States, Iran, Russia, Israel and other Middle East and international players. Washington’s efforts to block construction of the Bushehr plant come from a desire to prevent Tehran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Moreover, if a conflict did break out with the United States, Washington’s huge advantage in high-tech conventional weapons capabilities would quickly become apparent. Tehran thus believes it must acquire nuclear arms as a weapon of last resort, either to help counter Washington’s military dominance or serve as a deterrent. With Iraq weakened by its Gulf War defeat and the resulting blockade - and awaiting a possible U.S. military attack - Israel’s main concern about an Islamic atomic bomb rests with Iran. During U.S. President George W. Bush’s visit to Russia last May, Israel sent a high-level government delegation to Moscow to make its case to both the Americans and Russians about shutting down construction on the Bushehr reactor. After the end of the Cold War, and before Putin started changing his geopolitical orientation toward Washington post-Sept. 11, Russia enjoyed close military, technical and political cooperation with Iran. For instance, Moscow secured contracts and promises totaling almost $5 billion to sell conventional arms to Iran. But the single-most lucrative contract came when the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry reached the agreement with Iran to build the Bushehr plant for $800 million. Unlike vague promises made by Washington to encourage U.S. investment in Russia, these deals brought Moscow immediate and much-needed cash. This is why the Russian government has been hesitant to bow to the U.S. demand to stop building the reactor even amid the growing U.S.-Russian alliance. Tehran will use the fact that there is no clearly spelled promise by Iran to return all spent nuclear fuel to Russia in the current agreement. It will also point to the fact that the International Agency for Atomic Energy recently made an inspection of the Bushehr reactor and said that there has been no violation of the non-proliferation agreement found. However, Washington will not relent in its pressure to stop the construction and has made it clear that no matter what Putin has already done, he should quit helping the Iranians with the Bushehr plant now. For instance, John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state on arms control, has said the future of Washington’s relationship with Moscow depends largely on whether Russia stops exporting dangerous weapons materials to Iran, Reuters reported June 11. So although he will call for continued Russian-Iranian cooperation on the nuclear plant in public, Putin will quietly cooperate with Washington by first advancing new proposals on tighter international control over the nuclear reactor and then by sticking to his request to have all spent fuel returned. The number of Russian nuclear engineers and scientists working on the reactor will also be reduced to the minimum, and those remaining will not be able to complete the construction and secure the desired launch of the plant. This will still not stop Iran’s determination to have the reactor built and working. But Tehran will look to countries whose expertise can replace the current Russian effort. In fact, even though Russian nuclear expertise is by far the most advanced compared to all potential candidates, the government is already quietly talking with several nations on the matter, according to Iranian diplomatic sources in Europe. Since Washington has made its position on Bushehr clear, many countries are not likely to help Iran with its construction, no matter how much they may be convinced that it is a peaceful project. Still, there are some states that might be willing to take the risk for either geopolitical or economic reasons, or both. Among them could be China, France, India, Brazil, South Africa, Belarus and Malaysia. © Copyright 2001 The Frontier Post ***************************************************************** 3 Firm pitched plan for plutonium to be sent to Canada, letter shows [The Globe and Mail] [/globeandmail.com] By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT ENVIRONMENT REPORTER Tuesday, July 2, 2002 – Page A4 Plutonium from surplus Cold War nuclear weapons should be shipped to Canada because the United States and Russia can't be trusted not to turn this fissile material back into bombs, a consulting firm working for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. says. The unusual assertion is made in a letter by Gamma Engineering Corp., a firm that AECL used in 1996 to help it try to win a controversial contract to have a Canadian nuclear-power plant on the shores of Lake Huron use for fuel the plutonium from dismantled U.S. nuclear bombs. Although the AECL proposal to have Canada accept about 50 tonnes of U.S. bomb material was turned down by the U.S. Department of Energy in late 1999, a similar proposal based on Russian warheads has not been turned down formally. The letter was obtained by The Globe and Mail through Ontario's Freedom of Information Act, following an order by the province's Information and Privacy Commissioner that forced the release of some documents held by Ontario Hydro on the plutonium proposal. Another document prepared by AECL says that Ontario Hydro hoped to charge the U.S. government about $750-million over 12 years for having its reactors irradiate the plutonium. The issue of eradication of nuclear weapons was raised at last week's Group of Eight summit in Kananaskis, Alta. The destruction technique proposed in the letter obtained by The Globe is one of the few that would cater to the G8 desire to destroy Russian bomb material, rather than simply decommission it. Gamma Engineering, a Maryland-based nuclear-research firm, sent the letter questioning the trustworthiness of future Russian and U.S. governments to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation. The firm contends that Canada, with its long record of rejecting nuclear weapons, would be an ideal permanent depository for surplus Cold War plutonium, and its location would prevent it from being used again for bombs. "Having the materials disposed of in a third, neutral, non-weapons state is truly irreversible, since it will preclude access to this weapons plutonium by future governments in either Russia or the U.S," it says. In the letter, the company said it isn't taking its position at the request of AECL, but it is the personal view of Herbert Feinroth, Gamma's president. In an interview, Mr. Feinroth reiterated that the letter reflects his views, but after writing it he gave copies to AECL, for whom he still performs work, and to Ontario Hydro. "I sent that letter as a citizen of the United States. They were asking for public input, and I sent it," he said. But the letter, written in July of 1996, sheds new light on an offer Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made in Moscow that year at a G8 summit to have Canada use one of its atomic-power plants to irradiate plutonium from dismantled Cold War atomic weapons as a disarmament measure. At the time, the U.S. Dept. of Energy was studying ways to dispose of Russian and U.S. warheads to prevent their fissile material from being turned back into bombs or falling into the hands of terrorists. Irradiation in CANDU reactors at the Bruce A nuclear station was one option under consideration. Mr. Chrétien made the proposal to use the Canadian reactors as a swords-to-plowshares, high-profile disarmament offer, suggesting that the plutonium would be rendered unusable for new nuclear bombs once it had passed through Canadian reactors to produce electricity. However, the letter by Mr. Feinroth indicates that not all the plutonium would be destroyed in the reactor and that future governments could retrieve the remaining material, then use it to build new bombs, unless the fissile material were safely removed to a third country that has no nuclear-weapons ambitions. The U.S. Department of Energy decided to award the contract for the use of plutonium in power plants to electric utilities in the United States. ***************************************************************** 4 Secret plan to revive UK nuclear power industry* NewScientist.com 19:00 03 July 02 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition Deep within the British government, officials are laying secret plans to push through a major programme of new nuclear power stations. According to internal policy briefings leaked to *New Scientist*, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) wants to speed up safety checks of new reactors and is discussing ways to soften up public opposition to nuclear power. Electricity costs The plan is for Britain to follow the US lead and end the slump suffered by the West's nuclear power industry since the accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine 16 years ago. In February, the US Energy Secretary, Spencer Abraham, announced plans to build a new nuclear power plant by 2010, aided by a "more efficient, effective and predictable" system of safety licensing. The revelation that the DTI is preparing to do something similar comes just months after the British government's Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) published a comprehensive review of energy policy. This recommended that nuclear power should be retained only if expanding renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency don't work. But it's now clear from the leaked documents that the DTI has always been determined to pave the way for nuclear development. It is working hard behind the scenes to make sure that a White Paper on energy policy due out next year will reflect its ambitions. Outside experts regard the DTI's stance as predictable but flawed. Gordon MacKerron, a leading economist involved in preparing the PIU energy report, points out that in Britain a nuclear power station that could compete economically with other forms of energy has never been built. "Competitive nuclear power is still at best an untested proposition," he says. *Quicker licensing* Nuclear power in Britain has lost its momentum. The last nuclear station to be built, at Sizewell in Suffolk, was completed in 1995 after 15 years of argument. None has been ordered since because gas-fired plants are cheaper, and because of public concern over reactor safety and radioactive waste. The DTI has several plans to change that. The suggestion likely to provoke most alarm is for the regulations on reactor safety to be overhauled so that new designs can be licensed more quickly and cheaply. There are at least three types of reactor under consideration, in all of which the state-owned company British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) has a stake. Two - the AP1000 and its smaller cousin, the AP600 - are large advanced light water reactors being developed by Westinghouse, which is now owned by BNFL. Others include a much smaller high temperature reactor, known as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which is under development in South Africa, and a Canadian heavy water reactor called Candu 6. The energy policy briefing to British ministers argues that power companies will not invest in building any of these reactors if it takes years to win safety approval. "In a competitive electricity market this adds significantly to both capital risk and economic cost," it says. *"Perceived disbenefits"* So the DTI is proposing to "speed approval for operation in the UK". This will involve "simplifying licensing requirements" and collaborating with the US on "generic approvals": in other words, fast-tracking designs that have already been given the go-ahead in the US. The briefing urges the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which regulates the nuclear industry, to learn from the US by changing its "style" and improving its "responsiveness and targeting" in order to meet the needs of power companies. Although the briefing is dated June 2001, insiders say it still represents the view of the DTI. Nuclear sites Nuclear sites The DTI is also worried that international moves to tighten the limits on radioactive discharges into the sea could prevent new nuclear plants from being approved. "The limits - and pressure to further reduce them - will be carefully monitored to ensure that the future position is not unintentionally compromised," it promises. As well as fast-tracking safety regulation, the DTI is also proposing ways that nuclear plants could win planning permission more easily. "Simplification of the planning system could also be an issue, together with ways of compensating local communities for the perceived disbenefits of new nuclear build. Potential sensitivities could be eased to some extent by utilising space on existing nuclear sites." The leaked briefing lists eight such sites in England and Wales where new stations could be built. *Public opinion* On the question of the high cost of nuclear electricity, the briefing argues that companies that build new nuclear stations deserve tax breaks, on the grounds that they don't emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. "There are prospects for new build to be economic," it concludes. The clear implication of the DTI's analysis is that, without the planning and regulatory reforms and the carbon tax breaks, nuclear power would flounder. "No development," says another internal document, "is likely in the UK without a signal from government that they would be willing to consider new nuclear power stations." The only remaining problem is public opinion. But the DTI believes it can win people round by stressing that without new nuclear stations there could be power blackouts like those in California two years ago. "Public acceptance may not be the intractable problem it is perceived as being, particularly if the alternatives are considered less palatable," the briefing observes. *"Colossal" mistake?* And when it comes to disposing of the radioactive waste that any new reactors will inevitably produce, people just need to realise that the amounts aren't as big as they think, the leaked briefing explains. "The difficulty in advocating new build is one of perception," not helped by "an increasingly vociferous and influential environmental lobby.". The DTI denies it has a hidden agenda on nuclear power. "We've got an open mind on this," insists a spokesman. "We are working towards a diverse and sustainable energy mix." But Stewart Boyle, a commentator for Platt's Energy Newsletters, is convinced the department is hoping for a nuclear comeback. "The public won't like it and it could prove to be a colossal political mistake," he says. The final decision, of course, rests with the Cabinet, in which ministers are split on nuclear power. But as one of the most influential departments in Whitehall, the DTI is quietly doing everything it can to make sure it gets its way. Rob Edwards New Scientist Archive ***************************************************************** 5 Control Yuan faults government over nuclear plant fiasco The Taipei Times Online: 2002-07-03 By Lin Miao-Jung STAFF REPORTER The Control Yuan said yesterday that it was clear inferior materials had been used in the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, and the government's failure to get detailed records of the construction work violated regulations for public construction projects. Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Steve Chen (³¯·ç¶©) said yesterday that the ministry would leave open the possibility disciplining more officials for the flaws, after 22 officials were punished last month. The task force investigating the scandal comprised four Control Yuan members: Huang Wu-tzu (¶ÀªZ¦¸), Chao Chang-ping (»¯©÷¥­), Chao Ron-yaw (»¯ºaÄ£) and Leu Hsi-muh (§f·Ë¤ì). They questioned high-ranking officials, including Chen, and found that there was no construction journal, as regulations require. "At present, only workers at the site write down the progress of the job, but they do not have an official journal to record details, which contravenes current regulations," Huang said. Another member of the task force singled out China Shipbuilding Corp, the main contractor for the power plant's construction, for criticism. "Nuclear safety is very important. China Shipbuilding Corp did not do well in terms of monitoring the construction," Chao Chang-ping said. CSBC Deputy General Manager Fan Kuang-nan (­S¥ú¨k) yesterday said that the company did not realize that the subcontractors were using inferior materials for the reactor's pedestal. After being questioned by the task force, Chen said that he respected the Control Yuan's right to investigate and that he will form a investigation team within the ministry to find out the details of the case, including whether the correct procedures for hiring subcontractors had been followed. "We will finish the report within a month and hand it to the Control Yuan's task force for their reference," Chen said. Meanwhile, lawmakers concerned about the case yesterday visited Chu Nan (¦¶·£), the prosecutor-general of the Kaohsiung District Prosecutors' Office (°ª¶¯¦aÀ˸p), and gave him documents and papers he had demanded. Independent lawmaker Sisy Chen (³¯¤åÓ}) said that inferior materials had been used not only in the second to fifth layers of the reactor's pedestal, but also in the first layer. This story has been viewed 197 times. URL=[http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002/07/03/story/0000146824] Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 Feds missed Davis-Besse safety mess The Plain Dealer 07/03/02 John Mangels and John Funk Plain Dealer Reporters Washington - In 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on Davis-Besse's plan to prevent corrosion on its nuclear reactor, despite concerns that the program had significant problems. The agency's "acceptable" grade for Davis-Besse signaled the end of the NRC's special attention to corrosion-prevention work at the plant. During the next 12 years, the plant would repeatedly ignore basic corrosion-monitoring duties as well as warnings from a corrosion study that the plant's owner commissioned. Davis-Besse managers at one point allowed so much corrosion to build up on the reactor lid that workers needed crowbars to remove it. A review of NRC and FirstEnergy Corp. records over the decade shows the agency assumed the company was doing what it had promised to do, while the company assumed that its corrosion inspection work was adequate because the agency had approved the plan. The agency's arm's-length regulation and the company's casual attitude about cleanup of boric acid crystals that could lead to corrosion resulted in an unprecedented situation - a rust hole all the way through the reactor's 6½-inch-thick steel lid. Boric acid normally present in the reactor's coolant leaked onto the reactor lid over eight years, and the company failed to completely remove it. Only a thin stainless steel liner kept the high-pressure radioactive coolant in the reactor. Had the cladding burst, the coolant would have geysered into the reactor containment building, creating the worst American nuclear accident since Three-Mile Island in 1979. Workers discovered the rust hole March 5 while the plant was down for refueling, inspection and repairs. Davis-Besse, about 25 miles southeast of Toledo in Oak Harbor, has been idle ever since and won't be restarted until at least the end of the year. While the company is spending up to $200 million to buy electricity, replace the reactor lid and repair the plant, there are multiple investigations by the NRC, FirstEnergy and Congress to find out how the unthinkable could have happened and who's to blame. The damage to the reactor lid after years of neglect "would seem to undermine confidence in both the plant owner and the NRC," said David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS plans today to formally ask the NRC to explain why it approved Davis-Besse's flawed boric acid cleanup plan and then did not follow up to verify the company was doing what it said it would do. "That is one of the things we are looking at - who knew what, when," said Edwin Hackett, assistant team leader of an NRC task force investigating whether the agency might act differently to prevent similar problems at other nuclear plants. "It's a fair characterization that under the realm of things [the NRC] considered significant in the mid-1990s, this [boric acid corrosion prevention at Davis-Besse] would not be high on the list," Hackett said. "The safety and inspection of the plant is primarily the responsibility of the licensee. Unless otherwise indicated, the NRC's assumption is that they're fulfilling their obligations." The NRC sent inspectors to Davis-Besse in 1989 for four days. They were there to review the plant's plans to prevent corrosion. Earlier coolant leaks at some plants had corroded critical parts that keep water under high pressure flowing around the reactor core. The NRC thought cleanup was important but also believed the high temperature of the reactor lid - more than 500 degrees Fahrenheit - would boil away, leaking coolant. All that would be left would be dry boric acid crystals, which would be harmless if they did not get wet or accumulate. The industry and the agency assumed no plant operator would allow acid powder to remain on the reactor lid. A 1990 study commissioned by Davis-Besse's then-owner, Toledo Edison Co., and two other utilities, recommended the crystals be cleaned up before there was a chance for them to be "rewetted" and become more caustic. It warned that rust-colored crystals were a sure sign that steel was being corroded. "In this instance, the area should be cleaned, thoroughly inspected, and repairs made when necessary," the study said. "We are investigating that study," FirstEnergy spokesman Todd Schneider said yesterday. "Who had this knowledge? Why was it not shared or implemented?" Schneider also cast doubt on the adequacy of Davis-Besse's long-standing boric acid inspection and corrosion prevention plan. "We are investigating whether it was well-designed or implemented correctly," Schneider said. "There is a span of several years where we missed some obvious signs." The NRC itself declared that parts of the Davis-Besse inspection program were unsatisfactory in its 1990 audit of boric acid cleanup plans at 10 nuclear plants. The agency gave Davis-Besse low marks for its inspectors' training and their procedures for judging damage. Although only two plants received lower overall scores, the agency still deemed Davis-Besse's program acceptable. "The NRC knew it was bad and accepted it that way," said Lochbaum. NRC inspectors based at the plant did not specifically look for corrosion on the reactor lid because the agency presumed that corrosion could never be so extensive as to eat through the lid - assuming Davis-Besse was following its boric acid corrosion prevention plan. "There are a lot of things for inspectors to oversee," said Hackett. "It should have been on their list, but it would have been low on the list." Lochbaum, who has worked at several nuclear plants, concedes that NRC inspectors have a lot to do. But he faults the agency's basic premise that reactor lids stand virtually no chance of being breached. Thus, NRC inspectors have to give corrosion a higher priority, he said. Over the years plant workers regularly saw reddish brown boric acid deposits on the reactor head. An NRC investigation conducted after the shutdown found that cleaning efforts were incomplete, highly inconsistent and in some cases undocumented. In May 1998, workers said they removed the corrosion "as best as we can," according to plant records. In April 2000, "lava-like" brown crusts of boric acid more than an inch thick blanketed much of the reactor lid. Workers banged away the rock-hard material with crowbars and sprayed it with high-pressure washers but did not record how much was left and what damage might have been done. Beginning in 1990, the company's engineers failed to convince the plant's management that the service platform inches above the reactor head should be altered to allow workers to better inspect the lid. Engineers wanted to cut larger "peepholes" in the skirt of the support structure, which supports the reactor's control rods. Managers repeatedly rejected the idea, even though all but one of Davis-Besse's sister plants had made the changes. The company reasoned that its inspection techniques - which the NRC had approved - were adequate, and that it had not promised the agency that workers would do more thorough inspections. Lochbaum argues that the NRC should share blame for that kind of thinking. "Say I'm the guy controlling whether that modification is done or not at Davis-Besse. The thing costs $250,000. On the other hand, the NRC tells me my existing [inspection] program is adequate. Do I pay for something to make adequate better? It may be the reason he did not make that call." Whatever its past mistakes, FirstEnergy pledges it will change. "I'm pretty confident that we are not going to tolerate [boric acid] crystals on [the] head," Schneider said. Lochbaum said it is important that both Davis-Besse and the agency show a new attitude. "The company and the NRC could demonstrate with deeds rather than words that this is a learning opportunity. Or they could sustain the business-as-usual attitudes that created this near-disaster." To reach these Plain Dealer reporters: jmangels@plaind.com, 216-999-4842 jfunk@plaind.com, 216-999-4138 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Chances to identify corrosion The Plain Dealer 07/03/02 Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigators found numerous instances at which Davis-Besse workers could have identified corrosion that ultimately ate through the reactor lid's 6½ inches of steel. Here are examples: September 1991 - The exterior of the reactor head was cleaned, and boron deposits were removed. But "the extent of deposits, if any, that remained after cleaning was not documented," the NRC noted in a report in May 2002. March 1993 - Boric acid deposits were washed off "to the extent possible," the NRC said in the May 2002 report. Patches of brown boric acid deposits were identified. The color (boric acid normally is white) could have indicated the beginning of rust on the reactor head. April 1996 - At least one boric acid deposit had a brown stain. Plant personnel concluded that only 50 percent to 60 percent of the head had been inspected, apparently because poor accessibility and the head's curved shape made reaching parts of it difficult. May 1998 - Rust-brown boron deposits were identified near the top center of the head and were removed "as best we can," Davis-Besse personnel reported. They concluded that there was "no impact on vessel head integrity," the NRC reported. April 2000 - "Lava-like" brown-to-red boric acid deposits more than 1 inch thick were observed on much of the head. Crowbars were needed to remove the "solid rock" deposits. A videotape made after the cleaning shows that a thick layer of "lava-like" deposits remained around nozzles at the center of the head. Feb. 2002 - Boric acid layer was several inches thick near the center of the head. After removal of the buildup, workers found a 5-by-7-inch corrosion hole in the head. © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. © 2002 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Ling'ao Nuclear Power Station Begins Commercial Operation Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Wednesday, July 03, 2002 About 2,000 people, including high-ranking politicians and French and British diplomats, attended a ceremony in Shenzhen Tuesday to mark the start of the commercial operation of the No.1 generating unit of Lingao Nuclear Power Station in Guangdong Province, south China. About 2,000 people, including high-ranking politicians and French and British diplomats, attended a ceremony in Shenzhen Tuesday to mark the start of the commercial operation of the No.1 generating unit of Lingao Nuclear Power Station in Guangdong Province, south China. Among those present at the ceremony were China's top legislator Li Peng, representatives of Chinese and overseas companies involved in the project and local government officials. Located in Daya Bay in Guangdong Province, the nuclear power station at a cost of 4.1 billion U.S. dollars is the second to be built in the province. The first was Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, which started commercial operation in 1994. The second generating unit at Lingao, which will have four generating units when completed, is expected to start commercial operation early next year. Unlike the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station which uses two pressurized water reactors imported from France and Britain, part of the Lingao station's equipment was made in China. Li, who attended the 4-billion-U.S.-dollar Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station's opening ceremony on February 6, 1994 as premier, said 30 percent of the equipment at Lingao is to be produced locally. Li said the cost of the Lingao station is lower than that for the Daya Bay station, thanks to the local manufacture of nuclear power generating facilities and imported technology. Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 9 Congressmen hear Nebraska's preparation for attacks OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - Even though Nebraska may not seem to be a likely terrorist target, a group of congressmen visited the state Wednesday to learn more about preparations for nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., led the congressional field hearing, where representatives from the state's two nuclear power plants, some of the state's largest hospitals and various law enforcement agencies testified. Cooperation between Nebraska agencies is exceptional, officials said, but federal guidance and funding is needed. "We must be prepared for the unexpected," said Rep. Stephen Horn, R-Calif. "We must have the mechanisms in place to protect this nation from further attempts to cause massive destruction." Horn, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, said despite billions of dollars in spending on federal emergency programs, serious doubts remain as to whether the nation is equipped to handle a massive terrorist attack. Omaha fire and police officials said their departments need funding to prepare for an attack. "I'm not going to say we can sit here and protect the public from everyone one of these events," said Lt. Tim Conohan, emergency preparedness coordinator for the Omaha police. Nebraska's hospitals, however, are better prepared than ever to handle a bioterrorist attack, said Dr. Philip Smith, chief of infectious diseases for the University of Nebraska Medical Center where the hearing was held. Before Sept. 11, only about 2 percent of hospitals were prepared for such an attack, Smith said. Today, almost 75 percent have done some bioterrorism planning, he said. On The Net Nebraska Emergency Management Agency: http://www.nebema.org/ Rep. Lee Terry: http://www.house.gov/terry Copyright © 2002, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 10 Nuclear expert gives Plymouth his accident worst case scenario BBC - Devon - News - Wednesday 3rd July 2002 Nuclear meeting hears worst case scenario [Nuclear meeting] Around 150 people attended the public meeting in Plymouth about nuclear safety A nuclear explosion at Devonport Dockyard could send a cloud of radiation out over the South West spreading up to 100km away, an expert has warned. Nuclear consultant John Large outlined the worst case accident scenario at a public meeting in Plymouth last night. He also warned that emergency planning procedures do not cover such an incident. [John Large] John Large has covered disasters like Chernobyl and the sinking of the Russian submarine the Kursk John Large is an independent nuclear safety consultant. He has worked all over the world and has covered disasters like the Chernobyl power station disaster and the sinking of the Russian submarine the Kursk. On Tuesday night, he was speaking to around 150 people at a public meeting in Plymouth organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). Highlighting