***************************************************************** 12/03/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.313 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Keeping Momentum on the Energy Bill 2 South Korean presidential candidates clash over how to deal with Nor 3 [OUTLOOK]American presence is still needed* 4 US, Pakistan facing nuclear riddle -- Detail Story* 5 BE bondholders demand better deal 6 Germany thwarts EU energy tax accord 7 China Says Too Early to Tell on Iraq Inspections* 8 Iraq Says It Had Aluminum Tubing Before Sanctions* 9 US: Bush signs plutonium protection law 10 Iraq 'to present weapons dossier' 11 British government backs plan to save British Energy 12 Who's Next After Iraq? 13 Arming Saddam: The Yugoslav Connection 14 South Korean presidential candidates clash over how to deal with 15 US: Congress Approves Nuclear 'Bunker Buster' Research 16 US: Ex-official condemns nuclear weapons 17 Saddam faces three choices: Rumsfeld* 18 Lee, Roh Differ Over NK Nuclear Weapons Program 19 Germany thwarts EU energy tax accord NUCLEAR REACTORS 20 US: TUB directors rescind previous action on participation in TVA pl 21 US: Leak Prompted Nuclear Plant Shutdown 22 Al-Anbaa: Egyptian- Israeli nuclear reactor 23 US: Xcel presses Legislature over nuclear power 24 US: Xcel wants action on nuclear storage 25 US: Con Edison wins court battle 26 Chernobyl victims protest demanding unpaid benefits NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 US: USPS Workers Get Potassium Iodide Pills 28 US: Traveling Resource Center Comes to Bay Area to Assist Former 29 NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION HOLDS RECURRENT SESSION NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 30 US: Feds should have obtained Yucca hazardous waste permit, Nevada 31 US: Xcel puts nuclear waste on 2003 agenda 32 US: Nevada in court papers outlines opposition to Yucca Mountain* 33 US: Nevada Tells Court Yucca Mountain is Unsafe 34 US: NUCLEAR WASTE: State files challenge to Yucca 35 US: Las Vegas SUN: State files major brief challenging Yucca plan 36 US: Nevada States Case Against Waste Dump in Mountain 37 US: State seeks equal time before panel 38 US: OSFA: Transuranic & Mixed Waste research NUCLEAR WEAPONS 39 Canadians to lead weapons inspection team into USA 40 [southnews] Russia praises Iraq for weapons co-operation 41 US: U.S. does not need U.N. approval for war* 42 US: Bomb shelters: American history buried out back 43 US: The Rationale of Post-Nuclear Superweapons 44 UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Weapons Inspection Activities in 45 Press Briefing in Baghdad, 30 November 2002 - 2 December 2002 46 IAEA Board of Governors Adopts Resolution on Safeguards in the 47 US: Pentagon Memo Raises Possibility of Nuclear Testing US DEPT. OF ENERGY 48 Bechtel's offer of help comes with curious timing 49 Isotope program at PNNL picking up steam 50 S.C. Plutonium Removal Timetables Set 51 Cleanup deadlines moved up 52 Law sets plutonium fines 53 Centrifuge campaign at the wire - 54 No More Delays -- DOE should meet all deadlines 55 Cleanup project to shed 30 jobs 56 Hanford begins transferring fuel 57 Water near 300 Area deemed mostly safe 58 Amchitka risk meetings scheduled 59 Whistleblower collects $210,000 in ORNL case 60 ISU celebrates nuclear program’s anniversary OTHER NUCLEAR 61 Bush: Having His Way -- Nice and Simple II 62 Udall book focuses on yeomen along road West ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Keeping Momentum on the Energy Bill The New York Times December 3, 2002* *By BOB KERREY* Following nearly a year of heated debate over polar bears, caribou and S.U.V.'s, a divided Congress decided to put its energy bill on hold late last month. It did so even after such politically charged issues as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and increases in automobile mileage standards were taken off the table. Now that Republicans will control the new Congress, what will they do about energy, and how will the Democrats respond? If Senator Pete V. Domenici, the Republican from New Mexico who will take over as Energy Committee chairman, decides to load up a new energy bill with these same contentious issues, the Democrats will resist, as they did this year. But if he has the foresight to reintroduce the compromise bill reached by the last Congress, Democrats should put their objections aside and support it. Why? Because this bill will help the economy and boost solid, environmentally sound energy policies. The most important issue in America today is jobs, and this bill will help the private sector create lots of them. In fact, it represents one of the best economic stimulus packages the new Congress is likely to pass. By clarifying arcane rules concerning the electricity industry and repealing outdated Depression-era laws, the bill will encourage more investment in energy. Indeed, our tentative economic recovery depends on secure, sustainable and affordable energy. The bill would advance all those goals. Second, the bill can bring Americans important benefits in the form of safer, more reliable energy. It would encourage the development of "green" or renewable resources ? wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small-scale hydroelectric, for example ? which today generate less than 2 percent of our nation's electricity. The other 98 percent comes from traditional sources like fossil fuels, nuclear energy and large-scale hydro projects, which carry far heavier environmental burdens. We all know that renewable energy resources are mostly pollution-free. But this isn't their only virtue. They are by definition domestically based, and for this reason contribute to our energy security. They provide fuel diversity and price stability. After all, the fuel ? the wind, the sun, heat from the core of the earth ? costs nothing. And they provide jobs. In fact, according to a study released last summer by the California Public Interest Research Group, renewable energy plants create four times the number of jobs ? in construction, operation and maintenance ? as traditional plants. While renewables have made impressive progress in closing the price gap with fossil fuels, they remain more expensive because they have greater up-front construction costs or are necessarily located in remote areas. The pricing of renewables, however, includes no adjustment for the social benefits of these emissions-free energy sources. The energy bill as currently written would change all that. It would also spur investment by providing a production tax credit for renewable electricity sources. It would also direct the federal government, the largest single purchaser of electricity in the world, to buy 10 percent of its power from renewable resources. These measures would provide a huge boost for technology development, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution and help diversify our energy supply. With the bill, wind energy alone could provide thousands of new jobs by 2020, many of them here in New York State and the Northeast. A report issued by the government's Energy Information Agency showed that by helping to reduce our growing dependence on natural gas, the bill's provisions would pay for themselves by holding down consumer gas prices. In addition, renewables would reduce our need to import more oil from the Middle East. Is the bill a perfect piece of legislation? No, but it is the best opportunity we've ever had to jump-start production of renewable energy ? and it's a sound way to help our economy. An energy bill will remain a top priority for the administration and Congress next year. Rather than starting over from square one, Congress should resurrect the good work it's already done. Fights over polar bears, caribou, and the Arctic can all be voted on separately. /Bob Kerrey, a former United States senator, is president of New School University./ Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 2 South Korean presidential candidates clash over how to deal with North Korea AP World Politics Tue Dec 3, 8:15 AM ET /By SANG-HUN CHOE, Associated Press Writer/ SEOUL, South Korea - The two men most likely to become South Korea nuclear weapons program. During their first television debate ahead of the Dec. 19 election, Lee Hoi-chang and Roh Moo-hyun both said they hope communist North Korea can be persuaded peacefully to abandon its nuclear ambitions. But they differed widely in their approaches. "I wonder how long we can go with that approach" of seeking dialogue, the conservative opposition Grand National Party's Lee said during the two-hour, nationally televised debate. "We should make our demand in a forceful manner and should consider economic measures," he added. Lee has said he favors cutting off economic aid to North Korea if it does not immediately end its nuclear weapons program. Roh of the pro-government Millennium Democratic Party said that pressuring North Korea's Stalinist government "can be one means, but it is dangerous." "When it fails, it can cause terrible consequences," Roh said. "The carrot and dialogue can cost a lot, but we must be patient and we will be successful." Seven candidates are running in the election. But only three who received 5 percent or greater popularity ratings in recent surveys were allowed to participate in Tuesday's debate. The third candidate who made the cut was Kwon Young-gil, who heads a minor political party supported largely by labor unions. Kwon criticized North Korea for violating a 1994 agreement with Washington in which Pyongyang promised to abandon its nuclear weapons program. But he also accused the United States of breaking the accord by delaying construction of two nuclear generating plants it promised the North. South Korea's presidential race formally began Nov. 27, after which it is illegal to publish the results of popularity surveys. Earlier surveys showed essentially a two-way race between Lee, 67, and Roh, 55. President Kim Dae-jung whose five-year term ends in February, is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election. U.S. diplomats say North Korea admitted in October that it is secretly conducting nuclear weapons research. The United States, with backing from Japan, South Korea and the European Union decided in response to suspend free shipments of fuel oil to the North pledged under the 1994 accord. North Korea then declared the 1994 agreement had collapsed because of the fuel ban. Under President Kim, South Korea has pursued a "sunshine" policy seeking engagement with North Korea. Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 3 [OUTLOOK]American presence is still needed* *Kim Kyung-won* December 04, 2002 The Korea-America partnership is perched on the shakiest branch since the end of World War II, when the military alliance between the two countries was forged. But there is more to this critical status than the anti-American demonstrations sweeping the nation. In fact, the resentment felt by the activists is understandable from the vantage of people unfamiliar with the fundamental differences between the Korean legal system and that of the United States or the fabric of the Status of Forces Agreement that governs the activities of U.S. military personnel in Korea. In fact there are aspects of the relationship that are not, in the Korean point of view, up to the expectations of and in line with local sentiment, especially the manner in which American officials apologized over the deaths last June of two Korean girls in a road accident. The biggest problem rests not with the citizens who are determined to keep this issue on the front burner, but with the people who are steering it toward their own selfish political ends. They insist on driving the American military out of Korea and ending the Korea-America alliance. The demands are not new. They have been the favorite tune of the left wing for 50 years. But what is new is that today the calls are gaining increasing resonance among the average Korean. And for what reason? Alliances usually are formed in the face of a common threat. The Korea-America partnership was devised to confront the communist menace in the escalating stages of the Cold War. It served as a deterrent as long as the global bipolar structure, which existed during the time of the inception of this alliance, was firmly in place. Korea was able to concentrate on economic development within the fence of security provided by the American presence. The sudden dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the end of the Cold War posed key questions concerning the raison d'etre of an alliance conceived specifically to deter a bygone threat. Needless to say, North Korea has yet to collapse, but with its economy in rags, the country's once ferocious military posture is increasingly being compromised. Despite these colossal changes in the Korea-America partnership, people tend to think that the objective and purpose of the alliance are the same as they were in the earlier stages of the East-West confrontation. Put bluntly, they believe that the purpose of the alliance is to prevent a North Korean attack. Cooperation between Korea and America will falter unless the alliance readjusts to the changing times and assumes a more relevant position. This is the logic upon which anti-American activists try to oust the American military from Korea. Now that the Cold War is over, should the Korea-America duet follow suit? Two reasons would suggest no. First, the end of the Cold War's global confrontation does not necessarily indicate a complete resolution of the North Korean threat at home. Granted that the reclusive country's present military muscle is a far cry from its historical peak, but it still possesses immense fire- power coupled with an assumed nuclear arsenal. Carelessly rushing down an untested path may be dangerous. And reflecting on these realities, an American pull-out will not only undermine the security of Korea but do severe economic damage as well. Secondly, although an alliance against communism may be an anachronistic concept, a security structure desi-gned to ward off any shifts in the balance of power around the peninsula is critically necessary. Therefore, the reach of Amer-ican military presence should not be limited to Korea, but should encase the entire Northeast Asian region as well. It is important that these points be recognized not only by Korean and American officials, but also by the shouters of anti-American slogans. In sum, the purpose of the American forces' presence in Korea should be explained in terms of sustaining a regional strategic balance around the Korean Peninsula. In view of the embrace of former Warsaw Pact members by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an adjustment to changes in the international environment, it is time for a realignment of the Korea-America alliance so that it reflects the new realities in a changing region. * The writer is the president of the Institute of Social Sciences. ¨Ï 2002 JoongAng Ilbo , Joins.com . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 US, Pakistan facing nuclear riddle -- Detail Story* *ISLAMABAD:* Pakistan's senior foreign policy and security officials expect to begin an important dialogue with the Bush administration over safety issues surrounding the country's nuclear and missile programmes, when Stephen Hadley, the US Deputy National Security Adviser, visits Islamabad this week, senior officials said on Monday. Though Mr Hadley is expected to spend hardly a day in Islamabad, his visit has assumed larger interest for Pakistani officials, many of whom have been stung by a spate of recent stories in US newspapers, accusing Pakistan of exchanging nuclear know-how with North Korea in return for medium-to-long-range missiles. The issue of Pakistan's relationship to Pyongyang has emerged at a critical time for the country's relations with the United States, when the government of General Pervez Musharraf is continuing its support to the US war on terror even at the cost of deepening domestic hostility. Ahead of Mr Hadley's visit, senior Pakistani officials said, the opportunity may have arrived for accusations against Pakistan to be tackled at senior level with the Bush administration. "The Hadley visit was arranged well before these reports, but there's now an opportunity to put across our point of view" said a senior official, claiming that the visit was arranged well before the Pak-North Korea controversy emerged. "The question we have is simply that such serious matters can not be discussed through the press. We want to know if there's evidence. If not, where are these leaks coming from" added the official. The controversy surrounding the Pak-North Korean connection, for the first time since Pakistan became a close US ally after last September's terrorist attacks, has prompted officials to draw comparisons with the pattern similar to the 1980s. Then too, while the regime of late General Mohammad Ziaul Haq was closely allied with the Reagan administration, periodic leaks to mainstream US newspapers, relying in part on US government sources, drew attention to Islamabad's nuclear programme. Pakistanis have still not forgotten the bitter lesson of that era when tough punitive sanctions slapping Pakistan with consequences for its economy and military supplies, were thrown just a year after Soviet troops pulled out of Afghanistan, ending the prime driver behind Washington's close engagement in the region. "Is there a pattern which may be repeated here", asked a former senior official, closely associated with the Zia government. "Even if there are no punitive measures which are immediately introduced, should we now prepare for the inevitable punishing measures in future" he added. Pakistani officials insisted that the allegations seen so far had little relevance to reality as they knew it, prompting some to speculate that the charges against Pakistan are being drummed up by lobbies lined up against Islamabad, seeking to undermine General Musharraf's relationship with the Bush administration. "If we're talking about know-how, why should fingers only be pointed towards Pakistan. Do people forget there's a large range of sources including some web sites where people can search around for bits of relevant information on nuclear programmes", said a senior government official. "Isn't it just a very strange coincidence that just when the US and other western countries are so unnerved about weapons of mass destruction, this sort of information should come out and that too without evidence" he added. Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 BE bondholders demand better deal Scotsman.com Tue 3 Dec 2002 /IAIN DEY/ REBEL British Energy bondholders have threatened to pull the plug on the troubled nuclear generator?s last-ditch rescue plan unless a better deal is put on the table. A radical restructuring of the East Kilbride-based company - unveiled by Trade and Industry secretary Patricia Hewitt last week - was designed to spare British Energy from administration. But some creditors claim the deal, which would see their existing bonds traded for a mix of longer term bonds and fresh equity in the company, will slash the value of their holdings by up to one-third. One bondholder said: "It?s a dreadful mess, and time will tell. But certainly from creditors we?ve spoken to the consensus seems to be that, given that the proposal is so severe, chances are we have little to lose by putting the company into administration." Hewitt has said that the government is committed to keeping British Energy afloat, as the company generates roughly 20 per cent of the electricity consumed in the UK. But any debt swap - such as that proposed in the restructuring - would need the approval of existing bondholders as well as other creditors. The proposed package also leaves shareholders out in the cold. BE admitted last week that the proposed deal would leave existing equity holdings "very significantly diluted". City analysts said that as few as one-quarter of the holders of any particular bond could block the restructuring - forcing BE to launch insolvency proceedings. Some of the bondholders now plan to appoint financial advisers to weigh up their options for them and push for a better share of the deal. Bear Stearns credit analyst Jens Jantzen said: "With uncertainty people often assume the worst, but my take is that not accepting this and forcing administration will lead to bigger losses." British Energy?s outstanding sterling bonds have been marked down to just one-quarter of their face value since the restructuring proposals were announced. Under BE?s proposals, current bondholders will give up their £408 million of outstanding bonds in return for a share of up to £425 million of new bonds - expected to mature in or before 2035. Other "significant creditors" owed a combined £855 million, including bank lenders and companies that British Energy agreed to buy power from under long-term contracts, will also receive a portion of the new bonds. New equity will also be divided between these creditors, with a source close to British Energy saying that existing shareholders would probably end up with just five to 10 per cent of shares post-restructuring. ©2002 scotsman.com | contact ***************************************************************** 6 Germany thwarts EU energy tax accord About AlertNet 03 Dec 2002 17:06 Paul Carrel BRUSSELS, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Germany on Tuesday blocked a European Union plan to set tax rates for a wide range of energy products that up to now have been set at national level, EU officials said. Germany refused to agree to a request from France and Italy to maintain reduced tax rates for diesel used by hauliers as part of the plan, put forward by the Danish presidency. "As far as Belgium is concerned, we are in favour of all presidency's proposals without reserve. There are mainly reservations from the German side," Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders told reporters after a meeting of EU finance ministers. The EU has for years debated the merits and drawbacks of setting minimum tax levels for electricity and gas, but has never agreed on the matter which requires unanimity among the bloc's 15 member states. Environmentalists want an increase in energy tax as an essential policy to spur companies and individuals to use energy frugally and reduce the pollution caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power. The draft which was put to ministers on Tuesday proposed setting a minimum tax rate of 0.50 euros per megawatt of electricity for businesses and one euro per megawatt for householders. For coal and natural gas, the proposed minimum rates were 0.15 euros per gigajoule for firms and 0.30 for private consumers. "It is the Germans who are currently saying 'no'," said one EU diplomat. "They've got lots of road hauliers who pay lots of tax on their fuel, and they don't see why French hauliers should get a tax break." The finance ministers agreed to meet later in December to try once more to reach an agreement on an energy tax, and a deal on savings taxation -- the main subject of debate at Tuesday's meeting. Reynders said a deal could be reached on the energy tax if Germany compromised. "We should be able to have an agreement on energy. It's just on the German side that there needs to be a little movement because we have practically got a unanimous agreement on a text now," he said. Denmark, one of the EU's most environmentally-aware countries, has made the issue something of a priority. It is unlikely to receive the same attention from Greece and Italy which will chair the EU for the next 12 months. (Paul Carrel, Ecofin newsroom +33 685 079239) ***************************************************************** 7 China Says Too Early to Tell on Iraq Inspections* / Tue December 3, 2002 07:18 AM ET / BEIJING (Reuters) - China, which has the power to veto U.N. Security Council resolutions, said Tuesday that it still wants a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis as the Dec. 8 deadline for Baghdad to list its weapons programs looms. "China still holds that the United Nations resolutions pertaining to Iraq should be comprehensively and strictly carried out," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a news conference. "We still believe that the pressing matter of the moment is to find a way that Resolution 1441, passed most recently by the Security Council, can be implemented seriously and strictly, so as to resolve the Iraqi issue through political and diplomatic means within the framework of the United Nations." His statement came a day after President Bush stepped up his war of words on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, insisting he provides a detailed list of weapons programs by Dec. 8. Iraq said Tuesday that it would provide an arms "declaration" by Dec. 7. Liu declined direct comment when asked whether China was satisfied with inspectors' access to suspected weapons sites. Liu said the inspectors had only just started their work. "Currently, they still have not made a full and comprehensive report," he said. The inspectors searched one of Saddam's large palace compounds in Baghdad Tuesday in the biggest test of Iraqi cooperation since inspections for weapons of mass destruction resumed. In the previous five days of inspections, U.N. arms experts found no evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons programs. But in a swoop on a suspect site Monday, they said they had discovered some equipment and several U.N. monitoring cameras were missing from a missile factory. Iraq has denied possessing banned weapons but Washington insists it does. Liu said China had received no messages from the United States about preparations for war against Iraq. Reuters.de Buy ***************************************************************** 8 Iraq Says It Had Aluminum Tubing Before Sanctions* / Tue December 3, 2002 08:59 AM ET / LONDON (Reuters) - A source close to U.N. weapons inspectors said Tuesday that Iraq recently admitted to several failed attempts to acquire aluminum tubing for use in conventional weapons in violation of U.N. sanctions. But Baghdad immediately denied that claim, saying it has had the aluminum tubing since 1989, before the U.N. sanctions imposed for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, and was using them for the production of artillery shells. "The Iraqis said they tried to import the aluminum tubing, but not for use in nuclear weapons as the U.S. and Britain have alleged," the source close to the inspectors told Reuters. The source said the Iraqis told the inspectors after they returned to Baghdad last week that the tubing was to be used in multi-barreled rocket launchers. Baghdad also said it made several failed attempts to import the tubing. "The Iraqis said they tried to import the aluminum tubing, but not for use in nuclear weapons as the U.S. and Britain have alleged," the source said. Asked by reporters in Baghdad about the claims, Hussam Mohammed Amin, the Iraqi official in charge of liasing with the weapons inspectors, said: "This is untrue." "This is a tube which was available in Iraq since 1989, before the (Gulf) war, and we did not import any such tubes and the situation was explained in detail to Mr. Hans Blix and Mr. (Mohamed) ElBaradei during the Baghdad discussions with the UNMOVIC and IAEA (chiefs)," he said in English. The aluminum tubing "are currently used for the production of artillery rockets of 81 (mm) caliber...," he said. UNMOVIC is the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission searching for any chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, while the IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency which is investigating whether the Middle Eastern country has developed any nuclear weapons capability. U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Iraq on November 27 after a four-year gap in line with a U.N. resolution giving Baghdad one last chance to disarm or face a U.S.