nuclear safety risks at Devonport, he shocked listeners by outlining an accident worst case scenario which he said is not covered by current or future emergency planning procedures. He said in the event of a so-called "rapid release reactor accident", the current 550m evacuation zone around the dockyards would have to be extended to around 10 km. [Devonport Dockyard] Devonport Dockyard currently has a 550m evacuation zone in the event of a nuclear accident He said: "A very quick accident, a very quick release, under 20 minutes in one or two of the scenarios examined, means that the emergency plans cannot be put in place over 24 hours, as the present scenarios say. It has to be put in place in minutes. "That is the difficulty - dealing with a very rapid development." There was some anger that the MoD, DML and Plymouth City Council declined invitations to attend last night's meeting. All the organisations reiterated that safety is paramount in the emergency planning process and that every step will be taken to ensure all risks are accounted for. ***************************************************************** 11 [radiation-survivors] NEW STUDY SHEDS LIGHT ON FROG Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 00:50:36 -0500 (CDT) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2002/200206189419.html June 18, 2002 NEW STUDY SHEDS LIGHT ON FROG MALFORMATIONS The emergence of mutant frogs with extra arms and legs may smack of a low-budget sci-fi script. But it is a reality, and a new study provides more evidence that ultraviolet radiation could be responsible. The findings are reported in three consecutive papers in the July 1 print issue of Environmental Science & Technology, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. Concern has been mounting for years over the depletion of the ozone layer ? the atmospheric shield that helps block harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from reaching the Earth's surface. At the same time amphibian populations have been declining, and many have been turning up with unusual malformations, such as missing or extra limbs. A number of causes have been suggested to explain the malformations, including exposure to chemicals and parasites. Only recently have researchers been examining the potential connection to UV radiation to determine if it is coincidence or something more. Until now, most of the research has focused on exposing frogs to UV radiation in the laboratory, providing little information about how these findings translate to natural habitats. "We really wanted to fill the gap between the findings of other laboratory research and what might happen in natural environments," said Steve Diamond, Ph.D., an environmental toxicologist at the United States Environmental Protection Agency in Duluth, Minn., and an author on all three papers. In the first study, Diamond and his colleagues kept frog eggs in small outdoor containers while exposing them to varying degrees of UV radiation ? from 25 to 100 percent of natural sunlight. As the eggs developed, the researchers observed hatching success, tadpole survival and the presence of malformations. They found that the frequency of malformations increased with increasing UV radiation, with half of the frogs experiencing malformations at 63.5 percent of the intensity of natural sunlight. This supplements data from a previously published paper, which reported that 100 percent sunlight reduces survival by an average of 50 percent. In the course of these experiments, the researchers also determined that a specific region of the UV spectrum, known as UVB, appears to cause the malformations. In the real world, however, frogs rarely experience 100 percent of natural sunlight. A variety of environmental factors conspire to reduce the levels of UV radiation entering wetlands, including ozone levels, cloud cover and UVB-absorbing dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in water. Accordingly, in the second study, the researchers measured DOC levels in wetlands in Wisconsin and Minnesota and found that the top five to 20 centimeters of wetlands absorb as much as 99 percent of UVB. To complete the picture, the third study involved a survey of 26 wetlands in the same region to estimate the specific level of risk of frogs living in these environments. Using a combination of computer models, historical weather records and DOC measurements, they concluded that UVB posed a risk to amphibians living in three of the 26 wetlands. While these findings suggest that most frogs are not currently at risk for UVB effects in this area of the country, the possibility of effects on amphibians in general should not be completely ignored, according to Diamond. Continued reduction of ozone and other global climate change effects may increase UV exposure in wetlands, suggesting that the potential risk to amphibians should continue to be studied. Diamond's team and a group of researchers from the National Parks are presently evaluating UVB levels across landscapes to compare them with the occurrence or absence of amphibians. ?Those results,? Diamond said, ?combined with the risk assessment presented in these three manuscripts, will add significantly to our understanding of the relationship between UVB levels and amphibian declines or malformations." ## Contact: Beverly Hassell American Chemical Society 202-872-4065 b_hassell@acs.org This text derived from http://acs.yellowbrix.com/pages/acs/Story.nsp?story_id=30678444&ID=acs __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: radiation-survivors-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ----- Together we can make a difference.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 12 Moscow’s drawbacks: The capital is like another Chernobyl Pravda.RU Jul, 02 2002 Pravda.RU:Society:More in detail The total number of those enterprises that use radioactive substances in Russia is 65. Twenty of them are located in Moscow. This was said by Viktor Suvorov – deputy chairman of the department for Moscow's public utilities and improvement. Suvorov advised that there were currently some two thousand organizations in Moscow, which used radioactive materials in their work, including eleven nuclear reactors. The largest nuclear wastes deposit is located on the territory of Kurchatovsky Institute, and the Ministry for Nuclear Power acknowledges this fact. This is connected with the fact that the institute was established 58 years ago for the development and realization of a nuclear project. Kurchatovsky Institute has unique physical emplacements, research reactors, nuclear storage facilities and so on. The center was built on the outskirts of Moscow, but Moscow was growing very fast, so the institute found itself within the city soon. There has surely been a lot of spent nuclear fuel saved since 1943. But we have to mention that Kurchatovsky Institute is not the only one source of radiation in Moscow: about 60 sources of nuclear contamination are revealed in Moscow every year. Oleg Polsky (the deputy director general for ecology and environmental protection of the Moscow enterprise Radon) said that the index would most likely get worse in the coming years. Oleg Polsky explained his forecast with the construction program in Moscow – the project of the third traffic ring, residential areas, and administrative objects that are going to be built on the places, where industrial and domestic wastes were stored. Polsky stressed out that Moscow was the only city in the whole world, where there were so many enterprises and organizations, which used radioactive substances and devices in their activities. There has not been a radiation control system in Moscow until 1960, which resulted in uncontrollable burial of dangerous substances and in the considerable contamination of the city’s territory. Specialists find some 70% of those old wastes in the areas, where new buildings are being built. The Moscow government is trying to improve the situation somehow: over 1350 radioactive contamination cites have been liquidated in Moscow over the recent 25 years, and over 930 tons of radioactive wastes have been removed. But this is surely not enough. The Moscow government approved the bill about the radiation security of the population. The document stipulates that the selection of construction cites should be performed taking into consideration the gamma-radiation and soil radon emission. The control of radiation doses of citizens will be performed in Moscow, as well as the level of radiation in case of a radiation breakdown, and so on. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that all radioactive substances and radioactive wastes on Moscow’s territory are subjected to the state control. Yegor Belorus PRAVDA.Ru Translated by Dmitry Sudakov ***************************************************************** 13 S.C. judge overturns order closing plant Charlotte Observer | 07/02/2002 | [http://www.charlotte.com] AARON SHEININ The (Columbia) State A judge on Monday overturned the state health department's order that closed a Barnwell County manufacturing plant over a potential uranium leak. Administrative Law Judge Marvin Kittrell ruled that the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control did not have jurisdiction to force Starmet CMI Inc. to close last week. Kittrell delayed his order until the agency has a chance to ask him for a temporary injunction to keep Starmet closed. The agency and the company were already scheduled to come before Kittrell in August for a hearing on many of the issues DHEC raised in its emergency order. Kittrell ruled that because the August hearing is before him, he has jurisdiction to decide if Starmet remains closed. Both sides began arguments Monday as to whether an emergency exists at the plant, and whether Kittrell should grant DHEC a temporary injunction keeping the plant closed. Testimony continues today. Kevin Strickland, DHEC's inspector for the Starmet plant, testified that he saw "green salt," a by-product of the uranium metal production process, spilling from drums that had been hit by a forklift. He said employees often had inadequate protective clothing to handle radioactive material and had to borrow monitoring equipment from a nearby plant. Testing of ponds used to contain uranium also showed increased levels of the radioactive material. "When we got the results back, it was readily apparent the results had risen," Strickland said. Still, when questioned by Starmet attorney John Hodge, Strickland said he never indicated in his reports that an emergency situation existed at the plant. Hodge tried to impugn Strickland's testimony by showing that he failed to notify Starmet directly of problems he found in his weekly or daily inspections. In its emergency order, DHEC said Starmet had failed to contain water in waste lagoons. The lagoons are supposed to prevent uranium from leaking into groundwater. Charlotte.com ***************************************************************** 14 Progress seen on state's potassium iodide policy - 7/3/02 - North County Times NCTimes.net PHIL DIEHL Staff Writer Potassium iodide distribution centers soon could be set up for people who live or work within 10 miles of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a county official said Tuesday. The recipients could then store the pills themselves in case there is ever a widespread release of radiation from the plant, said Susan Asturias of the San Diego County Office of Disaster Preparedness. Potassium iodide protects people only from airborne radioactive iodine, which causes thyroid cancer, and not against the many other harmful radioactive elements that could be released. The pills would be taken only by people told to evacuate the area near the plant, Asturias said. She and other county officials are part of a state-led task force meeting monthly to establish a distribution policy for the pills. San Onofre is on the coast 17 miles north of Oceanside. Southern California Edison officials who operate the plant say that any large radiation release is highly unlikely, and that security there has remained at its highest level since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. California emergency officials asked the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June for 886,000 pills for distribution to people near the state's two operating nuclear power plants. The other plant is Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo on the Central Coast. "It's just one more tool to be used in the overall emergency response plan for nuclear incidents," Eric Lamoureaux of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services said Tuesday. "First and foremost ... would be to evacuate." The state's allotment of the pills probably will be free to people who live or work in the "emergency planning zones" around the two nuclear plants. San Onofre's emergency planning zone extends in a 10-mile radius around the nuclear power plant, except for a spot north of the plant where the zone goes out 12 miles to include everyone within the city limits of Dana Point. On the southern side, the zone cuts through the center of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. County and state public health officials have discussed several ways to distribute the pills, Asturias said. Their most recent meeting was Friday in Sacramento. Another strategy is to tell people how they can purchase the pills themselves at stores, through the mail, or over the Internet, Asturias said. The state also may store large quantities of the pills at central locations near the power plants or evacuation centers for distribution during an emergency, she said. Contact staff writer Phil Diehl at (760) 901-4087 or pdiehl@nctimes.com [pdiehl@nctimes.com] . 7/3/02 ***************************************************************** 15 Was depleted uranium used in Afghanistan? Asia Pacific - Feature 01/07/2002 18:38:57 | Asia Pacific Features The United States campaign on terrorism in Afghanistan may have created a terror of its own. Thousands of people, as well as future generations, may have been exposed to high levels of radiation from depleted uranium. As Anita Barraud reports, DU is believed to be the so called 'mystery heavy metal' used in US guided missiles, bunker busters and other weaponry in Afghanistan. In March this year 100 Australian special forces personnel joined more than 1500 troops from the US, Canada, Germany, Norway, France and Denmark in a heaving bombing campaign designed to attack what was believed to be one of the main hideouts of the Taliban and al Qaeda network. As in other campaigns in Afghanistan, the weapons used included cruise missiles and the now famous bunker busters bombs which are encased in a heavy metal, capable of penetrating the thickest reinforced concrete or deepest cave systems. And according to British based researcher, Dai Williams, that heavy metal may have been depleted uranium. "The concept of these new weapons is to make these weapons achieve double the penetration of the old version by making them out of double density, high-density metals, and in terms of the physics of the things, the stuff's got to be over twice the density of steel. There's only two dense metals which meet that density requirement, which is tungsten and depleted uranium." Tungsten, the only other known heavy metal is expensive, difficult to work with, and does not have the incendiary effect of du - and it's mostly sourced from China, another reason Dai Williams suspects the heavy metal is depleted uranium. "I've listed 21 weapon systems which I know their specifications contain quote 'dense metal' where the suspicion is that this dense metal is probably depleted uranium. And the one which caught my ear, which really started me onto this at the beginning of the Afghan bombing was the bunker busters, which are known as GBU 28s and GBU 37s. These things are about two tons and the design of the warhead is such that probably between 50 and 70 per cent of the warhead weight has to be this high density metal. So you're talking about potentially for each bunker buster bomb over a ton of uranium waste and being burnt up and then spread around in the area." Major Dan Lapan, public relations officer at the Pentagon, couldn't elaborate on the design or content of bunker busters and other weapons. "There's different types that can be considered bunker busters, but the chief thing that makes a bomb I guess a bunker buster is this ability to penetrate. I think the type of warhead that it has and the device you know enables it to go through the surface and dig down again below surface into caves and bunkers before they explode." Asia Pacific contacted the US airforce, defence department and agencies but has been unsuccessful in getting any response. DU, or depleted uranium, contains a highly toxic isotope with a radioactive half live of 4 and a half billion years, meaning it's virtually impossible to dispose of. So it was seen as a great bonus when it was found that DU, heavier than lead and virtually cost free, could be got rid of usefully in weapons. Used effectively in Iraq, DU cased bullets and missiles are smaller than conventional ones and can therefore travel faster and at higher speeds, making them more accurate and deadly, and they have the additional benefit of burning on impact. Dai Williams who has been analysing all available information about the campaign, believes that if his analysis is correct, and DU is the heavy metal used in the campaign on terrorism, Afghanistan has twice the amount of DU in the atmosphere than was ever present in the Gulf or Balkans conflicts. "Originally it would suggest that these things were being used by the dozen by the day, but another report suggests that 6,000 guided bombs and cruise guided missiles have been used in the campaign or have been by that Christmas. If you took it that about one in three of those were probably hard target ones which are specifically designed for hitting targets like underground al-Qaeda command centres and particularly the cave complexes in Tora bora, Gardes and so on, if a third of those were this variety, which is about 2,000 weapons and the average warhead size is half a ton, then you're talking probably in the order of a thousand tons of this material which could have been used in the area." Once burnt, DU forms a fine black radioactive dust which once inhaled is believed to have devastating consequences. A nuclear physicist and specialist in internal medicine, Dr Asaf Durakovic now heads the Uranium Metal Project, a Canadian organisation testing gulf war veterans, which he set up after leaving the US army. "During the Gulf War I was a commanding officer of 531st Medical Detachment that was assigned to Iraq. I was a head of the department of nuclear medicine at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware where the patients were referred to me to examine their unusual symptoms after they had returned from the war. And I established that symptoms could have been related to internal contamination with radioisotopes because their medical history included the inhalation of radioactive dust in the vicinity of the burnt tanks hit by the friendly fire. There was a high concentration of depleted uranium. Over 64 per cent of my patients from Canada, Britain and the United States who presented to me with the symptoms of Gulf War disease did have high concentration of depleted uranium in their urine and in the case of some disease Canadian veterans there was depleted uranium in the bones." Dr Durakovic says there's strong evidence to point to a close relationship between high levels of DU inhaled, with what's now known as the Gulf War syndrome. One British veteran who is very ill has more than 10 times the safe amount of DU in his system. Samples from Afghanistan are currently being tested, and if high levels of DU are discovered there could be devastating consequences for all those present near bombsites. This includes US troops and allies, aid workers, journalists and thousands of Afghanis. In this transcript of a press conference in January this year, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld admitted some areas of Afghanistan have registered high levels of radiation but he had a different explanation. "In one case there was a high radioactivity count and it looks as though that was probably the result of depleted uranium on some warheads. There were, there are canisters that have been found that clearly are, I shouldn't say that, we've not been in them yet, but externally they appear to be weapons of mass destruction." According to Dai Williams, if this is true and the al-Qaeda and Taliban do have access to weapons containing DU, it will most likely have come from Russia and could be an even worse toxic cocktail. Most DU has a certain amount of other highly poisonous substances, and if spent rods from missiles are also recycled into the DU, it forms what is known as dirty DU, containing a deadly mix of toxins, including plutonium and lead. Dai Williams: "Basically depleted uranium while it's still in its metallic form is relatively safe to handle provide you wear a pair of gloves and this is why a lot of the military statements about it say that this stuff is safe, we haven't had problems with it. But in the quantities we're now talking about it's a very, very serious problem." "It is thought that in radiation hazards from the Gulf War will take five or ten years before they develop into leukemias and lymphomas, but this was assuming that people were being exposed to if you like a whiff of smoke. Whereas if these bunker buster bombs which are dropped in places like Kabul and on to some of the underground water systems in Afghanistan, the quantity of contamination from this if anybody was unlucky enough to be standing say a couple of hundred metres away, which is far enough to survive the blast but near enough to be drenched with the dust, they would have looked something like the survivors which we saw at the World Trade Centre disaster." "It would look as if somebody's dropped a bag of cement over their head and these people would be breathing in, getting into their mouths and swallowing quantities, potentially quantities of depleted uranium oxide, which would be a hundred times higher than anything than any of the previous medical research on depleted uranium weapons has ever even considered." The US department of defence denies that depleted uranium is used, but also consistently maintains that DU while toxic is not dangerous. Their message to troops handling DU is to be careful as in any weapon but not overly concerned. Dr Durakovich believes this is the wrong message. "The Department of Defence of the United States never conducted one single meaningful scientific study on the inhalation of patients after the Gulf War." Dr Durakovich says other factors, such as exposure to pesticides and smoke from the massive oil well fires makes diagnosis of what causes Gulf War sickness difficult. But the possible effects of breathing in DU dust particles should not be ignored. In a recent report for the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Bill Griffen said cancer rates in southern Iraq had increased 10 fold and the incidences of leukemia in children were very high. He suspects that depleted uranium may be a factor. "It needs a total examination by experts but there is something phenomenally wrong and the malformities in children down there are very frightening, to see children with no faces, literally no faces, just perhaps a hole to breathe through, limbs that look like they were caused by thalidomide, just awful stuff." Research Dai Williams says it's time to ask some questions. "A good question is has this stuff been used? If so how much and where and who's been exposed to it? If it has been used it will be very obvious in coming months and years, possibly even before the end of this year because of birth defects if it's anything like the effects which happened in Iraq. So my immediate concern is simply to get the questions asked in public debate, if you're looking at it from an Australian perspective the concern would be how much at risk were your special forces troops, who like our special forces troops were sent in on the ground to inspect these bunkers after they'd been bombed. And I think there's a lot of questions to ask our governments. " And the Australian defence department is as yet unable to comment about the possible use and safety issues surrounding depleted uranium. 01/07/2002 18:38:57 | Asia Pacific Features Celebrating 50 years of broadcasting, Radio Australia is an independent and trusted source of information about Australia, Asia and the Pacific. GO © ABC 2002 [http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm] ***************************************************************** 16 Georgia to search for nuclear material near Abkhazia Wednesday, July 03, 2002 By Louis Charbonneau, Reuters VIENNA, Austria ? Georgian authorities will expand a search for nuclear material left over from Soviet days to rough terrain near Georgia's breakaway Abkhazia region, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog said Tuesday. The discovery last December of two containers of radioactive material in Abkhazia deepened fears in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that nuclear material could fall into the hands of people who would use it to make crude weapons. The nuclear material found in Abkhazia was used in Soviet times to power remote communications stations, and it is suspected that two more such containers remain undiscovered. Last week, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned that more than 100 countries had inadequate safeguards to prevent the theft of radioactive materials that could be used in dirty bombs, devices using standard explosives to spread nuclear material. IAEA experts have been helping local authorities since June 10 in an unsuccessful attempt to locate the containers. But the agency said local experts would handle the search near Abkhazia. The IAEA said it believed Georgian experts would be capable of handling the situation if it found the containers, believed to contain highly radioactive strontium-90. Though useless in a conventional nuclear bomb, it could be used in a dirty bomb. "The Georgians now have a nice cadre of local personnel who have been trained in search and recovery, and they have some very sophisticated detection equipment," IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said. The Georgian experts will use a U.N. helicopter to search the border with the former Soviet republic's secessionist Abkhazia region in the company of Russian peacekeeping troops. Abkhazia has remained outside the Georgian government's control since it declared independence a decade ago, and guerrillas regularly clash with the Abkhaz military. "Currently (U.N. military observers) are in negotiations with the Abkhaz side and Russian peacekeepers for Georgian experts to be allowed to check the area," said Soso Kakushadze of Georgia's environment ministry. He said the operation would begin in a few days and would take several days to complete. Gwozdecky said IAEA experts would return to Georgia in September to resume a country-wide search for various types of nuclear material believed to have fallen out of regulatory control since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Three Georgian foresters who found the first two containers in December suffered severe radiation sickness. Copyright 2002, Reuters All Rights Reserved More ENN news ***************************************************************** 17 On compensation for sick defense workers The Oak Ridger Online - Opinion - Your views 07/02/02 070202 opEd 3 Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:29 p.m. on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 To The Oak Ridger: I am a former sick employee from the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I applied in July of 2001 for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which has been in effect since July 31, 2001. My interview with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health was conducted on June 6, 2002. They informed me it would be another three to four months before my dose reconstruction data was sent to the Department of Labor. NIOSH only has three people doing dose reconstructions, and as of June 14 they had 4,914 claims yet to do. They have only done one as of June 14. When Congress passed this bill, they said sick employees were to be compensated in a timely manner. Surely this is not what Congress intended. I feel if Congress and Senate do not step in and see that NIOSH, DOL and the Department of Energy handle this in a different way than the past 20 months, very few sick workers will ever live to be compensated. Money was appropriated by Congress for the sick workers, but these three agencies are using our tax money to delay this process. If other government agencies operated in a similar manner, our presidents would be out of office before being sworn in. Jerry Tudor Clinton All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 18 Yucca: Disposing of danger Buffalo News - The federal government plans to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste under Yucca Mountain. Many worry about the safety of transporting and storing it. Associated Press The Yucca Mountain project in Nevada involves burying America's nuclear waste in a U-shaped, 5-mile-long, 25-foot diameter tunnel that drops about 800 feet below the surface. U.S. Department of Energy The vault for the waste is considered geologically sound because it has few fractures that would allow downward movement of water. JOHN F. BONFATTI News Staff Reporter 7/3/2002 YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nev. - After $8 billion and 20 years of examination, the federal government has decided that this remote, desolate ridge should be the most poisoned spot on the planet. Yet even after an eight-hour briefing and tour of Yucca Mountain - where the federal government wants to entomb 77,000 tons of nuclear waste - Dewayne Hollins wasn't convinced it's such a great idea. "If I could get over the potential for human error, . . . " the Las Vegas plant manager said, his unfinished sentence reflecting the inherent uncertainty in any plan attempting to guarantee the safety of generations. Yucca Mountain, its proponents insist, is the thick security blanket that will isolate the dangerous byproducts of America's atomic age from the people it could sicken and kill. This includes 125 spent fuel rods and about 275 canisters formed from waste at the West Valley Demonstration Project south of Buffalo. And who's footing the bill? Those who use nuclear-generated power - 23 percent of New York's electricity comes from nuclear power plants - have paid about $17 billion into a fund to cover some of the cost. But 40 percent of the U.S. Navy's large ships are powered by nuclear reactors. The federal government will pay for that waste disposal, as well as damages from lawsuits initiated after a 1998 deadline to open a repository was missed. Ultimately, that money comes from taxpayers. Critics, including most of the state of Nevada, say it is fantasy to believe any such vault can protect the environment for the thousands of years it will be dangerous. "Ten thousand years is a long time," said Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Nevada's Democratic senator, Harry Reid. More recently, as the Senate approaches a July 27 deadline to vote on the project, Yucca Mountain's opponents have focused on the millions of Americans they say will be at risk during the thousands of truck and train shipments that would bring the waste from nuclear plants and places such as West Valley to the Nevada site. The thrust, said Nevada's other senator, Republican John Ensign, is to get his Senate colleagues to understand that Yucca Mountain isn't just Nevada's problem. "We're trying to tell people, "No, it's going through YOUR state and you better be concerned because it's the deadliest stuff on the planet,' " Ensign said. Almost certainly, some of it, including the waste stored at nuclear plants outside of Rochester and Oswego, will travel through Western New York. The Department of Energy identified the