-led war. The U.N. source said the Iraqis denied that the tubing was intended to help revive Baghdad's secret nuclear weapons program, which the IAEA said it had fully neutralized before inspectors left Iraq in December 1998. The United States and Britain allege that Baghdad has attempted to revive its atomic weapons program in recent years, based on claims Baghdad tried to acquire uranium from Africa and aluminum tubing needed to enrich the uranium. The inspectors have not yet discussed the allegations about the African uranium with the Iraqis, the source said. Although Baghdad had never built an atomic weapon, IAEA inspectors found during inspections between 1991 and 1998 that it had taken a number of steps toward making one. Reuters The Company Korea Times > Nation By Oh Young-jin Staff Reporter Lee Hoi-chang of the Grand National Party (GNP) and Roh Moo-hyun of the Millennium Democratic Party, two major candidates contesting the Dec. 19 presidential election, are poles apart in their views on North Korea and the United States _ the two most important players in South Korean foreign policy. Depending on which candidate wins the presidency, Seoul¡¯s approach to Pyongyang and its self-confessed nuclear program, one of the most pressing issues on the new leader¡¯s docket, could change drastically. However, Dr. Kim Sung-han of the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security (IFANS) said the new president¡¯s way of handling the issue may be dictated by the U.S. position. ``Whoever becomes the president, either would face a difficult time of adjustment at the initial stage of presidency,¡¯¡¯ said, the government-affiliated research center,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. Washington is expected to push its hard-line agenda on Pyongyang in a three-way consultation with the incoming and outgoing governments in Seoul to produce a new roadmap for handling the North. ``It may be difficult for a new president not to follow the U.S. lead,¡¯¡¯ Kim said. The character of the new president will be tested in this meeting where there may be some friction between the two allies. For Roh, a former human rights lawyer who vows to put the Seoul-Washington relationship on an equal footing, it would be tempting to resist the Bush administration¡¯s strategy of giving Pyongyang carrots only when it behaves. ``I don¡¯t act obsequiously to the U.S,¡¯¡¯ Roh said in the recent television debate with millionaire candidate Chung Mong-joon before Roh won their unified candidacy. In the early 1990s, Roh called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and noted that the U.S. was the biggest obstacle to a closer inter-Korean relationship. However, he has significantly changed his U.S. view in the past year. The most notable change came in May when he officially said that the Bush administration is a ``diplomatic given¡¯¡¯ that can¡¯t be reversed and that he supported the continued U.S. presence even after national reunification. Lee may find himself more in agreement with the U.S, considering his conservative platform. After all, Lee is the most vocal critic of President Kim Dae-jung¡¯s ``Sunshine Policy¡¯¡¯ of engaging the Stalinist country. In a Nov. 26 television debate, the former Supreme Court justice said, ``The five years of the Sunshine Policy has only brought about the North¡¯s nuclear program.¡¯¡¯ Lee called for the suspension of cash provision to force Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program during a Oct. 23 meeting with President Kim and other presidential candidates. ``I believe that Lee could speak the same language with the Bush administration,¡¯¡¯ said Don Mackintyre, Time magazine correspondent in Seoul. However, he noted that a candidate¡¯s views often mellow and adjust to reality, when and if he or she is elected. Lee recently called for the revision of the ROK-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) following public indignation stemming from the ``not guilty¡¯¡¯ verdict given to two U.S. soldiers whose armored vehicle crushed two South Korean schoolgirls to death. This has been seen as an attempt by Lee to dispel voters¡¯ perceptions that he identifies with the U.S. too closely. It is questionable, however, whether Lee would be an attractive partner for dialogue with Pyongyang. In contrast to Roh, who vows to inherit President Kim¡¯s reconciliation and cooperation policy with Pyongyang, Lee said as part of his campaign pledges that he considers the North to be Seoul¡¯s primary enemy. The current Kim administration tried to withdraw this definition from its annual defense white paper but settled for delaying its publication in the face of strong conservative opposition. The two candidates are in sharp disagreement over whether or not to scrap the 1994 U.S.-North Korea nuclear agreement. In a commentary issued on Nov. 15, a GNP spokesman said that the provision of nuclear reactors to the North should be reviewed because of its self-confessed nuclear program. Roh has called on the U.S. to exercise patience to resolve the matter peacefully through dialogue. Lee showed his willingness to talk to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il during his Nov. 26 television debate but reiterated his stance that Kim must first give up his nuclear ambitions. ``I believe that both candidates recognize that a good relationship with the United States remains in South Korea's interest,¡¯¡¯ Asia Foundation representative Scott Snyder said. ``The challenge, similar to the one that faced former president Kim Young-sam, is how he will constructively manage the crisis in a way that ultimately does not prevent the South from having a voice and place at the table on an issue that is so crucial to South Korea's security,¡¯¡¯ he said. oh@koreatimes.co.kr 12-03-2002 17:21 ***************************************************************** 19 Germany thwarts EU energy tax accord Reuters AlertNet - 03 Dec 2002 17:06 Paul Carrel BRUSSELS, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Germany on Tuesday blocked a European Union plan to set tax rates for a wide range of energy products that up to now have been set at national level, EU officials said. Germany refused to agree to a request from France and Italy to maintain reduced tax rates for diesel used by hauliers as part of the plan, put forward by the Danish presidency. "As far as Belgium is concerned, we are in favour of all presidency's proposals without reserve. There are mainly reservations from the German side," Belgian Finance Minister Didier Reynders told reporters after a meeting of EU finance ministers. The EU has for years debated the merits and drawbacks of setting minimum tax levels for electricity and gas, but has never agreed on the matter which requires unanimity among the bloc's 15 member states. Environmentalists want an increase in energy tax as an essential policy to spur companies and individuals to use energy frugally and reduce the pollution caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power. The draft which was put to ministers on Tuesday proposed setting a minimum tax rate of 0.50 euros per megawatt of electricity for businesses and one euro per megawatt for householders. For coal and natural gas, the proposed minimum rates were 0.15 euros per gigajoule for firms and 0.30 for private consumers. "It is the Germans who are currently saying 'no'," said one EU diplomat. "They've got lots of road hauliers who pay lots of tax on their fuel, and they don't see why French hauliers should get a tax break." The finance ministers agreed to meet later in December to try once more to reach an agreement on an energy tax, and a deal on savings taxation -- the main subject of debate at Tuesday's meeting. Reynders said a deal could be reached on the energy tax if Germany compromised. "We should be able to have an agreement on energy. It's just on the German side that there needs to be a little movement because we have practically got a unanimous agreement on a text now," he said. Denmark, one of the EU's most environmentally-aware countries, has made the issue something of a priority. It is unlikely to receive the same attention from Greece and Italy which will chair the EU for the next 12 months. (Paul Carrel, Ecofin newsroom +33 685 079239) ***************************************************************** 20 TUB directors rescind previous action on participation in TVA plan* By:JOE PATTON, Staff Writer December 03, 2002 *Directors of the Tullahoma Utilities Board (TUB) have decided against participating in a new Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) program lowering energy costs in exchange for helping fund restart of Unit 1 at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant and other power generation projects with non-debt reduction financing. * For a pre-purchase power investment of $1 million for 10 years, TVA will discount 2.5 cents per kiloWatt hour from up to 435,000 kWh per month. TUB directors voted to withdraw $1 million from reserve funds to participate in the Discounted Energy Units (DEU) program but two weeks later voted 4-1 to rescind that action at general manager Joe Loggins' urging. Based on the current plant value, the operating and maintenance costs and its wholesale power costs, TUB directors in February 2001 set a reserve goal of $3.6 million for fiscal 2004 helped by budgeted increases of $168,953 and $257,819 each of the last two fiscal years. Cash reserves to include $726,700 in customer deposits will dip to an estimated $1.8 million by June 30, 2003, without emergency demands, a clearly uncomfortable level, Loggins argued. "If we deplete our reserves and then decide we need to re-establish them, it will produce a difficult situation," he said. "While raising retail rates to meet increased wholesale is usually not so difficult to defend, I do not relish the thought of defending a rate increase to establish reserve funds." TUB, which he says has put off needed improvements to the power distribution system doesn't have $1 million to tie up right now and would face further delays by doing so. Director and city alderman Phil Trimble said he failed to see why TUB couldn't afford to participate in a worthwhile program and cast the lone vote against rescinding the previous action. TUB, which expects to pay more than $15.2 million for wholesale power in fiscal 2003 marked up 15 percent for retail distribution. Under the DEU program, it would have saved $10,875 per month for 120 months at the current wholesale rate. Put another way, TUB, which consumes an average 26.54 million kWh of power per month, would have gotten a 2.5 cent per kWh discount on a 435,000 kWh bloc of power. "It was with mixed emotion that I recommended against it for fear of pulling our reserves down to an uncomfortable level," TUB general manager Joe Loggins said earlier. "On the other hand, it seems to me to be a 'win-win' program with power benefits and a show of solidarity." As part of a safety net, TVA offered to give DEU participants a line of credit equal to their DEU purchase in case of an emergency. Money up to the full amount could be borrowed at TVA's cost if needed. TVA's largest customer, Memphis Light, Gas and Water, is exploring the possibility, of a $1.5 billion DEU purchase saving $225 million. But it will need a U.S. Treasury tax exemption on a municipal bond issue to swing the purchase of 1,500 DEU blocs. TUB should know within three or four months if the tax exemption request will be granted, putting a different light on possible participation, Loggins said. If so, TUB and the other distributors sell bonds which would provide TVA with significant funds while dropping wholesale power rates, he said. But committal of $1 million from reserve funds would serve to adversely impact TUB's borrowing power and preclude involvement in a worthwhile financial enterprise, he added. TVA has an estimated $7.5 billion in power and other projects on the drawing board and hopes to pay down a staggering debt load while meeting capital needs without having to yield to political and private power industry pressure for large rate increases. The nation's largest public power producer, TVA provides power to large users like AEDC and 158 municipal utilities and rural electric distributors with 8.3 million customers in seven states in the Southeast. Thirty-nine distributors have expressed interest in the DEU program at last count. /©The Tullahoma News 2002/ ***************************************************************** 21 Leak Prompted Nuclear Plant Shutdown Las Vegas SUN: December 03, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS DALLAS- A reactor at a nuclear power plant was shut down in September after a leak was discovered in a tube carrying radioactive water, government documents revealed. The leak at TXU Energy's Comanche Peak plant, about 75 miles southwest of Dallas, did not endanger the public or violate the plant's permit limits, TXU spokesman David Beshear told The Dallas Morning News in Tuesday's editions. A report by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspectors says radiation monitors inside the twin-reactor plant's Unit 1 sounded alarms and recorded "high readings" on Sept. 26. Radiation levels "spiked" six more times before operators shut down the reactor two days later, according to inspectors. The leak was found in a small tube in one of four steam generators that make steam to turn the reactor's electric turbines. The utility's report to the regulatory agency said a subsequent TXU check found that 667 other radioactive water-carrying tubes on Unit 1 - more than 1 percent of the reactor's tubes - were corroded, but none was leaking. Tube corrosion, but not leaks, had been found in previous inspections at Comanche Peak. NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said the latest inspection of the plant focused on Comanche Peak's system for finding and responding to leaks in the reactor's tubes. "What we're interested in is whether they should have picked up on this earlier," he said. Federal regulators who inspected the plant plan to discuss their findings with TXU managers Dec. 10. The meeting will be open to the public. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 22 Al-Anbaa: Egyptian- Israeli nuclear reactor [http://www.arabicnews.com/] Egypt-Israel, Politics, 12/3/2002 The Kuwaiti daily al-Anbaa has disclosed intensive Egyptian- Israeli diplomatic contacts concerning what was announced by the Israeli infrastructure minister Effie Eitam on installing a new nuclear reactor in Shabta area in the Negev desert, which is 10 kilometers from the borders with Egypt. The paper said that the aim behind these contacts is to stop the building of this reactor due to its dangers to the region where an Arab village for the Bedouins of the Negev and the Palestinians of 1948 exists near the site for building this reactor. Political sources told the paper that Israel cannot build this reactor because it is banned because of its rejection to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty NPT. A matter which will be escalated by the Egyptian diplomacy through legal channels and by various means in order to halt the building of this reactor. The sources indicated that Israel's does not seek aim behind that is not to build a village for the Arab Bedouins in the area where the reactor will be built and to create tension with Egypt. Please bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our 1995-2002 Arabic News.com, All Rights Reserved. Send comments & ***************************************************************** 23 Xcel presses Legislature over nuclear power [startribune.com] Susan E. Peterson Star Tribune Published Dec. 3, 2002 XCEL03 Minnesota legislators will have to make some key decisions next year about the future of nuclear power in the state, Xcel Energy officials said Monday. In a report outlining its plans to meet electricity demand over the next several years, Xcel said the Legislature will have to decide whether to authorize more on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Prairie Island nuclear plant, among other power-related issues. In 1994, the Legislature limited on-site spent-fuel storage to 17 casks at the Prairie Island plant, and the company promised that it would not seek additional on-site storage. Maintaining that limit likely would mean the forced shutdown of the 1,100-megawatt Prairie Island plant in 2007 and the closure of Xcel's 600-megawatt Monticello nuclear plant in 2010, the Minneapolis-based company said. Xcel, the state's largest utility, said it has determined that continuing to operate both nuclear plants is the most effective option for its customers in terms of cost, reliability and environmental emissions. However, as required by the 1994 law, it is considering replacement options, including new coal or natural gas plants. Xcel has not drafted proposed legislation yet, said Dave Sparby, vice president of regulatory and governmental affairs. "We hope to have a dialogue with all the affected stakeholders," such as the neighboring Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota tribe, which has opposed the on-site storage; cities near the Prairie Island and Monticello plants; affected Xcel workers, and others, he said. "If nuclear energy is to remain in the state's energy mix, we need to make many decisions soon to keep our two nuclear plants operating," he said. "If nuclear generation is not in the mix, action may well be needed during the 2003 session to ensure replacement power is on line on time." Sparby said that finding appropriate sites for new coal-or gas-fired plants, obtaining required permits and building new transmission lines and other infrastructure require a significant amount of time. "That's why it's important to move ahead with deciding what options we're going to choose to meet these requirements," he said. Xcel has been working for eight years to promote alternatives to on-site nuclear waste storage, including suing the federal government for failing to fulfill its obligation to take possession of spent fuel and leading efforts by a group of utilities to develop a privately owned repository on Goshute tribal land in Utah, Sparby said. However, even in a best-case scenario, Xcel doesn't expect either the Utah site or the planned federal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., to be able to accept spent fuel in time to prevent a Prairie Island shutdown if it doesn't get authority to expand on-site storage, he said. -- Susan E. Peterson is at sepeterson@startribune.com [sepeterson@startribune.com] . Return to top© Copyright 2002 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 Xcel wants action on nuclear storage Pioneer Press | 12/03/2002 | RED WING, MINN.: Posted on Tue, Dec. 03, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] BY DENNIS LIEN Pioneer Press Xcel Energy threw the simmering issue of nuclear power on the Minnesota Legislature's doorstep Monday, saying crucial decisions must be made in the upcoming session or the Prairie Island power plant near Red Wing almost certainly will be shut down in 2007. "If nuclear generation is to remain in the state's energy mix, we need to make many decisions soon to keep our two nuclear plants operating in the future,'' said Dave Sparby, Xcel's vice president of regulatory and government affairs. "If nuclear generation is not in the mix, action may well be needed during the 2003 session to ensure replacement power is on line, on time.'' Sparby said Xcel wants to meet with a host of interests, including the Prairie Island American Indian community, and then head to the Legislature for a decision. Xcel officials support continued use of nuclear power, which makes up 30 percent of the utility's output. From a cost, reliability and emissions perspective, Sparby said, it's clearly the most effective power option. Under an emotional legislative compromise in 1994, Xcel is forbidden from storing nuclear waste in more than 17 above-ground casks outside its Prairie Island plant. The company expects to reach that limit by 2007. When the 1994 deal was made, the utility expected a federal repository to take its waste. But that facility, at Yucca Mountain, Nev., now isn't expected to accept waste until 2010 at the earliest. Xcel's other option, a private-storage site in Utah, won't be available until at least 2005. And even then, state law requires that all the outside nuclear waste must be moved off-site by 2007 before it can be replaced with additional waste — that isn't considered enough time to move the material to Utah. Xcel signaled its intent Monday in an energy outlook plan it submits every two years to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Longtime critics of nuclear waste said they're skeptical but willing to talk with Xcel. "Prairie Island has reaffirmed its opposition to additional storage, but, as always, the tribe is willing to sit down with Xcel and the state to talk about potential solutions that will address the tribe's health and safety needs and allow the plant to continue operating,'' said Jake Reint, a spokesman for the tribe. "They really need us to go forward.'' "We look forward to that discussion,'' said George Crocker, head of the North American Water Office, an environmental group that has been a persistent critic of the nuclear waste generated at Minnesota plants. "But, as they put their case together, we hope to convince management that it's really time to put commercial nuclear power behind us in Minnesota.'' Crocker was skeptical of Xcel's assertion that nuclear power is reliable, especially considering that Xcel's plants at Red Wing and Monticello are three decades old. "Aging components are failing at more rapid rates,'' said Crocker, who also questioned the effectiveness of security at the plants. Although legislation was introduced 18 months ago to allow more nuclear waste to be stored in casks outside Prairie Island, Sparby said the utility has no specific proposal and has not been working with legislators. "We have laid before them several alternatives, we have provided the analyses that support them and we have provided our preference,'' Sparby said. "We don't have any legislation drafted, and we hope that when it comes time, we can reflect in that legislation the dialogue we are having with our stakeholders,'' he added. Dennis Lien covers the environment. He can be reached at [dlien@pioneerpress.com] or (651) 228-5588. ***************************************************************** 25 Con Edison wins court battle THE JOURNAL NEWS: A Gannett Suburban webpaper By ALLAN DRURY THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: December 3, 2002) The U.S. Supreme Court declined yesterday to allow New York to prohibit Consolidated Edison Inc. from charging customers $130 million to make up for the utility's expenses during a nuclear plant shutdown. The decision leaves Con Edison with only one legal barrier blocking it from collecting the money from ratepayers. The utility must now convince the state Public Service Commission it had no way to prevent the leak that caused the February 2000 shutdown of the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan. Leaking steam forced Con Edison, which owned the plant, to buy power for about $600,000 a day on the open market. Con Edison raised ratepayers' bills to recoup the money. The utility collected $40 million before Gov. George Pataki signed a law prohibiting the company from passing on the costs to customers. The state took the position that the utility was negligent and could have prevented the radioactive leak. A federal district court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Manhattan both said the law was invalid. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court decisions to stand. The law would have required Con Edison to refund the money it already collected through a $2 a month surcharge and prevented it from collecting the remaining $90 million. The $90 million would be spread among Con Edison's roughly 3 million customers in Westchester County and New York City, meaning customers would pay an average of $30 each. Joseph Petta, a company spokesman, said Con Edison was pleased with the decision. "We agree with today's Supreme Court action that appropriately returns this matter to the New York State Public Service Commission," he said. "We believe we acted prudently in all aspects of the plant's operation and will address any remaining issues with state regulators." But state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Greenburgh, criticized yesterday's decision and said he will seek a new law — one that would withstand court scrutiny — to prevent Con Edison from charging customers for the money. "It's both a disappointment and a terrible mistake," said Brodsky, a lawyer, who argued the case before the appeals court. "This is right-wing judicial activism at its worst. They created a new law to protect corporations from their own wrongdoing." He promised more legislative action. "We're going to go and revisit the law and make Con Edison pay for its own negligence," he said. "We will recover money from Con Edison. It's just a matter of how much." The district judge, Lawrence Kahn, said in his October 2000 ruling that the law singled out Con Edison and thwarted the utility from having a chance to argue its case before the public service commission. The appeals court said in June the state law violated the "bill of attainder" clause in the U.S. Constitution, which limits the powers of legislative bodies. Brodsky said the clause was intended to prevent legislatures from overreaching in making decisions affecting individuals, not corporations. "The 2nd Circuit made a very bizarre decision," he said. The Public Service Commission has hired consultant Terra De Alta Associates of White Plains to determine whether Con Edison should have prevented the leak with better maintenance and safety plans. If the investigation finds Con Edison should have avoided the accident, it could force Con Edison to absorb the costs, instead of passing them to customers. Edward Collins, a spokesman for the commission, said the commission was one of the parties that petitioned the courts in the case. "So we're obviously disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to hear the case," he said. Collins said the investigation, will continue. Con Edison sold the reactor to Entergy Nuclear in September 2001. Send e-mail to Allan Drury [adrury@thejournalnews.com] Copyright 2002 The Journal News, a Gannett Co Service [http://www.thejournalnews.com ***************************************************************** 26 Chernobyl victims protest demanding unpaid benefits AP World Politics Tue Dec 3, 7:50 AM ET KIEV, Ukraine - Waving banners and shouting at passing lawmakers, some 200 survivors of the Chernobyl nuclear accident protested outside Ukraine's parliament Tuesday, demanding payment of compensation and increased social protection. The All-Ukrainian Party for People of Chernobyl staged the protest to coincide with the national Day of Invalid Protection, criticizing lawmakers for slashing Chernobyl victims' benefits by some 80 percent in the proposed 2003 budget and demanding the state pay long-overdue benefits. "A year's gone by without getting paid ... only if all those swindlers leave the parliament will the situation change, otherwise nothing will change," said Fedor Hryhorenko, one of the protesters. Some 1,500 Chernobyl survivors marched down the Ukrianian capital's main boulevard Sunday calling on the government to provide housing for victims outside the radiation zone, higher social payments to account for inflation, and free medical care, according to the Interfax news agency. Ukraine suffered the world's worst nuclear disaster in April 1986, when a reactor at Chernobyl exploded and caught fire, sending a radioactive cloud over vast areas of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus and much of northern Europe. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians disabled by Chernobyl-related illnesses suffer from inadequate health care and some 25,000 evacuated families still await housing, according to the Emergency Situations Ministry. Officials estimate that some 3.3 million Ukrainians, including 1.5 million children were affected by the accident. (tv/dgs) Copyright © 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 27 USPS Workers Get Potassium Iodide Pills Las Vegas SUN December 03, 2002 By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON- U.S. postal workers are being given potassium iodide pills to protect against thyroid cancer in the event of a radiological emergency. "Employees are out there in all of these communities nationwide and we wanted to err on the side of caution," Postal Service spokeswoman Sue Brennan said. The USPS said Monday it was buying nearly 1.6 million pills from Tampa-based Anbex, Inc. for distribution to workers who want to have the tablets if a radiological emergency occurs. Potassium iodide is the only medication for internal radiation exposure. It has just one use - to prevent thyroid cancer by shielding the thyroid from radioactive iodine, and it would help only if a dirty bomb used radioactive iodine instead of other radioactive substances, and then only for people close to the explosion. The Food and Drug Administration-approved tablets are being offered to all 750,000 postal workers nationwide. Any employee who wants the pills in case of emergency will get two tablets. "It's a proactive approach regarding the safety, health and well-being of employees nationwide," Brennan said. Brennan said the pills are being offered much like free flu shots were offered in the wake of the anthrax scares after the Sept. 11 attacks. The recommendation came up in meetings of the mail security task force, comprised of representatives of postal unions, management associations and the Office of the Inspector General, along with safety and medical specialists and members of the mailing industry. In January, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it would provide free potassium iodide to 33 states that had residents living within a 10-mile radius of each of the nation's 102 nuclear reactors. Like any medication, overdoses of potassium iodide can be dangerous. Some people may experience allergic reactions, including nausea or rashes. Phone calls to the American Postal Workers Union and National Association of Letter Carriers were not immediately returned. --- On the Net: U.S. Postal Service: http://www.usps.com [http://www.usps.com] Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov [http://www.nrc.gov] Food and Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov [http://www.fda.gov] All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 Traveling Resource Center Comes to Bay Area to Assist Former Workers with Compensation Claims energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: December 2, 2002 [Print Friendly Version] WASHINGTON, DC - The Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Labor (DOL) traveling resource center will be available at two locations in the San Francisco Bay area from Dec. 2-5. During this time, representatives will be on hand to assist former workers of the Energy Department with claims filed under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). "Traveling Resource Centers are an important part of the joint DOE/DOL outreach effort to locate and assist as many workers and their families as possible," Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, Beverly Cook said. "The assistance we provide will help to simplify the process of filing claims and to get successful claimants the compensation that they deserve." There are two different types of assistance managed by both of the departments under the EEOICPA. The portion of the program managed by the Energy Department, helps its contractor employees apply for state workers' compensation benefits if it is determined by an independent physicians panel that the worker sustained an illness caused by a toxic substance at a DOE facility. Benefits for successful claimants vary from state to state, but are generally a portion of lost wages plus reimbursement of medical costs. The Labor Department administers the program that provides up to $150,000 and payment of medical expenses for current and former DOE employees and its contractors, who became ill by their exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica. Workers who need help filling out claim forms can schedule an appointment at the Traveling Resource Center by calling, toll-free, (866) 697-0841, or drop in during the hours listed below: Four Points Hotel by Sheraton 5115 Hopyard Road Pleasanton, Calif. 94566 Dec. 2-3, 2002 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Oakland Marriott (City Center ) 1001 Broadway Oakland, Calif. 94607 8:30 a..m. - 6:00 p.m. Dec. 4-5, 2002 Media Contact: Dolline Hatchett, 202/586-5806 Joe Davis, 202/586-4940 Release No. PR-02-252 ***************************************************************** 29 NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION HOLDS RECURRENT SESSION AZG Armenian Daily #222, 04/12/2002 [http://top100.rambler.ru/top100/] [http://www.circle.am/] AZG Armenian Daily #222, 04/12/2002 A recurrent session of a presidential commission for nuclear energy safety with participation of president Robert Kocharian took place December 3 in Yerevan. The commission is an independent body composed of experts from Russia, USA, France, Great Britain Armenia and Slovakia. It was founded by a decree of ex-president Levon Ter-Petrosian proceeding from the necessity of securing safe operation of Armenian nuclear power plant in Metzamor, some 20 km off the capital Yerevan. Armenian president Robert Kocharian met the same day with Adolph Birkhoffer, director of German Institute of Nuclear Safety, who is also the chairman of the commission. Kocharian's press office said the meeting was centered mainly on power grid-related issues, particularly, views were exchanged by the two men regarding the rise of safety operation of the Armenian nuclear power plant in Metzamor. © Copyright AZG ***************************************************************** 30 Feds should have obtained Yucca hazardous waste permit, Nevada officials say* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 12/1/2002 11:39 pm LAS VEGAS ? Nevada officials say the Department of Energy acted improperly when it failed to obtain a hazardous waste permit for tons of dangerous metals proposed for storage at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. Bob Loux, Nevada?s Nuclear Projects Agency chief, said the state would make that argument in legal papers it plans to file today with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. State officials maintain an estimated 190 million pounds of metal known as Alloy-22, containing chromium, nickel and vanadium, require a state-issued permit for disposal. Another 310 million pounds of stainless steel, which contains chromium and nickel, also would require DOE to obtain a permit from Nevada environmental officials, they said. Earlier this year, President Bush and Congress approved the storage of highly radioactive spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain. But state officials contend the bill they approved over Nevada?s strong objections does not cover the metals government scientists are relying on to hold this fuel. The first shipment of nuclear waste could arrive in 2010. State officials say the final environmental impact statement also lacks an adequate analysis of how spent fuel will be transported across more than 40 states to Yucca Mountain and ignores the metal dangers. In the state?s view, Loux said, the final impact statement is legally defective. ?We had to focus on the major defects,? he said. ?We could have written 200 to 300 pages of defects.? Today?s filing will be the latest move by the state to determine whether the DOE followed proper procedures in deciding to build a repository in Nevada. A ruling in Nevada?s favor could delay the project or force Congress to revisit the project considering the hazardous waste issues. Clark County and the city of Las Vegas are co-petitioners with the state in the appeals case. The case is a consolidation of three lawsuits Nevada has filed challenging the final impact statement, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham?s recommendation of the site and guidelines for locating at Yucca. President Bush adopted the recommendation to build Yucca Mountain in February, and the House and Senate approved it over the veto of Gov. Kenny Guinn in May and July. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal , a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 Xcel puts nuclear waste on 2003 agenda /12/03/2002/`* Fairview Red Wing Michael Fielding , Staff Writer December 03, 2002 *The Prairie Island Tribal Community is hinting at a compromise with Xcel Energy in the debate over storage of radioactive spent fuel at the Prairie Island nuclear plant, located 600 yards from the reservation.* *Xcel Energy officials are renewing their push for more on-site storage at its plants in Red Wing and Monticello, Minn. If the Legislature doesn't address the issue in 2003, the Prairie Island plant could be forced to shut down in 2007, Xcel officials say.* On Monday, the utility filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission its 2002 resource plan that addresses alternatives to meet electricity needs during the next five years. The utility expects an annual energy growth of 1.7 percent through 2017. Tribal officials indicated they would consider allowing additional storage, but only if certain conditions are met. "The Prairie Island Indian Community's health and safety needs include a secondary evacuation route off Prairie Island, land for tribal members who don't want to live near the plant and compensation for emergency planning and preparedness," representatives said in a prepared statement. "Prairie Island has always maintained that these issues need to be addressed," said Jake Reint, a spokesman for the tribe. "The tribe has always been willing ... to find solutions." *Xcel, tribe talks* But it hasn't always been willing to consider additional on-site storage. "Goal No. 1 is to get the nuclear waste off Prairie Island. In the short term the tribe would consider supporting the plant's continued operation through additional storage if its pressing health and safety needs are addressed," Reint said. Dave Sparby, vice president of regulatory and government affairs for Xcel Energy, declined to discuss details, but he said Xcel plans to discuss the issues further with tribal officials. "I'd like to try to understand better each of these individual points," he said. Xcel and tribal officials have not discussed costs and timing associated with the issues such as a secondary evacuation route and additional land, he said. Reint said talk of a solution to the tribe's concerns is premature. "The secondary evacuation route isn't so simple. These are pretty complex things that need to be resolved before the tribe will even consider allowing additional storage." He acknowledged that despite their complexity, the issues could be resolved before 2007. "Anything's possible." *Timing critical* Xcel officials have said they plan to involve the Prairie Island community in discussions about added storage. Sparby said the timing is critical. If the Legislature denies additional storage, "action may well be needed during the 2003 session to ensure replacement power is on line, on time," he said. Sparby did not rule out legislation to authorize more storage, but he said Xcel first will work on alternatives such as coal, natural gas and wind turbine generation. Former Xcel CEO Jim Howard had said the utility would not seek additional storage. The Legislature approved dry-cask storage in 1994 but limited that to 17 large steel containers. "The implications of shutting down the Monticello and Prairie Island plants on the state's energy future compel us to bring the issue back for review," Sparby said. *1994 law* Any changes to the 1994 law need to be approved by the tribe, Reint said. "We believe very strongly that the tribe was given that status for a reason. If it's not valid, then it was a completely empty promise at the time." Xcel officials have another opinion. "Our understanding is ... it could be modified by the current Legislature (without the tribe's approval)," Sparby said of the 1994 bill. *Address issue now* Numerous power supply issues are discussed in the resource plan, but nothing is expected to spark as much debate as the proposal for additional on-site storage of radioactive spent fuel. The 1994 Legislature imposed a limit on storage that likely will force the shutdown of the Prairie Island plant in 2007 and the Monticello plant in 2010 if more storage is not approved, Sparby said. Progress is being made both on Yucca Mountain in Nevada and private fuel storage in Utah, but Sparby said those sites will not likely be able to accept enough spent fuel in time to avoid shutdown of the Prairie Island plant in four years. "Clearly the time to address this is now," Reint said. "To do it before it becomes a crisis is certainly preferable from the tribe's perspective." Michael Fielding can be reached at fielding@republican-eagle.com or 388-2914, ext. 127. fielding@republican-eagle.com /©Red Wing Republican Eagle 2002/ ***************************************************************** 32 Nevada in court papers outlines opposition to Yucca Mountain* RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL Associated Press 12/3/2002 05:15 pm A decision to bury thousands of tons of nuclear waste in Nevada should be overturned because the government cannot assure the site's geology will keep radiation from seeping into the environment, the state of Nevada argues in a court filing. The brief, filed in a suit challenging the decision to entomb the waste at Yucca Mountain, maintains that the Energy Department violated the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act by resorting to"engineered barriers"to contain the waste. In papers filed Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, the state argues that the Bush administration was"essentially abandoning"the 1982 law's"mandate that the site's geology form the primary isolation barrier"in selecting the Yucca Mountain site for waste burial. Meanwhile, the federal government on Tuesday renewed its motion in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas to make Nevada turn on the water at the Yucca Mountain project. The government said it is in urgent need of water to provide a sanitation system, drinking water and showers for workers. In June, a federal judge refused to make the state turn on the water and said the government was not in danger of running out of water, but could return to court if it thought the project was running low. "I think it remains to be seen if in fact their needs are urgent,"said Bob Loux, Nevada's Nuclear Projects Agency chief. Yucca Mountain is a ridge of volcanic rock and ash about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. Last February, President Bush declared it scientifically suitable and safe as the nation's central repository for 77,000 tons of waste from commercial reactors and the government's nuclear weapons program. After Nevada challenged the decision, Congress endorsed the president's declaration in July and overturned what could have been a veto of the site by Nevada. The Energy Department is seeking a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and hopes to open the waste repository by 2010. But Nevada, joined by the city of Las Vegas and surrounding Clark County, has promised to continue the fight in court and filed a number of lawsuits challenging the project. In a 100-page filing in support of its lawsuit before the appeals court, Nevada contends that the 1982 law that directed construction of a federal nuclear waste repository specifically required that natural geology at the site"form the primary barrier keeping waste from people and the environment"over tens of thousands of years. The suit also argues that the Energy Department conducted a"flawed environmental review"of the Yucca site, disregarded procedures required under the law in determining the site's suitability and failed to assess adequately problems involving the transportation of waste to the site. Yucca Mountain initially was chosen because Energy Department scientists believed it had the geology required to contain the waste. They later found it did not and adopted a"total system performance"approach in violation of the 1982 law, the state argues in its suit. Now, the suit maintains, the project relies extensively on manmade barriers _ metal alloy waste containers and drip shields, for example _ to keep waste from escaping. The Energy Department had no immediate response to the Nevada court filing. Nevada officials have made similar arguments repeatedly in public meetings and in outlining their opposition to the Yucca Mountain project over the years. Energy Department officials have maintained the site is in full compliance with the 1982 requirements, it relies on geology to contain the waste and the engineered barriers only provide additional protection. Congress declared in 1987 that Yucca Mountain should be the only site to be considered for nuclear waste disposal. Since then, nearly $7 billion has been spent on studying the area's geology and developing a waste package and design. On the Net: Energy Department's Yucca Mountain site:http://www.ymp.gov/ Nevada Yucca Mountain site:http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/state01.htm © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal , a Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 Nevada Tells Court Yucca Mountain is Unsafe AmeriScan: December 3, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC, December 3, 2002 (ENS) - In the latest court action challenging the proposed high level nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, the state of Nevada argued Monday that the site does not meet requirements for containing nuclear waste with its natural features. In a brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Nevada's lawyers argued that if casks constructed to hold spent nuclear fuel were to fail, it would increase the radiation released at the proposed repository by as much as six times more than allowed under the federal rules governing the site's licensing. Yucca Mountain, located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being considered as a permanent repository for thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel now stored at power reactors across the country. But the Nevada court papers charge that the Department of Energy (DOE) has known for more than 14 years that the proposed Yucca Mountain site could not contain radioactivity from high level wastes based on geology alone. The DOE endorsed Yucca Mountain two decades ago, stating that "the host rock with its properties provides the justification for geologic disposal and is the main element in containing the waste within the repository." However, the DOE had later determined "that up to 20 percent of all water moving through the repository would reach the accessible environment in less than 1,000 years," Nevada charges, noting that that water would carry radioactivity to surrounding communities and natural areas. The brief, which is more than 50 pages long, also argues that the DOE has "failed to address realistic sabotage scenarios involving spent fuel transport and thus vastly understated the risks and consequences of undertaking thousands of such shipments if Yucca proceeds." Concerns about possible terrorist attacks on the Yucca Mountain site or on cross country shipments of spent fuel and other high level radioactive waste have increased since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nevada's court filing charges, for example, that "DOE did not consider the risk that a warhead exploding inside a spent fuel container could cause fissile nuclear material inside to create a nuclear chain reaction, or 'criticality,' whose consequences would catastrophically exceed the postulated consequences of the relatively tame event described" in the agency's final environmental impact statement. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2002. All Rights ***************************************************************** 34 NUCLEAR WASTE: State files challenge to Yucca Tuesday, December 03, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal Legal brief says DOE acted improperly in selecting site By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL President Bush and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham used flawed and incomplete information this year to recommend Yucca Mountain for entombing the nation's spent nuclear fuel, leaving many questions unanswered about terrorism, public safety and the repository's design, according to court papers Nevada filed Monday in Washington, D.C. Among the concerns raised in the court documents is a new scenario: the specter of a terrorist attack that would result in a nuclear chain reaction involving metal casks of spent fuel being transported to the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "It will become clear that (the Energy Department) knew the site should be disqualified, failed to do so and then embarked on a program to mislead the Congress and others to believe the site is suitable," state Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said in a telephone interview late Monday. "They also failed to complete site characterization as they openly acknowledge in the administrative record. If the state of Nevada is correct in these allegations, then the decision by the secretary and the president will be thrown out," he said. The legal brief, more than 50 pages long, asserts that government scientists realized as studies of the Yucca Mountain site progressed in the past 10 years that the volcanic-rock ridge itself is inadequate to isolate deadly spent fuel, as Congress intended, in a maze of tunnels. The brief is Nevada's opening statement for a consolidation of some of its lawsuits that have been sent to the District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Clark County and the city of Las Vegas are co-petitioners with the state in the appeal, which was filed by lawyer Joseph Egan, a nuclear engineer who heads the state's special legal team. The brief sums up how, in the state's view, DOE failed to assess all the effects of transporting and burying highly radioactive waste, and sought to change rules and obscure the required procedure to find the site suitable when it should have been disqualified. DOE's final impact statement "failed to address realistic sabotage scenarios involving spent fuel transport and thus vastly understated the risks and consequences of undertaking thousands of such shipments if Yucca proceeds," the court papers state. Later the papers note that "DOE did not consider the risk that a warhead exploding inside a spent fuel container could cause fissile nuclear material inside to create a nuclear chain reaction, or `criticality,' whose consequences would catastrophically exceed the postulated consequences of the relatively tame event described" in the final impact statement. Past news reports have alluded to the possible spread of nuclear materials from a missile blowing a hole in a waste canister, but not a strike that could cause a nuclear chain reaction. Allen Benson, a DOE spokesman for the project, now known as the Office of Repository Development, said agency officials "can't comment on something we have not had the opportunity to review." "It's not surprising that Nevada would file lawsuits at every opportunity in an effort to stymie the project," he said. According to the state's court documents, DOE "acknowledged the danger of criticality events in connection with the mere storage of these same casks in the `no action' alternative." The papers cite references to rainwater and fire inducing nuclear chain reactions in spent fuel in storage, but "ignored the far more realistic risks of critically occurring in a sabotage event, where, for example, an exploding TOW missile might shred the front and back hulls of a cask moving through a city, exposing spent fuel to rain, fire or firefighters' spray, inducing criticality." TOW stands for "tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided." The TOW anti-tank missile weighs less than 50 pounds, costs less than $200,000, and is in use by militaries in 40 countries, according to its manufacturer, Raytheon Corp. It can be fired from a 200-pound launcher stationed on the back of a flatbed truck. In summary, the state's brief contends that the final impact statement for the Yucca Mountain Project left "critical aspects of the project unassessed; segmented out the transportation component for future analysis; failed to disclose statutory violations; and failed (to) evaluate realistically the consequences of terrorism in spent fuel transport." The papers note that transportation risks from 54 of 131 sites were not assessed. Congress approved construction of a repository at Yucca Mountain on July 9, overriding Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the project. Bush signed the resolution into law on July 23. The court papers on Monday state, however, that "all Congress really did, in classic legislative veto fashion, was follow Nuclear Waste Policy Act procedures to the letter and cancel out Nevada's veto of the president's siting decision; it did not forever shield that decision ... from judicial review." The papers assert that DOE knew in 1998 that Yucca Mountain was not qualified for containing nuclear waste based alone on the time it takes groundwater, potentially laden with radioactive materials, to reach the off-site environment. "The secretary had determined that up to 20 percent of all water moving through the repository would reach the accessible environment in less than 1,000 years," the papers state. They say DOE blundered its assessment of a so-called "no action" alternative by failing in the final impact statement to recognize the agreement the department made with PECO Energy, operator of the Peach Bottom nuclear plant near Philadelphia. That deal allows the Peach Bottom spent fuel to be stored at the site under government ownership in exchange for reducing PECO Energy's payments to the nuclear waste fund by up to $80 million over 10 years. "It is not necessary to prove here that the PECO alternative, implemented on an industrywide basis, would be superior to proceeding with Yucca," the state's court papers say. The state claims the Energy Department also knowingly failed to evaluate the need for obtaining a hazardous waste permit from Nevada when it issued its final environmental impact statement. The hazardous materials include hundreds of millions of pounds of metal that scientists are relying on as part of a system of so-called engineer barriers to contain radioactive materials. Members of the public, the court papers say, told DOE "that waste slated for Yucca will contain several listed hazardous materials ... many of which are toxic and soluble in water." In his comments, one observer, Jacob Paz, noted that DOE never completed a valid, large-scale study of how compounds of heavy metals in corroding waste containers would interact with the mountain's real conditions. For example, natural compounds in the mountain will enhance the spread of toxic chromium, said Paz, who holds a doctorate in environmental health science. The essence of his comments were echoed in a Nov. 22 letter from a presidentially appointed panel, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, to Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Director Margaret Chu. "The board encourages continued corrosion testing and analysis supporting basic understanding of waste package corrosion," the board's letter states. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 35 Las Vegas SUN: State files major brief challenging Yucca plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas SUN ----------------------------------------------------------------- December 03, 2002 State files major brief challenging Yucca plan Nuke waste disposal guidelines questioned SUN STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS WASHINGTON -- Yucca Mountain cannot be used for disposal of the nation's nuclear waste, the state of Nevada said in a complex legal brief filed Monday. The state laid out a long list of old and new arguments against the site, including the contention that the site does not meet criteria that require its natural rock features to contain radioactive waste for thousands of years. The "case in chief" brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It is the first brief of a comprehensive new lawsuit in which three other legal challenges filed by the state in past months have been combined. The brief challenges the guidelines the Department of Energy used to evaluate Yucca, asserts flaws in the department's environmental impact statement for Yucca and challenges Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's recommendation of the site to President Bush. The brief asserts that the Energy Department and President Bush violated federal nuclear waste law and environmental law by approving the site. A series of legal salvos between the state and the Energy Department are expected, with oral arguments expected in perhaps September next year. President Bush and Congress approved Yucca earlier this year, so the state, along with the city of Las Vegas and Clark County, have turned to the courts in an attempt to delay, and ultimately kill, Yucca. The brief lays out arguments that the Energy Department has not adequately considered how waste would be transported from the nation's nuclear power plants to Yucca. It also argues that the department has not considered terrorist or sabotage threats. The lawsuit poses a new theoretical scenario in which a warhead is planted inside a waste container and explodes, triggering a nuclear reaction. The brief also includes Energy Department projections that if "engineered barriers" -- metal waste containers -- fail, Yucca will leak. According to the department, if man-made casks for the buried waste do not hold, the radiation dose at the site boundary would be six times higher than the rules allow after 1,000 years. After 3,000 years, the dose would be 67 times higher. Energy Department spokesman Joseph H. Davis said he could not comment in detail because he had not yet seen the 100-page argument. "It's certainly not surprising that perhaps some of the same arguments we heard before are being made by the state," Davis said. Nevada opponents of the repository have argued before that the Energy Department is trying to make the project acceptable by relying on man-made barriers that cannot reliably be predicted to last for the 10,000 years that the law requires. But the suit includes more details about how the Energy Department has backed away from its initial insistence that the rock alone would contain the wastes. Since the late 1950s the United States has been seeking what scientists refer to as a "geologic repository" for the nation's most radioactive waste, which is mostly from power plants and nuclear weapons production. Nevada's brief quotes 20-year-old pronouncements by the Energy Department that "the host rock with its properties provides the justification for geologic disposal and is the main element in containing the waste within the repository and isolating the waste from man's environment for the long term." The "host rock" at Yucca, a desert ridge about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was formed by volcanic emissions. The main mechanism for waste to escape from the mountain is through rain water seeping down from the summit to the ground water far below. That water flows steadily across the site's boundaries, where it can feed wells and come to the surface in springs. Government scientists initially believed that water would take between 9,000 and 80,000 years to flow from the repository to the accessible environment. But researchers have discovered fractures in the rock where water flows much faster. In 1997 scientists found traces of chlorine-36, which does not exist in nature, 1,000 feet inside the five-mile tunnel drilled to explore the mountain's rock. That meant that material produced by nuclear explosions, the first of which was in 1945, had already penetrated through 800 feet of rock. According to the suit, in 1996 the Energy Department said that some water could go from the repository level to the water table, 1,300 feet down, in 50 years, and then flow beyond the site boundaries. The Energy Department has argued that the storage containers will contain the wastes, and it projects that releases for the first 10,000 years will be very small. But assessing the adequacy of the containers is difficult, the project's critics maintain, because the Energy Department has not made a final design public. The suit argues that reliance on a system that combines the man-made containers with the site's natural characteristics is "essentially abandoning" the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's mandate "that the site's geology form the primary isolation barrier." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas SUN main page ----------------------------------------------------------------- Questions or problems? Click here. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 Nevada States Case Against Waste Dump in Mountain The New York Times December 3, 2002* *By MATTHEW L. WALD* WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 ? Yucca Mountain cannot be used for disposal of the nation's nuclear waste, the State of Nevada said in a brief filed today, arguing that the site does not meet criteria that require its natural features to contain the material for thousands of years. The brief, filed in a suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, includes Energy Department estimates that if "engineered barriers" fail, Yucca will leak. According to the department, if the man-made containers do not hold, the radiation dose at the site boundary will be six times higher than the rules allow after 1,000 years; after 3,000 years, the dose will be 67 times higher. A spokesman for the Energy Department, Joseph H. Davis, said that he could not comment in detail because he had not yet seen the argument. But, he said, "It's certainly not surprising that perhaps some of the same arguments we heard before are being made by the state." Opponents of the repository have argued before that the Energy Department is trying to make the project acceptable by relying on man-made barriers that cannot reliably be predicted to last for the 10,000 years that the law requires. But the suit includes more details about how the Energy Department has backed away from its initial insistence that the rock alone would contain the wastes. Since the late 1950's, the United States has been seeking what scientists refer to as a "geologic repository" for the waste, which is mostly from power plants and nuclear weapons production. Nevada's brief quotes a 20-year-old statement by the Energy Department that "the host rock with its properties provides the justification for geologic disposal and is the main element in containing the waste within the repository." The host rock at Yucca, a ridge in the desert 100 miles from Las Vegas, is formed by volcanic emissions. The main mechanism for waste to escape from the mountain is rainwater seeping down from the summit to the groundwater far below. That water flows steadily across the site's boundaries, where it can feed wells and come to the surface in springs. Government scientists initially believed that water would take 9,000 to 80,000 years to flow from the repository to the accessible environment. But researchers have discovered fractures in the rock where water flows much faster. In 1997, scientists found traces of chlorine-36, which does not exist in nature, in the five-mile tunnel drilled to explore the mountain's rock. That meant that material produced by nuclear explosions, the first of which was in 1944, had already penetrated through 800 feet of rock. According to the suit, in 1996 the Energy Department said that some water could go from the repository level to the water table, 1,300 feet down, in 50 years, and then flow beyond the site boundaries. The Energy Department has argued that the storage containers will hold the wastes, and it projects that releases for the first 10,000 years will be very small. But assessing the adequacy of the containers is difficult, the project's critics maintain, because the Energy Department has not made a final design public. The suit argues that reliance on a system that combines the man-made containers with the natural characteristics is "essentially abandoning" the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's mandate "that the site's geology form the primary isolation barrier." The suit, brought by the State of Nevada, the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, is the second recent use of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act against the Energy Department. Environmentalists are suing the department over its plan to leave some nuclear waste in steel tanks buried under a few feet of dirt at nuclear weapons plants. The Energy Department is also under pressure to take the wastes from the operators of civilian power plants. Soon after the waste act was signed in 1982, those operators agreed to pay the government a tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour produced in exchange for the department taking the wastes beginning in 1998. That date now seems too optimistic by at least a decade, and the courts have ruled that the power companies can seek damages from the department for the extra costs of storing the fuel. Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 37 State seeks equal time before panel Las Vegas SUN December 02, 2002 Nevada officials are asking an advisory panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow the state to present its experts on radioactive transportation at a discussion on the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. In November the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste heard from Energy Department, nuclear industry and national transportation representatives, but did not notify Nevada about the meeting, Bob Loux, director of the state Agency on Nuclear Projects, said. The state is asking that the committee hear from Nevada's experts before reporting to the full Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Loux said in a letter sent today to committee Chairman George Hornberger. Loux said that those attending the committee meeting Nov. 19-21 "were treated to a very one-sided and potentially skewed perspective" on nuclear waste transportation issues. Nevada officials are asking for a one-day session with presentations covering transportation planning, cask safety and cask testing, security and public acceptance of risk. If a repository at Yucca Mountain is approved and built, shipments of high-level nuclear waste would be brought to the site starting in 2010. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 OSFA: Transuranic & Mixed Waste research FR Doc 02-30561 [Federal Register: December 3, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 232)] [Notices] [Page 71952-71956] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03de02-76] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science Financial Assistance Program Notice 03-12; Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP): Research Related to Transuranic and Mixed Wastes AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice inviting grant applications. SUMMARY: The Office of Biological and Environmental Research (OBER) of the Office of Science (SC), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), hereby announce its interest in receiving grant applications to support the performance of innovative, fundamental research on the characterization of transuranic (TRU) and mixed wastes (MW) that are currently stored at DOE sites, or will be produced as part of DOE's environmental cleanup efforts. DATES: The deadline for receipt of formal applications is 4:30 p.m., e.s.t., Tuesday, March 4, 2003, in order to be accepted for merit review and to permit timely consideration for award in Fiscal Year 2003. ADDRESSES: Formal applications in response to this solicitation are to be electronically submitted by an authorized institutional business official through DOE's Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) at: http://e-center.doe.gov/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://e-center.doe.gov/] . IIPS provides for the posting of solicitations and receipt of applications in a paperless environment via the Internet. In order to submit applications through IIPS your business official will need to register at the IIPS website. The Office of Science will include attachments as part of this [[Page 71953]] notice that provide the appropriate forms in PDF fillable format that are to be submitted through IIPS. Color images should be submitted in IIPS as a separate file in PDF format and identified as such. These images should be kept to a minimum due to the limitations of reproducing them. They should be numbered and referred to in the body of the technical scientific application as Color image 1, Color image 2, etc. Questions regarding the operation of IIPS may be E-mailed to the IIPS Help Desk at: HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov [HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov] or you may call the help desk at: (800) 683-0751. Further information on the use of IIPS by the Office of Science is available at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.science.doe.gov/production/gran ts/grants.html] . If you are unable to submit an application through IIPS please contact the Grants and Contracts Division, Office of Science at: (301) 903-5212 in order to gain assistance for submission through IIPS or to receive special approval and instructions on how to submit printed applications. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roland F. Hirsch, Mail Stop F-237, Medical Sciences Division, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-73/Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone: (301) 903-9009, facsimile: (301) 903- 0567, E-mail: roland.hirsch@science.doe.gov [roland.hirsch@science.doe.gov] , or Mr. Mark Gilbertson, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Environmental Management, EM-50, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone: (202) 586-7150, facsimile: (202) 596- 1492, E-mail: mark.gilbertson@em.doe.gov [mark.gilbertson@em.doe.gov] . The full text of Program Notice 03-12 is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.science.doe.gov/production/gran ts/grants.html] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmental Management Science Program: Over the past 60 years, the United States created an industrial complex to develop, test, manufacture, and maintain nuclear weapons for national security purposes. The production and testing of nuclear weapons created a legacy of significant environmental contamination, ranging from uranium mining and milling, waste disposal, and radionuclide migration in ground water and soil. In 1995, the 104th Congress authorized creation of the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) to develop a long term, basic science infrastructure that would focus on scientific and technical challenges facing DOE's environmental cleanup effort. Since its inception in 1996, the Program has held seven competitions and has awarded over $320 million in funding to nearly 400 research projects. To address the largest environmental cleanup program in the world, from a cost perspective, EMSP has the following objectives: [sbull] To provide scientific knowledge that will revolutionize technologies and cleanup approaches to significantly reduce future costs, schedules, and risks; [sbull] To ``bridge the gap'' between broad fundamental research that has wide-ranging applicability and needs-driven applied technology development; [sbull] To focus the Nation's science infrastructure on critical DOE environmental management problems. Basic research proposed under this Notice should contribute to DOE's environmental management activities by decreasing risk for the public and workers, providing opportunities for major cost reductions, reducing the time required to achieve DOE's mission goals, and, in general, should address problems that are considered intractable without new knowledge. TRU and Mixed Waste Challenge: DOE's inventory of transuranic and mixed wastes (TM wastes) includes about 155,000 cubic meters of waste stored on some 30 DOE sites and another 450,000 cubic meters of buried waste at least some of which is likely to require retrieval in the course of DOE's site cleanup program. Most of the stored inventory is in 55-gallon drums or other containers. Although some of the buried waste is similarly packaged, knowledge of the condition of the containers and their contents is limited. Information on DOE's waste inventory has been summarized in a recent report (USDOE, 2001), and is also available via the World Wide Web at DOE's Central Internet Database (http://cid.em.doe.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://cid.em.doe.gov] ). A short summary of the nature of DOE's TM wastes, including definitions of TRU and MW, is given in the ``Background Information'' section of this Notice. While DOE is making a concerted effort to accelerate the removal of TM wastes from its sites, the size of the inventory translates to a multi-decade effort that will require handling, characterizing, shipping, and disposing of hundreds of thousands of waste drums and other containers at a total cost of billions of dollars. Overall, it is the intent of this Notice to solicit and encourage research that will provide the scientific basis for the new technologies and approaches that will be necessary to characterize DOE's MW and TRU wastes over the next decades, and to enhance the quantity and quality of scientific information available for decision- making. Research Needs: This research Notice has been developed for Fiscal Year 2003, with the primary objective of developing scientific knowledge that will enable major advances in technologies available for characterizing TRU and MW waste. This section provides a summary of research needs in this area, and is based on a National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NRC) report published in 2002 entitled ``Research Opportunities for Managing the Department of Energy's Transuranic and Mixed Wastes (National Research Council, 2002''). That report identified significant knowledge gaps and research opportunities in a number of areas; however, due to the limited funds expected to be available to support new EMSP projects in Fiscal Year 2003, this Notice focuses on research needs for waste characterization, including characterization and detection of buried wastes. Research is needed to improve the efficiency of characterizing DOE's TRU and mixed waste inventory. This includes research toward developing faster and more sensitive characterization and analysis tools to reduce costs and accelerate throughput, particularly for waste that produces sufficient penetrating radiation that it requires remote handling. It also includes research to develop a fuller understanding of how waste characteristics may change with time (chemical, biological, radiological, and physical processes) to aid in decision making about disposition paths and to simplify the demonstration of regulatory compliance. Determining the physical, chemical, and radiological properties of TM wastes pertinent to handling, processing, transportation, and storage is costly and time-consuming. The problem is amplified by the wide variety of the wastes and their heterogeneity. Improving and simplifying waste characterization can reduce costs and increase the rate of shipping wastes to disposal facilities. There is a need for faster and more sensitive characterization technologies, for making automated sampling more reliable, and for improving statistical sampling methods. There is a lack in basic knowledge of how waste characteristics may change with time, including both short-term changes that affect storage and shipment and long- [[Page 71954]] term changes that may occur in a disposal facility. This lack of knowledge drives conservatism in characterization, transportation, and disposal requirements. Possible microbial effects in waste have generally been ignored. The greatest challenges for the next generation of characterization technologies will be to provide the following: [sbull] More rapid, automated nondestructive assay and evaluation methods; [sbull] More sensitive nondestructive assay and evaluation technologies for larger containers and hard-to-detect contaminants; and [sbull] Improved methods, based on fundamental modeling, to derive present and future waste characteristics from a limited number of sampling parameters. Research toward new, noninvasive, remote imaging and image recognition methods and in-drum sensors to provide faster and more sensitive technologies for characterization could lead to significant savings in time, cost, and risk of worker exposure. Although noninvasive diagnostics are highly preferred, the use of minimally invasive sensors also has promise. Research is needed to evaluate the microbiology of MW and TRU wastes. This research should focus on identifying the microorganisms that exist in the waste, and evaluating their relationship to waste materials (i.e., whether these microbes affect the hazardous or radioactive components of the waste in ways that make it more or less toxic, or more or less suitable for disposal in hazardous waste, low- level waste, or other landfills or repositories. Additional research is needed to develop tools for rapidly diagnosing microbial activity or identifying specific microbes. One of the most beneficial cost-saving tools would be the formulation of more reliable predictive models, validated by experimental data, of how waste characteristics may change with time due to chemical, biological, radiological, and physical processes. This would be most useful in predicting deleterious processes that might occur in the waste, such as gas generation or matrix degradation. Program Funding: It is anticipated that up to a total of $2,000,000 of Fiscal Year 2003 funds will be available for new EMSP awards resulting from this Notice. Multiple-year funding of grant awards is anticipated, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Award sizes are expected to be on the order of $100,000-$300,000 per year for total project costs for a typical three-year grant. Collaborative projects involving several research groups or more than one institution may receive larger awards if merited. The program will be competitive and offered to investigators in universities or other institutions of higher education, other non-profit or for-profit organizations, non-Federal agencies or entities, or unaffiliated individuals. DOE reserves the right to fund in whole or part any or none of the applications received in response to this Notice. A parallel Notice with a similar potential total amount of funds will be issued to DOE Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). All projects will be evaluated using the same criteria, regardless of the submitting institution. Collaboration and Training: Applicants to the EMSP are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and FFRDCs, including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate. Applicants are also encouraged to provide training opportunities, including student involvement, in applications submitted to EMSP. Application Format: Applicants are expected to use the following format in addition to following instructions in the Office of Science Application Guide (see: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/guide.