New York State Thruway and several area rail lines as likely routes for some of the shipments. Truck and train shipments The Environmental Working Group, an environmental advocacy group, says that if all the waste were shipped to Yucca by truck, there would be nearly 9,000 truck shipments going through New York during a 38-year span, starting with the projected opening of Yucca Mountain in 2010. If all were shipped by train, there would be 1,233 shipments. The government notes that there have been more than 2,700 spent nuclear fuel shipments in the U.S. since the 1960s with only eight accidents, none of which involved a release of radioactive material. But in light of Sept. 11, a former CIA director of counterterrorism believes the government should think twice about the whole idea. "What (the shipments are) is a big, fat, vulnerable target," said Vincent Cannistraro, a retired CIA official who said he has no tie to the anti-Yucca Mountain movement. "And the Department of Energy really hasn't done the work to model its safety procedure against the current threat." The DOE, in its environmental impact statement, said it and other federal agencies are "re-examining the protections" built into the project in light of the terrorist attacks and will "modify its methods and systems as appropriate." If the project moves forward, the U.S. will spend an estimated $58 billion to finish it. That's more money, in equivalent dollars, than was spent building the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam and the World Trade Center. Ensign believes even that astronomical amount will prove too low. "We know what happens with government numbers over the years, they're going to skyrocket," he said. "It could go to $100 billion." Half of the $8 billion the government has already spent has gone into determining a site and transportation plans. The other half has gone into Yucca Mountain. Along with extensive tests on the geology, hydrology and ecology, the government has drilled a U-shaped, 5-mile-long, 25-foot diameter tunnel that drops about 800 feet below the surface. "We know more about this mountain than any site in the world," said Patrick Rowe, senior mechanical engineer for Stone &Webster, a firm examining Yucca Mountain for the DOE. Rowe was the guide on a Saturday public tour that started at the Department of Energy's Yucca Mountain information office in Las Vegas. Four busloads of people were driven 90 minutes northwest to the Amargosa Desert, not far from Death Valley. "I'm not here to convince you one way or another," Rowe told his audience, yet his anticipation of the questions he'll get - and his ready answers for all of them - made it clear where he stands on the matter. "He's very knowledgeable, but I think he's also a good salesman," said Hollins, the Las Vegas plant owner. "He can change people's minds with his rhetoric and knowledge." Criteria for storing waste Rowe said Yucca Mountain meets a number of important criteria for storing the waste that now sits at 131 sites in 39 states: • It is remote. Nye County, where the facility would be located, is the third largest county by area in the country, but it is sparsely populated: an average of 1.5 people per square mile. Standing at the crest of the long, narrow mountain, the only signs of civilization are the roads the government has built to service the sprawling Nellis Air Force base and adjacent Nevada Test Site, where the government conducted above- and below-ground tests on nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. • It is dry. Water is seen as the chief way radiation from the repository could find its way into the environment. Yucca Mountain receives, on average, 7.5 inches of rain a year, and the DOE says only 5 percent of that water seeps into the mountain. "It's so dry, even cactus can't live there," Rowe said. In addition, the mountain is in a closed hydrological basin, meaning the ground water doesn't flow into any rivers or oceans, and is isolated from the aquifers for Las Vegas and Nye County's biggest community, Pahrump. And, Rowe said, the water table is exceptionally deep, some 1,000 feet below where the vault would be. • The geology is advantageous. The rock above and below the vault has few of the fractures that would facilitate the downward movement of water. Water that does make it to the vault level is projected to stay in the fractures, rather than drip down onto the waste. Additionally, the rock is filled with zeolites, which can trap certain radioactive materials. The day before the tour, a moderate earthquake occurred about 15 miles from the site, at Little Skull Mountain. Rowe acknowledged that Nevada is the second most active state for earthquakes in the country, but said that ground motion from earthquakes is less severe underground than at the surface. Man-made barriers planned Yucca Mountain itself was formed by material deposited by volcanoes between 15 million and 12 million years ago, but the DOE's analysis puts the chance of a volcano disrupting the burial ground as "virtually nonexistent." In addition to the natural barriers, the DOE plans a series of man-made barriers to shield the waste underground. Casks made of a special alloy, topped with titanium drip shields, are projected to cost several million dollars apiece. Opponents have contradicted just about all the government's claims. In some cases, they've used analysis from other branches of the government to support their arguments. In December, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, criticized what it termed a "lack of management controls" of studies on the safety and suitability of Yucca Mountain. It also noted that the DOE had yet to resolve 293 technical issues it had promised to examine for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must ultimately license the site. Shortly after that, the Nuclear Waste Review Board, created by Congress to monitor Yucca, said it had "weak to moderate" confidence in the DOE's performance estimates for the repository. Critics also say that even if the repository is built, it won't solve the problem of storing high-level waste at nuclear plants scattered across the country. Spent nuclear fuel must cool down in pools for a period of years before it can be transported. In the meantime, more spent fuel would be generated. Furthermore, they say, the DOE's own reports indicate that, even after Yucca Mountain is full, more than 42,000 tons of waste will remain in more than 30 states. "They plan to take 3,000 tons a year when they hit their stride," said Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. "The plants are producing 2,000 tons a year, so you only get a net gain of 1,000 tons a year." Transporting opposed Activists like Carol Mongerson, who pushed for the federal government to cleanup the former nuclear waste processing center at West Valley, have dreamed of the day when a site like Yucca Mountain could accept the waste now stacked behind thick walls 40 miles south of Buffalo. But Mongerson said, with "great sadness," that the West Valley Coalition has concluded it is better to keep it at West Valley than to transport it across the country and store it underground. "That kind of certainty about being able to isolate virtually forever is too much to ask of any underground facility," she said. "It means committing ourselves to watching the stuff forever, and it's hard for us to know that is going to be done, but it's still better than putting it in the ground where it's out of sight, out of mind." e-mail: jbonfatti@buffnews.com [jbonfatti@buffnews.com] Copyright © 1999 - 2002 The Buffalo NewsTM ***************************************************************** 19 County joins city and state in Yucca Mountain lawsuit Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal REVIEW-JOURNAL A joint lawsuit that challenges the federal government's environmental impact study for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear repository was approved Tuesday by the Clark County Commission. The commission unanimously ratified an agreement to join the city of Las Vegas and the state in filing the lawsuit. The lawsuit challenges the appropriateness and legality of the study that preceded the U.S. Department of Energy's recommendation and President Bush's approval of the Yucca Mountain site in February. The county's share of legal costs will be covered by the $2.5 million it already has contributed to the legal fight against Yucca Mountain. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 20 U.S. chamber joins pro-Yucca chorus Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Group running radio advertisements in 57 markets promoting nuclear waste dump STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The nation's airwaves are becoming even more filled with information about the Yucca Mountain Project. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said Tuesday it has begun running radio advertisements in 57 markets to promote the proposed Nevada nuclear waste repository among U.S. senators who will vote soon on the program. "In some states we're thanking people for their tough votes and in others we're trying to move people into our column," said William Kovacs, chamber vice president for environment and regulatory affairs. Sixty-second spots began running Monday and Tuesday in Colorado, Washington, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Vermont, Wyoming, Nebraska, Minnesota and Michigan. Ads also are running in the New England states and in major cities along the East Coast, Kovacs said. Kovacs declined to say how much money the business group is spending on the radio campaign. He said the ads will run through the weekend in most markets. The chamber's blitz comes on top of advertisements that also started this week in various parts of the country sponsored by the Pro-Yucca Nuclear Energy Institute and the decidedly anti-Yucca state of Nevada. Nevada television ads challenging the safety of shipping nuclear waste to the planned repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas began running in Missouri, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Radio ads by the nuclear industry association are on the air in Vermont, Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 21 OP: It’s time to move into nuclear age Re: “No to nuclear dump site,” Arlyne Goodwin, June 20. Please spare us from the likes of Ms. Goodwin who preach doom at the mention of nuclear power and storage of nuclear waste. However, I will take her advice to contact Sen. Graham and register a loud and positive “Yes” when the issue of the Yucca Mountain repository comes before the senate. The issue of the disposal of nuclear waste has been around too long, and it’s time to move on. Nuclear waste is stored at power plants in someone’s back yard. Its existence is a reality. Is it better to leave it stored locally or move it to an isolated and prepared location? The Yucca area has been studied to death. Containers for nuclear waste have been tested under extremes that will never occur in real life. They have been dropped from high places, exposed to extreme pressures and hit by railroad locomotives without rupture. Nuclear pellets are encased in glass to make their storage even safer. The containers will “contain” even in the unlikely event that they are in the area of an earthquake in the next 10,000 years. The area in question is in the middle of nowhere. Has Ms. Goodwin ever flown over that part of the country? She states that the waste is “200 times more radioactive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.” What does that mean? Is she implying that the material can explode? That would be deception at its worst. Most of the radiation can be attenuated by the minimum of protection even in the highly unlikely event that it ever gets free of the containers. Every day, hazardous material is on our highways with the potential of causing much greater damage to people along the route than nuclear waste. We are not in a risk-free world. If we want benefits, we must take risks. Every year we have 50,000 people killed and many more seriously injured on our highways. Would Ms. Goodwin advocate putting governors on automobiles that will limit their speed to 30 mph? France today generates about 75 percent of its electricity by nuclear power. We have plants operating in Florida without incident. Our Navy has been operating nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines for years without a casualty. Three Mile Island, in spite of the negative publicity at the time, proved the containment building worked. There were no casualties. It’s time we moved our power-generating means into the 21st century. It’s time to open our eyes to the great potential of clean nuclear power. SAUL A. JACKSON, Fort Myers Copyright 2002, The News-Press. ***************************************************************** 22 Chamber of Commerce runs pro-Yucca ads Las Vegas SUN July 03, 2002 WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined a final-hour advertising effort to influence a Senate vote on Yucca Mountain. The chamber, which announced its support for the Nevada nuclear waste dump project in November, is sponsoring pro-Yucca radio advertisements in dozens of markets in 13 states. "Senators must hear that the citizens of their state want a permanent and secure site for nuclear waste," said William Kovacs, chamber vice president for environment and regulatory affairs. "Pro-business activists are mobilizing across the country to educate lawmakers, challenge the nay-sayers and tell the facts about storing nuclear waste." The 60-second radio ads began Monday and will run through July 8, when the Senate returns for a holiday break and is expected to act on Yucca. A sample of the radio ad running in Colorado: "Yucca Mountain Nevada is the safest place to store America's nuclear waste. It's a common sense plan. But out-of-state special interests want to leave the nuclear waste here in Colorado, where it doesn't belong. Sen. (Wayne) Allard, R-Colo., is standing up to the extremists and standing firm for Colorado. Call Sen. Allard today at 202-224-2131. Thank him for supporting the plan to get the nuclear waste out of Colorado." Chamber officials would not say how much the ad buys cost. "It's significant," chamber spokeswoman Linda Rozett said. "It's not a token campaign." Meanwhile, anti-Yucca Mountain activists planned to rally and to block major highways in cities in every state, including Las Vegas, to bring attention to the Senate vote, an activist said. The acts are planning to focus on the risks of transporting high-level nuclear waste by road and rail. Citizen Alert Executive Director Peggy Maze Johnson said a rally is planned at noon Sunday on Grand Central Parkway, just north of Charleston Boulevard at the on-ramp to Interstate 15. "We are not closing down I-15, but we will if the Senate proceeds with this dangerous plan of putting deadly, high-level nuclear waste on the roads, rails and waterways of our cities, our towns and our neighborhoods," Johnson said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 23 Yucca: More than another NIMBY case - By Allison MacFarlane Las Vegas Review Journal July 2, 2002 Tremblor, ground water concerns suggest siting has been premature Special To The Los Angeles Times The earthquake that shook the Nevada desert last month wasn't much by seismic standards, but with luck it rattled some nerves in Congress. The magnitude 4.4 temblor's epicenter was a mere 12.5 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain, the site where the Bush administration proposes constructing a national nuclear waste repository. The proposal has already been approved by the House of Representatives, and a Senate vote is pending. As a geologist who has spent the past six years studying the proposal, I hope that the earthquake has made some senators rethink their votes. The state of Nevada is strongly opposed, as one might expect, to a nuclear waste repository in its backyard. The other 49 states are pleased that they weren't chosen for the facility. But a decision that could affect environmental health for the next 10,000 years deserves to be treated as more than just another NIMBY case. The government has a problem -- more than 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. No one would dispute the need to secure that material. The question is whether burying it in the Nevada desert 90 miles from Las Vegas would meet standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that hazardous radiation would not leak from the site for 10,000 years. Though research on Yucca Mountain has been going on for years, few scientists outside government agencies have had a chance to review this work, much of it in ground breaking areas of earth science. The Yucca Mountain Project was created by geologists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Michigan in an effort to ensure independent and unbiased scientific review of the planning for the repository, but that has not been easy. The science itself is both fascinating and challenging. For starters, it's difficult to project what the Earth will be like in 10,000 years -- a short period in geological time, but a long one when you are trying to predict relatively small changes in the Earth system. Currently, the climate seems to be warming, which could mean that in 100 years today's dry location might not be so dry. Then there is the issue of whether it is better to store nuclear waste above or below the water table. The United States is planning to bury its waste above; every other industrialized nation is planning to bury it below or in a salt formation. Sweden and Finland have made their choices because spent nuclear fuel "rusts" when exposed to air but not to water. In a dry location like Nevada, waste will deteriorate more rapidly if the canisters in which it is buried corrode, and the radioactivity would then have nothing to contain it. The United States is betting on a new corrosion-resistant composite out of which its canisters will be constructed. The U.S. Department of Energy's plan is to bury the waste in tunnels constructed 1,000 feet below ground and 1,000 feet above the water table. The waste will be placed in the canisters, and the tunnels, after 100 to 300 years, will be permanently sealed. Yucca Mountain was picked, in part, because it is an unpopulated area already owned by the federal government which used it as a nuclear test site from the 1950s to the early 1990s. The original theory was that, if canisters deteriorated, there would be little water in the dry ground to carry the radioactive waste to other areas. But that theory has already been thrown into doubt. Chlorine-36, a radioactive isotope created during nuclear weapons tests over the Pacific Ocean in the 1, 950s, has recently been found 1,000 feet below ground at Yucca Mountain. In just 50 years, that material traveled in the atmosphere to Nevada, was delivered as rain at Yucca Mountain and traveled at least 1,000 feet below the surface the level where the nuclear waste would be stored. Such rapid movement was completely unexpected and required a revision of, models of water flow in the area. Scientists are only beginning to understand how water moves at Yucca Mountain, but it is already clear that buried radioactive material may travel more quickly than the Department of Energy expected. Earthquakes, like the one this month and another with a magnitude of 5.6 in 1992, further complicate the situation. The federal government's reaction to the complex geology is to focus more heavily on the canisters in which waste will be buried, reasoning that the longer the canisters last, the longer it will take for waste to be exposed to the elements. The United States plans to bury its waste in canisters made of Alloy 22 -- a new composite metal containing nickel, chromium and molybdenum -- and then lined on the inside with stainless steel. Alloy 22 is resistant to corrosion from water, but it is a man-made substance that has existed for only about 20 years. The DOE has only about two years of data on the effects of corrosion on it. Using such limited data, the government is predicting the life expectancy of the canisters 10,000 years into the future. No other nation is planning to use Alloy 22 to bury its nuclear waste; and the material does not exist in nature, so there is no way of naturally predicting how strong it will prove to be, Clearly, further study is needed before reliable predictions can be made. A recent report from the U.S. General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, urges the federal government to postpone a decision on Yucca Mountain, saying that the studies conducted to date are not adequate to assess site suitability. Delaying until we have more answers is the best approach. Perhaps the site will prove to be the best place to store waste for the next 10,000 years -- or perhaps not. Ten years of further research will provide the answers to some of the unresolved scientific questions that will affect the safety of the repository. In the meantime, waste can continue to be stored at the power reactors and weapons manufacturing sites where it was generated. Even if transportation of the waste began today, it would take many decades to consolidate all of it at Yucca Mountain. Research is steaming ahead on issues relating to nuclear waste. Unfortunately, the scientific facts may arrive too late to influence a political decision. Allison MacFarlane is co-director of the Yucca Mountain Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ***************************************************************** 24 Yucca: Public Citizen Requests Documents Used by DOE to Assess Impact of Recent Earthquake Near Yucca Mountain* *Keep up with Public Citizen through */July 3, 2002/* */Earthquake Questions Loom as Senate Vote Nears/* WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Citing the "curious" nature of the Department of Energy?s rapid determination that a June 14 earthquake did no damage to facilities at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump project, Public Citizen filed a Freedom of Information request with the DOE to obtain all of the documents related to that assessment. "How could the DOE have assessed that no damage was done to the entire compound within several hours of the earthquake?" said Tyson Slocum, research director with Public Citizen?s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program (CMEEP). "Since Yucca Mountain sits on one of the most seismically active areas in the U.S., we need to make sure that the government is taking the time to review every nook and cranny to ensure that safety is not being compromised." The DOE issued a press release the same day as the earthquake, stating "there was no damage to any Yucca Mountain Project facilities, structures or the underground Exploratory Studies Facilities." "This rush to judgment is symptomatic of the larger problems with the DOE?s Yucca Mountain proposal," said Lisa Gue, policy analyst with CMEEP. "The site recommendation, soon to be voted on by the Senate, is dangerously premature at best." Opponents of the Yucca Mountain proposal have long argued that a nuclear waste dump should not be located in an earthquake zone due to the potential danger of high-level radioactive waste leaking into the surrounding environment. In 1996, an earthquake near Yucca Mountain caused nearly $1 million dollars in damages to the Yucca Mountain Project facilities. In addition, the General Accounting Office found 293 unresolved scientific and technical issues with DOE?s repository proposal, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board has called the technical basis for the proposal "weak to moderate." The Senate is expected to vote on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump early next week. The U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the dump in May. Click here to view a copy of the letter. ### Public Citizen ***************************************************************** 25 Guinn says Nevadans don't blame Bush for Yucca Mountain SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer Wednesday, July 3, 2002 (07-03) 08:36 PDT CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- Gov. Kenny Guinn says he does not believe most Nevadans will blame President Bush if a nuclear waste dump is built at Yucca Mountain. Guinn said in an interview with The Associated Press that he was disappointed in his fellow Republican's decision to move ahead with the project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But the governor said he does not believe Bush reneged on any campaign promises. And while Guinn disagrees with the president's conclusions, he said that Bush believes in his own mind that he really is basing the decision on the best science. "Sure, I'm disappointed. But I still use the old theory of Ronald Reagan -- that when somebody agrees with you 80 percent of the time, they are your friend, not your enemy," Guinn said. "In this case, I just happen to disagree with him," he said. In February, Bush accepted the recommendation of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and selected the volcanic ridge in the Nevada Test Site as the national repository for high-level radioactive waste. Guinn vetoed the decision, which threw the decision to Congress. The Senate, which faces a July 26 deadline, is expected to consider the issue as early as July 9. Yucca Mountain was approved easily in the House, and Nevada leaders acknowledge they still lack votes in the Senate to sustain Guinn's veto. Guinn said those who try to blame Bush for the project moving closer to reality are misguided. "I don't believe that. And about 77 percent or so of the people of Nevada don't believe that either, because he still polls about 77 percent favorable in Nevada," the governor said. Guinn said Democrats are being disingenuous when they accuse Bush of lying to Nevadans when he said during his presidential campaign he would base the Yucca Mountain decision solely on science. "He said the same thing that Al Gore said -- that 'I'll base it on science.' He said the same thing Bill Clinton said," Guinn said. But did he really base it on science? "He thinks he did," Guinn said. Guinn recalled meeting with Bush at the White House in February to inform him he would be using his veto power to try to halt the project. Guinn said Bush told him "we've had all this work done" on the project already. "I said, Mr. President, I think you are getting incomplete staff work and he asked me, `What do you mean by that?"' Guinn said. "I told him, `You're a governor from Texas, you've had that experience, and I'm the governor in Nevada.' I said, `Do you know of any city or state in America that can build a single-family subdivision without getting an environmental impact statement? And he said, `No.' "I said, then how can the Department of Energy and the secretary ... approve a 77,000 ton, high-level nuclear waste storage without getting an environmental impact statement?" Guinn said Bush answered, "They don't have one?" "And I said, no sir. And I can tell you what he said to his staff: `Who didn't get one?"' The Energy Department soon produced an impact statement and delivered it to Guinn's office on the day Bush recommended approval of the project. "But they still don't have one for the transportation routes," Guinn said. On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: www.ymp.gov [http://www.ymp.gov] Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board: www.nwtrb.gov [http://www.nwtrb.gov] Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: www.rw.doe.gov [http://www.rw.doe.gov] Nevada opposition: www.state.nv.us/nucwaste [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste] ©2002 Associated Press   ***************************************************************** 26 Michigan senator comes out against Yucca Mountain project Las Vegas SUN: July 02, 2002 LAS VEGAS (AP) - Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., whose state has five nuclear power reactors, has decided to vote against moving radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Stabenow aide Sander Lurie said Tuesday that Stabenow notified Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that she was concerned about shipping spent nuclear fuel by barge on Lake Michigan on the way to the proposed waste repository 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. That is one of the points Nevada's senators have been raising in lobbying against the Yucca Mountain project. Stabenow, a Senate freshman, is the second senator in recent days to come out against the Yucca Mountain project, joining fellow freshman Jean Carnahan, D-Mo., who announced Friday. Reid and John Ensign, R-Nev., still face a steep climb to persuade 51 senators to kill the repository plan. With a week to go before expected Senate votes, Nevada and its environmental allies began running television commercials Monday in three more states: Pennsylvania, Georgia and Missouri. Airtime in six Missouri markets costing $82,000 was bought before Carnahan declared her position. With money running low in the state's Yucca Mountain fund, Nevada officials began trying to pull those ads to spend the money elsewhere. Evidence of dwindling coffers also was evident in the other buys. In Georgia, 30-second ads costing $56,000 will run in Macon, Savannah and Augusta aimed at swaying Senate Democrats Zell Miller and Max Cleland. Jaya Tiwari, legislative director of Physicians for Social Responsibility, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that Atlanta was too expensive. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were passed over in a Pennsylvania buy that concentrates on Harrisburg, Wilkes Barre and Altoona markets. Anti-Yucca groups are trying to persuade Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. Fellow Republican Sen. Rick Santorum is believed to be solid in support of the Nevada repository plan. A pro-Yucca Mountain coalition led by the Nuclear Energy Institute is running 60-second radio spots in Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia and Vermont. In explaining Stabenow's stance, Stabenow aide David Lemmon cited an Energy Department study that raises the possibility that waste from the Palisades nuclear plant in southwestern Michigan might be barged north on Lake Michigan to Muskegon, Mich., where it would be transferred to rail cars destined for Nevada. Barge shipping on Lake Michigan also was raised as a possibility for two nuclear power plants in Wisconsin, and "that raises a huge amount of concern for Stabenow," Lemmon said. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham sent Stabenow a letter Thursday saying the study "in no way commits the department to using barge transport, nor does it indicate any current intention to do so." Aides said she called state officials, Michigan energy executives and environmentalists Friday to notify them of her decision. Many had assumed that Stabenow would vote for the Nevada repository. Michigan is home to four active nuclear reactors and one inactive plant on the Upper Peninsula that still holds spent fuel. The state draws almost 19 percent of its electricity from nuclear sources. The chairman of its Public Service Commission, Laura Chappelle, testified before Congress in April in favor of the repository. The state's senior senator, Democrat Carl Levin, voted for the repository in 2000; and a spokeswoman said Monday he planned to do so again this year. Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Waste foes press issue [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, July 2, 2002 By Amy Joi Bryson Deseret News staff writer The effort to put a proposed tax hike on low-level radioactive waste on November's ballot has failed for now, but organizers promise they'll be back in two years. Sponsors of the "Radioactive Waste Restrictions Act," which opponents said would put waste giant Envirocare of Utah out of business, collected more than 91,000 signatures for the ballot initiative. That is well over the state's minimum threshold of 76,180 signatures necessary to put the issue before voters this November. However, a second prong of the test for ballot initiatives requires collecting the signatures of at least 10 percent of registered voters in 20 of Utah's 29 counties. Latest numbers by the state Elections Office show initiative backers have managed to meet the second requirement in only 13 counties. Monday was the deadline for counties to submit the certified signatures to the state Elections Office. Elections director Amy Naccarato said all counties, with the exception of Iron and Uinta, had been counted. The initiative, had it been approved by voters this fall, would impose a range of taxes depending on the type of waste — from $20 per cubic foot for the so-called class A waste, primarily contaminated soil, to $150 per cubic foot for mixed waste shipped in containers. It also would have prohibited Envirocare from accepting higher level radioactive waste, like byproducts of decommissioned nuclear power plants. The resulting revenue, eventually as much as $200 million annually, was earmarked for schools, the homeless and environmental regulatory enforcement. The initiative had the support of the Utah Education Association, with the exception of its chapter in Tooele County, where Envirocare is based. Company officials decried the petition, saying its proposal to increase taxes would drive their customers away, force them to go elsewhere for business because of the high costs and eventually shut them down. Mickey Gallivan, a Salt Lake advertising executive who headed the petition drive to hike the taxes, blamed the "bullying tactics" of opponents, who urged residents to remove their signatures later via a notary public. "The tactics were sheer intimidation," he said. "They banged on people's doors and told people they would lose their jobs if their signatures were not withdrawn." Gallivan said the drive, overall, wound up 121 signatures short of what was required. "This concerted intimidation effort has, in effect, caused 121 signatures to overturn the will of 130,000 other Utahns who signed the petition and who wanted to vote on the issue this year." Hugh Matheson, an attorney who led the opposition, said an "education" campaign where opponents blanketed much of Utah probably resulted in the removal of 2,000 to 3,000 signatures. "We are pleased that a large number of people, especially in rural Utah, listened to both sides of the story and decided to remove their names." The battle has been heated on both sides. After the tax initiative began to gain momentum, opponents sprang to life, forming Utahns Against Unfair Taxes and fighting back with a counter initiative. That eventually was dropped in favor of simply squelching the movement. The group, joined by a handful of incumbent lawmakers, filed suit against Gallivan and other petition supporters, as well as the lieutenant governor's office,, alleging some of the paid signature gatherers were not Utah residents, as law requires. It's unclear at this point what impact the petition's failure will have on the pending lawsuit. Gallivan, although clearly disappointed, vowed the fight is by no means over. Utah law allows petition signatures to carry over to the next election cycle, meaning petition backers will remain hard at work to get the initiative on the ballot in 2004. "This is very short term," Gallivan said. "We will be on the ballot in two years. As soon as the lieutenant governor's door opens again, we will have those 121 signatures. I guarantee this issue will be on the ballot in 2004." Matheson, too, vowed they'd continue the resistance effort. "We will just take it as it comes." E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com [amyjoi@desnews.com] © 2002 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 28 Sellafield waste tanks 'pose an undue risk' Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Paul Brown, environment correspondent Wednesday July 3, 2002 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] Two sets of tanks at Sellafield, containing nuclear waste in sludge and liquid form, are so old and in such dangerous condition that British Nuclear Fuels has been told they pose an unacceptable risk. BNFL has been warned by the nuclear installations inspectorate that neither the structural integrity of the tanks, nor the building containing them, could be guaranteed beyond 10 years and that the tanks "must be emptied as soon as possible". BNFL has already put up a steel building around the tanks - in case they collapse completely and lead to a "catastrophic failure". The firm is also commissioning specialist machinery to empty the tanks. Laurence Williams, the NII's chief inspector, said yesterday that one lot of tanks was built in the 1940s to house medium-active radioactive waste. Unless another solution for processing the waste could be found, planning and building new tanks had to start soon since such construction took a long time, Mr Williams said. There are increasingly strict limits on how much radioactivity can be discharged into the sea, and systems for turning liquid wastes into glass blocks have not been working properly. The NII confirmed yesterday that the giant £1.8bn Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing works at Sellafield had reduced production because high level waste tanks were in danger of being filled to above the maximum legal level. Tomorrow the government is to announce details of a new authority to deal with nuclear waste. Useful links [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm] [http://www.cnduk.org/] [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm] [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/] [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/] [http://www.uilondon.org/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002 ***************************************************************** 29 The US nuclear attack on Hiroshima paved the way for September Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 23:33:26 -0500 (CDT) The first fireball The US nuclear attack on Hiroshima paved the way for September 11 and its aftermath John Berger Saturday June 29, 2002 The Guardian (UK) Now that the number of innocent civilian victims killed collaterally in Afghanistan by the US bombardments is equal to the number killed in the attack on the Twin Towers, we can perhaps place the events in a larger, but not less tragic perspective, and face a new question: is it more evil or reprehensible to kill deliberately than to systematically kill blindly? (Systematically because the same logic of US armed strategy began with the Gulf war.) I don't know the answer to the question. On the ground, among the cluster bombs dropped by B52s or the stifling smoke in Church Street, Manhattan, perhaps ethical judgments cannot be comparative. When on September 11 I watched the videos on television, I was instantly reminded of August 6 1945. We in Europe heard the news of the bombing of Hiroshima on the evening of the same day. The immediate correspondences between the two events include a fireball descending without warning from a clear sky, both attacks being timed to coincide with the civilians of the targeted city going to work in the morning, with the shops opening, with children in school preparing their lessons. A similar reduction to ashes, with bodies, flung through the air, becoming debris. A comparable incredulity and chaos provoked by a new weapon of destruction being used for the first time - the A-bomb 60 years ago, and a civil airliner last autumn. Everywhere at the epicentre, on everything and everybody, a thick pall of dust. The differences of context and scale are of course enormous. In Manhattan the dust was not radioactive. In 1945 the United States had been waging a full-scale, three-year-old war with Japan. Both attacks, however, were planned as announcements. Watching either, one knew that the world would never again be the same; the risks everywhere, to which life was heir, had been changed on the morning of a new unclouded day. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki announced that the US was henceforth the supreme armed power in the world. The attack of September 11 announced that this power was no longer guaranteed invulnerability on its home ground. The two events mark the beginning and end of a certain historical period. Concerning President Bush's riposte to September 11 - his so-called war against terrorism, which was first baptised Infinite Justice, and then renamed Enduring Freedom - the most trenchant and anguished comments and analyses I have come across, during the last six months, have been made and written by US citizens. The accusation of "anti-Americanism" against those of us who adamantly oppose the present decision-makers in Washington is as short-sighted as the policies in question. There are countless "anti-American" US citizens, with whom we are in solidarity. There are also many US citizens who support these policies, including the 60 intellectuals (Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntingdon among them) who recently signed a statement which set out to define what is a "just" war in general, and why in particular the operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and the ongoing war against terrorism, are justified. The statement was widely published in the US and appeared in Le Monde and other European papers. They argued that the moral justification for a just war is when its purpose is to defend the innocent against evil. They quoted St Augustine. They added that such a war must respect as far as possible the immunity of non-combatants. If their text is read innocently (and of course it was not written either spontaneously or innocently), it suggests a patient gathering of erudite, quietly-spoken experts, with access to a great library (and perhaps, between sessions, a swimming pool) who have the time and quiet to reflect, to discuss their hesitations, and finally to come to an agreement and offer their judgment. And it suggests that this meeting took place somewhere in a mythic six-star hotel (access only by helicopter) in its own spacious grounds, surrounded by high walls with guards and checkpoints. No contact whatsoever between thinkers and the local populations. No chance meetings. As a result, what really happened in history and what is happening today beyond the walls of the hotel is unadmitted and unknown. Isolated De Luxe Tourist Ethics. Return to the summer of 1945. Sixty-six of Japan's largest cities had been burned down by napalm bombing. In Tokyo a million civilians were homeless and 100,000 people had died. They had been, according to Major General Curtis Lemay, who was in charge of the fire bombing operations, "scorched and boiled and baked to death". President Franklin Roosevelt's son and confidant said that the bombing should continue "until we have destroyed about half the Japanese civilian population." On July 18 the Japanese emperor telegraphed President Truman, who had succeeded Roosevelt, and once again asked for peace. The message was ignored. A few days before the bombing of Hiroshima, Vice Admiral Radford boasted that "Japan will eventually be a nation without cities - a nomadic people". The bomb, exploding above a hospital in the centre of the city, killed 100,000 people instantly, 95% of them civilians. Another 100,000 died slowly from burns and effects of radiation. "Sixteen hours ago," President Truman announced, "an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese army base." One month later the first uncensored report - by the intrepid Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett - described the cataclysmic suffering he encountered after visiting a makeshift hospital in the city. General Groves, who was the military director of the Manhattan Project for planning and manufacturing the bomb, hastily reassured congressmen that radiation caused no "undue suffering" and that "in fact, they say it is a very pleasant way to die". In 1946 the US strategic bombing survey came to the conclusion that "Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped". To describe a course of events as briefly as I have is, of course, to over-simplify. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942 when Hitler was triumphant and there was the risk that researchers in Germany might manufacture atomic weapons first. The US decision, when this risk no longer existed, to drop two atomic bombs on Japan, needs to be considered in the shadow of the atrocities committed by Japanese armed forces across south-east Asia, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. There were US commanders and certain scientists working on the Manhattan Project who did their best to delay or argue against Truman's fateful decision. Yet finally, when all was said and done, the unconditional surrender of Japan on August 14 could not have been, and was certainly not, celebrated as the longed-for victory. There was an anguish at the centre of it, and a blindness which blinded. I tell this story to show how far even from the reality of their own history were the 60 American thinkers in their six-star mythic hotel. I tell it also as a reminder of how the period of US armed supremacy, which opened in 1945, began for all those outside the US orbit with a blinding demonstration of a remote and ignorant ruthlessness. When President Bush asks himself "why do they hate us", he might ponder this - except that he is one of the directors of the six-star hotel and never leaves it. 7 John Berger is a writer and critic; his books include Ways of Seeing, G and, most recently, The Shape of a Pocket ---------------------- ***************************************************************** 30 Nuke weapons project may move to NTS Las Vegas SUN July 03, 2002 WASHINGTON -- The plan to move a key Energy Department nuclear weapons program from New Mexico's Los Alamos National Laboratory to the Nevada Test Site may be near a final phase. The move would involve relocating sensitive nuclear materials, including several tons of plutonium, enriched uranium and other bomb-making devices. Los Alamos' Technical Area 18, or TA-18, facility is used for testing and measuring nuclear materials, as well as training, according to the DOE. Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson in 2000 said the site was safe, but that its facilities were between 30 and 50 years old and increasingly expensive to maintain. More recently critics have said the site is vulnerable to terrorist attack. Now the department has nearly finished a massive study of where to best house the TA-18 programs. Among the "four or five" options are moving the program to another site at Los Alamos, or moving it to Nevada's remote Test Site, said Lisa Cutler, a spokeswoman for the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the Test Site and the nation's nuclear weapons programs. A decision about where to move TA-18 is expected within a few weeks, Cutler said. Officials with the government watchdog group Project on Government Oversight said their sources within the DOE have confirmed that the decision has already been made to move the facility to Nevada. They lauded the decision, saying TA-18's home at Los Alamos is the most vulnerable facility in the nation's nuclear weapons complex. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Iraq Promises Progress in U.N. Talks Las Vegas SUN July 03, 2002 UNITED NATIONS- Iraq is promising some progress from new talks starting Thursday with Secretary-General Kofi Annan - but whether they include a return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Baghdad depends on what the U.N. chief has to offer. Annan believes it's time for a "concrete understanding on the return of inspectors" who have been barred from Iraq for 3 years, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said Monday. But Iraq has a much broader agenda, and what Annan goes home with from the two-day meeting in Vienna will depend on what answers he brings to Iraqi concerns, especially on two key issues: lifting sanctions and U.S. threats to topple Saddam Hussein, Iraq's U.N. ambassador said. "I know they are worried about the return of inspectors to Baghdad. But we are worried about more than one item. We are worried about ... especially lifting sanctions and the threat of the United States. This is very, very important," Iraqi Ambassador Mohammad Al-Douri said in an interview before flying to Vienna late Monday to join the Iraqi delegation. The meeting at the U.N. office in Vienna will be the third since early March between Annan and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri. Annan reported progress but no breakthrough on the return of inspectors at the end of their last meeting in early May. What Iraq wants, Al-Douri said, are answers to the political questions Sabri handed Annan at their first meeting - especially on lifting sanctions, U.S. threats against Iraq, the "no-fly" zones in northern and southern Iraq enforced by U.S. and British aircraft, and the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Annan sent the 19 questions from Sabri to the U.N. Security Council, which imposed sanctions on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and asked for comment. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix answered the technical questions about inspections at the second round of talks. But the Security Council decided not to respond to the political questions, which means the secretary-general is not authorized to offer anything to the Iraqis on the issues of most concern to them. Al-Douri said the secretary-general has to address the issue of U.S. threats "because it is a threat for the security and peace in the world." Two weeks ago, Annan said he wanted "a decisive meeting." "We cannot keep talking forever, and I would hope that we will be able to yield some results," he said. The return of inspectors is a key demand of the Security Council and especially of the United States, which has accused Iraq of trying to rebuild its banned weapons programs and of supporting terrorism. President Bush has warned Saddam that he faces unspecified consequences if he fails to heed American demands that inspectors be allowed into Iraq to verify whether it has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction. Bush has also made clear that the United States wants the Iraqi leader removed from power. Under council resolutions, sanctions cannot be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have been destroyed along with the long-range missiles to deliver them. The inspectors left Iraq in December 1998, just ahead of allied airstrikes launched to punish Baghdad for blocking inspections. Iraq has barred them from returning. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 China Reportedly Buying Russia Subs Las Vegas SUN July 03, 2002 BEIJING- China is reportedly buying eight missile-armed Russian submarines and military analysts say the purchase could increase the mainland's military threat against Taiwan. The $1.5 billion deal, signed in May, calls for Russia to deliver the Kilo-class submarines over the next five years, according to Russia's Interfax-Military News Agency. "By 2005, China will be able to pose a serious air and naval threat," said Chen Kuo-ming, editor of Defense International, a magazine that covers the Taiwanese military affairs. The Russian and Chinese governments refused to comment. The submarine deal is in addition to multibillion-dollar Chinese deals since the mid-1990s of Russian fighter jets, warships and other weapons. A key aim is believed to be China's attempt to overcome Taiwan's technological edge in weaponry. The former leaders of mainland China fled to Taiwan during the 1949 civil war and communist takeover. Beijing maintains Taiwan is still part of its territory and has repeatedly threatened to take it back by force. Last month, China reportedly test-fired a new Russian air-to-air missile that U.S. officials said might prompt Washington to make similar weapons available to Taiwan. Taiwan is trying to strengthen its own submarine capabilities, lobbying Washington for assistance in buying eight submarines from a third country. Those craft were seen as essential to helping the island overcome a mainland naval blockade. Taiwanese officials have been pursuing the submarine purchase since 1982. The Russian-built submarines would give China the ability both to counter Taiwanese resistance to an attack and to threaten shipping to the trade-dependent island. China's recent economic growth has financed an expansion in military spending, which has grown by double digits annually over the past decade. Russia has been Beijing's top foreign arms supplier, with sales believed to total about $1 billion a year. Washington is struggling to fill Taiwan's submarine order because U.S. shipyards make only nuclear submarines. The blueprints and expertise for making diesel-electric boats would have to come from another country, most likely European. According to military analysts, Taiwan probably won't get its submarines until 2010, leaving it more open to an attack or blockade. On the Net: Jane's Information Group: http://www.janes.com/ [http://www.janes.com/] (aa-jrm-ta) All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Nuclear lab moving from Los Alamos to test site Wednesday, July 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- An advanced laboratory and its weapons-grade nuclear material will be transferred from New Mexico to the Nevada Test Site because of growing Energy Department security concerns, sources confirmed Tuesday. The Energy Department has been studying the possible closure of the aging TA-18 Critical Experiments Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory and moving its equipment, capabilities and $23 million annual budget to another location. Lisa Cutler, a spokeswoman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said a decision is not expected for several weeks. The NNSA is the Energy Department arm that manages the nation's nuclear weapons complex. But an Energy Department watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, reported that a decision to relocate the TA-18 lab to Nevada already has been announced to program staff. Spokeswoman Beth Daley attributed the information to "credible sources" within the NNSA. Daley said the oversight group was told the program, including weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium used in its research, will be relocated to the Device Assembly Facility, a largely unused complex in a secure portion of the Nevada desert. The move will be completed by 2005, the group reported. Independent sources confirmed the Energy Department has made a preliminary decision on the Nevada move, with a final sign-off expected soon, pending completion of paperwork. How much personnel and equipment would be moved could not be confirmed. Energy Department officials once boasted the New Mexico lab "houses the Western hemisphere's largest collection of machines" for conducting nuclear safety experiments. Sources also said the program probably would introduce a volume and potency of nuclear materials to the Nevada Test Site not seen since the end of nuclear testing a decade ago. The oversight group said "several tons" of weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium and plutonium are kept at the Los Alamos lab. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., has requested a briefing next week on the planned move, spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said. A major factor in the decision was the test site's reputation for security, sources said. Security concerns have grown in Los Alamos since a 1997 mock terrorist attack by Army Special Forces used a Home Depot garden cart to "steal" more than 200 pounds of nuclear materials, enough to devise a bomb. The Critical Experiments Facility is the only place in the U.S. weapons complex where high-level nuclear materials are used for hands-on emergency response training and safeguarding of the government's nuclear stockpile. About 70 technical and clerical employees and postdoctoral students work at the facility, which is operated by the University of California under a $23.3 million annual budget. About 400 people receive training there each year. In 2000, then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson announced a plan to close the lab because of security concerns, but the proposal stalled. The plan was revived under NNSA chief John A. Gordon, a former Air Force general and CIA deputy director. A decision on the facility could be among Gordon's final acts at NNSA, because he is moving to the White House to head the Bush administration's counterterrorism program. The Nevada Test Site's Device Assembly Facility was built in the 1980s for about $100 million. The technically advanced building was constructed in the east-central part of the test site to consolidate the nation's nuclear explosive assembly operations in a safe and secure environment. The 100,000-square-foot structure has gone largely unused since the nation halted its nuclear weapons testing program. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 34 Accelerating Cleanup posted June 27, 2002 updated July 3, 2002 INEEL has proposed a plan for "accelerated" cleanup of the site. It's on a short time frame, with public comments due on July 8, 2002. Here's a list of the information on the proposed plan on Oversight's web site: + New initiative for "safer, cleaner" INEEL cleanup launched + July 2002 issue of the Oversight Monitor newsletter: contains "New initiative" article listed above, two-page table providing synopsis of the proposed plan, article on "thorny" issues relating to cleanup, update on status of each waste area group, State's environmental priorities for the INEEL. + Initiative at-a-glance: a synopsis + On-line feedback form + Related issues: Cleanup, Contamination Site Map • Library • Issues • Monitoring • Contact • [http://www.accessidaho.org/] 1410 N. Hilton • Boise, ID 83706 • 208 373-0498 • FAX: 208 373-0429 900 N. Skyline Dr. • Idaho Falls, ID 83402 • 208 528-2600 • FAX: 208 528-2605 Toll-free: 800 232-4635 • Questions or Comments? [jfuhrman@deq.state.id.us] ***************************************************************** 35 Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid says he was aware of the historic significance of Sen. James Jeffords' decision. AP Photo Monday, June 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Year later, Reid recalls historic switch GOP's loss gave Democrats big Senate gain By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid remembers the moment well. One year ago, in the late morning of May 24, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont announced he was leaving the Republican Party. The announcement turned the U.S. Senate upside down, throwing control to the Democrats. It also propelled Reid, D-Nev., toward the No. 2 leadership rung as majority whip. A short while later, Reid and incoming Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., emerged from the U.S. Capitol and began descending its steps to present themselves to America as the Senate's new leadership team. Just like in the movies, dozens of reporters, tourists and television cameras gathered for the dramatic moment. As Reid looked on it all, he became very aware that he was part of something that people might remember for a long time. "I was just aware of how historic it was," Reid said. "No matter what happens after that, the Jeffords switch was in the history books. "A hundred years from now, people will remember," Reid said. "Political scientists, historians, political junkies, this is what it's all made of." Reid recalled the episode in the room Jeffords made possible for the Nevadan, the ornate majority whip's office steps from the Senate floor. Several weeks ago, the state seal of Nevada was painted near the ceiling above Reid's desk. Even after Reid leaves, the Nevada mark will remain, joining seals from Oklahoma, California, Delaware, Connecticut, Mississippi and Tennessee denoting whip predecessors. Since Jeffords switched, Reid has wielded authority as Daschle's right-hand man in the Senate majority. He has become a CSPAN staple while managing the Senate floor as majority whip. Reid said Democrats have provided a check on President Bush and the Republican-controlled House while passing legislation such as the patients bill of rights and campaign finance reform. Reid said Democrats slowed an anti-terrorism bill following the Sept. 11 attacks. The bill, criticized as tilting heavily to law enforcement and away from civil liberties, was tempered as a result. "Had we not been in control, our rights would have been jeopardized significantly," Reid said. "Even the way it came out, people said it was pretty strict." Republicans see it differently, charging Democrats have obstructed Bush's agenda. Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., brought bloodhounds to the Senate recently, part of an event to "sniff out" Democrat accomplishments. Had Republicans maintained Senate control, "we would have a lot less spending and we would have more judges approved," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. Ensign said he was not much affected by the Jeffords jump from the GOP. A freshman, he had been in the Senate only five months when it happened. Still, Ensign recalled, "It was a huge shock. You don't expect the Senate to change over without an election. It set a very dangerous precedent to not have an election determine who is the majority." Reid said he and Jeffords are friendly but not close. "We're not pals. We don't go out shooting pool together," he said. "I like him a lot and he reciprocates." For instance, Reid said he helped Jeffords get a Vermont-friendly dairy program added to this year's farm bill. "I have a long memory for people who help me, people I feel I have an obligation to," Reid said. "With Jeffords, I felt we made certain commitments to one another, and I will fulfill them." Jeffords sent Reid a note marking the anniversary. Reid said he had no special plans to celebrate the anniversary. In a brief recent interview, Jeffords said he and Reid have a "good relationship." "He has his own jobs, but he has helped me," Jeffords said. The bond appears to stretch only so far, though. While the two share views on many environmental issues, they split on nuclear matters. Earlier this year, they reportedly clashed within the environment committee on the Price Anderson nuclear insurance bill. Also, Jeffords has said he plans to vote this summer for the Yucca Mountain Project, one of the most significant issues in Reid's career. "I would like Jim Jeffords to vote with me on Yucca Mountain, but I would never go to him and say, 'You owe me,' whether I felt he did or not," Reid said. "I would be terribly disappointed, but I would never question his integrity on a vote." Jeffords recalled that what clinched his decision last year was Reid's offer to step aside as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for Jeffords to take over. "I knew (Reid) fairly well but not well enough to share secrets," Jeffords said. "I was impressed that he would give up the committee if I made the shift. That made everything go easy from that point on. I couldn't refuse it." Reid said the switch was discussed in the open, but nobody picked up on it. "One of the hardest things for people to comprehend is that my conversations with Jeffords were all on the Senate floor, with one exception," Reid said. "People thought we'd go to some secret place, but the fact is we were meeting in the most obvious place we could and word never leaked out." At that time, Reid often was on the Senate floor performing minority whip duties, while Jeffords had reason to be there to manage an education bill. Also, Reid's style is short and to the point, sometimes abruptly so. There were no animated discussions to draw attention. Reid recalled Jeffords told him during the third week of May 2001 that he planned to leave the Republican Party and become an independent. Reid said he and Daschle held their breath over the next week while President Bush and Senate Republicans tried to change Jeffords' mind. When Jeffords made his announcement in Vermont, Reid and Daschle watched it on television. They then convened a short meeting of Democratic senators before facing the public. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************