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.science.doe.gov/production/gran ts/guide.html] ). Applications must be written in English, with all budgets in U.S. dollars. In the case of applications involving multiple institutions, only one application that encompasses the entire scope of the proposed research should be submitted; however, the application should include separate budgets and budget explanations for each participating institution. [sbull] Office of Science Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10-91)) [sbull] Application classification sheet (a plain sheet of paper with one selection from the list of scientific fields listed in the Application Categories Section) [sbull] Table of Contents [sbull] Project Abstract (no more than one page) [sbull] Budgets for each year and a summary budget page for the entire project period (using DOE F-4620.1) [sbull] Budget Explanation. (Note: applicants are requested to include in the travel budget funds to attend: (1) An initial research kick-off meeting; (2) an annual EMSP workshop; and (3) one or more extended visits (1 to 2 weeks in duration) to a cleanup site by the Principal Investigator, a senior staff member, or a collaborator [sbull] Budgets and Budget explanations for each collaborating institution, if any [sbull] Project Narrative (recommended length is no more than 20 pages; multi-investigator collaborative projects may use more pages if necessary, up to a total of 35 pages) --Project Goals --Significance of Project to the EM Mission --Background --Preliminary Studies (if applicable) and/or Summary of Results from Previous Research (if application is a renewal) --Research Plan --Research Design and Methodologies [sbull] Literature Cited [sbull] Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable) [sbull] Biographical Sketches of Senior Investigators (limit 2 pages per investigator) [sbull] Description of Facilities and Resources [sbull] Current and Pending Support for each senior investigator Application Categories: In order to properly classify each application for evaluation and review, the documents must indicate the applicant's preferred scientific research field, selected from the following list. Field of Scientific Research 1. Actinide Chemistry. 2. Analytical Chemistry and Instrumentation. 3. Engineering Sciences. 4. Geochemistry. 5. Geophysics. 6. Inorganic Chemistry. 7. Materials Science. 8. Biology (including Microbiology). 9. Other. Application Evaluation and Selection Scientific Merit: Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR part 605.10(d): 1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project; 2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; 3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; 4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget. External peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that [[Page 71955]] this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution(s). Relevance to Mission: In addition to the formal scientific merit review, applications that are judged to be scientifically meritorious will be evaluated by DOE for relevance to the objectives of EMSP. DOE will also consider, as part of the evaluation, program policy factors such as an appropriate balance among the program areas, including research already in progress. Additional information about the general program can be found at: http://emsp.em.doe.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://emsp.em.doe.gov] . Past research solicitations, abstracts, and research reports of projects funded under EMSP can be found at: http://emsp.em.doe.gov/researcher.htm [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://emsp.em.doe.gov/researcher.htm] . Applicants are encouraged to demonstrate a linkage between their research projects and significant problems related to MW and TRU waste at DOE sites. This linkage can be established in a variety of ways; for example, by elucidating the scientific problems to be addressed by the proposed research and explaining how the solution of these problems could lead to improved capabilities that would reduce costs, accelerate throughput, or reduce the risk of worker exposure. It is understood that given the nature of basic research, there will not always be a clear pathway between research results and application to site remediation. A listing of points of contact and site web pages is provided for applicants who may have site-specific questions related to TRU and MW problems: Hanford (http://www.hanford.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.hanford.gov] ): Rudy Garcia, (509) 376-5494, Rudolph_F_Garcia@rl.gov [Rudolph_F_Garcia@rl.gov] . Idaho (http://www.id.doe.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.id.doe.gov] ): William Owca, (208) 526-1983, owcawa@id.doe.gov [owcawa@id.doe.gov] . Oak Ridge (http://www.oro.doe.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.oro.doe.gov] ): for TRU--Gary Riner, (805) 241- 3498, rinerg@oro.doe.gov [rinerg@oro.doe.gov] ; for MW--Brian Westich, (805) 241-2198, westichb@oro.doe.gov [westichb@oro.doe.gov] . Savannah River (http://sro.srs.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://sro.srs.gov] ): for TRU--Bert Crapse, (803) 725- 9866, Herbert.Crapse@srs.gov [Herbert.Crapse@srs.gov] or Ann Gibbs, (803) 952-2265, Ann.Gibbs@srs.gov [Ann.Gibbs@srs.gov] ; for MW--Mike Simmons, (803) 725-1627, Jonathan.Simmons@srs.gov [Jonathan.Simmons@srs.gov] or Bernie Mayancsik, (803) 952-2271, Bernadette.Mayancsik@srs.gov [Bernadette.Mayancsik@srs.gov] . Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.wipp.carlsbad.nm.us] ): George Basabilvazo, (505) 234-7488, George.Basabilvazo@wipp.ws [George.Basabilvazo@wipp.ws] Application Guide and Forms: Information about the development, submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, the selection process, and other policies and procedures may be found in 10 CFR part 605, and in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program. Electronic access to the Guide and required forms is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.science.doe.gov/production/gran ts/grants.html] . DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is made. Background Information: Information on DOE's waste inventory has been summarized in a recent report (USDOE, 2001), and is also available via the World Wide Web at DOE's Central Internet Database (http://cid.em.doe.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://cid.em.doe.gov] ). The two categories of waste listed in these sources that are pertinent to this Notice are transuranic (TRU) and mixed low- level waste (MLLW). Transuranic waste is defined by DOE Order 435.1 as waste that contains more than 100 nanocuries per gram arising from alpha-emitting radionuclides having atomic numbers greater than that of uranium (92) and half-lives greater than 20 years. Low-level waste (LLW) is defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Policy Amendments Act of 1985 by what it is not, and consequently is a very broad category of waste. LLW is defined as waste that is not spent nuclear fuel, not high-level waste resulting from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and not byproduct material as defined in section 11e.2 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. LLW encompasses materials that are slightly above natural radiation background levels to highly radioactive materials that require extreme caution when handling. Hazardous waste is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 260 and 261, as a subset of solid wastes that pose substantial or potential threats to public health or the environment and that meet any of the following three criteria: (1) Waste that is specifically listed as a hazardous waste by EPA; (2) waste that exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosiveness, reactivity, and/or toxicity); or (3) waste that is generated by the treatment of hazardous waste, or is contained in a hazardous waste. Mixed low-level waste (MLLW) is waste that meets the above definitions of both LLW and hazardous waste. It contains low levels of radioactive contamination as well as materials that are chemically hazardous. Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU) is waste that meets the definitions of both TRU and hazardous wastes. The EPA estimates that over half of DOE's TRU inventory is MTRU (EPA 2002); however, because all of DOE's retrievably stored, defense TRU wastes are slated for disposal in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), DOE no longer distinguishes MTRU as a special category in its inventory (USDOE, 2001). Since 1970, DOE sites have stored most TRU waste and MW in retrievable 55-gallon drums or larger containers for future treatment (if needed) and disposal. Prior to 1970, DOE sites buried materials that meet the current definition of TRU waste and MW in shallow land facilities, within about 30 meters of the surface. A much smaller fraction of these wastes were buried at depths between 30 and 300 meters. Most of this waste was buried in 55-gallon drums; however, some was buried in other types of containers, and some had no form of durable containment. At the time, DOE considered buried wastes to be permanently disposed, but some of the buried wastes may require retrieval and treatment. The previous practice of discharging low-level liquid wastes to retention basins has resulted in the generation of contaminated soils and sediments. DOE recognizes that some of these materials are sufficiently contaminated to warrant retrieval. Such materials are termed ``ex-situ contaminated media'' in the inventory summary (USDOE 2001). If they are retrieved, both the pre-1970 buried wastes and the ex-situ media will be considered newly generated waste. In addition to these historical wastes, activities at DOE sites, including environmental cleanup activities, will continue to generate new MLLW and TRU wastes over the next several decades. The materials making up DOE's inventory of MW and TRU wastes are extremely diverse. This diversity was described in a report (USDOE, 1995) based on data compiled by the various DOE sites in order to develop site remediation plans. The inventory was divided into five groups, each with various subcategories: 1. Debris [sbull] Metallic debris (including materials containing lead and cadmium) [sbull] Inorganic, nonmetallic debris (e.g., concrete, glass, graphite, and rock) [sbull] Organic debris (e.g., such as rubber, leaded gloves, halogenated and nonhalogenated plastics, wood, paper, and biological materials [sbull] Heterogeneous debris (e.g., composite fillers, asphalt, electronic [[Page 71956]] equipment, and other types of organic and inorganic materials) 2. Inorganic Homogenous Solids and Soils [sbull] Homogeneous solids (e.g., ash, sandblasting media, inorganic particulate absorbents, absorbed organic liquids, inorganic ion-exchange media, metal chips and turnings, glass, ceramics, and activated carbon) [sbull] Sludges (e.g., sludges arising from wastewater treatment ponds, off-gas treatment, plating activities, and low-level reprocessing) [sbull] Other wastes (e.g., paint chips, solids, and sludges, salt waste containing chlorides, sulphates, nitrates, metal oxides/ hydroxides, and other inorganic chemicals) [sbull] Solidified homogeneous solids (e.g., soil and gravel) 3. Organics [sbull] Liquids (aqueous streams containing both halogenated and nonhalogenated organic compounds) [sbull] Homogeneous solids (e.g., particulate matter such as resins and absorbents, biological sludges, halogenated and nonhalogenated organic sludges, and organic chemicals) 4. Unique wastes [sbull] Lab packs (e.g., organic, aqueous, and solid laboratory chemicals and scintillation cocktails) [sbull] Special wastes (e.g., elemental mercury, lead, and cadmium, beryllium dust, batteries, reactive metals in bulk and as contamination in/on other components, pyrophoric particulates, explosives or propellants, and compressed gasses and aerosols) [sbull] All others (materials placed in a final waste form are included in this category) 5. Wastewaters [sbull] Aqueous liquids and slurries ranging from acidic to basic pH, including cyanide-containing materials. The 1995 inventory also characterized DOE's level of confidence as to how well the wastes were characterized. In general terms, DOE has high or medium confidence that the physical nature (i.e., soil or sludge) of most wastes is correctly identified, but it lacks confidence in the existing quantitative data on the wastes' chemical and radioactive constituents. The volume and diversity of DOE's MW and TRU wastes pose significant challenges for disposing of this waste. Currently, DOE's TRU waste disposal efforts are focused on maximizing the utility of the WIPP. Several hundred thousand drums of TRU waste will need to be shipped to WIPP, and the characterization required for shipping and acceptance at the WIPP currently requires many hours and costs thousands of dollars for each drum of waste generated prior to 1999. Methods to improve characterization are therefore likely to result in significant savings of time and money. Some components in TRU waste are problematic for shipping to or disposal in the WIPP. About two percent (approximately 14,200 drum equivalents) of DOE's TRU waste contains organic materials that continue to pose shipping problems due to potential gas generation, especially of hydrogen. Drums containing reactive and corrosive chemicals, as well as drums containing liquids, sealed containers, and gas cylinders (including paint cans) may not be accepted by the WIPP, and they are currently removed by manually sorting through the waste. Waste that is contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) constitutes about one percent of the inventory, and currently cannot be accepted by the WIPP. Approximately two to four percent of the TRU waste inventory produces sufficient penetrating radiation from fission products that it requires remote handling, rather than hands-on operator contact. The requirement for remote handling greatly increases the cost and difficulty of characterizing, treating, and packaging or repackaging of this waste. Meeting the per-drum limits on heat generation and fissile material content can necessitate repackaging of the waste. In addition to increasing the waste volume, repackaging to meet these limits is expensive, time-consuming, and creates the potential for worker exposure. DOE currently relies primarily on private contractors and commercial facilities for treating and disposing of its MLLW. (MLLW cannot be disposed in the WIPP because under current law, only TRU waste can be disposed there). The characterization and treatment of MLLW that will be necessary to meet the disposal requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) have received relatively little attention compared to TRU waste. Despite the general lack of quantitative chemical characterization, it is known that much of DOE's MLLW inventory contains hazardous chemicals that can be difficult to treat (e.g., heavy metals, solvents and other organics, and mercury). Furthermore, there is considerable commingling of these materials, which complicates the selection of disposition options. MLLW that contains certain specified materials is prohibited from near-surface disposal under current EPA and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. These include the following: [sbull] Liquids, [sbull] Reactive or explosive materials, [sbull] Flammable materials, [sbull] Untreated biological material, [sbull] Materials that may emit toxic gases or fumes, [sbull] Other materials subject to the EPA's land disposal restrictions, as listed in 40 CFR 268, [sbull] Radioactive isotopes that exceed the NRC limits for Class C wastes (700 Ci/m3 of 63Ni, or 7,000 Ci/m3 of 90Sr, or 4,600Ci/m3 of 137Cs). In order to be disposed, these wastes will require treatment that may be difficult and expensive. Characterization of the wastes is a necessary first step in the selection of disposition options. References National Research Council, 2002, Research Opportunities for Managing the Department of Energy's Transuranic and Mixed Wastes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 118pp. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084717/html/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084717/html/] . USEPA, 2002, Mixed Waste Glossary. EPA Radiation Protection Program Waste Management Team. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed-waste/mw_pg5.htm [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/radiation/mixed-waste/m w_pg5.htm] . USDOE, 1995, The DOE National 1995 Mixed Waste Inventory Report. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC. USDOE, 2001, Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy. April 2001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC http://cid.em.doe.gov/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://cid.em.doe.gov/] . (The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 CFR part 605.) Issued in Washington DC on November 25, 2002. John Rodney Clark, Associate Director of Science for Resource Management. [FR Doc. 02-30561 Filed 12-2-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 Canadians to lead weapons inspection team into USA Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 18:00:34 -0600 (CST) Canadian volunteer weapons inspectors prepare to investigate the most dangerous country in the world For more, go to www.rootingoutevil.org Title: Rooting Out Evil - Mission USA... Date: Thursday November 28 2002 @ 08:12AM PST Toronto November 21, 2002 Canadians to lead weapons inspection team into USA A coalition of Canadian peace groups today announced their intention to send an international team of volunteer weapons inspectors into the United States later this winter. The coalition, Rooting Out Evil, are recruiting inspectors through their newly launched website, www.rootingoutevil.org. "Our action has been inspired by none other than George W. Bush," said Christy Ferguson, a spokesperson for the group. "The Bush administration has repeatedly declared that the most dangerous rogue nations are those that: 1) have massive stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; 2) ignore due process at the United Nations; 3) refuse to sign and honour international treaties; and 4) have come to power through illegitimate means. "On the basis of President Bush's guidelines, it is clear that the current U.S. administration poses a great threat to global security," said Ferguson. "We're following Bush's lead and demanding that the U.S. grant our inspectors immediate and unfettered access to any site in the country - including all presidential compounds - so that we can identify the weapons of mass destruction in this rogue state," added David Langille. Visitors to Rooting Out Evil's website are invited to sign on as honorary members of the weapons inspection team. Honorary inspectors can participate in the action, or they can simply lend the support of their name as they would on a petition. The actual inspection team that crosses the border will be comprised of prominent individuals from Canada and other countries. The Rooting Out Evil coalition includes Greenpeace Canada, the Centre for Social Justice, and the Toronto Committee Against War and Sanctions on Iraq, and is supported by American groups such as the National Network to End the War Against Iraq, Global Exchange and the US section of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. They oppose the development, storage, and use of weapons of mass destruction by any state. For information: David Langille or Christy Ferguson info@rootingoutevil.org Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Phone (306) 664-6071 -- ~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@ Penney Kome, pkome@shaw.ca author & journalist. Online CV: http://www.penneykome.ca ~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@ ***************************************************************** 40 [southnews] Russia praises Iraq for weapons co-operation Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 23:40:00 -0600 (CST) Russia praises Iraq for weapons co-operation December 4 2002 Russia has called Iraq's co-operation with UN weapons inspectors encouraging, clashing directly with a remark made a day earlier by US President George Bush. "We look on with optimism to the fact that there have been no shortcomings in the inspectors' work," ITAR-TASS yesterday quoted Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yury Fedotov as saying. "Both sides are following the rules of UN Security Council resolution 1441," Fedotov told the news agency, while conceding that the inspection process "was just at its start". On Monday, Mr Bush called Iraq's response to UN disarmament demands "not encouraging", and warned that Baghdad must account for its weapons by a UN-set Sunday deadline to avert war. Assessing the week since UN disarmament inspectors returned to Iraq after a four-year absence, Mr Bush said Saddam's actions had only stoked his scepticism that the Iraqi leader will take the necessary steps to avoid military action. Over the past months, Russia has defended Iraq, where it has heavy oil interests, in its standoff with Washington. In his interview yesterday, Mr Fedotov also mentioned that chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix plans to appeal to the United Nations to include more members of Arab states in the weapons inspection team. The team's make-up is "not yet properly represented by the Arab states", Mr Fedotov said. The Russian diplomat's comments were issued as UN arms inspectors went inside a sensitive "presidential palace" for the first time. Two separate disarmament teams who had entered the huge walled compound without hindrance at around 0600 GMT (5pm AEDT) emerged nearly two hours later but refused to talk to the press. The experts, all wearing blue UN headgear, were accompanied by counterparts from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate and escorted inside by guards. AFP This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/03/1038712939311.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 41 U.S. does not need U.N. approval for war* United Press International By Pamela Hess UPI Pentagon Correspondent Published 12/3/2002 5:27 PM WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 (UPI) -- If Iraq does not confess to having chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development programs by its Dec. 8 deadline, the United States and United Kingdom have intelligence to show it is lying, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld refused to suggest a misleading declaration by Iraq this weekend would lead to war. That is "a decision for the president, the Security Council, other countries to make judgments about. It's not for me," he said Tuesday at a Pentagon press conference. "I've ... indicated that it's not for me to say what the United States will or will not accept. That is a matter for the president." If the United States is not satisfied with Iraq's declaration, it does not need the Security Council's approval to take military action against Saddam Hussein. "Everyone does not have to agree for any member country to take appropriate action," Rumsfeld said. The onus is not on the United States or even the United Nations weapons inspectors now in Iraq to prove Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said. Instead, it is on Saddam Hussein to prove that he doesn't. "The United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The U.K. knows that they have weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said. "It is not for some country to go in and give them a clean bill of health, it is for Iraq to give itself a clean bill of health by saying, 'Here's honestly what we currently have. Here's where it is. Here's what we've done. Please destroy it for us,'" Rumsfeld said. Rumsfeld remains doubtful that inspections will turn up any evidence of Iraq weapons of mass destruction. "You can't expect people to go into a country that is just enormous, with all that real estate and all that underground facilities and all of these people monitoring everything -- everything anyone is doing -- and expect them to engage in a discovery process and turn up something somebody is determined for them not to turn up," Rumsfeld said. "If you go back and look at the history of inspections in Iraq, the reality is that things have been found not by discovery, but through defectors, ... and you get the kind of information that means the game is up." Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers showed aerial surveillance footage taped Nov. 26 of what they said was an Iraqi military truck carrying a "Spoon Rest" air defense radar down a road into a clutch of civilian buildings. Although it was a violation of the no-fly zone rules established in southern and northern Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom, the truck was not bombed because of its proximity to civilians. As far as biological warfare is concerned, while troops continue to prepare for a possible war with Iraq, Rumsfeld indicated he was seriously considering inoculating them against small pox. "I would not have had three meetings if I didn't think that there might be a good -- if it is a subject that merited my attention. And General Myers has had several of those meetings," Rumsfeld said. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 42 Bomb shelters: American history buried out back [http://www.phillyburbs.com/] Not long after moving into William J. Levitt's suburbia, residents who feared the threat of atomic war built bomb shelters. Some of these shelters remain buried under your neighbor's lawn. By JAMES MCGINNIS Courier Times David Marable climbs the ladder out of a bomb shelter in the backyard of a Snowball gate home. (Photo: Art Gentile/Courier Times) Buried under an inconspicuous bush behind an inconspicuous house on Snowball Drive lies an underground Cold War-era bomb shelter - once a place of last-minute refuge and today an eerie, neglected piece of American history. A dozen or so similar bomb shelters were built in and around Levittown during the height of America's nuclear showdown with Russia, with their original owners prepared to live inside these cold, silent tombs and wait out a nuclear holocaust. Today some of the unused shelters that remain have fallen victim to water damage, decay and might even be unknown to the homes' current owners, buried under a shed or hidden under a wing of the house. The owner of one such bomb shelter in Levittown said she didn't discover it was in her back yard until several years after buying and moving into the Red Rose Gate home some 11 years ago. The previous owners never mentioned it, she said. The only telltale signs of an underground shelter - if its entrance has been covered over by dirt or grass - might be two airshafts, pipes about the size of a fist sticking up out of the grass. At the fallout shelter in Snowball Gate, the owners knew little about how the chamber, about the size of a master bedroom, was built beneath the grass. Having lived in the house since around 1976, they refused to go down into the shelter's depths. And, given the choice between facing a nuclear assault or running down into the safety of their bomb shelter, the owner said she didn't know what she'd do. "You're scaring me!" she said. But not all are turned off by the shelters' eerie silence. On the Internet, an e-mail exchange on the subject has begun among current and former Levittowners, some who live as far away as California. The online message board can be viewed by visiting www.levittownpa.org and clicking on the Levittown forum section. This online group is trying to locate more bomb shelters and perhaps do a walking tour of Levittown's Cold War past. Regardless, the three families who would discuss their bomb shelters with the Courier Times said they did not want their names used for fear of vandals or thrill seekers. One such thrill seeker, Pennsbury High School art teacher Dave Marable, couldn't wait to enter the shelter on Snowball Drive in Middletown - after the owner gave permission. "I can remember visiting the Levittown Shopping Center and they used to have bomb shelters on display for you to walk into them," Marable recalled. However, the shelter in Snowball Gate seems to have been built from scratch and not manufactured. Its dimensions, materials and makeup are very similar to the schematics provided in "The Practical Handyman's Encyclopedia." Also available at the Web site www.plansfordummies.com, the plans for this style shelter state it is to be constructed out of concrete cinder blocks, creating a chamber about 24 inches beneath the grass. The inside ceiling provides about 6 feet of clearance for walking around and just enough room to store rations, water and a single bed. Marable, who has chronicled Levittown's history in a traveling photo exhibit, has long known about this shelter because he lives nearby. Earlier this month, the owners allowed him and the Courier Times to explore it. Marable put on a pair of waders and lowered himself into the shelter's concrete belly, stepping into about three feet of black, all-concealing water. As he moved through the water he felt something brushing up against his feet. Surmising that it was a piece of wet paper, rations or other supplies - and not a snake - he pushed on into the darkness with his flashlight as a guide. Marable's hopes were dashed when he discovered that nothing had been left behind. There were no canned rations. There was no Bible or beds. Or maybe those things were simply buried under the water. The only thing that surfaced was a yellow plastic spoon. Not exactly an atmosphere conducive to providing shelter - then or now. Reporter James McGinnis can be reached at 215-949-3248 or at james.mcginnis@phillyBurbs.com [james.mcginnis@phillyBurbs.com] December 03, 2002 ***************************************************************** 43 The Rationale of Post-Nuclear Superweapons Lev Navrozov [NewsMax.com] Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2002 Post-nuclear superweapons? It was only "germs" on which the United States had been working up to 1969, when President Nixon stopped the work and gave three years to destroy all offensive bioweapons so that by the time of the international convention of 1972 banning them, the United States was as guilt-free in this respect as a newborn baby. Was President Nixon right? Yes, in terms of Western strategy in the nuclear age. No one could explain to me why on earth the United States had needed such weapons before 1969 in the first place, if the U.S. nuclear weapons had been able to destroy the outside world many times over. Who has needed bioweapons? Those countries, such as Iraq or Iran, that are too small and/or technologically backward to develop nuclear weapons. The once-common saying, "Germs are a small country’s nukes," is correct, even if it is not used any more in the U.S. mainstream media since it justifies the bioweapons of such countries. Up to 1989 Iraq had been buying war germs from Type Culture Collection, a U.S. company. In 2002 this may seem odd, but Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the U.S. official representation of 1988 had little to do with Iraq in the U.S. official representation of 2002. During the war between Iraq and Iran, which is officially represented in 2002 as Iraq’s attack on Iran, the United States even provided Saddam Hussein with satellite photographs of Iranian troop formations. But were Type Culture Collection germs affordable for Iraq? An American named Wayne Harris bought, for his own "survivalist research,” three vials of plague germs for $300 from that same American company that had been selling war germs to Iraq up to 1989, with the blessing of the U.S. officialdom. Iraq is small and technologically backward. Soviet Russia developed nuclear weapons in 1949. In the ensuing 53 years Iraq has been unable to do so. But sums like $300 were quite affordable for a country that received for its exports, for example, $9 billion in 1987. Such "weapons of mass destruction" are good against other small and technologically backward countries like Iran. But they were not used by Iraq against the United States and its allies as they bombed and invaded Iraq. Secretary of State James Baker’s veiled warning that the United States would nuke Iraq if the latter used its war germs was more than enough. But why did Soviet Russia and why does China today need post-nuclear and, in particular, biological superweapons? The CIA and the New York Times had refused to believe in the Soviet development of biological superweapons because even the conjecture seemed to them absurd. Good Heavens! Soviet Russia was not an Iraq, but a superpower whose nuclear-warhead-tipped cruise missiles, launched from submarines off both U.S. shores, could, by way of retaliation, destroy the United States within an hour even if Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars plan (SDI) had been realized in the 1980s, much less in 2002! Why on earth should this nuclear superpower, whose nuclear arsenal could annihilate the outside world many times over, tinker with plague bacteria? Did Brezhnev or Gorbachev want the Americans to die not from nuclear explosions but from plague? But the presumed absurdity of this conjecture became an apparently absurd, yet real, fact in 1992 when Yeltsin opened the Soviet "bioweapons empire” to international inspection. I won’t quote its description in the New York Times AFTER 1992, when the West SAW the Soviet "germ empire” and could no longer doubt its existence. I will merely cite its annual production at its peak of war germs, as against that of the United States at its peak – before 1969. Metric tons The question "Why on earth had a nuclear superpower continued to spend, under Gorbachev, billions of dollars every year to produce such gigantic quantities of war germs?" was now linked with the question "Why on earth did Yeltsin dismantle the project and thus throw away billions of dollars that had been spent annually on it for 20 years?" Gorbachev looks like a Western government official, is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and still a darling of the West. Yeltsin looks like a Russian Russian, has a Russian partiality for Russian vodka, and has been despised or ignored by the West. Yet Gorbachev belonged to the same socio-political species as Hitler, the Soviet rulers since Lenin (whom Gorbachev glorified up to his last days in power) and the rulers of post-1949 China; that is, he was the owner of a large country, having advanced military technology. On the other hand, Yeltsin belonged to the same socio-political species as heads of state and/or governments in the democratic West; that is, he was a temporary top executive who was elected and who retired of his own free will before his second term had expired. The owner of a large country can decide, entirely on his own, that in order to preserve his ownership, he must establish world domination. Nuclear weapons may be good for intimidating Iraq into surrender, but they alone are useless for world domination, for if the owner of a large country nukes the United States, the U.S. bombers on duty in the air, the U.S. submarines on duty deep under water, and the U.S. missiles concealed deep in the earth will retaliate by nuking the attacker’s country together with the attacker. The war for world domination in the age of nuclear weapons must destroy the enemy means of retaliation, and Gorbachev’s bio superweapons were part of post-nuclear superweaponry intended to destroy the enemy means of retaliation, to prevent MAD (mutual assured destruction). The owners of Soviet Russia needed such superweaponry, and the owners of China need them today. President Nixon and President Yeltsin did not need them, since neither of them was, or could be, politically, after world domination, and nuclear weapons were quite sufficient for both of them. If Putin becomes the owner of Russia, he will resume Gorbachev’s quest for world domination. On Nov. 20, I received from a NewsMax reader, in response to my column of Nov. 19 about China, an e-mail declaring: "China stands to gain little from the destruction of the U.S." "Destruction"? Like the owners of Soviet Russia, the owners of China are after world domination. The official behavior of the United States toward the owners of China since the last years of President Clinton in office has been deserving of their highest marks. We have seen evidence indicating that President Clinton acted very much as their paid agent. If the United States accepts, early enough, the status of Hong Kong, why on earth will the owners of China (and Hong Kong) destroy their new property? The owners of China will destroy the United States only if this becomes expedient for their world domination, that is, world ownership. Please pay attention to that response to my column: "China stands to gain little from the destruction of the U.S.” The author of the response bears Anglo-Saxon first and second names, suggesting that their bearer is a born American. But instead of saying, "We will never allow the owners of China or Russia (if dictatorship comes back to Russia) to destroy or neutralize our means of retaliation,” this presumably Anglo-Saxon American (a WASP?) pleads that the owners of China will gain little from the destruction of the U.S. Do not destroy us, so gainful to you – you will gain little from destroying us. Of course, if the West becomes a bicontinental Hong Kong, the owners of China will gain more. The only trouble will be that at some point of his world ownership, the world owner may decide to annihilate, for example, all Anglo-Saxon Americans (recall Stalin, Hitler and Mao). Except for that one sentence that I have quoted above, the presumably Anglo-Saxon American’s e-mail consists of insults aimed at me, which the author evidently takes for criticisms. To be sure, it is safer today and possibly more gainful in the long run to criticize or insult me and other China- and Russia-watchers than the owners of China and possible future owners of Russia, one of whom (Vladimir Zhirinovsky) threatened to assassinate me, for surely assassination is the best criticism. * * This piece is a variation on one of the themes of my book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-Nuclear Superweapons.” Publishers: The 27-page Proposal and the first 130-page part of the book can be mailed to you if you apply to me (navlev@cloud9.net; tel. 1-718-796-6028). Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Bioterrorism China/Taiwan Russia Saddam Hussein/Iraq Editor's note: Get NewsMax’s exclusive interview with Col. Stanislav Lunev: CIA Files: Defector Reveals Russia's Secret Plans All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com ***************************************************************** 44 UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Weapons Inspection Activities in Iraq 2 December 2002 [www.iaea.org] [-] Media Advisory 2002/36 (3 December 2002) Following the start of inspections in Iraq, regular press briefings, statements and advisories have been regularly issued. Read the press briefing of 30 November. See the previous media advisories of 15 November, 18 November, and 20 November. Also see the pages on [http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.html] . An UNMOVIC weapons inspection team visited the Waziriyah site of the Al Karama General Company, which is located in the northern outskirts of Baghdad. The site is one of Iraq's principal missile development sites, and in later years has had overall responsibility for development of the Al Samoud liquid propellant missile. In 1998, the site contained a number of pieces of equipment tagged by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and several monitoring cameras. None of these are currently present at the facility. It was claimed that some had been destroyed by the bombing of the site; some had been transferred to other sites. Waziriyah is currently an engineering design and research and development site, as well as being the headquarters of the Al Karama Company. The UNMOVIC team was able to carry out the inspection tasks that had been planned. The IAEA inspection team went to three small industrial sites, two of which had never been accessed by any inspection teams before. These sites are located approximately 20 km north of Baghdad. Access was granted immediately and inspections were completed as planned, with the cooperation of the Iraqi counterpart. The three sites proved to be dedicated to the production of alcohol. Hiro Ueki Spokesman for UNMOVIC and the IAEA in Baghdad ***************************************************************** 45 Press Briefing in Baghdad, 30 November 2002 - 2 December 2002 Media Advisory 2002/34 - [www.iaea.org] Following the start of inspections in Iraq, a press briefing was held in Baghdad 30 November. See the previous media advisories of 15 November, 18 November, and 20 November. Also see the pages on IAEA and Iraq [http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.html] . Opening Statement (Also accessible in pdf) by Hiro Ueki, Spokesman for UNMOVIC and the IAEA in Baghdad The UNMOVIC team inspected today the Balad Chemical Defence Battalion, a site about 90 km north of Baghdad. This site, which reports to the Chemical Corps Directorate of the Ministry of Defence, conducts training activities in the area of chemical, biological and radiological defense, for military personnel and was considered by Iraq as one of the sensitive sites. It had been inspected before 1998. The inspection team arrived unannounced at the site and had immediate access. The team was able to perform all the activities in the inspection plan. The IAEA inspection team , comprising 8 inspectors and support staff, completed two inspections at two sites, about 40 km south of Baghdad. These sites are: Um Al Maarik Company, a facility known for its dual use capabilities, and Al Meelad Company, where the former Al Furat centrifuge facility was located. In addition, by going to Al Qa Qaa Company, a team of two inspectors completed the removal of the last of four air samplers previously installed and planned to be refurbished, upgraded and reinstalled in the near future. The IAEA inspection team was able to conduct the inspection activities, as it had planned and did not face any difficulty with access to the sites and locations inside. The inspection allowed to verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations related to these two sites and to update the knowledge of the Agency on the activities carried out and the capabilities existing at these sites. Asked about the objective of the UNMOVIC team's inspection, the Spokesman said that their objective was to determine what were the activities at the site since 1998 and if there was any evidence of prohibited chemical weapons (CW) and biological weapons (BW) agents present or new equipment. Asked about arrival of helicopters, the Spokesman said that the first of helicopters to be used by weapons inspectors was expected to arrive on board the UN aircraft on 1 December in the form of a cargo. (The flight was cancelled on 1 December). The Spokesman added the following information after the press briefing: Um Al Maarik Company, which the IAEA team visited today was notified by the IAEA team in advance that two of their technicians would review the status of the remaining video surveillance. Al Qa Qaa Company, which the IAEA team visited was also requested on Thursday afternoon to provide assistance to facilitate removal of sampler. This type of advance notification is sometimes given to facilitate their work on monitoring equipment. It happened to the above two cases. Except for these types of cases, our inspection teams do not provide advance warning to the Iraqi side, as we have emphasized time and again. ***************************************************************** 46 IAEA Board of Governors Adopts Resolution on Safeguards in the DPRK - 29 November Media Advisory 2002/33 - [www.iaea.org] The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on the implementation of IAEA safeguards in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) at its meetings in Vienna 29 November 2002. The Board [http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/About/Policy/Board/] is the 35-member policymaking body of the Agency. Full text of the resolution: (Also available in .pdf format) The Board of Governors, 1. Recalling its resolutions GOV/2636, GOV/2639, GOV/2645, GOV/2692, GOV/2711 and GOV/2742, and General Conference resolutions GC(XXXVII)RES/624, GC(XXXVIII)RES/16, GC(39)/RES/3, GC(40)/RES/4, GC(41)/RES/22, GC(42)/RES/2, GC(43)/RES/3, GC(44)/RES/26, GC(45)RES/16, and GC(46) RES/14, 2. Noting that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and reaffirming that the IAEA-DPRK safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/403) under the NPT remains binding and in force, 3. Recalling further resolution 825 (1993) adopted by the Security Council of the United Nations on 11 May 1993 and 31 March 1994, 30 May 1994 and 4 November 1994 statements by the President of the United Nations Security Council, particularly the request to take all steps the Agency deems necessary to verify full compliance by the DPRK with its safeguards agreement with the Agency, 4. Noting with extreme concern recent reports of an unsafeguarded DPRK uranium enrichment programme, and the DPRK statement of 25 October 2002 that it is "entitled to possess not only nuclear weapons but any type of weapon more powerful than that," 5. Mindful of the indispensable role of the IAEA in continuing to monitor the freeze on nuclear facilities in the DPRK as requested by the Security Council, 6. Recognizing the importance to the international community of maintaining peace, stability, and the nuclear weapons-free status of the Korean Peninsula, and declaring its readiness to promote a peaceful resolution of the DPRK nuclear issue, 7. Noting that the IAEA Secretariat has sent two letters (17 and 18 October 2002) to the authorities of the DPRK, asking them to cooperate with the Agency and seeking clarification of reported information about a programme to enrich uranium, 8. Having considered the report of the Director General at its meeting of 28 November 2002, 1. Reiterates its previous calls to the DPRK to comply fully and promptly with its safeguards agreement and to co-operate fully with the Agency to that end; 2. Endorses the statement by the Director General on 17 October 2002 in which he expressed "deep concern" regarding reported information that the DPRK has a programme to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, and the action taken by the Director General to seek information from the DPRK on any such activity; 3. Insists that the DPRK urgently and constructively respond to letters from the IAEA Secretariat requesting clarification of the reported uranium enrichment programme; 4. Calls upon the DPRK to accept without delay the proposal of the Director General to despatch a senior team to the DPRK, or to receive a DPRK team in Vienna, to clarify the aforementioned uranium enrichment programme; 5. Recognises that such a programme, or any other covert nuclear activities, would constitute a violation of the DPRK's international commitments, including the DPRK's safeguards agreement with the Agency pursuant to the NPT; 6. Deplores the DPRK's repeated public statements that it is entitled to possess nuclear weapons, which runs contrary to its obligations under the NPT not to develop or possess nuclear weapons; 7. Urges the DPRK to provide to the Agency all relevant information concerning the reported uranium enrichment programme, and other relevant nuclear fuel cycle facilities; 8. Urges the DPRK to cooperate with the Agency with a view to opening immediately all relevant facilities to IAEA inspection and safeguards, as required under its comprehensive safeguards agreement; 9. Urges the DPRK to give up any nuclear weapons programme, expeditiously and in a verifiable manner; 10. Requests the Director General to transmit this resolution to the DPRK, to continue dialogue with the DPRK with a view toward urgent resolution of the issues above, and to report again to the Board of Governors on the matter at its next meeting or when deemed necessary; and 11. Decides to remain seized of the matter. ***************************************************************** 47 Pentagon Memo Raises Possibility of Nuclear Testing Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: @armscontrol.org] A memorandum from a high-level Pentagon official recommending that the United States consider a low-yield nuclear testing program to help maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile surfaced November 15, just two days after Congress delayed an attempt to reduce the time required to prepare a nuclear test. Edward Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, sent the memorandum October 21 to members of the Nuclear Weapons Council, a consultative body he chairs that is made up of officials from the Departments of Defense and Energy. In the letter, which was obtained by the Arms Control Association and made public in mid-November, he expressed concern about the ability of the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure a high level of safety and performance of the current nuclear arsenal. “New findings suggest that we may previously have been overconfident,” Aldridge wrote. The Stockpile Stewardship Program combines subcritical testing with computer modeling based on data from previous nuclear weapons tests to verify the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal. Among the suggestions offered by Aldridge for assessing the arsenal’s safety and reliability is “for the laboratories to readdress the value of a low yield testing program.” Aldridge pointed out the difficulty of fully understanding the stockpile’s safety without testing and asked, “How might such a program [of low-yield nuclear testing] increase confidence now?” Deliberations over the resumption of nuclear testing to maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile have bubbled beneath the surface of Bush administration policy since January 2001, when the White House indicated that it would not ask the Senate to reconsider ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The administration also hinted at nuclear testing resumption in its January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, a leaked version of which stated, “While the United States is making every effort to maintain the stockpile without additional testing, this may not be possible for the indefinite future.” Among other things, the review, as well as a later study by the National Nuclear Security Administration, expressed concern that the United States is losing important expertise as the number of laboratory personnel with nuclear testing experience dwindles. Other experts within the U.S. government deny the need for resumed testing. Bruce Goodwin, associate director for defense and nuclear technologies at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said, “I don’t know of any reason why we can’t” maintain the stockpile without testing, according to a November 15 San Jose Mercury News article. Energy Department spokesman Bryan Wilkes said November 22 that there are “no new movements or talk” in the agency about resuming testing, adding, “We see no need to deviate from the Stockpile Stewardship Program right now.” In addition, a July 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences noted, “Even in the absence of constraints on nuclear testing, no need was ever identified for a program that would periodically subject the stockpile weapons to nuclear tests.” Aldridge’s memorandum was made public just two days after Congress finished the fiscal year 2003 Defense Authorization Act, passed by the House of Representatives November 12 and the Senate a day later. In the bill, Congress requests a report that will outline plans and costs calculations for nuclear testing readiness periods of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The bill also calls for a recommendation from the secretaries of energy and defense on the “optimal readiness posture.” The United States conducted its last nuclear test in 1992, and since 1993 the Energy Department has been required to be able to resume testing within 24-36 months. Whereas in previous years Congress simply authorized funds to maintain readiness without discussion, this year House Republicans unsuccessfully pushed for the adoption of a one-year readiness requirement. The Senate refused to reopen the issue of test readiness to deliberation. Conference committee members compromised by requesting the study, which will postpone congressional debate on whether to shorten the test readiness period. Calling the House proposal for a one-year readiness posture “unnecessarily aggressive,” Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) described the result as an important compromise November 18. Asking the Energy Department to evaluate all of the possible options and propose a posture recommendation was an important achievement, according to Tauscher, who said, “I don’t believe Congress should arbitrarily mandate a testing posture that would have significant national security consequences.” Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 2001 Arms Control Association, 1726 M Street, NW; Washington, DC; 20036; Tel: (202) 463-8270; Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 48 Bechtel's offer of help comes with curious timing Published Nov. 29, 2002 The timing of Bechtel National Inc.'s endeavor to get local businesses qualified to work in the nuclear industry is too curious to escape note. Bechtel announced its plan earlier this month, but denied it was a response to ongoing concerns first expressed eight months ago that Bechtel is not paying enough attention to Tri-City firms as it doles out work on Hanford's multibillion-dollar vitrification plant. Regardless of its motivations, the new initiative is a progressive move toward local economic development. The problem, company officials said, is a lack of local suppliers with Nuclear Quality Assurance certification. To address it, Bechtel said it would team up with the Tri-City Industrial Development Council to help local companies pursue certification. Nine days after news of its partnership with TRIDEC hit, Bechtel awarded a $70 million contract to an out-of-state firm that has NQA certification. Skeptics could see more than coincidence in the juxtaposition of the two announcements. The partnership with TRIDEC might be interpreted as a cover for Bechtel to continue to send big contracts outside the region. We hope that's not so, because nuclear certification appears to have the promise of helping build businesses that will thrive even after the vitrification plant is done. Seen in the best light, the $70 million contract with Intermech of Winston-Salem, N.C., for ductwork is a prime example of the job that awaits Tri-City businesses if they pursue nuclear certification. And Intermech's plan to establish a major manufacturing plant in the Tri-Cities is wonderful economic news. It's just too bad that Bechtel's generosity didn't occur sooner since company officials say they have noticed the lack of Tri-City firms with nuclear certification since procurements started last year. Local firms now have a better understanding of the playing field. They are justifiably concerned about shoring up the Tri-City economy during Hanford's boom times so that it can survive the busts. But Bechtel, as a contractor that spends federal dollars, has just as much reason to search for subcontractors who can deliver the best value. Somewhere in the middle of those competing interests is a way to build the vit plant that does right by the nation's taxpayers while not setting this community up for a fall. What's your opinon? Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 49 Isotope program at PNNL picking up steam This story was published Mon, Dec 2, 2002 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer The isotope program at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is making a comeback, turning to private industry for contracts rather than the Department of Energy. Over the past seven months, the program in Richland has attracted almost $1 million in contracts and commitments for work using its hot cells and radiochemists. Scientists believe the program can grow 40 percent annually over the next seven years because the demand for isotopes and isotope research is so great. "There are so many requests, we cannot possibly supply all," said Darrell Fisher, a medical physicist at the Richland lab. A radioisotope is a form of a radioactive element. It's the product supporters of restarting Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility want produced for new medicines. The lab is looking for ways to turn isotopes available from other sources into reliable supplies for useful products. "(Demand) is more than medical," Fisher said. "It's for basic research science and industrial need. Then we have a strong national security element." The lab had a strong program in medical isotope research in the 1990s, developing a way to produce the isotope yttrium 90 from nuclear waste. The Food and Drug Administration since has approved a medicine using yttrium 90 for treating a form of lymphoma with a good success rate and few side effects. In fiscal year 1998, the DOE gave the Richland lab's program $1.7 million. That year, the lab also sold $1.4 million of yttrium 90. But since then, DOE has moved to turn isotope work over to private companies, including the production of yttrium 90. By last winter, very little isotope work was being done at the Richland lab. But already the lab gets calls from programs, particularly at universities, that have isotopes from past research they need to get rid of and researchers and businesses seeking specific isotopes. Since Sept. 11, 2001, interest has increased in reducing stockpiles of excess radioactive material, such as the cesium left over from a New York project to study the effects of radiation on trees. "It's a big recycling effort," said Fisher, whose colleagues sometimes call him the junk man. "We view the materials as really valuable." The terrorist attacks last year also increased demand for isotopes to use for national security. The Richland lab has been working with SAIC, a San Diego-based research and engineering company, producing a vehicle and cargo inspection system developed for the U.S. Customs Service that uses cesium or cobalt isotopes. It's able to find explosives and weapons hidden in trucks or seaport containers without opening the containers, among other uses. The lab also has contracts to do proprietary work for medical product manufacturers, in-cluding one working on a treatment for heart disease and another working on a treatment for prostate cancer. Additional work is being done under a research and development agreement with AlphaMed, a Massachusetts company, that could increase the supply of alpha-emitting isotopes for cancer treatments. The high energy released by the alpha particles, with their short range and short half-life, can destroy tumor cells with minimal damage to healthy tissue. They show promise for difficult-to-treat cancer that has spread from the main tumor. It can be found and killed with isotopes attached to antibodies that target the cancer cells. "The supply of alpha emitters is desperate," with some of those available too expensive for practical use, Fisher said. The lab and AlphaMed are working on ways to produce reliable supplies of lower-cost alternatives. In one project, the lab and AlphaMed are using the United States' supply of the rare isotope uranium 232, which likely came from a classified weapons project. It can be used to produce bismuth 212, an alpha emitter with a half-life of 60 minutes. Because half of it decays every hour, hospitals would need to produce the isotopes on site just before the patients are treated. The Richland lab is working with AlphaMed to improve and supply a small generator system developed at the University of Chicago that uses chemical reactions to generate bismuth 212 and remove it from other isotopes in the generator. Isotopes being produced by the present generator system are allowing medical research to continue, including clinical research on animals before new treatments are tested on patients. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 50 S.C. Plutonium Removal Timetables Set Las Vegas SUN: December 02, 2002 By JACOB JORDAN ASSOCIATED PRESS COLUMBIA, S.C.- A provision included in a defense bill signed into law Monday by President Bush sets timetables for the removal of plutonium at the Savannah River Site near Aiken and fines for the U.S. Energy Department if plutonium processing programs fail to meet goals. The department plans to build a facility at SRS that will convert 34 tons of plutonium into a mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, that can be used in commercial nuclear reactors. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. authored the plutonium provision and fought to have it inserted into the defense bill. "The legislation provides unprecedented protections for the state," Graham said. "It has a requirement that all plutonium leave the state at a date certain if the MOX program fails and those requirements are backed by unprecedented financial penalties for noncompliance." A spokesman for Gov. Jim Hodges, who has sued DOE to block shipments of plutonium into his state, called the provision a step in the right direction. "Basically, it's better than nothing," spokesman Cortney Owings said. But "it gives no certainty that plutonium will leave our state." Under the bill, if the MOX program is not successfully operating by 2017, then all remaining plutonium must be removed immediately. In addition, a fee of $1 million per day - up to $100 million per year - will be assessed during the removal period to make sure the nuclear material is removed quickly. Hodges' lawsuit, which claims Energy officials had not conducted the proper environmental studies on the safety of shipping plutonium to SRS, is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is expected to decide early next year whether to hear the case. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 51 Cleanup deadlines moved up This story was published Tue, Dec 3, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer The Department of Energy and Fluor Hanford have renegotiated the deadlines and fees in their Hanford cleanup contract. On paper, that translates to quicker deadlines and more money for Fluor's efforts through 2006. However, Fluor still has to recrunch some schedules and cost estimates to map out exactly how it will do much of the revised work load. Those re-evaluations are to be done by June, said Wade Ballard, DOE's assistant manager for planning and integration at Hanford. "These are very aggressive goals. We'll work with DOE to accomplish them," Fluor spokeswoman Judith Connell said Monday. The contract was revised to implement DOE's nationwide efforts to speed up cleanup at Hanford and elsewhere. Fluor manages Hanford overall for the other cleanup contractors, and it is in charge of cleanup efforts outside the tank farms and Columbia River corridor. Under the new contract, Fluor will see the total potential fee -- meaning profits -- it can earn over the next four years increase from about $120 million to about $170 million, Ballard said. Fluor's current five-year contract began Oct. 1, 2001, and called for more than $3 billion worth of work to be done from 2001-06. The revised contract adds about $400 million in extra work over four years for which Fluor is supposed to receive extra federal appropriations. But Fluor also will have to figure out how to do about $800 million of additional work over the four years for which no extra federal appropriations will be provided, Ballard said. Fluor's fees -- the potential $170 million if everything is done perfectly and on schedule -- will depend on how the company copes with the extra work while accelerating cleanup. Also, under the old contract, 70 percent of Fluor's fee was tied to making objective goals with another 30 percent linked to subjective evaluations. Under the revised contract, 100 percent of Fluor's fee is tied to objective cleanup goals. Fluor's revised contract assumes that Hanford will receive the full $1.893 billion that DOE is seeking for fiscal 2003, which began Oct. 1, Ballard said. Between a fourth and a third of that amount is supposed to go to Fluor, with the rest going to Hanford's other contractors. Right now, DOE's nationwide cleanup 2003 budget, including Hanford's, is in limbo in Congress and in the Bush administration until at least mid-January, if not until later. The revised contract also assumes Hanford's annual cleanup budget will increase by yet-undetermined amounts in subsequent years, Ballard said. He said the federal Office of Management and Budget, which outranks DOE in preparing the Bush administration's annual budget requests to Congress, appeared impressed with Fluor Hanford's new contract. But he added that OMB has not approved its budget yet. Here are highlights of the revised contract: -- The deadline to finish removing radioactive fuel, sludge and water from the K Basins has moved from Sept. 30, 2006, to Oct. 30, 2005. -- The deadline to clean out the Plutonium Finishing Plant complex has moved from 2009 to 2006. At that time, only the demolition of the buildings is to remain. -- The timetable to clean out and possibly demolish the Fast Flux Test Facility is undetermined. Fluor and DOE are hashing out schedules and budgets. When that is complete, FFTF's deadlines will be added to the revised contract. -- All 4,800 barrels of Hanford's above-ground transuranic wastes are supposed to be shipped to a New Mexico storage site by June 30, 2005. The schedule and costs for digging up and disposing of transuranic wastes currently underground are still undetermined. -- Checking, possibly repacking, then burying currently stored low-level radioactive wastes is supposed to be done by Sept. 30, 2006. Future low-level wastes still have to be addressed. A Hanford solid waste environmental impact study, which is in its last stages, will influence how transuranic, chemical and low-level wastes will be further incorporated into the revised contract. -- The decontamination and demolition of the old 233-S plutonium processing building is supposed to be done by June 30, 2004. DOE transferred this project from Bechtel Hanford to Fluor last summer. Fluor also will have to clean out and demolish two outlying old plutonium-laced buildings near B Plant and T Plant by 2006. -- Fluor is tackling removing contaminated ground water across Hanford. This is another project transferred from Bechtel last summer. Fluor's master ground water plan has not been approved, so it also has not been nailed down in the revised contract. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 52 Law sets plutonium fines The State | 12/03/2002 | Posted on Tue, Dec. 03, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] Bush signs measure with penalties up to $100 million if SRS delays processing By SAMMY FRETWELL Staff Writer President Bush signed legislation Monday that supporters say will prevent long-term storage of plutonium at the Savannah River Site, a federal weapons complex destined to receive 34 metric tons of the deadly material. The new law establishes deadlines to process the plutonium at SRS or the federal government must pay fines of up to $100 million a year. Bush's decision caps months of work by South Carolina's congressional delegation. U.S. Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the law will keep South Carolina from becoming the nation's permanent plutonium repository. But a spokesman for outgoing Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges said the bill offers no guarantee that the federal government will remove the surplus material as promised. Plutonium is a poisonous, radioactive metal used to make nuclear weapons. Hodges filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year to prevent the shipments to South Carolina. The federal government intends to send surplus weapons-grade plutonium to SRS from federal nuclear complexes across the nation. Once in South Carolina, the radioactive metal will be stored at an old reactor building, then used to make mixed oxide fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, according to federal plans. Some of the plutonium is on its way from the Rocky Flats, Colo., nuclear weapons site, which is closing. Bush approved the plutonium legislation as part of the 2003 federal defense authorization act. Graham, who shepherded the legislation through Congress, said Monday that the new rules bring stiff penalties against the federal government if it fails to process the material as promised. If the mixed oxide fuel program is not operating successfully by 2017, all plutonium must be removed from SRS. The government also must pay penalties of $1 million per day or $100 million per year as the material is being removed, Graham's office said Monday. The fine money would come from the Department of Defense's budget and go to the state of South Carolina, Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said. Before then, the federal government must meet interim deadlines for production or be fined $1 million per day until those targets are met. "The legislation provides unprecedented protections for the state," said Graham, elected U.S. senator last month. "I'm grateful that President Bush is committed to helping protect our state." Republican Gov.-elect Mark Sanford, who defeated Hodges in November, was not available for comment Monday. Sanford has said that he favors legislation as a way to protect South Carolina, rather than legal action. Sanford has said he's inclined to drop Hodges' lawsuit, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The federal plan drew national attention this past year after Hodges threatened to block plutonium shipments at the South Carolina border. He backed away from the threat after a federal judge ordered him not to. He argued that the plutonium disposal plan had not been fully studied. Energy department officials said it was vital to place the material at SRS to meet international nuclear non-proliferation agreements and to expedite the cleanup of Rocky Flats. Hodges' spokesman, Morton Brilliant, said the legislation won't hurt, but it isn't strong enough to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy processes and removes plutonium from SRS as promised. The government could choose to pay the penalties as compensation for leaving the plutonium at SRS forever, Brilliant said. Or, Brilliant said, Congress could later change the law requiring the penalties and removal schedule. "For $100 million, they can solve all their long-term nuclear storage problems,'' Brilliant said. "This pretty much leaves us where we are today: without any ironclad guarantees.'' Hodges wanted the DOE to sign a legally enforceable agreement to remove the plutonium, then file it with a federal court. ***************************************************************** 53 Centrifuge campaign at the wire - [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, December 03, 2002 Whether plant is in Paducah or Ohio, USEC will need cash: analyst By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Regardless of whether Paducah or Piketon, Ohio, gets the nod for a new uranium enrichment plant, there are many doubts that USEC can pay for the project, said John Longenecker, former Department of Energy deputy secretary of enrichment. "There's reasonably a 50-50 chance at best that USEC will ever build a plant," said Longenecker, now a California-based consultant for nuclear firms that buy enriched uranium from USEC and other suppliers. His work includes research to give clients a better feel for the financial future of the Bethesda, Md., firm. USEC's annual earnings have dropped from $78 million to less than $12 million in two years. USEC is trying to resurrect gas centrifuge, a process used in Europe for decades, as a replacement for power-intensive, outdated gaseous diffusion, the process used at Paducah's enrichment plant. Longenecker led the gas centrifuge program in 1985 when DOE aborted plans to commercialize a new centrifuge plant at Piketon, near Portsmouth, because it was too costly. "At that time, if the plant had been completed, the cost was going to be 30 percent higher than to keep running the gaseous diffusion plants," he said. "We didn't have $8 billion to finish the plant ... It was all about keeping the price down." USEC is expected to announce early this month that it will build a 50-job test centrifuge plant at either Paducah or Piketon and has said the winner will have an advantage in getting a $1.5 billion, 500-job commercial plant by the end of 2010. The commercial plant would eventually replace the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which will pare its work force to about 1,250 next year. Having an existing complex and not being in a major earthquake zone give Piketon roughly a $450 million leg up on Paducah in recruiting the gas centrifuge plant, Longenecker said. "If it were my choice, I'd want to do it in Paducah because of the people and quality of the work force," he said. "But the stone-cold numbers say USEC saves $250 million by going to Portsmouth for the building and facilities." USEC probably would have to spend as much as $200 million in seismic upgrades if it built a centrifuge plant in Paducah, which is in the New Madrid Fault earthquake zone, he said. Piketon does not have that problem. Financing the centrifuge plant is the bigger issue, Longenecker said, because USEC does not have the inventory or assets to borrow $1.5 billion while still owing $500 million in bonds outstanding from its 1998 privatization. That means merging with another firm or finding a partner, probably within the nuclear industry, he said. But the nation's three largest nuclear power firms — Duke Power, Exelon and Entergy, all USEC customers — are partners with USEC's European competitor Urenco in a venture to build a centrifuge plant in the United States before USEC does. The consortium, Louisiana Energy Services, announced plans in September to have a plant running 40 miles northeast of Nashville, Tenn., by 2007, at least two years earlier than USEC. If L.E.S. succeeds, it could capture the USEC market and force closure of the Paducah plant by 2010 to 2012, Longenecker said. If not, the Paducah plant might run until 2015, he said. In September, Dennis Spurgeon, USEC executive vice president and chief operating officer, told members of the World Nuclear Association in London that the test plant will showcase improvements in centrifuge technology. USEC is spending $150 million during the next five years on the plant, using as many as 240 machines that previous performance shows will be the most economical in the world, he said. "We are confident that successful demonstration of the (test plant) will attract partners and/or investors for the construction of the commercial enrichment plant," Spurgeon said. Soon after that, the USEC board met at the Paducah plant. During an interview then, USEC Chief Executive Officer Nick Timbers would not speculate if the shrinking enrichment market could support USEC and L.E.S., but said he favors "free and open thinking" among USEC, Urenco and the two other major enrichment suppliers worldwide. He said the $1.5 billion may come in a variety of forms, including partnerships. Whether a partner is needed will depend on results of the test plant, market conditions and USEC's financial status, he said. Longenecker said USEC will have to seek public support if it can't find private financiers. "We think all roads lead to USEC's acquiring government-backed financing," he said, adding that the Energy Department may be restricted from helping because of federal belt-tightening and its massive environmental cleanup responsibilities nationwide. Even if USEC finds the money, there is a "high probability" of lengthy delays in proving centrifuge can enrich uranium at competitive prices and in getting licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he said. Richard Miller, Washington-based policy analyst for the Government Accountability Project, said competitive pricing is a big problem because most of the high-value USEC contracts are ending. That leaves newer contracts at near market prices and far less profit margin, he said. Adding to the trouble is that USEC's already-low credit rating was downgraded again recently, said Miller, who spent years following USEC while representing the atomic workers' union. "I would expect USEC to run to Congress for money if it runs out of (centrifuge) research and development funds, but USEC is not making the case for a federal bailout," paying $42 million in dividends and big bonuses to corporate leaders, Miller said. ***************************************************************** 54 No More Delays -- DOE should meet all deadlines [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, December 03, 2002 State environmental officials have at least 400 million reasons to be skeptical of the U.S. Department of Energy's request for a change in the agreement governing the agency's cleanup work at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Officials at DOE want to remove a requirement to set deadlines for completing each segment of the cleanup, leaving only the 2010 deadline for finishing all the work at the plant site. Regional officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Kentucky's Natural Resources Cabinet oppose the change, but DOE is appealing to the head of EPA, Christine Todd Whitman. On the surface, the DOE request does not appear unreasonable. The agency argues that the intermediate deadlines increase bureaucratic paperwork and draw funding away from the actual cleanup operation. It makes sense to eliminate paperwork and accelerate the cleanup as much as possible, given that funding for the decontamination of the nation's Cold War nuclear sites is subject to the annual Washington scramble. In any event, the critical deadline is 2010. If the work is essentially completed by then, few people in the Paducah area are going to complain about DOE missing some early deadlines. Unfortunately, the DOE cleanup record in Paducah does not inspire confidence in the agency's ability to meet any deadlines. The numbers tell the story of delay and indecision: During the 1990s the Energy Department spent $400 million at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant without removing a single barrel of hazardous material from the site. Consider those numbers again: 10 years plus $400 million equals zero. All of that time and money was spent studying the contamination, categorizing it and keeping it from getting worse, DOE officials explained. Jimmy Palmer, the EPA's regional director, spoke for environmental regulators and the plant's neighbors when he observed, "It is frustrating when you compare funding made available to Paducah during the 1990s with the progress toward environmental cleanup. You immediately ask the question of why more progress hasn't been made." Over the past two years DOE and its contractors have finally made some progress in cleaning up the site. But Palmer's question still looms over the long-term DOE cleanup project, which will require a near-herculean effort to complete in less than eight years. It's quite likely DOE won't be able to eliminate all the serious contamination sources at the plant by 2010. The most complicated and serious problem involves a plume of contaminated groundwater that is moving from the plant toward the Ohio River. Cleanup specialists will have to employ new technology to deal with this environmental threat. Against that background, the "milestones" in DOE's cleanup agreement with the state assume greater importance. The milestones apply pressure on DOE to keep the cleanup moving forward. Without the intermediate deadlines — and the accompanying threat of state litigation to force compliance — it's possible DOE officials could again lapse into foot-dragging and paper-shuffling until the agency finally faces — in 2010 — a real reckoning for its poor performance. History definitely indicates state and federal environmental regulators must keep constant pressure on DOE to ensure the agency deals with the legacy of contamination at nuclear installations. Paducah already has endured more than a decade of indifference and inaction. Surely that's long enough to wait for the federal government to meet its environmental obligations here. ***************************************************************** 55 Cleanup project to shed 30 jobs [http://www.paducahsun.com/] The Paducah Sun Paducah, Kentucky Tuesday, December 03, 2002 says the contamination threat is lower than first believed. By Bill Bartleman bbartleman@paducahsun.com--270.575.8650 Bechtel Jacobs hopes it can find jobs for 30 workers who are being cut from one of the major cleanup projects at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The cuts are in the work associated with the removal of 160 Department of Energy material storage areas, known as DMSAs, that contain equipment and materials that are considered hazardous. The workers are employed by subcontractors for Bechtel Jacobs, which is overseeing cleanup operations for the U.S. Department of Energy, according to Greg Cook, Bechtel Jacobs spokesman. Cook said fewer workers will be needed on the project because a review of the contents of the material storage areas indicates they do not pose an immediate health and safety risk to employees and the public. It will cut the work force from 100 to 70. The DMSA project will cost about $116 million and is scheduled to be completed in 2007. "We will redirect some of the funds to projects with a higher priority, such as the scrap metal yard," Cook said. "We won't know how many workers can be transferred to other projects until the end of the week." The scrap yard contains 29,000 tons of old production equipment and materials that are believed to be a major source of groundwater contamination. Work to remove the scrap is in the early planning stages and isn't expected to be completed until 2009. The work will cost about $71 million. About 30 workers are involved in that project, with more expected to be hired in the next few months. Two other major cleanup projects are the north-south drainage ditch, which contains trichlorethylene and radioactive materials, and the soil under the C-400 building, which also contains trichlorethylene. They also are believed to be a major source of groundwater contamination. Cook said that before the reduction in the storage area work, there were 738 people involved in the cleanup. ***************************************************************** 56 Hanford begins transferring fuel This story was published Thu, Nov 28, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer Hanford transferred the first cask of spent nuclear fuel from K East Basin to K West Basin on Monday, starting a fuel juggling act aimed at trimming costs at the high-profile project. Monday's fuel transfer also beats Fluor Hanford's deadline of having to accomplish that feat by Saturday, said Norm Boyter, Fluor's vice president for the K Basins project. The K Basins are two indoor, water-filled and leak-prone pools that hold 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel 400 yards from the Columbia River. Hanford's master plan is to move that fuel to an underground vault in central Hanford. Movement is complicated. It involves moving and washing fuel underwater, then loading it into special cylindrical containers called multicanister overpacks, or MCOs -- also underwater. The MCOs are then removed from the water, processed and trucked to the underground vault. This work is under way in the K West Basin, which originally held 1,053 tons of fuel in closed containers. Working in the K West Basin is easier than doing all the underwater procedures in the K East Basin because much of the K East fuel is corroding and in open-ended containers. That means chips and clouds of radioactive fuel and debris swirl throughout the water when the fuel is moved in the K East Basin. That problem does not exist with the K West fuel. Consequently, the Department of Energy and Fluor decided not to install the expensive underwater equipment in the K East Basin to load spent fuel into MCOs. Instead, Hanford is moving the K East fuel to K West where all the equipment is already set up. Moving K East fuel consists of putting the fuel containers into a big cask, pulling the cask out of the pool, packing that cask in a bigger container, and moving everything a few hundred feet to K West. There, casks are emptied into the K West pool. Loose fuel bits and specks are vacuumed in the water as the fuel is moved inside the K East Basin. The open-ended fuel containers relocated to K West are located near a water purification system can keep the pool from being junked up. It takes two trips from K East to K West to move enough fuel to fill one MCO, Boyter said. The Tri-Party Agreement, the legal pact governing Hanford's cleanup, calls for the K East Basin to be emptied by May 31, 2004. The Tri-Party Agreement also calls for all the K West Basin's original 1,053 tons of fuel to be removed by Dec. 31. As of Wednesday, Fluor had moved about 865 tons of K West fuel. By another measure, Fluor has moved 153 MCOs of K West fuel and it needs to reach 184 MCOs by Dec. 31. Right now, Fluor is moving five MCOs per week. At that pace, Fluor appears likely to miss the deadline by almost two weeks. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 57 Water near 300 Area deemed mostly safe This story was published Fri, Nov 29, 2002 By John Stang Herald staff writer Hanford has taken its best look in decades at shoreline contamination along the 300 Area, setting a baseline to track future pollution in that region. The most immediate bottom line: Most river water is safe to drink. One spot exceeded federal safe drinking water standards. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Washington's Department of Health recently released a report on radioactive and chemical contaminants on the land and water sides of the Columbia River's shoreline next to Hanford's southeastern tip. The two agencies separately analyzed water, plant and animal samples from August to October 2001. They double-checked their results with each other, agreeing on most findings. This was the most extensive sampling of the 300 Area's shoreline area since 1971, when Hanford's second-to-last plutonium production reactor shut down. The 300 Area is a crowded group of buildings where nuclear fuel was assembled and numerous tests of radioactive materials were conducted. Much of the ground beneath it is contaminated. Two major underground radioactive plumes hit the shoreline east of the 300 Area. One is a uranium plume fanning northeast, east and southeast from the 300 Area. The second is the southernmost tip of a huge tritium plume flowing from central Hanford. In the overall Hanford picture, the tritium plume is relatively benign. However, the state-PNNL study shows uranium and some daughter substances -- isotopes of other elements created and left over from decaying uranium exceeding federal drinking standards. That occurs from ground water seeping up from one spot in the Columbia River's bottom just offshore of the uranium plume's center. Sampling points upstream and downstream of that spot show uranium levels within federal safe-to-drink concentrations. Once uranium-laced ground water enters the river, the Columbia's huge volume dilutes to it to much sparser concentrations. Federal drinking standards assume a steady consumption of that contaminated water for at least a year, and often longer. The study looked at numerous radioactive, nonradioactive and toxic substances on the land and in the river. Some substances showed higher concentrations than found at Vernita Bridge -- indicating the higher levels come from Hanford-related contamination. But the concentrations of those substances were within safe drinking limits, the report said. While the uranium found in this study comes from the 300 Area, it is difficult to say if more uranium will flow through the ground water into the river, said Ted Poston, manager of PNNL's environmental surveillance program, and one of the five scientists who wrote the report. That's because uranium normally binds to the soil. It moves very slowly, or sometimes not at all through the soil. The 300 Area's shoreline region "is not a drinking source, and it is unlikely to become one in the near future," Poston said. The study looked at three scenarios in which people would drink water in that area. One has a person staying in a boat and drinking his own water -- receiving zero radiological contamination from Hanford. The second has someone stepping on the shoreline, drinking 1 liter of river water and eating a half-pound of clams from the river. That person would absorb a radioactive dose of 0.16 millirem. The final scenario has a scientist spending two days on that shore and drinking a total of 4 liters of river water. That translates to a dose of 0.044 millirem. The maximum allowable Hanford-related dose for a non-Hanford person is 100 millirem a year, according to Department of Energy regulations. That's drastically greater than the doses absorbed in the study's three scenarios. The study examined concentrations of chemicals, metals and radioactive substances in mulberry bushes and sweet clover growing along the shore, as well as in mice, mayflies and darkling beetles. In the river, the study looked at samples of sculpin, crayfish, Asian clams, milfoil and periphyton. Some samples showed elevated levels of metal, chemical and radioactive substances. Some did not. The clams, which stay in one area of the river, appear to be well suited to track long-term accumulations of contaminants in the river -- followed by the crayfish and sculpin, Poston said. Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 58 Amchitka risk meetings scheduled Anchorage Daily News | [http://www.adn.com] TESTS: Government asked to monitor island for radioactive leaks. Daily News Staff (Published: December 3, 2002) The U.S. Department of Energy is holding an open house in Anchorage this week on a risk assessment for radioactive leaks from Amchitka Island. Amchitka, in the Rat Islands near the end of the Aleutian Chain, was the site of three underground atomic tests between 1965 and 1971. The last, 5-megaton Cannikin, was the largest underground test ever conducted by the United States. State environmental officials and Native groups in the area have asked the federal government to conduct a long-term monitoring program on the island and in the ocean nearby. Computer models prepared at the time of the blasts by the federal government indicated that buried radionuclides could begin to creep out anywhere from 10 years after to thousands of years later. The assessment released this week looks at the potential risk to humans if radionuclides escape into the environment and contaminate subsistence food staples or commercial fish stocks. It concludes that the risk is well below the Environmental Protection Agency's standards. The federal agencies will discuss the risk assessment at a public meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. Wednesday in the Skagway and Valdez conference rooms at the Anchorage Marriott Downtown, 820 W. Seventh Ave. The Anchorage Daily News [http://www.adn.com] ***************************************************************** 59 Whistleblower collects $210,000 in ORNL case The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2002 R. Cathey Daniels Oak Ridger staff After two years of complaints and appeals, a last-minute tussle and a daylong mediation session, a local whistleblower expects to see restitution Friday. Janet Westbrook's case with UT-Battelle over safety issues at Oak Ridge National Laboratory is expected to end Tuesday. UT-Battelle manages ORNL for the Department of Energy. Westbrook worked at ORNL as a radiological engineer from 1989 until she was laid off during a large workforce reduction implemented by the company in 2000. As part of the mediated settlement signed Nov. 26, Westbrook will take home in two payments approximately $210,000, the first on Dec. 6. The second payment is to be disbursed in January. Her attorney will receive approximately $70,000. In addition, according to Westbrook, she is to receive a letter from UT-Battelle affirming her job capabilities and stating that the company will not oppose her hiring by contractors or subcontractors. In return Westbrook has agreed not to apply to UT-Battelle for a job, though she could apply to contractors or subcontractors for work at the lab. And, according to a UT-Battelle spokesman, the company withdrew its request for further review. "I'm just glad it's over," said Westbrook Monday from her home. "It was so uncertain and so agonizing. I feel DOE's contention that they protect whistleblowers -- that's not true. For two years I got no help and no protection. The process is not well-designed -- even if the whistleblower prevails they can be out of work a very long time." In a written statement released Tuesday, UT-Battelle officials stated that Westbrook had "excellent technical skills" and emphasized their contention that her layoff in 2000 was not due to "retaliation." The statement said that the company "expressed regret for the hardship caused by the reduction in force two years ago." Both parties have through Tuesday to change their minds on the agreement, but representatives from both sides said Monday they had signed the pact and had no plans to change course. Westbrook first filed her complaint Dec. 21, 2001. She has said she was the most experienced and best qualified of her group when she was laid off. On several occasions while working at ORNL, Westbrook says she disclosed to lab officials, DOE and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a federal watchdog agency, her belief that radiation safety reviews were not performed in cases where procedures required them, or that reviews were performed but not in accordance with requirements. The agreement comes after the DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals denied a UT-Battelle appeal in the case. Westbrook lost her claim in the first round, then subsequently won. UT-Battelle on Oct. 30 filed a complaint, saying that the Secretarial Review process had not been followed and was in need of clarification and review. A mediation session was called Nov. 15, in which Westbrook, her attorney, Margaret Held, ORNL Deputy Director for Operations Jeff Smith, UT-Battelle General Counsel Steven Porter, and Phyllis Hanslinger of DOE's Office of General Counsel in Washington met to ink the settlement. R. Cathey Daniels can be contacted at (865) 220-5515 or danielsrcd@oakridger.com [danielsrcd@oakridger.com] . All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 60 ISU celebrates nuclear program’s anniversary Idaho State Journal University honors first graduates from course of study 12/03/02 By Tanna Barry — Journal Writer [tbarry@journalnet.com] POCATELLO — When Fred Stoll decided decades ago to earn a bachelor’s degree from Idaho State University, he didn’t think he would be making history. Now, the 62-year-old man has finished a career as a nuclear engineer working at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, raised a family and become part of ISU’s history. Stoll was one of ISU’s first two baccalaureate students to complete an emphasis in nuclear engineering in 1967. James Dittmer of Kennewick, Wash., was the other graduate, but he was not present as the two men were honored by ISU’s College of Engineering. The department celebrated the 35th anniversary of its nuclear engineering program Monday morning. “It’s exciting simply because the program has been so successful,” said Stoll, who worked at what is now INEEL from 1967 to 1998. “It makes me proud to be associated with the program.” The bachelor’s degree in general engineering with the nuclear science option and the masters in nu Fred Stoll, right, an ISU engineering graduate from 1967, speaks with graduate student Nabanita Modak, center. clear science and engineering were established by the 1965 Idaho Legislature. When the Legislature made this decision, Stoll had already completed two years in the engineering program. He had thought he would have to transfer to another university to finish his degree. “I was glad that I had the opportunity to finish my degree at Idaho State,” he said. “I always knew I wanted to be an engineer, I just didn’t know what kind.” The introduction of the nuclear engineering program was something that interested him. After graduation, he started working for the Idaho Nuclear Corp. and was assigned to work at the National Reactor Testing station, which is now called the INEEL. Stoll joined a roomful of other ISU graduates, faculty members and nuclear engineers to celebrate the university’s anniversary of the first graduates. The anniversary coincides with other historical events, such the 60th anniversary of the first self-sustained nuclear chain reaction in Chicago, Ill., and the 45th anniversary of the formation of the Idaho section of the American Nuclear Society. “This is a very unusual day,” said Jay F. Kunze, dean of the College of Engineering. “We have quite a legacy in this state and particularly in eastern Idaho. We have been important in the development of nuclear energy.” Despite advances in nuclear energy, Kunze said the world is using only 1 percent of the nuclear potential being extracted from the earth. The other 99 percent is unused and wasted. “Yet, we know how to use it,” he said. He said by harnessing the unused nuclear power, the world’s energy problems can be alleviated. Debu Mujumbar with the U.S. Department of Energy also thought nuclear energy is part of the future. He said other countries are beginning to use nuclear power. China and India are building nuclear plants. “The United States must take the lead in this,” he said. “Everyone in the world is looking to the United States.” Mujumbar said ISU is also part of harnessing nuclear power. “Idaho State University has a great role to play in the future,” Mujumbar said. “We need to keep up the program and train people. We also need to create technical jobs to keep them in Idaho.” Tanna Barry covers health care and general assignments for the Journal. She can be reached at 232-4161 Ext. 241 or by e-mail at tbarry@journalnet.com. ©2002 [http://www.mywebpal.com] . All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Bush: Having His Way -- Nice and Simple II Opinion / Comment By Matt Bivens Before adjourning for the winter holidays, the U.S. Congress passed the defense budget for 2003, and there were a few small surprises. America's elected representatives: Stopped speculation that a U.S. National Missile Defense system, if it's ever built, might use nuclear weapon-tipped interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles. Defense Department officials had flirted with that idea earlier this year -- after all, the antiquated 1960s-era anti-missile system around Moscow boasts about 100 nuclear-armed interceptors ready to defend the Kremlin. House Republicans officially encouraged the Pentagon to look into that bright Soviet idea. But the Democratic Senate, in its final days, shot them down. Insisted on substantial oversight over the multi-billion-dollar missile defense program, rejecting a White House request for a blank check. There will now be a one-time review of the costs, performance record and military utility of a missile defense system. In other words, Congress is wistfully demanding evidence it will work. Refused to permit work on low-yield nuclear weapons, and slowed, but did not stop, work on a nuclear "bunker buster." The administration is intrigued by the possibility of deploying "mini-nukes" in otherwise conventional war situations. Arms control groups counter that use of any nuclear weapon crosses a dangerous and unnecessary line. Sailed to the rescue of the Nunn-Lugar programs, which work to secure weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and knowledge, in the former Soviet Union. The Congress provided more than $1 billion in funding for those programs at the Energy Department, and freed up previously allocated money at the Defense Department for destroying Russian chemical weapons stocks. Refused to approve the Defense Department's request for exemption from seven environmental laws. So despite all the talk of new ways to make and use nuclear weapons, Congress has made that harder to do. It has denied the Pentagon permission to hold itself above environmental law, and it has demanded the government do more to help secure and destroy Russia's arsenals. Collectively, it almost sounds like good news -- a series of small victories for common sense. Very, very small victories, says John Isaacs of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control group that lobbies in Washington. "If you look at it, it's an almost $400 billion budget, and the president got pretty much everything he wanted," Isaacs says. And for every "victory for common sense," there's some backsliding in this bill. Consider missile defense, for example. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may have to endure a (gasp!) one-time review of the controversial program's work. But the fiscal 2003 Defense Authorization bill still includes $7.6 billion to play with. That's nearly five times more than is being spent to secure anthrax, sarin nerve gas, enriched uranium and other proliferation worries across the former Soviet Union -- this for a highly hypothetical future system that, even if it did work as advertised, would be helpless before the al-Qaidas of the world. This is why missile defense is low on the to-do list of most Americans. Asked in October to choose between missile defense or a prescription drug benefit, 51 percent chose the drug benefit and only 25 percent the missile shield. Americans also chose spending on homeland security over missile defense by 57 percent to 15 percent. The defense spending bill is also a slap in the face for some 500,000 disabled U.S. veterans. Such veterans are now barred from receiving both their military retirement pay and their veteran's disability benefits. A Senate amendment would have struck down this ban on "concurrent receipt." Instead, the defense bill was cunningly recrafted so that only certain veterans -- those with 20-plus years of service and a Purple Heart, among other conditions -- get help. So goes the last hurrah of the Democrat-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats this year got to draft the spending bills, leaving the Republicans to pick and choose their fights. Next year, Republicans will draw up the legislative agenda -- and leave Democrats scrambling to respond. If billions for missile defense, crumbs for veterans and ambivalence about "bunker-buster" nukes is the best the Democrats could offer this year, one wonders what the Republican New Year might bring. Matt Bivens, a former editor of The Moscow Times, is a Washington-based fellow of The Nation Institute [www.thenation.com [http://www.thenation.com] ]. © Copyright 2002, The Moscow Times. All Rights Reserved. Visit the TheMoscowTimes.com ***************************************************************** 62 Udall book focuses on yeomen along road West *Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | Benton County BY ROBERT GEHRKE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON ? In movies and television shows, books and sideshows, Western icons such as Buffalo Bill Cody and Wyatt Earp are larger than life. Stewart Udall is aiming to cut them down to size. Lost in the Hollywood hype are the people whom Udall calls the true heroes of the West ? the Indians, missionaries, pioneers and farmers who made settlement of the frontier a reality. In his new book, The Forgotten Founders, the former congressman and secretary of the interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson seeks to set the record straight. At age 82, with failing eyesight making serious research difficult, Udall says it is likely his last book. But it is one he felt compelled to write, in part to pay tribute to his great-grandparents and thousands like them whose contributions to Western settlement were being overlooked. "My admiration centers on the courage of families that would load some of their belongings on a wagon and head out into the wilderness," Udall says. "I think that demonstrated a daring and a courage that stamped that generation." Paul Hutton, a history professor at the University of New Mexico, said most academics agree the Old West has taken on a distorted life of its own, but he doesn?t see the love for the legend fading. "Historians have been trying to move away from that for much of this last century and I think it?s a hopeless struggle," he says. "I think the romance of the West is what captured people?s imagination." Udall grew up in the small northeastern Arizona town of St. Johns, where his pioneer ancestors had been sent by Mormon leader Brigham Young to settle. His Mormon roots are prominent in the book. He uses the stories of his greatgrandparents as examples of frontier lives, including a soul-searching account of his great-grandfather, John D. Lee. Seated on his coffin, Lee was executed by a firing squad for orchestrating the Mountain Meadows Massacre, in which dozens of Arkansas pioneers in a wagon train bound for California were slaughtered by a Mormon militia. "My mother lived with that every day of her life," Udall says. "There is a lot of pain and anguish for the family." The Lee saga is atypical and Udall points to Lee?s wife, Emma B. Lee, who kept the family together after the execution, as a fitting example of the true Western settler. Udall emphasizes the role other religions played as well, lauding the work of Archbishop Jean Baptist Lamy, Catholic priests in the Southwest and Protestant missionaries in the Northwest. But Richard White, a Western history professor at Stanford University, says that, aside from the Mormon example, the religious influence on Western settlement could be easily overstated. "Religion is important, but I?d say it?s less important [in the West] than any other part of the United States," White said. While praising the hard work of the average Western settlers, Udall resents the glorification of gunslingers and of military atrocities against American Indians. But most notably, he blasts mining barons who wiped away entire mountains, choked rivers and scarred the landscape because of their lust for gold. "I don?t know if anyone has written anything as stern or scathing as I did about the California gold rush," says Udall, whose perspective as a former interior secretary helped him understand the damage that was done to the land by unregulated mining. Udall wrote his first book, The Quiet Crisis, an analysis of the Cold War?s nuclear brinksmanship, during his tenure as interior secretary. He has written five more books since and contributed to numerous others. Today, he lives in Santa Fe, N. M., and works at his law practice, wrestling with the federal government to win compensation for Navajo Indians sickened by radiation exposure from Cold War-era uranium mining. Udall hopes readers see his latest work as "an antidote" to the "warped" portrayal that dominates popular perceptions of the West. "I want them to acquire some of the respect I have for that generation of people. I want them to acquire some insights so they see the Western history plain," he says. "I think that?s important because the history has been so distorted." But Hutton says Americans like to identify with the rugged individualism represented in the West?s mythic figures. "They?re never going to go away because they?re held too dear by too many Americans," Hutton says. "It?s not necessarily because they explain American history, but because they explain an archetype of what we want to be." ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************